That is simply not true. There were percentage requirements on second sales (I.e. not sight unseen) for previous releases, and the prices do not necessarily go up after the pre-sale. I recall at least one set of chips where the sight-unseen prices were definitely higher than the prices posted after the chips were in hand.
Also, saying "this kind of crap never happened on CT" is utterly laughable. It was the Bahamia fiasco that STARTED the need for percentages like this, and that was ON chiptalk.
If you're only talking about the secondary-market trading thread, then I believe you're mistaken there too, because that definitely took place on CT. It might not have been quite as "public" but it was most definitely going on. In fact one of the main reasons I'm happy to see this out in the open, and hoping to benefit from it, is because of feeling screwed by the rules multiple times in chip room sales, both here and on CT, when I knew for 100% certain that others were "bending the rules" and benefiting and no one was saying it was wrong to do so.
I'm really not sure why this has touched a nerve but you seem to feel very strongly about this. I respect that, and I'm not intending to bash you in any way. It's a difference of opinion that we are both (we are all) entitled to.
One final thing I'll add is that even Jim himself said (before the thread was taken down) that perhaps he hadn't thought through the percentage requirements enough. I wouldn't be in this thread if I didn't think the percentage rules that Jim had laid out were fair - they weren't, really. In order to buy literally any secondary chips, one would have been forced to buy some of the primary chips. Yes, it's Jim's prerogative to set the rules how he wants, but my point is that even he conceded they weren't terribly fair to begin with.
I for one will be quite surprised if the new pre-sale thread has the exact same requirements as the original.