TOPIC: Traders Guild discussion: Trade poaching

A non-compete clause _is_ price fixing. It's one reason it's illegal as far as companies go. I don't do much trading anymore but i think the crux of the dissatisfaction here is that some people feel that once they begin talking to someone about a trade, they feel some sort of ownership over that person or the deal. That just seems wonky to me. If I was dickering with someone and another person popped in to say they had a better offer, I'd either offer to match it or honestly say the other offer is better and they should take it. The idea that because I spoke with him first and thus owned the transaction is silly.

As for the example of being at a booth or even in a store, I often tell people where they can get better deals if I know for a fact it's cheaper elsewhere. Hell, I've been known to hand out coupons I'm not using to other people in line with me at a store. From what I can see, this no poaching tenet is mostly about people wanting to be able to skim the most profit without interference. After all, someone else could hardly poach if you really were offering the best price.

Rafiq wrote: Raven,

that why I said "should be" the goal instead of "is" the goal.

Tsk. My apologies for reading too fast. Thanks for drawing my attention to it.

It would be good if that was the goal of every trader. Unfortunately, it is not, and we can't really expect it to be.

Also, I think there's another group here we are missing (and a perfectly valid group): Those who play TD for their own personal fun, but don't go beyond that. They may wish the game well, but they won't cry if it's not around next year. As Henwy noted, the Forums are skewed toward those players who are very enthusiastic about TD. There's a lot of people, though, who play once a year, maybe make a few trades to gear themselves up, and then forget about the game for the next 360 days. As much as possible, we should try to give them a good experience too (their money is also important to TD!) but they shouldn't feel any obligation to spend their time or energy helping others.

That's where I think a traders guild could do a lot of good: making the experience as smooth as possible for the larger crowd, so people can find trader easily, trade comfortably, and get on with their game.

And a quick note, Henwy... There is a difference between poaching and price-fixing. We're not trying to make a non-compete clause (that I am aware of). We're just saying that it's rude to walk into somebody else's store, and hassle customers who are paying at the till, saying "Joe's Supermarket across the street is selling cheaper!" People are welcome to shop around, and should feel free to walk out of CrazyDave's Emporium to go check out Joe's Supermarket any time, but people should show a little respect when others are in the middle of a transaction.

henwy wrote: Personally, I don't get the whole no poaching thing. I would think you would want it to be a free market. That means everyone has the chance to get the best deals rather than having quasi price fixing by a cabal. That's what a 'no poaching' rule ends up being. Basically a no-compete clause.

While this is a valid point, once I'm in Best Buy and have talked to the seller for an hour and have my TV all picked out, WalMart can't walk into Best Buy and say hey now that Best Buy has done all the work I'll sell it to you for 10 dollars cheaper. Customers are free to go to WalMart or Best Buy but once they are in the store the other stores are outside, can't come in, can't in other words poach a sale.

Yes it should be a free market, and if a trader wants to see what others would offer it is completely cool but Smak with all of his resources shouldn't be able to walk up to a trade that is about to be completed and say I'll double it just because he's received one to many free beers and doesn't know what he is saying anymore. A free market doesn't and shouldn't have to be an auction.

Raven wrote:

Rafiq wrote: And a quick note, Henwy... There is a difference between poaching and price-fixing. We're not trying to make a non-compete clause (that I am aware of). We're just saying that it's rude to walk into somebody else's store, and hassle customers who are paying at the till, saying "Joe's Supermarket across the street is selling cheaper!" People are welcome to shop around, and should feel free to walk out of CrazyDave's Emporium to go check out Joe's Supermarket any time, but people should show a little respect when others are in the middle of a transaction.

In this case, it ends up being the same thing. If you don't poach, then it's basically a non-compete. The first person to talk to any individual owns him and his transaction until it either completes or fails. While you can argue that a person can go from person to person getting offers from everyone, we know this isn't realistic, especially given the setup at gencon. This is not a situation where 'shopping around' is either easy or efficient. To put any barriers on top of that just seems inclined to protect the margin.

Take the 'charges' that have been leveled against George. (and no offense to george, I'm just using him as an example since someone else brought it up) But lets say george put up a bigass sign that said, buying ingredients!, right next to the treasure pull box. Any newbie or person who didn't want ingredients probably would sidle over and ask him what they could get for theirs. Does this mean that no one would ever be able to say to the newbie, 'you know, i think you could get more for them' unless they already turned down george's offer? The poaching rule is just nutty that way. The time you want to disseminate information about whether or not a trade is fair or a good value is _before_ it completes, not after it does or when it's already failed.

As for the rudeness aspect, it'd be rude because it's _their store_. Their property, their rules. If we were at some sort of open market bazaar or flea market, I would feel no compunction at all not to tell someone who was considering an item elsewhere that my shop was selling the exact same thing for less or if someone else's was. I've done similar in actual stores when I've seen people buy things I've seen for less elsewhere so maybe my rudeness meter is set differently than most people. I see it as a good deed, pointing people toward a better deal with information they might not have.

Raven,

Agreed. Poaching and price-fixing are two separate issues. This thread is about poaching so let's all keep it to that topic.

Henwy,

If everyone is allowed to set up shop how is that a non-compete environment? I remember once while in Bali a friend and I went to the market. I would haggle until I got what I thought was the best price. He, on the other hand, would just pay whatever they quoted. When I told him he could get a much better price if he haggled a bit he said, "it is only a few bucks and I don't feel like wasting my time for a few bucks." Fair enough.

If you want to tell someone that they could get a better price on ebay or another trader that is cool, but not while they are in negotiations. If they want to ask someone other than the trader (while in a trade) if said token is worth said gp then they are free to do that. I have no problems with that. I do have a problem, however, with someone sabotaging one of my deals because they feel it is their God-given right to do so.

