Recommend
11 
 Thumb up
 Hide
417 Posts
[1]  Prev «  13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17  | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » Trades

Subject: Discussion Thread for the UK Maths Trade April 2019 rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
davymast wrote:
I agree that items should be insured to their full value. In my view traders should be re-imbrused for the item they were due to receive, not the item they traded away. Yes, it's a trade loop, but other than that the lost item has nothing to do with the item that was traded, and certainly not from an insurance perspective..


Even 3) (which seems to curry disfavour) puts the aggrieved party back in exactly the situation he was before the trade took place, and therefore he has suffered no harm except annoyance and inconvenience.


As repeated many times they are NOT in the exact same situation. They have the exact same game back (and may even be reimbursed postage when this is suggested). But that does not make the situation the same.

enoon wrote:

The only reason a third party (e.g. the moderator) might have to adjudicate anything is if the sender of the lost/damaged item refuses to do any of the possible 'fair' things.

It really isn't that hard.


No, your possible 'fair' things are only fair by your opinion and not agreed upon anywhere in the trade rules. Repeating them with increasing amounts of letters and numbers in a list with detail does not make them any more 'official'. So the moderation should become involved as soon as the two parties involved can't agree between themselves on what is fair.

Situations can be very simple, but since sometimes they are not, that's part of what a moderator is for.

Edit: Oh and a simple note to what IS in the rules.

Quote:

- The word of the trade moderator is final.


Simply put, by agreeing to take part in this trade, you agree to this. If you don't like that they have the final say in everything, then the trade isn't for you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David M
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
davymast wrote:
I agree that items should be insured to their full value. In my view traders should be re-imbrused for the item they were due to receive, not the item they traded away. Yes, it's a trade loop, but other than that the lost item has nothing to do with the item that was traded, and certainly not from an insurance perspective..


Consider this (it is not an exact parallel but the net effect and result are the same):

I enter into a 1:1 trade. I receive the item I'm expecting; the one I sent is lost in the post or (to avoid suggestions of someone 'gaming the system) arrives damaged beyond repair*.

What are the possible solutions (let's say in no particular order to avoid suggestions that I privilege one over another)?

1) I find another copy of the lost/damaged item and have it sent to the receiver.
2) I have insured the item to a value acceptable to the receiver and I send him that amount (plus the refunded postage) if that is acceptable to him
3) I send his item back to him at my cost and pay him the cost of his outgoing postage with an apology for the outcome.
4) We agree something else, perhaps:
4a) I send him another game I'm prepared to trade which he wants
4b) We agree an amount of money I will pay him
4c) A combination of 4a and 4b) in a deal that suits us both
4d) I send him some other game from some other place in a deal that suits us both

All of those represent solutions which are fair to both parties. It does not matter who put what value on which items at what point in time.

Even 3) (which seems to curry disfavour) puts the aggrieved party back in exactly the situation he was before the trade took place, and therefore he has suffered no harm except annoyance and inconvenience.

There is no need at any point in that range of solutions that any third party need determine the value of any of the items involved at any arbitrary point in time. That applies even to case 4 - if a financial agreement cannot be agreed between the two parties one of the other three alternatives is still a valid and fair outcome.

Some of the 'discussion' seems to be based on the assumption that the aggrieved party has or will somehow "lose out" because he did not receive something which he valued much higher than the item he traded away. Well: tough; putting things right is not about letting someone benefit or making someone lose out - it is about "resetting" the system to the state it was before the event took place. We all experience that situation when a re-run puts us back in the place we were before the re-runned run took place.

Of course, either party might prefer one option over another, and both should be encouraged to find the solution which ensures the least harm/best outcome to both parties, but in the end none of the remaining three options (1 - 3) is in and of itself unfair. One or other might be the least preferred, but none is unfair.

The only reason a third party (e.g. the moderator) might have to adjudicate anything is if the sender of the lost/damaged item refuses to do any of the possible 'fair' things.

It really isn't that hard.



* This example is necessary to show that the sender too is 'out' the game he sent, and hasn't just pretended to have sent it to game the system** somehow.
** Maybe some folks would try this: shame on them.


I agree with what you're saying here, in that there's more than one way to resolve a lost game, and there should be a discussion between those involved as to the best resolution. The person who's lost out should have a say in how they'd like to be compensated.

In my view 3) should be a subset of 4) (maybe 4e) -- it's one of the possible options in coming to an agreement. To my mind, putting it ahead of 4) creates an assumption that it's an acceptable default solution in putting things right for the person who's lost out.

