Calix wrote:Kecko wrote:A 2012 Store Pet for a 2010 Rare? That's fair in general isn't it?
Yep, that's the usual rate. Depends on the demand and species of both, but generally that should be fair.
1. Very unfair to you.
2. Also very unfair to you.
3. I don't have the rares list open, but I believe that's fair? Get another (less lazy) opinion.*RAIN DROP* wrote:fair?
http://www.chickensmoothie.com/trades/v ... UVgb-yZS0A
Unfair to them.
Almost fair, usually pets within three months of eachother that are the same rarity can do a straight swap, but they're 5 months apart. Maybe just add a couple of 2012-2013 pets.polerberr wrote:polerberr wrote:So I got this trade from a COPPA'd user. http://www.chickensmoothie.com/trades/viewtrade.php?id=24575052&userid=212595&signature=7zKffA4OWb3-HZl7zISUTw
I don't want to trade one of those cats and I figured the trade was unfair anyways. I cancelled the trade giving some advice to save that dog for an older rare cat they wanted (it looked like this user was collecting cats when I checked out her pets), and gave her a free wl cat I had a spare of. The trade was accepted, but right after the user sent me the same trade again, which is the one in the URL. Is it even a fair trade? If so, I might just trade if I can replace the NEFT cat, but I don't want to cheat some kid out of a rare '09 dog if they can get something better out of it.
Unfair to them. But if they seem to be insisting on doing a trade like that even if you told them it's unfair, you're not really cheating them out of it. Most kids don't give a darn about rarity anyways, haha.babeyyy wrote:
Definitely get another opinion, but I'd guess unfair to you. I know the ur cat was the most common ur out of the set, but I'm not sure where it's being valued on the list exactly.
---
Feel free to get second opinions on any advice I gave. I'm sleepy so it may be inaccurate.
Ok thank you!






▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 
.png)


.jpg)


.png)
.png)

.jpg)

.jpg)

.jpg)






