Rafiq

But it is their god given right to do so, no?

It's a non-compete environment because it's first come first stake. Until the deal either closes or fails, which is too late in one case and unlikely in the other. Not to mention, what this entire venture is supposedly trying to add is legitimacy, which is doubly problematic with the non-compete. It becomes a cabal, which by definition is price fixing. In the real world, that has been the case where companies have been fined for such collusion, and charged under price fixing rackets. Not because they determined a set price for a similar product, but because they set up rules where they wouldn't target one another's deals in an attempt to undercut.

Besides, even by calling poaching doesn't really get at what the problem really is as you yourself admitted. You wouldn't want people to get information that could hurt 'your deal', not just if they sold to someone else. So if I didn't poach by making my own offer, but just said to the newbie, 'I think this guy is ripping you off and you could do better elsewhere', you seem to be saying that wouldn't be acceptable either. You seem to suggest you wouldn't mind if the person asked for advice, but that's just a red herring. Many wouldn't have the frame of reference to begin with to know to ask, especially if this became a 'guild' which grants the air of legitimacy, not to mention questioning a random passing stranger about whether the deal is good would be odd and unusual at best. It's like trying to buy a shirt and stopping the first person passing by if they think it's a good deal or not.

Henwy,

Sidenote: Before I start let's not get religion involved here. I used the expression as an Americanism that I often here politicians spout when they open their mouths. Seemed appropriate at the time but maybe now .. not so much. End sidenote.

There is a difference between someone asking and being told. You make it sound as if I bound and gag the people I trade with until they bend to my will. This is far from the case. I do understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree with you. I wouldn't want my name attached to anything that has "cabal" in it either. Unless they had cookies.

I didn't propose the formation of a merchants guild. In fact, I'm not even sure it benefits me to be a part of one since I might not even trade next year depending on what I schedule next year (or if I even go next year). These questions of what are fair and unfair practices need to be discussed, but ultimately it will be up to the players themselves as to what code of conduct they follow.

So what are your counter points to what George put up as the charter rules (for lack of a better term)? I'd like to hear them as I'm sure the rest of the community would as well. (If you mentioned them earlier I apologize for not seeing them/remembering them.)

Rafiq

Fundamentally, I think the Guild has to decide what its primary purpose is. If it's just a social club, then it doesn't much matter what the rules are or if there's any structure. It's just something to say you belong to. If it's to have a larger purpose, then it's probably one of two items. Either it's:

1) To create legitimacy, and foster an environment where newbies are more likely to trust guild members which increase 'profits' for all members.

or

2) To create legitimacy, and prevent newbie gouging which may mean that members themselves make less 'profit' then not.

You can try to balance the two, but it's a fundamental difference in what your ultimate goal is. Take the idea of ingredient tokens. Someone was complaining that a person was offering 150 gold per, but refusing to sell back at anywhere near that price knowing they could make a killing for many times that later on. Apply a guild to this and either the trader is given legitimacy as a guild member in good standing which will make the average newbie think the offer is a fair one and thus more likely to seal the deal or the guild as a whole decides that 150 is way too low and decides as individuals or a whole to take action and offer 500 which will dry up the business of the person offering 150.

Either way, you're leveraging the idea of a guild for one purpose or another. That is, unless it is nothing more than a social club, in which case it doesn't much matter anyway.

Poaching is very different then price fixing. Oh and Henwy you used an open market bazaar as your proof against this, I have been a part of 2 said bazaars and both had the exact rule in effect. When a customer was in the other sales area you weren't allowed to walk in and offer your goods or your opinion. I'm sorry an open market does not give you the right to poach other sales, you are wrong.

If a trader comes to my area and I spend a half an hour explaining in full what each ingredient is and what it does and I make an offer and spend the time with the trader you can not walk into the deal and as it is finishing and say Oh I will give you 5 more gold for that. That is poaching and shouldn't happen. If my deal was fair which if you are only offering 5 more gold it was, that's poaching and that is not right.

Oh, and as a final note, it's not rude to walk into store and try to sell another stores goods, its actually illegal. You can be removed and banned from the premises.

You can set a guideline which says poaching is frowned upon by guild members. But you can't stop anyone from outside the guild from walking up and offering a better deal with a guideline. If you want to stop them, then sweeten your own deal if its worth it to you, cause obviously it's worth it to the other person. Bad form, maybe, but if they are willing to trade more than you then they'll get the token and you won't.

It's not fair, but then what in life is fair.

I think the most the guild should say about "poaching" or whatever is that as a guildmember you should respect someone else's trade area and not interrupt a deal in process. If you go further than that or start setting up penalities then people just won't join the guild and will do what they want anyway.

just my 0.02

Jennifer

henwy wrote: maybe my rudeness meter is set differently than most people.

*smirk*
It probably is, Henwy. But we* love you for it.

I like your breakdown on the "larger purpose" of the Guild. I suspect some people are leaning towards the former, and others to the latter. I'm not sure we can't have a bit of both in there... but it would be good to clarify the purpose, so we don't have arguments on the floor, in front of those customers which we are trying to draw in.

- Raven

*some of us at least. When we aren't grinding our teeth in frustration, or killing ourselves laughing. Either way, you do provide a breath of fresh air.

archmage78 wrote:

I thought it was fairly obvious, but perhaps I should make it clearer. I have no desire to interact with you on this forum. I believe you are full of shit based on our prior discussions and think that any such interaction will only lead to futility and more problems. While I cannot force you to do so, I suggest you also stop responding to anything I post as I have stopped responding directly to you prior to this. I'm only breaking that tenet this once to put all the cards out on the table.