On the contrary, I think it’s a perfect analogy (I may be a bit biased). You probably don’t like it because if you agree that the analogy is valid then you naturally have to reconsider your initial position - which is the sign of a great analogy.
The argument discussed here is the moral dilemma between utility and negative consequence. A knife is extremely useful, but it can and is also used to kill people. Should societies ban knives because they can potentially be used as murder weapons? Most people would say no since the utility of the knife outweighs the risk of the negative consequences.
In the world of trading cards, selling the wrapper from a booster pack may result in negative consequences. But as shown by people who posted here and sold listings of opened packs and boxes, there’s a utility to collectors. Some people enjoy collecting these items as a cheap alternative to the sealed versions. Although this utility is not as useful as a knife, it still has utility.
So yes, I argue that my analogy is valid. You could argue that the negative consequences of selling opened packs outweighs the utility, in which case guns may be a better comparison than knives - but the general principle of the analogy is still relevant. Something like the cellophane from booster boxes, for instance, is an example of something where I would agree the negative consequences of selling outweighs the utility to collectors.
Also, the idea that the seller of a wrapper is somehow responsible for scammers resealing is also ludicrous. Should we prosecute the knifemaker every time someone stabs another person? Absolutely not, you only punish the person who actually committed the crime. The exception would be if the seller/knifemaker was suspicious of the buyer or knew of their sinister intentions but still went through with the sale. Then I would agree some of the responsibility falls on them.
I disagree strongly. The only unethical thing is weighing packs and then pretending they are not weighed. There is nothing wrong with weighing packs and then advertising them as either “heavy” or “light” packs. It is honest. If some scumbag wants to buy all the “light” packs and then flip them while pretending that they are unweighed, then blame the scumbag, not the person who did honest advertising. This is exactly the same logic for why it’s okay to sell empty booster pack wrappers… except arguably not even as harmful as that, because in 2019 everyone should understand that valuable booster packs are being weighed in 99% of all cases. It’s irresponsible to think otherwise and buy “unweighed” packs in the hope of finding holos.
When you purchase a pack, you are paying for the chance to get certain cards. That’s the whole point of a pack as opposed to singles. Weighing is scamming because it takes away the chance to get the cards one most likely wants, and for most uses defeats the purpose of a pack. Whether you disclose it or not doesn’t make any real difference because you’re still responsible for the initial act of weighing and then for putting the packs on the open market.
To go back to our analogies, it’s like filing off the VIN on a car, taking it to a chop shop in the shady part of town, and then just walking out with whatever money they give you. Sure, you didn’t use the car as a getaway vehicle for an armed robbery, but you sure as hell made it easier for the people who did. Does it matter or not if you told the chop shop you filed off the VIN?
“Because everyone is doing it it’s okay” is not only a logical fallacy but also a sad reflection on where we’ve come. I agree with you, if you’re buying loose WOTC packs and thinking you’ll get holos these days, you’re being irresponsible. The main issues here is that there isn’t an objective “truth” to be found (something something Foucault) but we can argue back and forth all day about ethics and morals. I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Exactly. In my opinion when Rusty is selling his weighed packs that’s an unethical and wrong practice. It’s become the norm, but just because it’s the norm doesn’t mean I have to like it or support it.
@fourthstartcg, there are people who collect packs for the purpose of collecting packs. Not everyone is paying for the chance to pull certain cards. If that person is, then they can buy a heavy pack. There isn’t a valid argument as to why selling weighed packs is unethical.
Yes, you’re right, some people (a minority I’d say) decide to never open a pack and keep it as a collector’s item. As I previously mentioned, that’s one of the gray areas where selling a weighed pack is less unethical. My response was to highlight why I believe weighing and then publicly selling (whether you disclose or not) is unethical in and of itself.
As I said I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
If a pack CAN be weighed, then it SHOULD be weighed and disclosed in the listing. Gram/Postal scales cost only 10 dollars and are easily accessible. Heavy and light packs have their own price point. These are 20 year old packs, if the weight isn’t disclosed, it’s usually best to assume it was weighed light. Who trusts “unweighed” in a listing title?
The only exception being pack fresh. The premium comes with knowing you are getting an honest chance at the good cards. Couldn’t expect the same trust or odds with undisclosed weights on loose packs.
–
As for selling empty packaging…
It is enabling scammers by making it easy for them to reseal. Hurts the hobby more than helps IMO. Sure, scammers could buy legit product and then reseal - except the upfront capital for one is very high while the other is very low. Spent packaging is trash in my opinion, not a collectible, and should be treated as such.