If in doubt -- ask what the person who has lost out wants in compensation. Make it a discussion. Don't assume.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David M
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
enoon wrote:
davymast wrote:
I agree that items should be insured to their full value. In my view traders should be re-imbrused for the item they were due to receive, not the item they traded away. Yes, it's a trade loop, but other than that the lost item has nothing to do with the item that was traded, and certainly not from an insurance perspective..


Even 3) (which seems to curry disfavour) puts the aggrieved party back in exactly the situation he was before the trade took place, and therefore he has suffered no harm except annoyance and inconvenience.


As repeated many times they are NOT in the exact same situation. They have the exact same game back (and may even be reimbursed postage when this is suggested). But that does not make the situation the same.

enoon wrote:

The only reason a third party (e.g. the moderator) might have to adjudicate anything is if the sender of the lost/damaged item refuses to do any of the possible 'fair' things.

It really isn't that hard.


No, your possible 'fair' things are only fair by your opinion and not agreed upon anywhere in the trade rules. Repeating them with increasing amounts of letters and numbers in a list with detail does not make them any more 'official'. So the moderation should become involved as soon as the two parties involved can't agree between themselves on what is fair.

Situations can be very simple, but since sometimes they are not, that's part of what a moderator is for.

Edit: Oh and a simple note to what IS in the rules.

Quote:

- The word of the trade moderator is final.


Simply put, by agreeing to take part in this trade, you agree to this. If you don't like that they have the final say in everything, then the trade isn't for you.


Agree with this too -- it's up to the two parties involved to agree what would be fair. If that's not possible, then the moderator can be called in to help.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
davymast wrote:
In my view 3) should be a subset of 4) (maybe 4e) -- it's one of the possible options in coming to an agreement. To my mind, putting it ahead of 4) creates an assumption that it's an acceptable default solution in putting things right for the person who's lost out.
I deliberately said that the alternatives were not in any order of preference/priority, just that they all represented 'fair' outcomes. Of course one or other party will have different preferences, and I agree that both parties should try to make the outcome that both prefer.

davymast wrote:
If in doubt -- ask what the person who has lost out wants in compensation. Make it a discussion. Don't assume.
Of course. But in the end if a mutual agreement can't be found then any of the options are 'fair' - even if it's the one that one party prefers least.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sharon Khan
United Kingdom
Shefford
Bedfordshire
flag msg tools
badge
Games, games and more games!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:

The only reason a third party (e.g. the moderator) might have to adjudicate anything is if the sender of the lost/damaged item refuses to do any of the possible 'fair' things.


It's not always the sender at fault. Sometimes the receiver can be unreasonable too, and refuse to accept a reasonable solution that has been offered.

I know this has been heavily discussed this month, because someone put the issue on the discussion thread rather than just mailing me privately, but this is not a "new" issue - almost every MathTrade at least one thing goes wrong behind the scenes (sometimes as many as half a dozen) and I am emailed and asked to mediate, or sometimes just for advice ("This has happened, is it ok if I do this?") - not to mention ones I don't hear about where people sort it out themselves. I'm pretty sure all enoon's list of solutions have been used at one or more point in time, but not every case is the same, and so there is not a one-case-fits all solution. Quite often a cash payment is used instead of a game (particularly for out-of-print/hard to replace games, or in the case of missing pieces or damage to the game in transit), and this is most commonly where I'm asked to step in and mediate, as the two people can't agree on a "value" for the lost/missing/damaged item.
5 
 Thumb up
0.26
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
enoon wrote:
davymast wrote:
I agree that items should be insured to their full value. In my view traders should be re-imbrused for the item they were due to receive, not the item they traded away. Yes, it's a trade loop, but other than that the lost item has nothing to do with the item that was traded, and certainly not from an insurance perspective..
Even 3) (which seems to curry disfavour) puts the aggrieved party back in exactly the situation he was before the trade took place, and therefore he has suffered no harm except annoyance and inconvenience.
As repeated many times they are NOT in the exact same situation. They have the exact same game back (and may even be reimbursed postage when this is suggested). But that does not make the situation the same.
Repeating the same false statement does not make it true.

it is a simple matter of fact that these two situations are exactly the same in all meaningful ways:

a) Before the (failed) trade, the 'aggrieved party has a copy of GAMEA and has not paid out any money for postage

b) After the 'settlement' the 'aggrieved party has a copy of GAMEA and has received a refund of any money he paid for postage

The two situations are unarguably identical in all meaningful ways (ok, there's been a bit of annoyance and inconvenience).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Dales
United Kingdom
Nr. Goole
East Yorkshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
davymast wrote:
dwrecks wrote:
obvious solution:


I think the only thing that's obvious from this discussion is that no solution is obvious to everyone. :D

I agree that items should be insured to their full value. In my view traders should be re-imbrused for the item they were due to receive, not the item they traded away. Yes, it's a trade loop, but other than that the lost item has nothing to do with the item that was traded, and certainly not from an insurance perspective.


