lokiju wrote:Absolutely not true. #1, many box killers still ask for them because they know it will help future trades with a broader audience, thus making trades easier.
But if they're "box-killers", then when they receive your box in trade, they kill it. On the other hand, if they receive your box in trade and retain it for a future trade, they're not "box-killers" after all. For this reason, you're mistaken to suppose that "many box killers... know it will help future trades". Only non-box-killers reason in that way.
(Of course, there's always the semi-box-killer who destroys his own boxes but retains those of others; but that approach is foolish on its face, since it both affirms and denies that there's a reason to retain boxes for future trading.)
lokiju wrote:#2, there are some who don't keep boxes that still like to get them in the trade, if only to see it for aesthetic value, as stated above in this thread.
Yes, but then they don't keep them, since they're (by definition) not box-keepers. Since they don't keep 'em, they must not value 'em much, and since they don't value 'em much, they're not likely to consider the box a significant factor in a trade. Rather, those looking for a brief aesthetic fix are likely to look upon box-inclusion as an unnecessary but mildly amusing treat, not a deal-breaker.
lokiju wrote:Your very debate here goes against logic. You have argued that there is no reason to keep boxes, while contradicting that statement by admitting that there is a better chance of successful trading because the audience is larger.
Oh, but I
haven't "admitted that there is a better chance of successful trading because the audience is larger"
on the basis of your view; I asserted (not "admitted") that the audience was larger on a view other than yours, and did so in order to rebut your claim.
I wrote: "Offering trades with boxes addresses a broader audience (carton-cravers and carton-discarders), but if you insist on receiving a box in return, you're really only addressing the carton-cravers after all." You see, your audience is broader
if and only if you're not a carton-craver, since the extra breadth of the audience comes in the form of folks who don't keep boxes.
Let me spell out the combinations for you:
(a) You keep boxes and insist that those who trade with you provide them.
(b) You keep boxes but don't insist that those who trade with you provide them.
(c) You don't keep boxes but insist that those who trade with you provide them.
(d) You don't keep boxes and don't insist that those who trade with you provide them.
Now, you've suggested that (a) is a more reasonable approach than any other. I've suggested that it's six of one and half a dozen of the other with respect to (d) (I believe most traders fall into category (d)). I've also pointed out that (b) is reasonable, while (c) is absurd and perhaps comprises a null set.
Now, consider the breadth of audience that each figure addresses:
(a) (your view!) addresses those who are (a) and those who are (b).
(b) addresses those who are (a), those who are (b), and those who are (d).
(c) consists of unreasonable, cranky people who address themselves in the voice of their mother.
(d) addresses those who are (b) and those who are (d).
This shows, as I said, that the
only way to broaden your audience is to
both retain your boxes
and drop the expectation that others do so.
Since what you've advocated is (a) (saying "I have said no to games of less value that are also not complete. Even a missing box bothers me. I just don't understand why people don't keep them? I have games now that are boxless, but only because I caved in.... someone scoffs at my rational (albeit self perceived, lol) trading sense...."), it follows that you haven't advocated the most reasonable approach, where "reasonable" is defined relative to the odds of a successful trade.
Now, perhaps in fact you have taken an unclear stand. Perhaps you used language strongly indicative of (a), but in your heart of game-trading hearts, you're a closet (b). For it's only a (b) who would think of keeping the incidental box as a mere and minor perq. But then, the measure of regret you expressed (saying you "caved in" by accepting a boxless game) suggests you're not actually advocating (b).
Please note: I'm not disputing the question of keeping boxes to increase the potential audience for trades; I'm disputing the question of insisting that others provide boxes, which was the point of your post. Along the way, I've called into question the inherent value of boxes to support the assertion that whether one prefers them is entirely a matter of taste.
Incidentally, broadening the audience numerically doesn't necessarily increase the odds of a successful trade, since gamers who trade aren't a random sampling. Those who trade are a self-selecting batch, and factors other than mere exposure weigh into the odds.
lokiju wrote:That is enough reason for most. If 50% want boxes and 50% don't, then if you keep them you have 100% chance to trade instead of 50% with a thrown out box.
Right, but now you're changing ground (joining a position that I defined), by
dropping the insistence that others also provide boxes. For if you keep them
but also insist on receiving a box, your audience drops back down from 100% to 50%. So then, are you now going to try to maintain that your earlier messages
were not expressing the position that keeping boxes and insisting on boxes is the "rational" approach?!
Good luck!
lokiju wrote:The simple act of throwing the box on a shelf gives greater benefits. If you have no room for boxes then that is entirely unavoidable I guess, yet probably a huge minority here.
I'd be surprised if a majority keep all their boxes; I suspect a majority keep only the CDs, manuals, and trinkets (maps, etc.).
lokiju wrote:I already proved my case above. It does make MORE sense to keep the boxes if it gives you a greater %age chance to make a trade.
Actually, my quotes from your own messages throughout the thread show that that
wasn't your point. Your messages didn't merely endorse box-retention; they also endorsed insisting upon boxes and lamented that your insistence sometimes results in your disappointment (because, of course, you're excluding half of your potential trading audience
)
lokiju wrote:Grundbegriff wrote:
Second, keeping boxes doesn't "make your collection a bit more tradeable" unless you don't care about receiving boxes in return. Offering trades with boxes addresses a broader audience (carton-cravers and carton-discarders), but if you insist on receiving a box in return, you're really only addressing the carton-cravers after all.
Exactly my point. Thanks for backing me up, although you didn't mean to.
With respect, that
wasn't your point, and my quotes above
show that it wasn't your point. You were advocating (a), while my message, which you quote but fail to understand, defined (b).
Again, it's awkward to boast that one's stated position is rational and then to lose track of that position itself in the attempt to defend it.
{Edit: formatting irritants}
But of course I sit back and realize that it's human nature to try and get more for less wherever possible. I do it in other areas of my life (fitness anyone?)
, if it was humor then