|
 |
Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:25 am |
 |
 Author |
Message |
fingerbun
Planet
Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 769
Location: Sydney
|
| Post subject: another complaint, another mistake |
 |
|
http://www.galacticmag.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=49802#49802
I am posting about a trade I saw in the complaints section. There was little detail given about the trade but from what I read the trade promoted both players involved to a higher position. To me this sounds fair. But I will comment more on the below quote:
| CYN wrote: | After recession it is common for properties to go below starting price. Before recession a property should not be sold below starting price, after recession it should not be sold below credit value.
|
This is such an amateurish rule. From someone who does not understand the full fundamentals of the game.
How long has this rule been out for? Who made this rule?
For anyone who knows the game in-depth this is a stupid rule. I will now pick this “rule” apart.
Firstly, I truly doubt Kreso created credit value of a means of a trading guideline.
Lets look at some scenarios and you tell me if they seem fair.
1. According to the quoted rule, at +$10 start, a player can purchase a purple square for $800. But at -$20 start, he can purchase the same square for $50. (since purple has a credit value of $50).
2. According to the quoted rule a player must pay at least $400 for dark blue regardless wether start is +$200 or -$1000.
3. According to the quoted rule you must pay minimum $600 for three reds which has the potential to create $900 income per/revolution/per player if the game has reached recession. However, you can also purchase the green set for the same price which can create $1500 income p/rev p/player.
4. According to the quoted rule, if you purchase a purple square for $800 ($640 discounted), you cant sell it to another player later down the track for $700. (I have done this in the past, given a player the second purple to keep him broke)
What you moderators need to learn is that a trade legitimacy has nothing to do with the credit or the default value of a square or set. Just because purples default value is $800 ($640 discounted), it doesn’t mean it should be brought for that amount.
When moderators make decisions on trading they need to ignore credit and default value. They need to take into account the following:
1. Passing start money
2. Cash amount after trade
3. Liabilities on the board, I.e. other sets that deduct cash
4. Other players rank positions. How many threats did the player in question have.
5. The players true intention
In the example of the purple set, you cant just say “$1000 is too cheap because default value is $2400”. Smart players who understand the game know you cant pay $2400 for a set at +20 or so. Especially if you have around $3500 to spend. You would need around 9 hits before you return a net profit. And if your opponents have other sets established, you would end up teetering with a low cash balance until recession.
I am afraid people still don’t understand the concept of trading. And probably don’t have the capacity to ever do so. Back in the good old days it was simple. “both parties must receive a benefit”. It was a simple rule. But now all these needlessly and not-thought-through stupid rules have evolved. Rules made by people who seem to have little understanding about mathematics and probabilities. Two principals which this game is based on.
_________________
I am the artist formally known as FINGERBANG! |
|
|
|
Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:48 am |
|
| Author |
Message |
fingerbun
Planet
Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 769
Location: Sydney
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
I have $400 balance.
I sell 2 greens to player 3 for $800 at +20. Player 3 has $1000 cash balance ($200 after trade)
Reds are upgraded (player 1) (also has $250 cash)
Purples are upgraded (me)
Exactors/utilities are divided
Is this a cheat trade when:
Gaining $800 lets me upgrade purple to a higher level. The chances of the player upgrading green past level one is very low.
According to the rules this is a cheat trade? Come on?
_________________
I am the artist formally known as FINGERBANG! |
|
|
|
Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:50 pm |
|
| Author |
Message |
trace567
Guest
|
| Post subject: Re: another complaint, another mistake |
|
|
| fingerbun wrote: | http://www.galacticmag.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=49802#49802
What you moderators need to learn |
There has only been 1 moderator for the past 3 weeks now, and no sign that this will be changed any time soon!
Whilst I would not want to comment regarding any ruling, since without full info it would be wrong to make an assumption. However all the mention of value (base value) and credit value is deeply misleading I feel. Ultimately it boils down to benefit and advancing, if those 2 can be achieved with a below base trade it is still a legal trade. Just because something is below base doesn't automatically make it a cheat trade!
As for the credit talk, it only applies to 1 set, dark blue which has 400 credit, and base is 400. I mean gawd cyan is credit of 10. The statements imply that they could be sold legitimately for 30 after ec. Well clearly that could never be of benefit! |
|
|
|
Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:43 pm |
|
| Author |
Message |
fingerbun
Planet
Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 769
Location: Sydney
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
So I take it you agree with what I am saying?
_________________
I am the artist formally known as FINGERBANG! |
|
|
|
Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:37 pm |
|
| Author |
Message |
trace567
Guest
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
| fingerbun wrote: | | So I take it you agree with what I am saying? |
Pretty much, although I am not sure that it is that it has become a new rule....but perhaps very badly worded explanations of why trades were ruled as cheats.
It would be fair to mention something was sold well below base, but in my view should be backed up with the fact that this didn't benefit both players or give fair chance of advancing. |
|
|
|
Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:27 pm |
|
| Author |
Message |
BrownSandwich
Planetoid
Joined: 12 Dec 2010
Posts: 86
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
Trace: "Just because something is below base doesn't automatically make it a cheat trade!"