That said, if something has value, the owner has every right to sell it. If a person wants to collect empty boxes and ripped plastic wrap, that’s their right too. Scammers gonna scam. If it wasn’t this, then it would be something else.
Now they use them to build displays. I used to give them away and customers would use them for arts and crafts ideas. Then some started making great displays for exhibiting on the walls in their homes and offices. They’d rather buy an empty 1st base pack for 100 than pay a thousand for a sealed pack.
Now are there disreputable people with ill intentions? Sure, in every field. But are you going to live your life as the world’s policeman of those few? Especially when you don’t know who they are? Granted, if you were cutting up sheets I wouldn’t want to sell any to you. That would be my choice. But would I stop selling sheets to everybody? No. Nobody is that self important to make decisions for everybody else;)
Freedom is a really good thing. Freedom to buy and sell (legally).
You don’t sell an empty pack cause someone might reseal it.
You don’t sell a pack cause someone might open it then resell the pack which someone might reseal.
You don’t sell a box cause someone might open it then open a sealed pack inside then resell the empty pack which someone might reseal.
You quit your job so you can’t buy a box and open it then sell a pack which someone opens then resell the wrapper to someone who may reseal it.
Your parents decide against children so one doesn’t grow up and buy a box and open it then sell a pack which someone opens then resell the wrapper to someone who may reseal it.
I left your first paragraph of your post intact and just changed “weighed packs” to “empty packaging”. I had to change some other language to conform to the subject as well. I think this proves my point that you can’t be logically consistent and against pack weighing while being okay with selling empty packs/boxes.
Your VIN analogy is very bad because VIN tampering is inherently illegal. There is no ethical reason whatsoever to do it. Weighing a pack is not illegal nor unethical. It serves a purpose and when disclosed it is perfectly fine for the weigher to do so. The only exception being weighing product you do not own. That is bad because you are devaluing product on the shelf that you do not own and you are not disclosing it to the unsuspecting future buyers down the line. The knife analogy is a good one. A weighed pack is like a knife. Sold to someone who will not use it illegally or unethically is the ideal, but it is not the onus of the seller to be held accountable for that. I mean if someone messages me asking for the proper glue to use to reseal them… then yeah. Same as a knife buyer asking if it punctures human flesh well. But those are silly exceptions where a logical mind could prevail.
I see where you’re coming from. But I think my logic is still sound because the issue we’re dealing with here is whether, and to what degree, these activities make it easier for scammers to scam people. I’d say both selling packaging and weighing packs do make it easier for scammers to scam. But selling packaging still leaves quite a bit of work left to be done by the scammer, which decreases the responsibility of the original seller. Weighing packs leaves absolutely no work to be done by the scammer, as all the work has been done by the original seller.
If we’re going to go for analogies I’d say a better (and more legally relevant) one is a firearm. There are cases in the US courts right now over whether firearm manufacturers that make guns like the AR-15, which are designed to cause maximum damage to the maximum amount of human bodies in the minimum possible amount of time, can be held responsible for when people use them for that purpose. Did the manufacturers pull the trigger and directly cause deaths? Of course not. But can they be held liable for making it much easier for someone who wants to kill large amounts of people, and aggressively marketing these guns? It’s a debatable topic with relevant points on both sides. But by the same logic, people aren’t going after the manufacturers of handguns or single-round hunting rifles because a lot more effort has to be put in by people if they do wish to commit heinous acts with them. There’s more socially accepted uses for handguns and hunting rifles as well.
It’s a question that hasn’t been answered yet legally, and the ethical arguments are more applicable. To me, the deciding factor is how much effort and energy is done by each party in order to produce a final product which is a scam.
Did you read my previous post? I said that resellers should trim the empty packs first so that they can’t be resealed
( if they don’t, then they’re just ***holes who don’t care about protecting the hobby, and are part of the problem).
I never said a person selling used wrappers should be punished or prosecuted, I said that they are partly responsible if they end up being resealed to scam someone. And before you reference the knife/gun/powertool/screwdriver analogy again, one is a multi-functional tool that even saves lives (think surgeons) …the other is not a ‘utensil’ but disposable packaging that was made to be discarded. You have your opinion and I have mine, but I think I’ll see myself out of this pointless discussion👍
A tiny % of people into anything are dishonest. You can’t let them control your life or emotions. I’ve never met anybody who buys packs or wraps to reseal but I’ve met hundreds who make good honest use of them. Those good people are who you should cater too and don’t let the bad seeds dictate to them or control your actions or opinions.
True people could buy sealed product, fill it with energy’s and resell it however you have the capital to do so. My entire point is we shouldn’t make it easier. But I see where you’re coming from.
