Friday, August 22, 2014

Proposal: The Loan Sharks

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 23 Aug 2014 12:55:08 UTC

Enact a new rule, “The Loan Sharks”, with the following text:-

Any Seller can request a loan buy making a post with the title “Requesting a Loan” and naming both another Seller and dollar amount, X, that is a positive integer. Then, if the named Seller makes a comment on the post with the keyword GRANTED, in all caps, the Seller that made the comment must reduce their own profit by X and increase the profit of the Seller who requested the loan by X, and also add to that Seller’s name in the GNDT the text string “Loan worth X from ____”, where X is the dollar amount and ____ is the name of the Seller that made the changes. No seller that has such a text string in their name in the GNDT may win the game. At any time, any seller may Pay Off The Loan by reducing their profit by X and increasing the profit of the Seller whom the Loan was from by 2X (2 multiplied by X), and then removing the corresponding text string from their name in the GNDT.

My mean way of letting Sprucial back into the game.

Comments

Doctor29:

22-08-2014 23:16:41 UTC

against The Loaner and Loanee (or similar) ought to be labeled. Additionally, two people could simply keep loaning to each other to create infinite money. Wayyy too easy to exploit.

ayesdeeef:

22-08-2014 23:29:29 UTC

How does that generate any extra money? Anyway, I see your point. Let me just see what others have to say so that I have everyone’s opinion before I try to make a fixed version.

King:

23-08-2014 03:07:55 UTC

for “Neither the Broker, nor any Seller may perform any action that would change a Seller’s Profit to be less than -50.”

Sylphrena:

23-08-2014 05:24:18 UTC

against Alice and Bob each have $0. They loan $50 to each other, so they still have $0 but are $50 in debt to each other. They then pay off that debt, ending up with $50 each. They then do this again with $100 loans, obtaining a shared victory.

Doctor29:

23-08-2014 05:44:39 UTC

Because you loan out X but get back 2X.

P1: 0 P2: 30+X
<loan>
P1: X P2: 30

P1: 0 P2: 30+X+X

Also, another thing that could cause an issue is that you don’t specify *where* in the GNDT the loan should go (actually, you say “Next to the Seller’s name” which would imply in the “Name” field which is readonly. The Loan isn’t really an asset, it’s a liability. (citation needed, I haven’t studied accounting)

Doctor29:

23-08-2014 05:46:46 UTC

That is, for the loanee, at least.

Kevan: he/him

23-08-2014 09:08:40 UTC

against for the infinite money scam, but nicely done otherwise.

Sprucial:

23-08-2014 09:57:51 UTC

Thanks for the assistance ayesdeeef, but you should definitely repropose to fix all the suggested stuff though.
against

Sprucial:

23-08-2014 10:01:11 UTC

Doctor29’s proposal may suffice to help players in the negative by itself actually. Either way thanks.

ayesdeeef:

23-08-2014 15:25:16 UTC

No infinite money scam!! OMG!

You loan out some X, the other guy gets X, and YOU LOSE X. Then when (if) he/she decides to give it back, you get 2X, and THEY LOSE THE EXACT SAME 2X THAT YOU ARE GAINING!!! I see now that it allows players to pool their money at will, but I don’t agree that it generates even $1, let alone infinite…

Sorry for the anger, but years of Math Tm have made me really intense about the subject… :D

Sylphrena:

23-08-2014 16:01:08 UTC

“any seller may Pay Off The Loan by reducing their profit by X and increasing the profit of the Seller whom the Loan was from by 2X”

I’m sure you meant to say that they ‘reduce their profit by 2X’ but the rule as it stands definitely leads to infinite money.

ayesdeeef:

23-08-2014 16:05:12 UTC

ah…

You are correct. Sorry about that. *leaves abashedly*

ayesdeeef:

23-08-2014 16:07:26 UTC

Sylphrena’s explanation is absolutely correct, though I see that you all have already come to this conclusion :) Smart people.

ayesdeeef:

23-08-2014 17:10:01 UTC

against People need to start getting idled because these Proposals feel immortal right now.