[lotta1980]

Game finished at 7:20 Sweden time on 22-March-2009

5 P
Players :
marcusferron
tatuum
gotenborg (me)
aerok
j-o-k-e-r

Player j-o-k-e-r resign from the game after 20 minutes.

I have 2 purples 1 red - player aerok have 2 reds 1 purple
Player aerok refuse alla my attempt to trade with him/her.
I send 10 trades for aerok.
On +40 aerok have 4500 money and me about 4200 money and also aerok refuse to deal with me
Then aerok loose and became 4th.
Just to ask why aerok dont want to trade with me ???????
With aeroks 4 whites and 3 reds can win this game or become 2nd.

On -930 player marcusferron open red then tatuum bid 630 and marcusferron dont bid over this 630 in the time marcusferron
have 3 greens ----- clearly was a help from marcusferron
to tatuum to avoid pay 500 on greens or 150 on one of my blacks and to avoid the -930 of-course

Thanks

[lotta1980]

7:20 PM Sweden time

[Bill2k06]

some players will not trade because they see their position as solidified for 1st or 2nd knowing they are going to gain points and so they are not obliged to trade.

as for the last thing, i do not believe they ere helping each other and do not see any course of action to be taken here
_________________

[lotta1980]

Kreso wrote :
Consider the following situation in 3+ player game:

Player A owns 2 green and player B owns 1 green and 2 purple and last purple is free. Now the obvious strategy for player A is to try to acquire last purple so that he can trade with player B.

In 3+ player game it might be a bad strategy to try to stop other people from acquireing monopolies. But it might be a good strategy to try to have some properties for trade. You might be able to make other player help you if you have the last property of the monopoly he wants.

I still didn't take a look at that game, I'm just thinking for now.

Also, about trades: A player is required to accept a trade which is obviously fair (benefits both players involved in a trade). "Trade embargo" is cheating. "Beneficial" is defined as: increases the player's chances to score better.

The point of trades in GM (for 3+ player games) is for players who are trading to gain advantage on other players. The trade should be beneficial to both players. Maybe, if you are a good bargainer, you can sway it a little on your side, but probably not much.

If a player is offered two trades from two different players which are mutually exclusive, and both have the same benefit for the player, then he is free to choose his trading partner. That's why monopoly is a bit of social game: it's good if other players like you, then they might be more willing to trade with you. And that what happened with me on that game on purples and reds.
I dont say its a real cheat but it s a very strange case here.
Specially that aerok come 4th. not 2nd or 1st as u said Bill.

Bill about the 2nd case happened in that game on -930 plz give me ur time.
Player marcusferron open red on -930 then tatuum have it for 630 only
Suppose if tatuum land on green what will happen ?
Tatuum was on minus cash money så 500+930=1430 and bcz tatuum was on minus money its probably tatuum leave the game.
Thats why I said marcusferron help tatuum to come 2nd.
Bill give me ur time and look for this case again plzz.

Bill you wrote something about players who refuse to trade but you removed the topic.
Open it plzz I really need it.
Thats the link of the removable topic
http://www.galacticmag.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3256

[Bill2k06]

i ask trace, to look over this one again , i just dont have the time at the moment i am very busy in my lif this week , ill be back fully next week
_________________

[lotta1980]

Thanks to open this topic Bill

Bill wrote

but kreso once said to me, and it IS DEFINATELY on the forum somewhere that if a player constantly refuses a ''beneficial'' trade without reason of strategy then it is deemed a cheat and so must be punishable the same as a cheat trade,
That really what happened in this game.
Thanks Bill.
Hope Trace can look 4it.

[trace567]

Ok I have made my decision having read the logs and trade offers. I will NOT be punishing this one.

My reason are as follows:

1st offer send by you - giving 1 red, taking 1 pink (plus 1200 of aerok's cash to you). Resent 2 further times.

Next offer - Same but 1000 cash from aerok this time.
Next offer - Same but 700 cash from aeork.
Next offer - same but 500 cash from aeork

Then aerok switches the trade around, identical but him taking the pink, you the red him getting 500 of your cash. So basically your offer reversed. You don't accept, but in your eyes it was good enough for him.

He then offers you 2 red for 2 pink.

You then reverse it, 1 pink to you 1 red to him.

It gets later and later in the game, and offers are sent for each to gain a set.

However by the time the sensible offers start coming, the game has gone further and further in.

I personally feel that by having sent so many unfair trade offers early, you jepodised your own game.

Now yes, towards the end to trade would of made sense. But its still basically a fight between you on who had red or pink, and what both are worth.

If it weren't for the nonsense trade offers to start with, I actually most likely would of felt this punishable.

But the question is this. Since when has red been more valuable than pink. Since to build red to 5 upgrades costs 2500. Income then of 300 per hit.

Pink to 3 upgrades costs 1800, to gain 320 per hit.

Seriously, think about it?

As for the auctioning of something, its pretty much never a cheat.

[lotta1980]

I blocked 3rd red for nearly 1800-1900.
When I sent my 1st offer I was poor money and aerok was much.
When I sent my offer to exchange 1purple for 1 red freely we both were över 4000 cash money. It wasnt late.
Reds need 3000 to take 300 not 2500. But when we make the trades also we must look at the cash for each player.

Trace thanks 4ur time ---- Hope to look for what happened on -930 as I wrote on my post.

Thanks...