Regarding the Arcade and Retro Marketplace

CiDeRmAn

So,
The Marketplace has been running, relatively smoothly, for quite a while now.
It has been providing an excellent service, allowing regulars and other boards users access to a place to buy, sell, swap and request retro items they want, need or don't have the love for anymore.
This smooth running is down to the goodwill that exists between the users, all of us, and the efforts of the mods to put some sort of shape on it all, and this is down to the sterling work by Optimum Prime.
However, the mouse droppings in the chocolate mousse appear to have the potential to spoil the experience for everyone, and this is the issue of people using the Private Messaging service to make off thread offers to buyers and sellers, against the clear rules of the sub-forum.
rules/charter here

And, with a recent example of a gentleman I am personally acquainted with, giving his older consoles and games away for free but shortly after posting the ad being bombarded with unsolicited PM's from users, some regulars at that, it appears that people need to be reminded of the rules and perhaps the consequences of breaching the charter.

As a result it appears that sub-forum bans will be handed down for unsolicited PM's to sellers/buyers before an on thread agreement is reached.
Also, any buyers/sellers are asked to report unsolicited private messages to the moderator, Optimus Prime, and it will be dealt with from there.

Thanks for reading.

Optimus Prime

Thanks Ciderman, the charter has been updated and as a friendly reminder I will be replying to every new Marketplace ad placed over the next month with a message regarding PMs trying drive it home.

The Marketplace really is a great place for us to trade among ourselves and get some bargains too, but we are seriously in danger of losing it in its current form if people dont start obeying the rules.

Damien King

I was wandering about this,

I had expressed an interest in one or 2 consoles in the above mentioned ad. I felt it would have been poor form to try and claim them all so I simply mentioned the ones i would have been glad to be considered for, even if it was just one of them. No pms were sent.

Does the "first in" rule apply to stuff being given away?

The only reason I am asking is that I may have a freebie jamma board going but if its a case of someone unknown to me claiming it before another forum member (and theres a couple i have had very good dealings with) then I would rather have a choice as to whom it goes to.

I think freebies should go to regular posters in the a&r first.

Corholio

BrownFinger wrote: »

I think freebies should go to regular posters in the a&r first.

While the intention is good, going down that road would alienate people really. Especially when you have to gauge what is 'regular'.

CiDeRmAn

BrownFinger wrote: »

I think freebies should go to regular posters in the a&r first.

I would think the same rules apply.
TBH, I had spoken to him before the ad went in and could have taken them all, but suggested they go up on the Marketplace instead.
After that it's up to the manner of the ad how it is to be divided.
If the "seller" wants them to go to different users, fine, if he wants them to go to the first to ask, also fine.
Sure, you might think they should go to regular users, but I wouldn't want to judge who is in long enough to be worthy of the sale.

CiDeRmAn

Damien King wrote: »

I was wandering about this,

I had expressed an interest in one or 2 consoles in the above mentioned ad. I felt it would have been poor form to try and claim them all so I simply mentioned the ones i would have been glad to be considered for, even if it was just one of them. No pms were sent.

Does the "first in" rule apply to stuff being given away?

The only reason I am asking is that I may have a freebie jamma board going but if its a case of someone unknown to me claiming it before another forum member (and theres a couple i have had very good dealings with) then I would rather have a choice as to whom it goes to.

Well, without putting it in the marketplace at all means you can PM who you like and offer it to them.
No protections or rules will apply however, though only the latter is in effect in the marketplace to be fair.
And if something should go wrong and the deal ends up costing someone, then no moderation can be used either, as it was an entirely private affair.

Myrddin

Damien King wrote: »

I had expressed an interest in one or 2 consoles in the above mentioned ad. I felt it would have been poor form to try and claim them all so I simply mentioned the ones i would have been glad to be considered for, even if it was just one of them. No pms were sent.

I knew the ad was going to draw replies very fast, so I was just concerned with getting an official 'offer' in, to save time filtering what I'd like. I'd have only taken the console I wanted, possibly a second, & at that point the rest could have went back 'live'. As it happens, despite following the rules, & being the first on thread to make the offer, I managed to get a whopping none of the consoles. Not one. They all went to rule breakers via pm. Something not right there at all.

Does the "first in" rule apply to stuff being given away?

Of course, surely it's the fairest way to everyone? As in everyone who abides by the rules...

