[MrCrabbs]

In a 5p game now with me as Angry_Frog, ekonomist1, ambroise, davidleb74 and Dell31.

Eko offers me last orange in exchange for a brown and 100. It's a bit generous but I accept as I assume he has a plan (he plays very strangely).

Next, he's offering me all kinds of stupidly generous offers, and the same to other players.

He sells 3 brown to Dell for 500 with about +160 on the clock.

He sends loads more stupid offers my way, which would have been cheating if I'd accepted.

Please investigate the player and ban.

[MrCrabbs]

Please give punishments or warnings to:

- Dell31 for buying 3 browns for 500 at about +160
- davidleb74 for selling a white for 3000.

These trades were all sent by Eko, but me and ambroise received stupid offers too and we rejected.

[Mockingbird]

I was in the game (playing as Ambrose) and despite the fact I didn't see anything outside the rules of the game I would like to let the moderation make that judgement without the need of my direct fingering in the pie or my need to respond here like a pudding.

[Mockingbird]

Actually I hate to say it but that first brown / orange trade is a cheat trade. Funny how the experts here (crabs) think stuff like that is acceptable.

[judd]

[CYN]

Actually it was and reviewing the trades of this game and the previous games involving both of you, neither of you would fair well if i ruled on this.
With the offers made in the two games and the trades accepted four of you should be reduced for unfair trading/offering.
I am going to have to look at both games in more detail and will post when i get time.
_________________
CYN

ITS ALL GOOD

[Mockingbird]

Holy creepy crawlies!!

Man that's a turn up for the books! The professor crabber - all round super master badger of gm while complaining of others, is actually spreading STD's (Sneaky Trade Disorder) among the gm population.

Those crabby pincers need to spend some time in a quarantined area me thinks.

Hypocriticalcrabbycreatures in a shell indeed.

[MrCrabbs]

To leave the sniping aside and focus on the trade I took, I want to explain to slow-learners why it was not a cheat trade.

I got the last orange, and gave a brown and 100. This put Ekonomist in a situation where he could then sell or buy brown to get the set, as all 3 browns were then owned by him and one other player.

There's very little difference in the value of the brown and orange. Thus 100, while not a big figure, was not so unreasonable as to be a cheat, especially as my bargaining position was stronger - I had a better position in the game than Ekonomist, and so naturally would have got the best of any deals.

The deal, though, did give him the chance to get brown, and the 100 was compensation against the risk he would not be able to buy or sell. Would 200 or 300 have been fairer? Possibly but these are small margins.

We all know that, when a set (here the brown) is owned by 3 different players, then to get any one of them to give up their piece, you have to pay a price that is somewhere between the usual price of second brown (about 500) and the usual price of 3rd brown (about 1100).

The average of those prices is 800. So, the brown I gave was worth 800. And I gave 100 into the bargain too.

That means I paid 900 for last orange. Is that a cheat? Clearly not.

It should also be pointed out that I accepted this trade before the truly ludicrous trades, such as 500 for 3 brown, were being sent by Ekonomist. Up until then, Ekonomist had been sending trades that he thought he would actually benefit from, and the orange for brown +100 is one that he made to genuinely try to improve his position. Only afterwards did he go crazy, paying 3000 for a white, offering me all his properties for virtually nothing, etc.

It will be interesting to see if a correct decision is made here. Cheat trades are not about punishing players for trades that are a bit cheaper than usual (900 for orange), they are about punishing trades that only benefit one party.

If Ekonomist had made a trade to get brown, or sell it for a good price, then the trade he made with me absolutely would have benefitted him.

[MrCrabbs]

[MrCrabbs]

[MrCrabbs]

If you give someone last orange and you get a brown and 100, then you buy last brown for 1000, you have:

Gained: 2nd and 3rd brown = About 1800 value (600+1200)
Lost: 3rd orange and 900 net = About 1800 value (900+900)

QED.

The key point is, I didn't give just a brown. I gave a brown when the other 2 already had owners, allowing a trade to take place between them.

[Mockingbird]

First off crabs everyone has the right to post in the forum. Your casting up of long forgotten issues does those rights an injustice. Lets forget those comments on that, as they are uncalled for.

Second off.... Regarding your justifications for accepting the cheat trade- hahahahahaahhahahahahhaha. You completely bypassed the fact trades need to be equally fair to both players. In this instance this just simply isn't the case at all. You gained a set and only gave the possibility of a set. Your income directly increased and it cost you 100 and a useless brown. Clearly the only direct benefit was to you. No one here will ever give you rambling mathetwatics on the subject any credence at all. They only diminish credibility.
The fact you think this is right because you we're in a "stronger position" and this in some way negates the benefit both players stipulation shows quite clearly that you accept it to be a cheat yourself. Quite simply you have gone altogether quackacockadowoofwoofqwawqwawmeowpurrabaaabaaammoooosqueek.. in the peanut.

Accept the fact your dropped the pancakes with some honor.

Take a rest from it and come back with yer head sorted out.

[MrCrabbs]

A) I have shown in detail how this trade could, if Ekonimist had traded for brown, been of equal benefit.

B) You should always look at the orignal wording of the rules. There is no "equal benefit" stipulation in the rules. The rules state that the trade should have a reasonable chance of increasing the end-rank of both players. 100%, this trade fits that criteria, as it unblocked brown for him, and gave him 100 cash.

Here's the wording:

[trace567]

[Mockingbird]

And benefit to both players. Where is that hahahaha.

Trade was obviously only advantageous to one player.

So trace you think it was a fair trade. I can just see your reaction to this one had the shoe been on the other.

Well what a surprise it is too. Well I've said it before and quite clearly some so called experts here are tiny teeni cheetyweeties....