I think the bit I've bolded is absolutely key. The onus is on the sender to replace the missing game, or if that is not possible, come to some mutual agreement as to what would be suitable recompense. The game that the intended recipient sent on to someone else has absolutely no relevance here.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sa266 wrote:
It's not always the sender at fault. Sometimes the receiver can be unreasonable too, and refuse to accept a reasonable solution that has been offered.

I know this has been heavily discussed this month, because someone put the issue on the discussion thread rather than just mailing me privately, but this is not a "new" issue - almost every MathTrade at least one thing goes wrong behind the scenes (sometimes as many as half a dozen) and I am emailed and asked to mediate, or sometimes just for advice ("This has happened, is it ok if I do this?") - not to mention ones I don't hear about where people sort it out themselves. I'm pretty sure all enoon's list of solutions have been used at one or more point in time, but not every case is the same, and so there is not a one-case-fits all solution. Quite often a cash payment is used instead of a game (particularly for out-of-print/hard to replace games, or in the case of missing pieces or damage to the game in transit), and this is most commonly where I'm asked to step in and mediate, as the two people can't agree on a "value" for the lost/missing/damaged item.


I find this to be a perfect description of how the matter should be (and clearly is) handled.

Sorted. Interesting discussion nonetheless.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rob Dales wrote:
davymast wrote:
dwrecks wrote:
obvious solution:


I think the only thing that's obvious from this discussion is that no solution is obvious to everyone.

I agree that items should be insured to their full value. In my view traders should be re-imbrused for the item they were due to receive, not the item they traded away. Yes, it's a trade loop, but other than that the lost item has nothing to do with the item that was traded, and certainly not from an insurance perspective.


I think the bit I've bolded is absolutely key. The onus is on the sender to replace the missing game, or if that is not possible, could to some mutual agreement as to what would be suitable recompense. The game that the intended recipient sent on to someone else has absolutely no relevance here.
Except in the sense that replacing the game the intended recipient sent out and paying his postage costs puts him back in exactly the position he was in before the unfortunate event took place. No harm, no foul.

Rob Dales wrote:
and certainly not from an insurance perspective
The basic premise of insurance is to put the harmed party back in the sme position s/he was in before the insurable event (or provide some alternatively defined compensation if that is not possible).

The bit in italics cannot be read as if the party would prefer not to be put back in the same position s/he was in before the insurable event. Restitution to the status quo ante is the default "insurance" position.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Dales
United Kingdom
Nr. Goole
East Yorkshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
Except in the sense that replacing the game the intended recipient sent out and paying his postage costs puts him back in exactly the position he was in before the unfortunate event took place. No harm, no foul.


Except that the goal isn't to put the intended recipient back to the starting position, it's to move him forward to the end position, ie. in receipt of a game he wanted as a result of the trade. The sender has only the responsibility to make sure the recipient gets the game they expected (or suitable recompense), and nothing more. The game (or cash, or whatever) the intended recipient sent out has no bearing.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rob Dales wrote:
enoon wrote:
Except in the sense that replacing the game the intended recipient sent out and paying his postage costs puts him back in exactly the position he was in before the unfortunate event took place. No harm, no foul.


Except that the goal isn't to put the intended recipient back to the starting position, it's to move him forward to the endposition,
No it isn't*. Well, yes it is: it's the starting point without question; tt might be the end result, it should be; but if it can't be then it can't be and the default (as in final destination without the need of third party intervention) is restitution as I have written.

If no other solution is possible (without third-party intervention) except this "solution of last resort"** then it is at least a fair solution no-one will have lost out, except in the 3-2-1 sense of "look what you might have had".

*The goal is to find a fair solution.

** it's the end point***, if no other solution has been agreeable to both parties; it is NOT the starting point. It has the virtue of at least kleving the 'aggrieved party' in the same position as he was before. He might not like that, but he has not lost out.

*** yes, yes, yes; there may be some rare cases when even this is not possible. Then there does need to be a third party arbitration having exhausted all the possibilities that are amenable to definition as rules or guidelines.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Dales
United Kingdom
Nr. Goole
East Yorkshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I can't help but think that you're making this far more complicated than it needs to be.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Churchill
United Kingdom
Essex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the starting point of the loss is the game the recipient was meant to receive.