The only reason I am asking is that I may have a freebie jamma board going but if its a case of someone unknown to me claiming it before another forum member (and theres a couple i have had very good dealings with) then I would rather have a choice as to whom it goes to.

In such a case I'd suggest you don't use the marketplace for such items, if you know who you want the item to go to why bother advertising? As Cidey says, just pm the person you have in mind is probably the way to go there.

In terms of the marketplace, this pm thing is becoming a nuisance & has been seen in a few ads of late. It's ridiculously unfair to the people abiding by the rules, to lose out to those who flout them - and negates the whole point of having the marketplace in the first place. I'd advocate strong measures against those who flout the rules, and even to sellers who abide in this rules breaking. Failing that, make the marketplace a private forum where access can simply be revoked, so pm rules breakers can be given marching orders & are dealt with in a permanent fashion...they'd simply be unable to ever use the marketplace again...that'd certainly give some incentive to abide by the rules.

o1s1n

Regarding the 'regulars first' thing - is it okay to include a 'regulars only' disclaimer in your freebee ad?

I know the terminology is a bit vague, but by allowing it, you're giving the power back to the person who's giving the item away for free, which is the way it should be imo. They're are afterall giving stuff away for nothing.

I know we need rules, but if I've an item listed for free and 'Johnny no name' happens to get there just before one of the regulars, I think it goes against the community spirit not to allow the person giving the item away to decide.

This whole thing is a completely different story to regular ads where both parties gain something. One person is literally gaining nothing. Therefore the person giving the item away should have control over where it goes to a degree.

That'd be my 2c anyway. This is always one of those things which is an absolute pain in the hoop to moderate. People go bananas when stuff is free.

Myrddin

Definitely hear what you're saying dude, & makes sense. The difficulty arises when you have to define what 'regular' is...

the groutch

Myrddin wrote: »

Definitely hear what you're saying dude, & makes sense. The difficulty arises when you have to define what 'regular' is...

agree with that, everyone's idea of a regular will be so different

but also think it's unfair to force someone to give it to the first in line, too often the items will go to moochers who will sell it on straight away.
sure even over on adverts.ie you don't have to.

tbh, I think it should be either a case of give the owner 100% free choice of who to give the items to (but still keeping the no PM rule of course), or otherwise ban free items from the marketplace.

Star Lord

I have to agree with the above really, similar to how people here if/when they list something on adverts mention it here to say that they'll discount it for the posters that use this forum.

Simply including something like "Preference given to A&R forum posters" would suffice, we're all nice/friendly enough to self-police that I believe, and I know personally, I'd be fine with that regardless of if the poster had 20 posts or 2000 posts in the forum, it wouldn't matter, just that they use the forum.

The charter could even state that such provisions are only permitted on free ads.

o1s1n

In the end, nobody can be forced to give away something for free to a person they don't want to give it to.

So the rules really need to be formulated with that in mind.

If I were trying to be generous and someone I've never heard of with barely any posts got in there first then my ad may mysteriously be withdrawn...:pac:

You get what I mean though.

Lemming

I think, coming from the early days of adverts.ie and CMod for the old For-Sale forums before that, defining what constitutes "regular" will become a contentious point on any item(s) that attract a lot of interest and can only create unnecessary workload for the mods and ill-feeling for anyone deemed "not regular".

Secondly and more importantly, it really shouldn't matter if you're regular or not. The rules are the rules. Play by them, die by them; freebie or paid for shouldn't come into the equation as some sort of exception. The only thing you can (fairly) filter on is whether the interested party is agreeable to your terms of sale/trade/whatever.

o1s1n

Lemming wrote: »

I think, coming from the early days of adverts.ie and CMod for the old For-Sale forums before that, defining what constitutes "regular" will become a contentious point on any item(s) that attract a lot of interest and can only create unnecessary workload for the mods and ill-feeling for anyone deemed "not regular".

Secondly and more importantly, it really shouldn't matter if you're regular or not. The rules are the rules. Play by them, die by them; freebie or paid for shouldn't come into the equation as some sort of exception.

'Oisin's freebee list' Lemming :pac:

I know what you mean and I'd hate for it to generate more of a workload for any moderators... but - as long as the OP stipulates 'regulars only', can the decision not just rest with them? It's not an extremely high traffic forum and is mostly used by the regulars anyway, so I don't think we're talking about a very regular occurrence rate here.

