Just wondering what your criteria are for a fair trade?

[lokiju]

See, the thing is, sometimes I feel bad for turning down an offer. I can usually deal with a game being worth less in stores than the one I am trading away, although I do like to get equal value games as much as possible. But 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 and traded for them that way. I think this can effect future trades though. I've actually been berated by a person or two for wanting equality in my trades, lol.

Of course, if you really want a certain game and are broke, a trade might be your only option, even if the game comes with nothing but the cd's. Feh, just ranting I guess...

[Boudreaux]

A fair trade is the one I'm willing to make.

I don't really worry about "market value" or equating price to price too often, unless it's a really recent game that I'm offloading. For the most part, I'm willing to do a trade as long as I'm getting something I want to play and giving up something I know I really won't play any more. I don't see any problem with wanting to trade for games with boxes, or requiring original manuals, or anything like that - if you have a collection and that's a concern, make it a requirement. It's not like you're obligated to take any trade offer that comes your way.

[Suitably Ironic Moniker]

I just don't understand why people don't keep them?

Would you like to pay for my storage space? I have ~150-160 PC games. I started throwing my boxes away around 50-60 games ago because I ran out of places to keep them. I can't imagine what my closet would look like right now if I hadn't started doing this. You're obviously within your rights to uphold your own standards but I personally don't care as long as the game I get is playable and it comes with the manual.

[lokiju]

I just don't understand why people don't keep them?

Would you like to pay for my storage space? I have ~150-160 PC games. I started throwing my boxes away around 50-60 games ago because I ran out of places to keep them. I can't imagine what my closet would look like right now if I hadn't started doing this. You're obviously within your rights to uphold your own standards but I personally don't care as long as the game I get is playable and it comes with the manual.

150-160 games!? Do you have a website for this store?

[Eduardo X]

I just don't understand why people don't keep them?

Would you like to pay for my storage space? I have ~150-160 PC games. I started throwing my boxes away around 50-60 games ago because I ran out of places to keep them. I can't imagine what my closet would look like right now if I hadn't started doing this. You're obviously within your rights to uphold your own standards but I personally don't care as long as the game I get is playable and it comes with the manual.

150-160 games!? Do you have a website for this store?

I've got more than 160.
I don't keep boxes. I do keep books, and that takes up more than enough room. As do my 6 stacks of games.

[lokiju]

Well then my next curiosity would be to know why you trade away games if you collect them? Do you only keep certain titles? Shouldn't you be adding and never subtracting from the total?

[Eduardo X]

Well then my next curiosity would be to know why you trade away games if you collect them? Do you only keep certain titles? Shouldn't you be adding and never subtracting from the total?

I have probably 50 games I'll never play again. I don't neccesarily collect them, I just don't know what to do with the ones I won't play, so I figure "why not just trade them?"

[Blackhawk]

Value is relative. An old game I have never played has more value to me than a newer game I've already finished with. Hours of fun is more valuable than a circle of plastic in a case.

There have been people who, for instance, refused to trade console games or DVDs for PC games because of the more rapid decrease in value. It never made much sense to me - when you're dead, the value of your collection isn't as important as how much fun you had with it.

That doesn't mean I'm irresponsible - I'm not going to trade a new release for a single five year old game. It does mean, though, that dollar value is much lower on my list than entertainment value.

Oh, and I keep all boxes if the game comes with them. I remove the cardboard support from the inside, flatten them, and put them into a plastic storage box. In a single box that fits in the corner, I am able to store all the boxes for my collection which (see the link in my sig) is currently at 299 games.

[Eduardo X]

I have all the manuals for my games, except the one for Planescape: Torment. I have no idea where that went! I bought the game the day it was released, beat it two weeks later, and then it disappeared. I think I lent it to a friend and never got it back.
I bought the game again, of course, but I do wonder what happened.

[ChrisGwinn]

If I could walk to EB and trade in the game I have, and buy the game I wanted, and have more than a few dollars left over, then I probably won't make the trade.

Otherwise, a game that I'm done with that isn't in the permanent collection has no value to me. I'm not going to do anything with it, and it's certainly not going to appreciate. So I may as well get rid of it. Then I apply the "would I buy the game I'm getting for the cost of shipping" test.

I'm a collector, but I'm not an indiscriminate one. I'm not going to catch 'em all, and I don't want to.

I keep more boxes than I used to, because I have more space than I used to (and boxes are smaller), but I don't particularly care about them. Why should I?

