And because I feel as if you would be the type to bring this up latter so I’ll go ahead and explain it to you now. Although technically grammatically correct, using, “excoriate a scumbag,” in this context is as weird as exclaiming, “I am going to abrogate this sandwich!”, while intending to mean, “really go at it!!” as your currently quite hungry.

Do you not realize the obvious hypocrisy inherent in your statement? Also using a thesaurus to make your arguments seem clever only works when what your saying has some merit. The article is perfectly fine. Honestly it’s like people are too lazy to spend more than a single google searches worth of time to even troll anymore.

It’s unfortunate that you’re not comfortable bringing your 12 year old to FNM. Why not try asking the people having inappropriate conversations to tone it down so that your kids can enjoy an awesome game. You could very easily turn FNM into a better community and a positive experience for your family just by speaking up.

Yeah it was a joke. However I do honestly feel that it would make the article stronger if you accurately reported the trade as a Snow-Covered Mountain for a Narset, as I feel that when you excoriate a scumbag who takes advantage of kids, its important to have everything correct so that people can’t use it to take advantage of the argument by nitpicking at the smallest of details.

This is, of course, a joke?

Meh, I was never protected and I’m better off for it. That said I don’t advise ripping anyone off, but I won’t go out of my way to not trade with people due to age, as that’s not fair to them either.

It is important that it was a child, because children are more likely to agree to something against their best interest without being coerced into it.

Oh, come on. Society generally protects small fry because they have neither experience nor impulse control nor good decision making skills. It’s morally and ethically wrong to take advantage of a twelve year old, and if we can’t agree on that, then everyone’s worst beliefs about “speculators” are — at least in part — justified.

I have a junk rare binder and whenever I trade up I tell them whats happening.
– I get a “good” card, that is something that is played in constructed, and they get a lot of cards that while not bad is something that might be harder to trade away. Usually they are perfectly fine with trading away an Ugin for a huuuge stack of 1-2 dollar rares. I also give them a few extra dollar on top from that binder. (I only trade for my personal collection, not for profit)

For the adult players I also try to give them a few hints on how to trade, and how not to get ripped off by others.

I will never trade unfairly with anyone by design, child or adult. But people who I know are seasoned traders that will give good trade value because they desperately need a card is another matter.

I’m fortunate to have enough disposable income that this stuff doesn’t affect me, but even if money were tight I’d never short someone in a trade. That kind of shark shit bothers me.

I think we’re focusing on the wrong issue here. Yes it’s important to not rip off children, but it’s also important to not rip off anyone.

My solution to the foil mountain issue is to usually find a lower value item and match the value of what they want or at least close to it.

Many traders wouldn’t feel bad about the trade no matter the situation though (at least from what I’ve seen) and that is concerning.

Counter question -why would you title the series “Grey Areas” if it’s not accurate? It’s a fair question, if slightly off-topic.

Steal from them instead.

While I don’t see the other side, it’s still true that some people believe. The entire post was inspired by reading the opinion of one such person.

Gray Areas is just a title. I don’t understand why you would respond to the title.

Well, it’s “grey” in the sense that there’s probably a spectrum.

Trading a Mountain for a 12-year old’s Narset? Pretty clearly not OK.
Trading a Savanna to a seasoned dealer for an Underground Sea? Probably fine.

There’s a spectrum of what’s ok and what is not okay, and it probably varies depending on the disparity in value and the sophistication of the parties. It’s not rocket science, but it is grey in the sense that people will differ on where the line actually falls in the area between the two ends of the spectrum.

That’s exactly his point: it’s not grey because only 1 side can really be argued.

I haven’t had such situations since I was a kid or not much older myself and I was probably more aware of card prices than 95% of the adults I was trading with. These days I would give the kid the Mountain.