I just find it a bit absurd to think that someone is going to meet up with a person they don't know to give them something for free - especially if one of their mates/regular posters/etc wanted the item.

I'm honourable when it comes to adverts and following rules, but I think this is falling into the realms of unrealistic expectations.

Myrddin

The reason I think first in line should have priority, is:

1) It's fairer on buyers. Simply put, the first person to spot the deal means they should be entitled to it. Is it fair to be able to openly discriminate towards buyers, & have a regular swan in hours later and mop up a freebie that another poster legitimately expressed interest in hours before? "No you can't have it, I'm going to give it to my mate over here instead" really doesn't have a nice ring to it, & I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't fancy shooting down someone who claimed a freebie with a sentiment like that.

2) It's fairer on the sellers. Like the above, I wouldn't want to be in a position of discriminating like this. To me, leaving it up to whoever gets the offer in first removes any discrimination toward non regulars, doesn't force the seller to have to make choices publicly, and that way is simply fair to everyone. What if o1s1n posted up a spare Saturn or whatever for free, and myself, Ciderman, & andrew76 for example all posted within minutes of each other claiming the console. Who does o1s1n give it to? On what basis? Can't say I like that method at all folks...but that's just my opinion.

I do 'get' the sentiment here, in that we look after each other first & foremost. But it's too vague to be workable for me, & by allowing conscious and public discrimination toward who gets items, I feel it could even lead to a breakdown of the very thing we're seeking to protect here - our community spirit. I agree people should be able to give things to who they want to, I just don't see how it can be done fairly. Adverts has a policy of first in line too, so by banning freebies here I don't see how it will achieve anything. We need to decide the best, & most fair way for everyone.

Myrddin

Also, what if the seller giving away the free item isn't a regular, & knows none of us? Who gets it then?

It's not a huge problem really, but it is an aspect that has proved to be 'broken' as of late & something we should address.

Andrew76

Myrddin wrote: »

The reason I think first in line should have priority, is:

1) It's fairer on buyers. Simply put, the first person to spot the deal means they should be entitled to it. Is it fair to be able to openly discriminate towards buyers, & have a regular swan in hours later and mop up a freebie that another poster legitimately expressed interest in hours before? "No you can't have it, I'm going to give it to my mate over here instead" really doesn't have a nice ring to it, & I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't fancy shooting down someone who claimed a freebie with a sentiment like that.

2) It's fairer on the sellers. Like the above, I wouldn't want to be in a position of discriminating like this. To me, leaving it up to whoever gets the offer in first removes any discrimination toward non regulars, doesn't force the seller to have to make choices publicly, and that way is simply fair to everyone. What if o1s1n posted up a spare Saturn or whatever for free, and myself, Ciderman, & andrew76 for example all posted within minutes of each other claiming the console. Who does o1s1n give it to? On what basis? Can't say I like that method at all folks...but that's just my opinion.

I do 'get' the sentiment here, in that we look after each other first & foremost. But it's too vague to be workable for me, & by allowing conscious and public discrimination toward who gets items, I feel it could even lead to a breakdown of the very thing we're seeking to protect here - our community spirit. I agree people should be able to give things to who they want to, I just don't see how it can be done fairly. Adverts has a policy of first in line too, so by banning freebies here I don't see how it will achieve anything. We need to decide the best, & most fair way for everyone.

Yeah I agree with the above. Folks can't be discriminated against because of post count or whether the seller deems them a 'regular' or not.

If the seller (or person giving away a freebie) would prefer it goes to someone they deem a regular - then don't put the item up on the marketplace initially. Send a PM to a bunch of said regulars informing them of the item - tell them to pass the word on to any others. If nobody shows an interest after a few days then put it on the marketplace and let the rules govern who gets it.

I know before the marketplace came into being I would have used PMs to gauge interest in something I was selling.

o1s1n

Myrddin wrote: »

The reason I think first in line should have priority, is:

2) It's fairer on the sellers. Like the above, I wouldn't want to be in a position of discriminating like this. To me, leaving it up to whoever gets the offer in first removes any discrimination toward non regulars, doesn't force the seller to have to make choices publicly, and that way is simply fair to everyone. What if o1s1n posted up a spare Saturn or whatever for free, and myself, Ciderman, & andrew76 for example all posted within minutes of each other claiming the console. Who does o1s1n give it to? On what basis? Can't say I like that method at all folks...but that's just my opinion.

