Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32932810-20171208030524/@comment-30334635-20171210094553

@Apereason - You really don't seem to understand a few things:

1) This wiki doesn't determine the worth of items, we don't decide the rarities of items. The community does, this wiki just tries to document what the community decides. No single person decides rarity. Famous jammers might influence it but more often than not, they don't determine the worth set in stone. Even with Aparri popularizing tan scarves, it's not like everyone considers tan scarves worth collars like he did.

2) Despite items being older than other rare items, demand also plays a part. And like I said, it's the community! Rarity is inconsistent and I agree it doesn't make sense, but that's not in the control of me to decide what people say an item's worth. If no one wants a really old item, it won't be worth as much as a popular newer-ish item.

3) Just because something would make sense to be worth more than something logically DOES NOT mean that people should overtrade/undertrade massively just because in logical terms, it should be rarer. For example, Founders' are older than Headdresses but Headdresses are much rarer. Does that mean I should trade a Headdress for Founders? No. Because Animal Jam rarity isn't dependent on me or facts, it's just dependent on random little kids. So if I were to do that, no other random AJ player would trade me what the Headdress was worth because Founders' are worth less than Headdresses.

I'd really appreciate it if you could just accept these things. I know, it makes me mad too how some really old items aren't as valuable as they 'should be' in my opinion, but that doesn't mean you have the right to demand we change values to what you think they should be worth, because this is what the community thinks they're worth, not what anyone thinks they should be worth - there's a difference.