Thank you for the support everyone, and the statement Trace made pretty much sums up my feeling exactly. It was my belief that as long as a trade involved both players improving their position that it was legit. We both moved up to 1st and 2nd due to the trade. The price was lower than opening price but why does that even matter? There are so many factors (amount collected for passing go, what other players have on the board, amount of cash players have, etc...) that the rule as is seems to be a large, lazy, blanket rule and unfair in some situations.
CYN do you have any thoughts on this topic?
_________________
FREEDOM! |
|
|
|
Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:04 am |
|
| Author |
Message |
Bleu_Soul
Planetoid
Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Posts: 21
Location: Chula Vista, California
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with everything you're saying, fingerbun. It's pretty intuitively obvious. But watch what you say when you wrote "you moderators need to learn..." As far as I know, only CYN made any ruling based on the whole credit/base value rule.
By the way, where is CYN and what DOES he think about this? Was he/she/it just having a bad day or something when they made that judgement? |
|
|
|
Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:43 am |
|
| Author |
Message |
fingerbun
Planet
Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 769
Location: Sydney
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
CYN is a she.
I have no idea who brought this rule in- I dont really care. But it should be removed and brung back to the good old rule of "a trade must benefit both parties".
_________________
I am the artist formally known as FINGERBANG! |
|
|
|
Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:31 pm |
|
| Author |
Message |
CYN
Admin
Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 1407
Location: United States
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
ok after much discussion and thinking i grossly misstated this rule. My apologies, I am human (regardless of what some think  )
A trade must benefit both players and should not benefit one A LOT more than the other...yes that makes it vague to a point but it must be as close as possible.
As for the statement that you cannot trade properties for below value, it is not a rule set in stone however it is a guideline and the entire board must be taken into account. The situation with the 3 green for 1000 is an unfair trade in that game and that ruling will not be changed.
When trades involve properties on both sides being traded then having the trade equal on both sides is not always going to happen, when trading property(ies) for cash only then it should be for at least close to the value especially if you are giving a full set at one time. There are many variations of trades and many things taken into account on whether it is a fair trade, a border line trade or a cheat trade.
_________________
CYN
ITS ALL GOOD |
|
|
|
Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:09 am |
|
| Author |
Message |
fingerbun
Planet
Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 769
Location: Sydney
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
Well at least you have changed the 'credit' value on trades. Thats a start.
But, I see prices paid for a set irrelevant. If both parties involved in the trade improve their position (more specifically their game ranking) what difference does it make what the player payed for a set.
$1000 for green? So what? Once you upgrade you would have invested $4000. You need eight hits to break even. Depending where in the game your up to this can be hard. If you were an investor you would expect a 20% return on your investment at minimum. This equates to 10 hits (for green).
Even three greens at discounted value is only $1680. People need to understand- just because this guy Kreso made the value of a particular set (x) amount, it doesn’t mean its worth that.
Are you telling me if you had $2500 cash and your opponents had upgraded purples, reds, and brown; you would pay $2100 for 3 greens at +25? In that scenario they are worth no more then $1000.
_________________
I am the artist formally known as FINGERBANG! |
|
|
|
Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:08 pm |
|
| Author |
Message |
theunknownamus
Guest
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
I nominate fingerbang for modship.  |
|
|
|
Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:20 pm |
|
| Author |
Message |
ranban282
Ex Moderator
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 171
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
It appears that he moderator's reasoning seems to flawed, and more moderators need to take a look at this trade when they are available.
| Quote: |
The situation with the 3 green for 1000 is an unfair trade in that game and that ruling will not be changed. |
This was not called for. |
|
|
|
Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:31 pm |
|
| Author |
Message |
trace567
Guest
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
| ranban282 wrote: | It appears that he moderator's reasoning seems to flawed, and more moderators need to take a look at this trade when they are available.
| Quote: |
The situation with the 3 green for 1000 is an unfair trade in that game and that ruling will not be changed. |
This was not called for. |
Whilst from what has been stated about the trade I would be inclined to believe it could most likely very well of been a cheat trade, so I am not for one minute suggesting the ruling was incorrect. But nobody will be getting any second opinions or viewings on any ruling placed all the time GM has only ONE moderator! How many times do I have to say this?
From my point of view all this going on about trade embargo, and badly explained rulings etc etc is the least of the issue here. The issue being ignored by ALL of you is that there is no option at all for anyone to receive a second opinion, or second mods viewing because for one month there has been just one moderator. Why you all have been so blind to see this and not pick up on it I will never know! But don't you all think that that is by far more concerning than embargo, or badly worded explanations of cheat trades? |
|
|
|
Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:29 pm |
|
| Author |
Message |
fingerbun
Planet
Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 769
Location: Sydney
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
Well Trace you gave up your modship, so you cant complain. The games so quiet we dont need any more mods.
_________________
I am the artist formally known as FINGERBANG! |
|
|
|
Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:29 pm |
|
| Author |
Message |
trace567
Guest
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
| fingerbun wrote: | | Well Trace you gave up your modship, so you cant complain. The games so quiet we dont need any more mods. |
Well don't complain about the one you have then. |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
|
|