[Crux]

I keep my manuals, but throw the boxes away once a game installs and runs fine for me. Personally don't get the whole 'must have a box thing' with trades because they take up space and I'm just not fixated with cover art. If the trade includes legitemate games and, where necessary, supporting material (like manuals, foldouts whatever) then it's good in my eyes.

As far as value goes - everyone places value on different things. What I consider a 'fair' trade will probably differ from someone else's idea.

[Suitably Ironic Moniker]

I like having a lot of games so that I can pick one out and play it during a lull in my purchases. Plus, I have little willpower when it comes to resisting a game I really want. I have taken part in one or two trades off of GG's boards and I'd be happy to do the same on these, but I don't wish to part with what people are asking for at the moment. Perhaps in the future.

[Meghan]

lokiju, I don't think you're unreasonable for wanting to trade only for complete games with boxes and manuals as long as you're clear about it upfront. If that's your price I dont see why anyone should berate you for it. You might have fewer trades but that's a separate issue.

That said, I keep games because I like to go back to them but I don't keep the box except in the rare instances where I've bought collectors editions. I just dont' have space. I think still have the actual paper ads that came with my copy of the Warcraft battle chest in addition to all the good stuff. But that's about it.

[lokiju]

Great feedback from all. As in anything, to each their own. I just love to (as most of you know by now) ask questions about other people's behavior. Think I should have taken up psychology like my wife instead of education. Wait...Summers...holidays....hours....pay....I take it back. Teaching rules.

[Kelric]

Summers...holidays....hours....pay..... Teaching rules.

Where on earth do you teach?

[lokiju]

Summers...holidays....hours....pay..... Teaching rules.

Where on earth do you teach?

CT! Highest paid teaching state next to California I believe. Mass is up there as well. Sure there are many cons to the job, but the pros far outweigh them IMHO.

[JSHAW]

Lokiju,

Your post says something that I've felt for a long time, going back to the Gone Gold days of trading.

When you're setting up a post for a trade you have to decide what you want, and what you're willing to give up in order to get it. You also have to decide what you WILL and WON"T accept in your trades.

If you only want games that have boxes, then you don't accept trades that don't have boxes. Guilt should not play a factor in it, you either do the deal or you don't. If you've stated up front in your post that you want games that have the game box, then you don't accept a trade offer that has games without the game box.

If it's a recently released game you want, but all you've got are older not so recently released games you might find that you get no responses in a trade.

Back in the GG days I'd see people who'd post a list of anywhere from 3-5 recently released games they'd want, but their inventory of games up for trade would be really older released games. You don't get champagne on a beer budget. I'd look at those posts, look at what they had to offer and it would really annoy the hell outta me. It's like the post was saying " I want great games but what I have to offer is shit". Why bother?

The only time this will work is if you're willing to give up multiple older games for 1 recently released game. And even then someone might not be willing to let that new game go in a trade for a bunch of older games that they have no desire to play.

I guess the principal "One man's trash is another man's treasure" and vice versa comes into play.

I'm now a semi-retired game trader. In the GG day's I played the trading game and played it well. I had over 80+ trades and zero negative feedbacks.

If there was one thing I learned about initiating a trade is that it's up to me to decide what I was willing and not willing to accept as far as completing or declining on a trade offer/deal.

Another thing I learned is that not every trader is going to be the same. Just like people they all have different ways of doing things, and at times that's going to mean some keep game boxes, some don't, some ship on-time, some take their sweet time, some pack their trades with tender lovin' care, some think nothing about throwin' some jewel cases inside a paper shipping sleeve and taking the chance on them being damaged.

Game trading can be like gambling in Las Vegas. You take your chances, you roll the dice and you hope they don't come up snake eyes.

[lokiju]

I'm now a semi-retired game trader. In the GG day's I played the trading game and played it well. I had over 80+ trades and zero negative feedbacks.

How exactly does someone go into semi-retirement trading, lol? In all seriousness, I also had like 60 feedback at GG, so trading is no stranger to me. I'd say 99% of the time, trading here is wonderful, rewarding even. It's rare to have any problems here. I find that this community is one of the most trustworthy ones that I have ever been a part of. Of course, every once in a great while someone scoffs at my rational (albeit self perceived, lol) trading sense, and I start to wonder how 2 views on equality can be so skewed. 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?)

