How do I block someone on poetrade

Shovelcut, setting a buyout of zero so that you show up when filtered for buyout only goes against the spirit and purpose of setting a buyout. If xyz says "you can't do that if you want to be on my indexer", why do you have a problem? Nobody who searches with the buyout only filter wants to see items that don't have a buyout. People wanted something done about it, and xyz did. I don't see the problem. The arguments that xyz blacklists for no reason or on a whim have no basis in anything that's actually happened so far. They are all "but what if" arguments. When proof of any untoward behavior is presented, people will start looking for other options.

"

mark1030 wrote:

Shovelcut, setting a buyout of zero so that you show up when filtered for buyout only goes against the spirit and purpose of setting a buyout. If xyz says "you can't do that if you want to be on my indexer", why do you have a problem?

Because there are other ways to handle it than flat out blacklisting them, not to mention that there is no other indexer to use. If there are, I'm not aware of them.

"

mark1030 wrote:

Nobody who searches with the buyout only filter wants to see items that don't have a buyout.

What makes you assume that? I know people who like looking thru the 0 buyout items.

"

mark1030 wrote:

People wanted something done about it, and xyz did. I don't see the problem.

Does that make it right?

"

mark1030 wrote:

The arguments that xyz blacklists for no reason or on a whim have no basis in anything that's actually happened so far.

I beg to differ, I refer you to what I linked earlier.

"

Shovelcut wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

Shovelcut, setting a buyout of zero so that you show up when filtered for buyout only goes against the spirit and purpose of setting a buyout. If xyz says "you can't do that if you want to be on my indexer", why do you have a problem?

Because there are other ways to handle it than flat out blacklisting them, not to mention that there is no other indexer to use. If there are, I'm not aware of them.

And who's fault is it that no other indexers that you know of exist? The option is always there for anybody to make an indexer. If nobody does, then I guess there is no demand for it.

"

"

mark1030 wrote:

Nobody who searches with the buyout only filter wants to see items that don't have a buyout.

What makes you assume that? I know people who like looking thru the 0 buyout items.

What's the point? Searching items with no buyout accomplishes the same thing - items with no buyout set.

"

"

mark1030 wrote:

People wanted something done about it, and xyz did. I don't see the problem.

Does that make it right?

Yes, it does. How is giving the customers what they want bad for the business? When GGG gives the customers what they want, are you upset? Is it wrong to provide what people want?

"

"

mark1030 wrote:

The arguments that xyz blacklists for no reason or on a whim have no basis in anything that's actually happened so far.

I beg to differ, I refer you to what I linked earlier.

That situation you linked is exactly what I was responding to. There was a reason. There was a basis. Maybe you don't like that reason. But don't claim xyz just did it because the blacklist fairy told him to despite there being no reason. Setting a buyout of zero to get around the buyout filter is a problem. The buyout filter is there for a reason. The solution is to stop people from using something that gets around filters. This is what vast the majority of buyers wanted.

"

mark1030 wrote:

The solution is to stop people from using something that gets around filters.

The proper solution would be to stop the site from displaying 0 buyout items instead of flat out blacklisting people.

We obviously see this differently so we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)

"

mark1030 wrote:

Is it wrong to provide what people want?

Yes, it is when people are wrongly punished.

"

grant_m wrote:

"

I_NO wrote:

Too bad XYZ can do whatever he wants, He owns the site end of story.

One person having the ability to control the PoE economies, or pick and choose who can is not a great thing.

Suppose for a minute that you, being highly active in trade, fell out of personal favour with xyz? Suppose he had a friend, or group of friends who decided that you should be blacklisted?

What then?

Get down from your high horse. XYZ might be the most neutral person in the entire PoE community.

It's true what I_NO stated; "It's his site, his rules"

I for one am glad he does blacklist cunts who fucks up the market on purpose, wish GGG would care just as much (please remove people's thread when they obviously don't wish to sell their items, but just attempts to bump the price down by listing their own items super cheap).

you know this whole discussion would be rendered moot if GGG would add a real trading system, then we would not be reliant on 3rd party sites to conduct business....

"

grant_m wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

Shovelcut, setting a buyout of zero so that you show up when filtered for buyout only goes against the spirit and purpose of setting a buyout. If xyz says "you can't do that if you want to be on my indexer", why do you have a problem? Nobody who searches with the buyout only filter wants to see items that don't have a buyout. People wanted something done about it, and xyz did. I don't see the problem. The arguments that xyz blacklists for no reason or on a whim have no basis in anything that's actually happened so far. They are all "but what if" arguments. When proof of any untoward behavior is presented, people will start looking for other options.

If he doesn't want people listing items that way, then he should design his site so that it's impossible to do so. It's a problem on HIS end.

What if someone listed something in a way he didn't like accidentally? They'd be blacklisted and have no idea that they were.

His policies are garbage.

Honestly I think you're obsession with this is making you look bad stop caring. You act like XYZ isn't cable of being a good guy or some shit like you're fucking paranoid basically It's so annoying.

"

grant_m wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

Shovelcut, setting a buyout of zero so that you show up when filtered for buyout only goes against the spirit and purpose of setting a buyout. If xyz says "you can't do that if you want to be on my indexer", why do you have a problem? Nobody who searches with the buyout only filter wants to see items that don't have a buyout. People wanted something done about it, and xyz did. I don't see the problem. The arguments that xyz blacklists for no reason or on a whim have no basis in anything that's actually happened so far. They are all "but what if" arguments. When proof of any untoward behavior is presented, people will start looking for other options.

If he doesn't want people listing items that way, then he should design his site so that it's impossible to do so. It's a problem on HIS end.

What if someone listed something in a way he didn't like accidentally? They'd be blacklisted and have no idea that they were.

His policies are garbage.

If the onus is on the seller to make sure the buyer didn't lie to him about the price listed, then why is the onus not on the seller to make sure he's not blacklisted? It's not that hard to type your name in the box on poe.trade that says "seller".