Is it really that bad to cancel a trade and accept a higher offer?

"

you must be a joy to have as a friend in real life!


You:Hey, want to buy my old pc? just $200.

friend: Sure bro, thanks!

You:...wait...you'd pay $200 that easily? what about $400?

Friend: ...really?

"

Farandine wrote:

1. I read the entire thread, and yes those words have come up.
2. From responding to an ad and going to a1n? Really, that takes no time or effort.
3. Since there aren't fixed prices, things are worth what people will pay for them.

Most of the people getting mad in this thread seem to be equating the situation to ripping a friend off IRL, when that's not even comparable. It's more like trading with some random guy you met on Craigslist - you'd probably come into it without expectations about him since he's a shady guy you met on the internet.

"

Ygge wrote:

@McNig - You misunderstand me.As I stated in my earlier post on page 6, which I thought you read considering your reference to earlier posts, there are no rules at all. Therefore one can break deals as one pleases. This, however, does not mean that it is not shitty behaivior. We are in a game and therefore there are no rules to guide us except those the developers have placed on us and our moral compass, much like Thaelyn is arguing.

I am mearly arguing out of a moral perspective, since that is what the original poster asked about. He was wondering why people became "butthurt". Ignoring a stated deal is definitly something that people can take offence at and therefore it is inconsiderate to act in such a way. A deal is generally sealed once both partners are of equal intention, which is before the trade-window is even opened. If one looks at the a theory as to why people become upset, linked below, you have to kind of expect people to become angry when you ignore them in that manner.

Also, the customer can loose more things than just time. Ponder that the customer is of a stronger character and, even though he gets a better offer on the item he wishes to buy, stays to the original deal with the original seller. Or, perhaps more likely, has or sees other offers which he ignores or says no to since he has a deal.

There is actually a latin motto about this subject, "Pacta sunt servanda", which in general terms mean that a contract is law between parties.

I can't really say that the rather anarchistic approach people are arguing for is morally correct. Though, if people know of this anarchistic and unwritten rule, that a deal is not sealed until it is concluded, then they themselves have accepted the circumstances and can't really take offence. I guess this is a golden example of the treat other as you would be treated yourself-philosophy.

http://www.pon.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/images/posts/emor5.pdf

"

McNig wrote:

"

Ygge wrote:

@McNig - You misunderstand me.As I stated in my earlier post on page 6, which I thought you read considering your reference to earlier posts, there are no rules at all. Therefore one can break deals as one pleases. This, however, does not mean that it is not shitty behaivior. We are in a game and therefore there are no rules to guide us except those the developers have placed on us and our moral compass, much like Thaelyn is arguing.

I am mearly arguing out of a moral perspective, since that is what the original poster asked about. He was wondering why people became "butthurt". Ignoring a stated deal is definitly something that people can take offence at and therefore it is inconsiderate to act in such a way. A deal is generally sealed once both partners are of equal intention, which is before the trade-window is even opened. If one looks at the a theory as to why people become upset, linked below, you have to kind of expect people to become angry when you ignore them in that manner.

Also, the customer can loose more things than just time. Ponder that the customer is of a stronger character and, even though he gets a better offer on the item he wishes to buy, stays to the original deal with the original seller. Or, perhaps more likely, has or sees other offers which he ignores or says no to since he has a deal.

There is actually a latin motto about this subject, "Pacta sunt servanda", which in general terms mean that a contract is law between parties.

I can't really say that the rather anarchistic approach people are arguing for is morally correct. Though, if people know of this anarchistic and unwritten rule, that a deal is not sealed until it is concluded, then they themselves have accepted the circumstances and can't really take offence. I guess this is a golden example of the treat other as you would be treated yourself-philosophy.

http://www.pon.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/images/posts/emor5.pdf

By your explanation of why it is immoral means that making auctions for items is also immoral. When allowing time for other bids they are inconsiderate of the current bidder, they become ignored and held on a string for a much longer time.

I hear "it's not moral" but little to actually provide reason why except the fact that it was typed out in an agreement. why is that so important though? the reason people would be upset is because their hopes were lead on and wasted a whole 4 minutes if that. Why is the buyers emotions so much more important than the seller and the new buyer? It shouldn't be surprising to them if the seller gets a better offer and trades it to the latter. It only makes sense. I would have no problem with it if i was the buyer. I would be bummed that the timing didn't work out and I was going to get a good deal but it doesn't make sense for the other buyer to be ignored when he has more to offer and got his say in before the nick of time.

"

thenewapollo wrote:

you don´t follow a certain set of priciples, which many others do.

"

i for example treat ¨random guys¨ with the equal respect id like to receive

"

if you´d follow some of the reasoning mentioned earlier in this thread, then you´d only see a great opportunity.