(03-08-2016 10:17 AM)Tad Carlucci Wrote: Which means the system not only depends upon the varying psychological factors of the various users, but upon both your commitment and motivation to police it, and upon some 'hassling' others on your behalf.
Admittedly, having you police it is better than not doing having you do so (which was the choice others made). But it opens you to claims of bias: at which point do you declare infractions 'innocent', and at which point do you declare them otherwise and revoke the ability to use your system?
Your approach does not scale well. While you have just a few users, it's not a problem to 'randomly teleport' to check. But, if your system should grow to become the dominant means of marketing cats, it will become impossible for you to visit a statistically significant number. And that's assuming you choose to keep trying. What happens when you become bored with doing so, or move on to another project?
Your system, then, depends mainly upon complaints.
Those complaints can be directed from one member of the community to another, which promotes ill feelings within the community; or they can be directed to you, again depending upon your continued interest and commitment, and, again, depends upon your decisions as to what does and does not constitute a 'fair' decision.
So, sure, the system works 'well enough' now. But it's rife with down-stream problems and the only way I can see those problems being avoided is for your system to remain relatively unpopular and little-used.
Let us not also forget economics, websites cost money to maintain and people should realise that once the creator is no longer generating a profit its very likely that he will simply stop OR start charging people to use the extras in a product they have already purchased.
One person having overall control of the secondary market is not a good thing, many have tried over the years and failed as will be the case with this current attempt to control how cats are sold.
MP vs Inworld shops
