Critical Goblin posted a very detailed method that he thinks would own our glyph market: part camping, part very deep undercut. I wrote my rebuttal, and Breevok issued a summary of his.
I no longer have the original comment, as it was deleted by Critical Goblin. This is a pity.
Productive controversy on gold blogs is good. This is productive controversy at it's best:
- What worked? What failed?
- Why did it work/fail?
- What were the consequences?
- What are the strengths of a strategy? What are it's weaknesses?
To be blunt - my Gold blogging has (at least) the following goals:
- It is cathartic
- It encourages us to formalise our thoughts, thinking rather than just feeling our way through the AH.
- It provides information to others.
- It is occasionally part of our AH war.
This type of controversy on websites is good. It is good for our readership numbers. It allows readers to not only see the 'what', but also the 'why'. And readers love a good fight.
If you want more posts out of either Breevok or I, give us something to disagree with. Both of us are uncomfortable sleeping when someone on the internet is wrong.
Regardless of whether you were right or wrong for this market, the method you outlined is a valid method of playing the AH. Players should both know it, and the consequences of it - good and bad. The AH does not have an I-WIN button.
So, I call on Critical Goblin to repost his comment. I am very happy to put it here as a guest post. I notice that Critical Goblin has his own blogspot site - with one post. You could even put it on your own website, and I will link it.
I then call on other bloggers and commenters to respond; either on this website or on their own. Comments linking to responses are very welcome.
PS. Nerf Faids has recently been busy on his opposite faction's AH with glyphs, with him declaring war, then offering terms for a resolution.