Anyone who reads this post, please let it be known that I am forever grateful for having such a wonderful community with which to trade and buy/sell games. It all started with Rich. I owe him many happy gaming nights.

[Grundbegriff]

Every time I see "lokiju", I hear "lokiju, Hacker! A pathetic creature of meat and bones...".

every once in a great while someone scoffs at my rational (albeit self perceived, lol) trading sense

It would be a mistake to suppose that your personal preferences with regard to trades (namely, that a product be intact, complete, and boxed) mark your trading sense as particularly rational. Indeed, one might argue that the most rational course would be to retain only what's necessary for playing the game (the CDs or perhaps CDs+manual). After all, would it be more rational to keep the box your refrigerator|television| boombox | underwear | candles came in than to discard those boxes?

The decision to retain or to discard mass-produced cartons is a matter of taste and preference, but not of rationality.

and I start to wonder how 2 views on equality can be so skewed.

What's interesting about bartering is that in every instance of a successful trade, the two views of value must differ. If Alfred has a fidget and Zhora has a widget, Alfred and Zhora will come to swap if and only if Alfred values Zhora's widget more than he values his own fidget while Zhora values Al's fidget more than she values her own widget. Necessarily, each participant in a trade must value what he's getting over what he's giving; nothing motivates the trade otherwise.

Of course, it's possible that Alfred might give his fidget in trade for Zhora's widget even though Alfred prefers his fidget. Nevertheless, in that event Alfred would be valuing the package of {Zhora's widget + having done a good deed for Zhora} more than he would be valuing the package {Alfred's prized fidget + having refrained from doing a good deed for Zhora}. So then, sometimes our trading takes into account only the product, but sometimes it takes into account a broader set of considerations. In every case, however, our trading is motivated by the sense that we're getting something that we value more than we value whatever we're giving.

But of course I sit back and realize that it's human nature to try and get more for less wherever possible.

It's not merely a question of human nature, but of the very idea of a motivated (non-random, purposive) trade.

[lokiju]

To counter you I would add that if we are in the hobby of playing AND trading games, them one could expect a retention of boxes. I don't think your other examples are particularly valid, as I don't usually trade fridges.

[Grundbegriff]

To counter you I would add that if we are in the hobby of playing AND trading games, them one could expect a retention of boxes.

Er... why?

Begging the question with respect to a position isn't the same as supporting that position. After all, whether the boxes are an essential part (rather than an incidental part) of the tradeworthy game is the very issue on which folks disagree!

[Eduardo X]

I just traded Far Cry, and it never crossed my mind to tell the reciever that it didn't come with a box.
If you want the game with a box, please say so in your listing because I'd never assume people would want that.
And I'm sorry if the boxless game wasn't what you were looking for, Warning!

[JSHAW]

How exactly does someone go into semi-retirement trading

What my definition of that means is that I'm not actively seeking trades, and I'm not pursuing anyone else's trades.

If I see something that catches my eye then sure I'll pursue it, but I'm not as active in my trades as I was on GG.

[lokiju]

To counter you I would add that if we are in the hobby of playing AND trading games, them one could expect a retention of boxes.

Er... why?

Begging the question with respect to a position isn't the same as supporting that position. After all, whether the boxes are an essential part (rather than an incidental part) of the tradeworthy game is the very issue on which folks disagree!

But it seems to me that you are dismissing my point without proper consideration. One would most likely have to agree that "refrigerator|television| boombox | underwear" are not likely to be traded, and therefore have no need of a box unless you might return said object.

There is definitely cause to keep boxes for games if you intend to trade them here on the forum. Whether or not someone else will take the trade is obviously up to each individual...but I am not sure why I would want to take the chance and throw out a box that I could just as easily have kept. If you are a collector as many have stated here, with more than 100 games, then boxes may be a nuissance. I can understand that. But if you have the space, and know that many do like to get boxes with their games, then isn't it just as easy to keep it as it is to toss it?

Boxes may not be essential to play, but they are desirable to many traders, therefore making them relatively important to me as a member of this community. If I know that a lot of people like to have them, then I make the effort to keep them for trading purposes.

[The Meal]

Not a box keeper here. Still looking for a reason to keep them.

There is definitely cause to keep boxes for games if you intend to trade them here on the forum. Whether or not someone else will take the trade is obviously up to each individual...but I am not sure why I would want to take the chance and throw out a box that I could just as easily have kept. If you are a collector as many have stated here, with more than 100 games, then boxes may be a nuissance. I can understand that. But if you have the space, and know that many do like to get boxes with their games, then isn't it just as easy to keep it as it is to toss it?