Oh I completely agree with you here, in the above scenario then it should fall to who got there first.

I think I'm actually looking at it from a bit of a different angle to yourself. It takes time and effort to meet up with someone, be it to make a sale or give away something for free. I'll happily go out of my way to give a free item to a regular in here and have done so before.

However, part of my 'regulars only' which I'd be putting on these ads would be partially to avoid having to go out of my way to meet someone I don't know who has zero attachment to this forum. (and is possibly going to sell the item on) - Realistically I can't see people doing this, there's zero motivation to do so.

o1s1n

Andrew76 wrote: »

Yeah I agree with the above. Folks can't be discriminated against because of post count or whether the seller deems them a 'regular' or not.

If the seller (or person giving away a freebie) would prefer it goes to someone they deem a regular - then don't put the item up on the marketplace initially. Send a PM to a bunch of said regulars informing them of the item - tell them to pass the word on to any others. If nobody shows an interest after a few days then put it on the marketplace and let the rules govern who gets it.

I know before the marketplace came into being I would have used PMs to gauge interest in something I was selling.

Simple plan, yet brilliant. Crisis averted

Myrddin

o1s1n wrote: »

Oh I completely agree with you here, in the above scenario then it should fall to who got there first.

I think I'm actually looking at it from a bit of a different angle to yourself. It takes time and effort to meet up with someone, be it to make a sale or give away something for free. I'll happily go out of my way to give a free item to a regular in here and have done so before.

However, part of my 'regulars only' which I'd be putting on these ads would be partially to avoid having to go out of my way to meet someone I don't know who has zero attachment to this forum. (and is possibly going to sell the item on) - Realistically I can't see people doing this, there's zero motivation to do so.

I hear what you're saying, & totally agree with it. There's nothing worse than seeing freebies going to people who just want to profit from them, that really pisses me off. It comes down again to how do we define regular posters though? If it's just a name you're familiar with, that's going to likely be different for everyone.

I suppose one potential way of dealing with it is, advertising freebies with priority for people you've had specific dealings with before....?

the groutch

Andrew76 wrote: »

Yeah I agree with the above. Folks can't be discriminated against because of post count or whether the seller deems them a 'regular' or not.

If the seller (or person giving away a freebie) would prefer it goes to someone they deem a regular - then don't put the item up on the marketplace initially. Send a PM to a bunch of said regulars informing them of the item - tell them to pass the word on to any others. If nobody shows an interest after a few days then put it on the marketplace and let the rules govern who gets it.

I know before the marketplace came into being I would have used PMs to gauge interest in something I was selling.

Thing is though do we really want to be having to send each other lots of PMs to only maybe give away free stuff, because of feeling alienated by the marketplace?

Andrew76

the groutch wrote: »

Thing is though do we really want to be having to send each other lots of PMs to only maybe give away free stuff, because of feeling alienated by the marketplace?

No. You only send PMs if you care who your item goes to.

The Last Bandit

How often does 'free stuff' actually come up though ?

Andrew's suggestion would work well it think, chances are there are probably only 5-10 people that would be realistically interested in the stuff anyway ?
If no one there takes it when stick in on the marketplace or add a nominal fee to filter out the 'its free must grab it' types - whether or not you accept the fee is a personal choice.

Lemming

The Last Bandit wrote: »

How often does 'free stuff' actually come up though ?

Andrew's suggestion would work well it think, chances are there are probably only 5-10 people that would be realistically interested in the stuff anyway ?
If no one there takes it when stick in on the marketplace or add a nominal fee to filter out the 'its free must grab it' types - whether or not you accept the fee is a personal choice.

I gave away a pile of retro gaming posters last year on adverts.ie - although not sure if I posted a link on the marketplace; think I did, but anyway - and it was an absolute feeding frenzy. Even though it was only posters and ergo cheap to post, I had people wanting to offer all sorts of money, etc. simply to cut in on top of other posters. The only fair way that the whole matter could have been done was first interest gets first refusal. My only other criteria for who got what was "you pay postage".

CiDeRmAn

Myrddin wrote: »

Definitely hear what you're saying dude, & makes sense. The difficulty arises when you have to define what 'regular' is...

I think this is the nub of it and could lead to disputes that in turn would cause the Marketplace to close.
It's remit is as an open Marketplace, and a "regular" ?
Who will be the arbiter of this?

