I initially interpreted your position as something like, "Hey, there's an unfair situation here! Some people are refraining from exchanging certain types of items in respect of Rule 5.1, while many others are violating the rule. This gives an automatic disadvantage to the more honest, rule-respecting people." In other words, the rule is explanatorily prior to the wrong being committed. In this case, your approach would be one possible solution, but another possible solution to consider would be removing the rule, which would in turn relieve the rule-respecting individuals of their disadvantage.
However, it now seems your position is actually that the wrong is explanatorily prior to the rule, so that even if the rule (and thus the unfairness detailed above) didn't exist, establishing person-to-person trades for certain types of items over PCF would still be evil. I'm afraid the rabbit hole here is too deep for me to traverse. I think I have pretty substantial disagreement with the sentiments behind a lot of your phrasing. For example, over time I'm becoming more and more convinced that the term "reseller" is conceptually bloated to the extent of uselessness. Close to everyone recognizes (by experience, even if not in so many words) that the value proposition of Entropia is its suitability to be treated as a consumption good, a capital good, or any combination of the two the individual player desires, and that trading is a vital component of its suitability as a capital good (even the Club NEVERDIE world record, perhaps the story most central in the formation of Entropia's identity, is at its heart a tale of trading and market success). However, the lines between trader and reseller seem completely up for grabs. It is unclear that "reseller" means anything more substantial than "double plus ungood trader." Not only are two people picked at random very unlikely to use remotely similar criteria to define "reseller," so that neither knows what the other is talking about when the word is used, few are even internally consistent with its use, deciding whether someone is a reseller by virtue of their likability rather than on principled criteria.
That's just one example of a potential issue I see buried deep within the terminology being used here. In the sentence, "So restricting forum sales can lead to better communication with the game's developer, who currently imagines that the majority likes to be robbed of fees and resellers," I also think "robbed" takes a lot for granted. Who is the rightful owner of the PED a player might or might not choose to pay for the convenience of auction use, if not the player herself? How can we conclude that developers have built systems based on a misunderstanding of majority opinion? Should game design decisions be based on majority opinion, or is there actually a bidirectional causation here where building a less popular but better system can impact the trajectory of majority opinion in the future?
You can see how much baggage is loaded into even a single sentence when you use this manner of speaking. I fear it would take a near book length treatment of the questions you've implicitly raised to get to the bottom of them. If you really want a positive argument for preferring the status quo to your suggestion, perhaps the easiest one to offer without resolving all of your hidden assumptions is that the Internet is a pretty big place mostly out of MindArk's control. If they place sufficiently annoying restrictions on PCF trading, people can just migrate to Entropia Forum, or Entropia Planets, or Entropia Link.