Boxes may not be essential to play, but they are desirable to many traders, therefore making them relatively important to me as a member of this community. If I know that a lot of people like to have them, then I make the effort to keep them for trading purposes.

Still looking for a reason why folks like to have boxes. Stating: folks should keep boxes because many people like to have boxes, doesn't explain to me why many people like to have boxes. I think that's what Grund is pointing out. You're stating that many people like to keep them, but are not saying *why* people are wanting them around. If the *why* isn't obvious, then the issue of essential vs. incidental isn't exactly clear-cut.

~Neal

[Blackhawk]

Psychological, I'd guess. Part of it is the collector's instinct for a complete item (whether complete is otherwise relevant or not). Part of it is the idea that the box is part of the new-game experience, even if it is second hand. I enjoy getting a game in a box, kicking back on the couch, looking at the box art, blurbs, and screenshots, opening it up and browsing the manual, and so on.

I don't demand boxes in trades, but I will admit that I do enjoy it a bit more when I do get one.

[Suitably Ironic Moniker]

I could certainly understand the appeal of getting a boxed game in a trade. I also enjoy looking at the box of a new game. After I look at it, though, I throw it out, unless it's a collector's edition. Actually, I didn't even keep HL-2's CE box as it didn't contain enough knic-knacs to justify the space. Of course, you'll have to pry that game out of my cold, dead hands because I'll never trade that thing.

[Eduardo X]

I could certainly understand the appeal of getting a boxed game in a trade. I also enjoy looking at the box of a new game. After I look at it, though, I throw it out, unless it's a collector's edition. Actually, I didn't even keep HL-2's CE box as it didn't contain enough knic-knacs to justify the space. Of course, you'll have to pry that game out of my cold, dead hands because I'll never trade that thing.

Nor could you if you wanted to.

[lokiju]

Not a box keeper here. Still looking for a reason to keep them.

There is definitely cause to keep boxes for games if you intend to trade them here on the forum. Whether or not someone else will take the trade is obviously up to each individual...but I am not sure why I would want to take the chance and throw out a box that I could just as easily have kept. If you are a collector as many have stated here, with more than 100 games, then boxes may be a nuissance. I can understand that. But if you have the space, and know that many do like to get boxes with their games, then isn't it just as easy to keep it as it is to toss it?

Boxes may not be essential to play, but they are desirable to many traders, therefore making them relatively important to me as a member of this community. If I know that a lot of people like to have them, then I make the effort to keep them for trading purposes.

Still looking for a reason why folks like to have boxes. Stating: folks should keep boxes because many people like to have boxes, doesn't explain to me why many people like to have boxes. I think that's what Grund is pointing out. You're stating that many people like to keep them, but are not saying *why* people are wanting them around. If the *why* isn't obvious, then the issue of essential vs. incidental isn't exactly clear-cut.

~Neal

Why someone wants a box is not relevent to me, just like I also don't care why they want a particular game that I am trading (well, I obviously know WHY someone just took my Leisure Suit Larry lol). All I care about is that they are willing to trade...and the best ingrediant to have is what someone else wants, and if that is a box, some people are SOL.

The only "obvious" that should be needed, IMHO, is that people like to get them in trades...therefore I help them out by keeping the boxes. I don't need them myself, but I like to have them for trading purposes. I make room for them, so in the end, I feel like I get more trades because of that effort.

[ChrisGwinn]

Or, you could just assume that there are things people like even more than boxes, and keep those around instead. For example, I really like peanut butter cookies. Other traders probably like them too. If you had cookies, you could include them in your trades and people would be more likely to trade with you. Plus they smell better than boxes.

[Suitably Ironic Moniker]

Hmmm, cookies. Suddenly I'm getting the urge to trade games!

[lokiju]

Or, you could just assume that there are things people like even more than boxes, and keep those around instead. For example, I really like peanut butter cookies. Other traders probably like them too. If you had cookies, you could include them in your trades and people would be more likely to trade with you. Plus they smell better than boxes.

Lol, sometimes I have the hardest time distinguishing between sarcasm and humor on these boards. If that was sarcasm, then , if it was humor then And just for the record, I am about to eat some homemade tollhouse chocolate chip cookies. I will never, EVER include them in a trade!

