Monday, March 08, 2010

Proposal: Trading Up

Enacted, 12-0. Josh

Adminned at 10 Mar 2010 20:46:30 UTC

In rule Trading, add to the list of bullet-points after “Any Commoner may agree to a “Trade Offer” if all of the following are true:”

* He did not post the trade offer himself.

If any commoner completed a trade offer he himself made prior to the passing of this proposal, revert that trade. If any actions a commoner made after such a trade would be illegal if the trade had not been completed, revert them as well.

Suppose I have 10 iron, and post a trade offer of 10 iron for 10 iron. This satisfies the conditions for a legal trade offer. If I then complete this trade offer myself, I have to:

1: Append “Completed by Purplebeard” to the trade offer
2: Reduce my Iron (Sought Resource) by 10. I now have 0 iron.
3: Reduce my Iron (Offered Resource) by 10 again. This would leave me at -10 iron, but the Glossary sets it at 0 iron instead as game variables cannot be negative unless otherwise specified.
4 and 5: Increase my Iron by 20.

I now have 20 Iron, 10 more than I started out with. I can then post a new trade offer for 20 Iron, and repeat at nauseam.

posted by Purplebeard at 08 Mar 2010 16:23:29 UTC Comments (15)

Comments

Kevan:

03-08-2010 15:51:47 UTC

for

ais523:

03-08-2010 15:59:58 UTC

for Could just as easily be a CFJ. This also reverts Land purchases made via self-trading to 9 Coal, which may be a good thing as the rule no longer allows them.

Klisz:

03-08-2010 16:00:24 UTC

for

Keba:

03-08-2010 16:01:59 UTC

for

Josh:

03-08-2010 16:09:01 UTC

for And thank you for fixing this rather than exploiting it.

Rodlen:

03-08-2010 17:25:42 UTC

for

Roujo:

03-08-2010 17:46:03 UTC

for Although the way I did my self-trading, I never reached a negative value =P

Kevan:

03-08-2010 17:54:00 UTC

Nobody did, the clause is intended to stop anyone abusing it after having read this proposal.

Roujo:

03-08-2010 18:12:21 UTC

Actually, Purplebeard’s Self-Trade offer was supposed to send him in the negative values and back again, but he didn’t go at it step by step so it didn’t end up as it was supposed to.

Purplebeard:

03-08-2010 18:24:15 UTC

Technically, it did. My actual coal stock is about 100 larger than what is currently shown in the GNDT.

I didn’t bother to correct it when I discovered the loophole (and found out I had accidentally used it) since I assumed this proposal was going to pass anyway.

Roujo:

03-08-2010 18:59:39 UTC

Cool, thanks for pointing it out =)

Darknight:

03-09-2010 01:20:36 UTC

for

tecslicer:

03-09-2010 16:23:18 UTC

for

dbdougla:

03-10-2010 06:26:15 UTC

for

lordcooper:

03-10-2010 12:24:59 UTC

for