I've been into Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures since Harbinger, and trading online almost from the beginning. I completed my Harbinger set (and every subsequent set) partially through online trading (at www.maxminis.com), and other than a few glitches, I have been very happy doing so. I was one of the few people, in the early months of the site, arguing strenuously for the existence of and easy access to Zenako's Price Guide (which has been replaced by an automated Online Price Guide (OPG) posted by madda), in the face of many other old-timers who objected to its presence.
OPG contains information. Specifically, it contains information about the relative values of DDM miniatures. There is one reason and only one reason to argue against the presence of and easy access to OPG: keeping this information out of the hands of new and potentially naive and trusting traders. In turn, there is really only one reason to deny those traders the information: making it easier to take advantage of those traders through lopsided trades that heavily favor the more knowledgeable trader.
Sadly, this behavior occurred a great deal in the first many months of Maxminis' existence. Happily, it now occurs much less. (Not coincidentally, OPG has been accepted, it is prominently posted, and it is widely, though not universally, relied upon to "ballpark" fair trades.) But every so often, a post goes up in the forum about how a trader "made a great trade with a friend," or something similar, and in nearly all of these cases it is apparent from the circumstances, as described by the unethical trader him- or herself, that the "friend" has been on the wrong side of an unfair trade that took advantage of the "friend's" lack of knowledge of the value of his DDM pieces.
When these threads go up, they result in arguments. In the early months of the site, I was alone in arguing vociferously against this unethical behavior. (I don't believe that I was alone in my feelings about it, but I was almost always alone in publicly denouncing it.) Happily, again, nowadays on the site the arguments are more balanced -- Maxminis has truly grown, and for the better. But there are still too many people who, in a desire to preserve their "right" to take advantage of less knowledgeable traders, constantly and tiresomely trot out the same arguments in an attempt to justify their unethical behavior (and in some cases, in my opinion, an attempt to assuage their guilt). This document is an all-in-one convenient rebuttal to these tired and self-serving excuses.
In brief, the thesis of this document is this: "As long as each party -- or neither party! -- to a trade is reasonably informed about the relative values of the pieces involved, the trade is fair and ethical. Conversely, if one party is clearly not informed, and the other party is informed and uses that information to make a clearly advantageous trade, the trade is unfair and the informed party is behaving unethically."
I want to stress that this document is not intended as an official statement of Maxminis, its administrators, or its moderators, although I sought and obtained their permission to post it. I very much hope they agree with the principles within, but, again, this is not an official policy document for those folks or for that trading site.
Almost invariably, people who claim to adhere to this standard apply it with extreme selectivity.
For example, assume Trader Gallant has a Beholder for trade, and needs a Marut. Trader Goofus has a Marut and say he trades "Rare for Rare." Trader Gallant accepts and makes the trade. Two weeks later, Trader Gallant needs an Orc Champion. Trader Goofus has an Orc Champion, and lists among his wants a Warforged Barbarian. Trader Gallant has the Warforged Barbarian and offers Trader Goofus' terms of "Rare for Rare." Unless Trader Goofus is saint-like, he will never accept that offer. Net result -- Trader Goofus has taken advantage of Trader Gallant by claiming a trading standard to which he does not actually adhere. Trader Goofus is an unethical trader.
It doesn't matter. OPG is a guide intended for trading, and only relative values matter for trading. OPG has repeatedly been shown to be amazingly accurate in that respect.
And a Ben Franklin is only a piece of paper. DDM models have value, and that value can be quantified; not perfectly, and it's always in flux, but it is real value nevertheless. Ripping people off of minis in an unethical trade is exactly the same as conning them out of currency. It may actually be worse, because people tend to be less trusting when it comes to matters of actual money.
Yes they do, and nobody is going to enforce adherence to any monetary or other value, including values in the OPG. But value is dependent upon knowledge, and an ethical trader does not take advantage of another trader's ignorance and then claim that the other trader simply "valued his miniatures differently."
If Trader Gallant needs a Dromite Wilder to complete his Underdark set, he may very well value it more highly than its actual relative worth. An unethical trader will try to take advantage of Trader Gallant, ask for a much more valuable piece in trade, and hope Trader Gallant is ignorant of the true relative value.. An ethical trader may well make the same offer, but let Trader Gallant know the trade is not objectively balanced, and hope that Trader Gallant knowingly values the set-completing piece more highly.
The same argument of subjective value applies in many circumstances: Trader Gallant needs the mini quickly; he simply likes the mini a lot; the mini is part of a larger trade, and Trader Gallant saves time and effort by avoiding a second trade; Trader Gallant only uses DDM for RPG, so he prefers monster pieces; Trader Gallant simply likes Trader Goofus and wants to give him the gift of a great trade; or maybe Trader Gallant is even one of those very, very rare traders who honestly adheres to Rare for Rare trading. These are all cases is which an informed trader knowingly and subjectively values a piece more highly, and thus an ethical trader can still make a great trade.
Again, the key is knowledge. An ethical traders makes certain he's getting a good deal because the other trader values his minis differently ... not because the other trader is ignorant of the value his minis have.
This is simply and provably incorrect. It is the excuse of someone who would willingly cheat a child out of a valuable coin collection: "I'll give you 20 of these brand new golden dollar coins for these 20 old pennies and dimes!" Someone may very well be happy with such a trade; it remains hugely and inarguably unethical.
Ethically speaking, both parties being happy with a trade is only relevant if both parties are aware of the ballpark value of what they're giving up.
In legal terms, this is true. There are even legal terms for it: "arm's length transactions," caveat emptor ("buyer beware"), and so on. So yes, legally this is a valid argument.
Ethically, however, it's completely bogus. DDM is a hobby, and trading sites (especially) are communities. DDM trades are not arm's length transactions between merchants, but rather informal and (intended to be) friendly arrangements between people with a love for the game (if nothing else) in common. There is a huge amount of trust involved in that kind of relationship -- in everything from use of the U.S. and international mails, to trusting that someone sent when they claimed to, to not getting ripped off in a lopsided trade -- and only an unethical trader abuses that trust and hides behind these excuses.
This argument, of course, applies even more strongly when the relationship between the traders is closer: gaming buddies, say, or purported friends. ("Purported," because nobody who takes this kind of advantage is an actual friend.)
Does anybody really believe this makes unethical trading okay? Why do people make this argument?
Unethical trading, while not illegal, is an abuse of the trust that is implied in a community hobby like DDM. It inevitably leads to bad feelings, which can in turn lead to a shrinking of the community (or at least lessened growth). This means fewer people to trade with, and less chance of making legitimate good trading deals.
Unethical traders don't care about this: they stand to make more by ripping people off that they do by helping the trading population grow. Ethical traders, on the other hand, should care very much, and should discourage and denounce unethical trading wherever and whenever they see it.
The above two paragraphs, by the way, are also why sites like Maxminis have an interest in stating very clearly and prominently that unethical trading is frowned upon, and in allowing the denunciation of unethical trading when it occurs. Maxminis is, happily, growing toward this position.