[Grundbegriff]

Why someone wants a box is not relevent to me, just like I also don't care why they want a particular game that I am trading....
All I care about is that they are willing to trade...and the best ingrediant to have is what someone else wants, and if that is a box, some people are SOL.
The only "obvious" that should be needed, IMHO, is that people like to get them in trades....

In that case, why don't you include a Lexus or a quad-pack of Guinness with each game? Like a box, these items are inessential to the game, and you can be sure someone else is likely to want them. What's more, they'll improve your odds of getting the game you seek in trade!

{Edit: just spotted ChrisGwinn's post, which made this same point earlier. So then -- what he said.... }

[Blackhawk]

Hey, it makes sense to me - if some people insist on boxes for trades, and others think it makes a trade a bit more attractive, then throwing the boxes away makes your collection less valuable for trading. It isn't unreasonable to keep boxes for your games to make them a bit more tradeable, regardless of whether people like to distort logic.

[Grundbegriff]

if some people insist on boxes for trades, and others think it makes a trade a bit more attractive, then throwing the boxes away makes your collection less valuable for trading.

Correction: it makes your collection less valuable in the eyes of carton-craving people for trading with carton-craving people, but doesn't affect the value of your collection at all in the eyes of carton-discarding people for trading with carton-discarding people.

It isn't unreasonable to keep boxes for your games to make them a bit more tradeable, regardless of whether people like to distort logic.

First, nobody in this thread has claimed that it's "unreasonable to keep boxes", so the only "distortion of logic" occurs here in your post, where you claim that someone has.

The point isn't that it's "unreasonable" to keep boxes; the point is merely that it's not unreasonable to jettison them. In other words, to keep or not to keep them is a matter of preference, just as trading for them and by means of them is. Since it's a matter of preference, lokiju's suggestion that it makes more sense (rather than equivalent but different sense) to keep them is mistaken.

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.

[lokiju]

Correction: it makes your collection less valuable in the eyes of carton-craving people for trading with carton-craving people, but doesn't affect the value of your collection at all in the eyes of carton-discarding people for trading with carton-discarding people.

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. #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.

First, nobody in this thread has claimed that it's "unreasonable to keep boxes", so the only "distortion of logic" occurs here in your post, where you claim that someone has.

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. 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. 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.

The point isn't that it's "unreasonable" to keep boxes; the point is merely that it's not unreasonable to jettison them. In other words, to keep or not to keep them is a matter of preference, just as trading for them and by means of them is. Since it's a matter of preference, lokiju's suggestion that it makes more sense (rather than equivalent but different sense) to keep them is mistaken.

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.

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. So in my desire to get boxes to trade with the other 50%, then it DOES make my games more tradeable. Of course I am just throwing 50% out as a guestimate. It might be 30/70, 40/60, etc...but in any case, tradability obviously goes up for anyone who keeps boxes, whether or not you care about them yourself.

It has also been stated that some who don't keep boxes still like to see them at the very least.

Now if you really don't give 2 flying shits about boxes and those who want them, and don't care about trades taking a little longer, then this whole debate is meaningly to you anyways, lol.

[Grundbegriff]

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.)

#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.

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.

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!

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.).

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 )

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}

[Grundbegriff]

BTW, lokiju, that "splash" sound was your cardboard being blown out of the water. It would be good form at this juncture to concede that keepbox+insistonbox (aka "one could expect a retention of boxes") is not most rational, rather than try to sustain that illusion from the deck of a sinking shipment.

[lokiju]

I have been playing devil's advocate the whole time...as I already stated that I personally don't need boxes. I just like them for trading purposes.

You talk about rationality where I talk about tradability. I am not even sure why philosophy entered into this conversation in the first place? Is should be as clear cut as having a greater trader base willing to take your goods. What you do with your own items is up to you. My point has simply been that if you wish to trade, there is a greater chance of that happening if you have the box. It's a simple truth. No reason to get all deep and philosophical.

You can agree to disagree, as it appears is the case. I will keep my boxes so I have an easier time trading, and you can throw them out and trade as you will. No one needs to win or lose, it's simply a matter of taste. You and I may never trade because of our differences. No big deal.

BTW, this thread was started because of a much broader topic than just boxes.

[ChrisGwinn]

Neither humor nor sarcasm. I really do like cookies, and knowing someone included cookies in their trade really would make me more likely to trade with them. Although it would make it ineligible for media mail.