Keep it as it is.
If people find the open nature of the Marketplace inappropriate then I'd suggest it's not the sales forum for you.
I'd think of the Jamma+ sales thread as a good example, first come first served, though they accept off thread pms while we don't.

CathalDublin

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I'd think of the Jamma+ sales thread as a good example, first come first served, though they accept off thread pms while we don't.

FCFS is the fairest way to sell on forums, that pisses me off over on J+, something good comes up and you post but it's already been sold via PM:eek:

Star Lord

Point in reference, those free consoles that were effectively robbed via PM:

Damien King wrote: »

Just fancy that!

If you wanted a second chance to own the consoles given away a few days ago then in a bizarre coincidence, here is an bundle up on adverts.....

http://www.adverts.ie/arcade-retro/old-consoles-for-sale/7739998

If it's fully FCFS, then we are liable to see more and more of this.

For selling, it's entirely fair to sell to the first poster, regardless, but I've both given away stuff here and been given stuff that could have been sold for decent sums, and solely because they were to/from people that participate in the forum. We help one another out.

Now, I'm not talking about creating some kind of closed club for this sort of thing, but just that the person giving something away free would most likely know that what they're giving away instead of selling is going to someone that's genuinely interested, not just looking for something to turn a profit on, and a good way to judge that it that they've had some kind of interaction on the forum, not just "I'll take that..."

CathalDublin

Star Lord wrote: »

Point in reference, those free consoles that were effectively robbed via PM:

or not:pac:

Andrew76

Regarding the Adverts link above - isn't the seller the same person that was giving them away on the Marketplace here? Rather than someone who got the free items and trying to flog them on for profit. Looks like the same username anyway.

Star Lord

Oh... >_<

Myrddin

Several users pm'd the seller in the A&R Marketplace thread, that much is fact. The fact that the seller seems to have decided to hold onto the consoles & sell them, doesn't change the fact that the agreed upon rules were broken, willingly by some.

Andrew76

Myrddin wrote: »

Several users pm'd the seller in the A&R Marketplace thread, that much is fact. The fact that the seller seems to have decided to hold onto the consoles & sell them, doesn't change the fact that the agreed upon rules were broken, willingly by some.

I don't think that is in dispute. It just sounded like Damien's link above was suggesting someone was trying to profit from freebies, which doesn't look to be the case. Maybe the seller found it too much hassle to give away stuff for free here so went the Adverts route instead, making a few bob for his troubles. Fair enough I say.

Myrddin

Andrew76 wrote: »

I don't think that is in dispute. It just sounded like Damien's link above was suggesting someone was trying to profit from freebies, which doesn't look to be the case. Maybe the seller found it too much hassle to give away stuff for free here so went the Adverts route instead, making a few bob for his troubles. Fair enough I say.

Oh absolutely, they're his consoles to do with as he pleases. That's not the issue for me, for me it's the disregarding of the rules and the attempted screwing over of those who were ahead in the queue of offers. Whether the pm offers succeeded or not is besides the point, the the point is pm's were sent which went against the rules of the place.

CiDeRmAn

The seller is a mate of mine.
I suggested he stick them on the Marketplace.
He probably got annoyed at the storm that has brewed as a result.
I had initially suggested he stick them on Adverts, probably for the best tbh.

The regular community is small enough but there are enough people to make a bit of competition for free items potentially fraught, if we start building in back rooms for deals and other measures.
First come first served is best.
If the item is a lot like this one the buyer/taker can mice them on, distribute them however they please, but its far too hard to make judgements about who is worthy and who isn't, and the private Marketplace just doesn't work, as we already know.

Myrddin

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

First come first served is best

I think that's the simplest & most workable solution tbh

Damien King

There really isnt an easy solution to freebies in the marketplace.

my link to the ad wasnt implying anything, just pointing out that a similar bundle was available over on adverts (at a very reasonable price, it has to be said)

It looked to me like it was the original items and original seller but who knows?

its just a shame about that pm frenzy. Like some others on here I would have considered it bad form to try and grab the lot hence my post saying what i was interested in. Heck, I even offered up some ps2 cables and controlers to whoever got the ps2 if they needed them.

Ive just given a fully working jamma board to another member on here via pm. Its a shame that I had to go down this route as i am pretty new on the forum compared to some, and wanted to give something back.

