I am voting yes, but think of it as a tweak. This should also encompass your action idea as well: introduce an SM Marketplace where auctioning/trading occur. Instead of making it exploitable, devs could create minimums/maximums so that would ever they deem as exploitable on either the buyer-end (too many lowball deals), or on the seller-end (prices set too high), are excluded from possible sale.
By the way my *idea* is nothing novel — think price floor and price ceiling, or minimum wage and rent control, respectively.
Oh and Rupert, if you feel this is too much a tweak for you (you would rather people not vote on a SM Marketplace) you welcome to tell me to create a poll myself/make one yourself. From my point of view, it fit really well with your idea.
When an AH is introduced to a game it increases the value of the game currency which increases the number of people that wish to exploit it in hopes of gaining an advantage (Think Diablo 3).
I think it is better to keep a system such as this out of our beloved SM.
I honestly am completely confused when reading this. I (guess I have to admit it) do not play any video/computer games other than SM (at least not since the gamecube I had as a kid) so the only thing I am getting out of the Diablo reference is that it is major game from Blizzard with its own currency that raised in value over time. I still think that if it if prices are regulated (via set maximums and minimums, currency over time will not change in value, but certain items may based on popularity).
On a macro scale, exploiting changes in value for items exists as well (it is called the financial sector) but that system is also responsible for money not losing value over time (as in assets not being affected by inflation). If SM had a central financial institution (nothing fancy needed, so do not think of a central bank like the federal reserve for the US), it could arbitrate certain restraints on prices and influence the market as it sees fit, limiting "exploiters" to a minimum.
In an ontological (philosophic) sense, with every change there is always some good and some bad. Every idea, no matter how productive it is, has its share of costs, and in many positive ideas, there is always room for exploitation. It is important for us as a community to ascertain all risks of exploitation, and it would be in our best interest to catalog a normative system in assessing that risk. However, when risk is assessed in increasingly vague qualitative values (proposition X can easily be exploited), rather than discreet quantitative values, we pose the risk of creating an environment that is counterproductive for net-beneficial progress. I hate making slippery slope arguments, but the greater the number in uses of the word "exploitation," the closer the forum will resemble a form of MccArthyism.
In plain english, if we say something can be easily exploited without a rating system of sorts to verify how exploitive it actually is, this gives individuals power to create their own witch hunts in threads they do not particularly agree with.
I suggest that before lambasting something for being possibly exploitive, compare the potential benefits of doing an idea (like having an SM marketplace that fairly adjudicates a fair value for items in the game, with lots of regulations of course) with the possible harms (like savvy places using it to get rich). In this comparison, a fairer and more accurate discussion should take place.