I worked in insurance (for my sins) for 25 years and insurance is designed to put the claimant back in the position they were in immediately before the loss. no better and no worse.

In my mind as soon as Sharon uploads the final results that is a binding contract and the recipient now effectively owns that item and the loss/starting point should be based on the item the recipient was meant to receive so any compensation should be based around this.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
River Song
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
I love my cats!
badge
Spoilers!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bazmondo123 wrote:
I think the starting point of the loss is the game the recipient was meant to receive.

I worked in insurance (for my sins) for 25 years and insurance is designed to put the claimant back in the position they were in immediately before the loss. no better and no worse.

In my mind as soon as Sharon uploads the final results that is a binding contract and the recipient now effectively owns that item and the loss/starting point should be based on the item the recipient was meant to receive so any compensation should be based around this.

Thank you, Barry, for such a clear and concise summary, which makes perfect sense.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Churchill
United Kingdom
Essex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Riversong1 wrote:
Bazmondo123 wrote:
I think the starting point of the loss is the game the recipient was meant to receive.

I worked in insurance (for my sins) for 25 years and insurance is designed to put the claimant back in the position they were in immediately before the loss. no better and no worse.

In my mind as soon as Sharon uploads the final results that is a binding contract and the recipient now effectively owns that item and the loss/starting point should be based on the item the recipient was meant to receive so any compensation should be based around this.

Thank you, Barry, for such a clear and concise summary, which makes perfect sense.


Funnily enough, I was talking to a friend that used to own a Lloyds syndicate about this interesting situation and his view was that the Math Trade was just a series of promises of people giving other people a game for nothing in return and each promise is entirely separate from the other.

Therefore unlike a normal trade which is an agreement between two individuals, in a Math Trade what the recipient is sending has no relationship to what they are receiving. i.e If for some reason someone changed their mind and decided not to send a game, the recipient of that game would have no right not to send their game out.

His view was that each Math Trade agreement/promise is only connected by an algorithm and nothing else.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Challis
United Kingdom
Hungerford
West Berkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bazmondo123 wrote:
[
Funnily enough, I was talking to a friend that used to own a Lloyds syndicate about this interesting situation and his view was that the Math Trade was just a series of promises of people giving other people a game for nothing in return and each promise is entirely separate from the other.

Therefore unlike a normal trade which is an agreement between two individuals, in a Math Trade what the recipient is sending has no relationship to what they are receiving. i.e If for some reason someone changed their mind and decided not to send a game, the recipient of that game would have no right not to send their game out.

His view was that each Math Trade agreement/promise is only connected by an algorithm and nothing else.


Legally I'm sure he's right.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
enoon wrote:
davymast wrote:
I agree that items should be insured to their full value. In my view traders should be re-imbrused for the item they were due to receive, not the item they traded away. Yes, it's a trade loop, but other than that the lost item has nothing to do with the item that was traded, and certainly not from an insurance perspective..
Even 3) (which seems to curry disfavour) puts the aggrieved party back in exactly the situation he was before the trade took place, and therefore he has suffered no harm except annoyance and inconvenience.
As repeated many times they are NOT in the exact same situation. They have the exact same game back (and may even be reimbursed postage when this is suggested). But that does not make the situation the same.
Repeating the same false statement does not make it true.

it is a simple matter of fact that these two situations are exactly the same in all meaningful ways:

a) Before the (failed) trade, the 'aggrieved party has a copy of GAMEA and has not paid out any money for postage

b) After the 'settlement' the 'aggrieved party has a copy of GAMEA and has received a refund of any money he paid for postage

The two situations are unarguably identical in all meaningful ways (ok, there's been a bit of annoyance and inconvenience).


Hilariously poor use of language. Clearly it is arguable. It's already been explained to you more than once that having the same 'things' back is not the same as being in the same situation. You can choose not to recognise that, but this is NOT false and is certainly arguable.

I buy an apple. Keep it a week, then take it back to the shop. They are getting the same apple back, but they are NOT in the same situation. Just that the apple is a week older is different, but also prices of apples could have changed, perhaps apples were all wiped out by a plague and it's the rarest fruit on earth. Or perhaps all other fruits have been wiped out and it's so common it's near worthless.

The simple fact the item is being replaced after a longer period (2 months/3 months or whatever) just makes the situation harder since the situation could have changed more than replacing after a week. Yes, these are extremes, although you didn't seem to understand less obvious examples. Regardless of the case (and again we are talking possible examples not a particular case); having the same things back <> exact same situation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17  | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.