Ive another item i shall be listing shortly (nothing major so leave the F5 key alone) again i dont really want cash for it but i shall be listing it as a swap for what you got instead of free.

Maybe thats a workaround for these of us who want to give stuff away but dont want to be obliged to give it to the first poster in.

CiDeRmAn

It is the same person who was attempting to give them away for free before a bunch of users PM'd him, against the sub forum rules, to get in ahead of everyone else. This behaviour is, simply put, bad form.

Optimus Prime

Hi, just a quick one, there is a new sticky in the marketplace for offering Arcade Services. its similiar to the console modding services sticky, you get one post on there, no replys allowed etc. full rules in the thread.

Thanks

OwaynOTT

Is the Wii considered retro yet? Like with the NX coming out tomorrow week, it's two systems back then.
Just have a game I'd like to put up here first.

Optimus Prime

The way we class what's retro on the marketplace is, if games are still being made for it, it's not retro.

OwaynOTT

Optimus Prime wrote: »

The way we class what's retro on the marketplace is, if games are still being made for it, it's not retro.

There were games released for the dreamcast up until 2014, fairly sure that was in there last year for sale.

Optimus Prime

Probably True, but that was before my time!

its up for a bit of debate to be honest, i mean the dreamcast we could have in there as its years old. the Wii is still fairly recent.

OwaynOTT

Optimus Prime wrote: »

Probably True, but that was before my time!

its up for a bit of debate to be honest, i mean the dreamcast we could have in there as its years old. the Wii is still fairly recent.

Yep I thought so, that's why I checked not unlike some apple flavoured mod with his French games.

Myrddin

OwaynOTT wrote: »

There were games released for the dreamcast up until 2014, fairly sure that was in there last year for sale.

Sure if you go down that road even the Vectrex had games released recently. Common sense should dictate, in cases like the Wii though it's only 1 generation passed so not exactly retro...

Uno my Uno.

Optimus Prime wrote: »

The way we class what's retro on the marketplace is, if games are still being made for it, it's not retro.

Are games still being made for the Wii? Nintendo themselves have stopped supporting it as far as I'm aware.

Optimus Prime

Nintendo arent making games for it i dont think, but third party companys are, .. again.. i think! its still not retro yet for sure.

OwaynOTT

Myrddin wrote: »

Sure if you go down that road even the Vectrex had games released recently. Common sense should dictate, in cases like the Wii though it's only 1 generation passed so not exactly retro...

The thing about common sense,it's not all that common.

As I said, I though that but I just wanted to check to make sure and the dreamcast comment was only tongue in cheek.

Myrddin

OwaynOTT wrote: »

The thing about common sense,it's not all that common

The ultimate of ironies The reason I say common sense, is that it's usually agreeable what is/isn't retro & therefore fit for the marketplace. However, some consoles do blur the lines a bit, like the Wii. The Wii is one that is 'between roles' at the moment. On one hand, there are still some recently enough published games for it, & on the other, the console is a decade old next year!

In such cases, it it were me, I'd go on the basis that the Wii is only one generation removed from current (the Wii U), & to see the Wii in the marketplace I think this NX thingy will have to be on shelves.

CiDeRmAn

I think people need to understand that back when the sub forum was set up, we had to make certain assurances that it would exist to cater for a certain niche group of regular posters within Boards.
Speaking for myself but I think Myrddin will concur, we got the distinct impression that if the marketplace was to become another place to sell games and systems new and old, current and retro, it would be shut down as a direct competitor to the revenue generating Adverts, and that would be the end of it.
In fact, not long after it got into full swing we received overtures seeking for pretty much that to happen, with the retrogames category on Adverts being seen as where they wanted our consoles, games and arcade bots and bobs sold, once again because it generates revenue, as opposed to the Marketplace, which is free.
Myrddin and the mods here made a good argument to keep the Marketplace in situ and, as you can see, it worked!
However, I wouldn't be so naïve to imagine that the man wouldn't close the thing down if it became just another place to shift Wii, 360 and, yes, even French 3DS games
So, we keep it as it is.
Over time the rules for posting there have relaxed as the behaviour of its users has been surprisingly decent, and this is only surprising as we thought we would have an inundation of low ball merchants arriving, and they didn't , which was great!
Now with Optimus in charge it continues to go from strength to strength, and it shall continue to do so, well into when the PS4 is retro, and Retr0 is in sensible skirts and comfortable shoes at last!