Recommend
11 
 Thumb up
 Hide
417 Posts
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [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]
Jon Bradford
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
davymast wrote:
legotortoise wrote:
Sorry making sure I understand this right, I’m currently listing Kodama Kickstarter edition in the hopes of getting second edition for it. I’ve listed it this way in a few previous maths trades so it’s never caused issue. Would this be considered arbitrage by that definition? I’m trying to get the second edition because it’s got a bigger box and the Kickstarter edition doesn’t have room to sleeve all the cards which I want to do because I love the game. If it’s arbitrage I can take it down though


Ultimately up to the moderator, but my understanding is that yes it would. I was removed from the Feb maths trade because I attempted to trade Hanamikoji (German edition) for Hanamikoji (English edition). Like for you, this was about the box for me -- I prefer the box of the English edition.
That should never have been described as arbitrage. Arbitrage is - simply speaking - getting something for nothing. Swapping a language edition or a version is not getting something for nothing. Still, like you say in the end it's up to the moderator to interpret and implement their own rules. It's a shame you were removed from the trade for doing what many would regard as something perfectly legitimate. I guess you got trampled by the horde.


The trouble is, there has to be a line somewhere, I can see the argument regarding one language version for another when both sides are happy with the new language (English -> German, German -> English) but (at least IMO) trading the "Standard" version of a game, for the "Deluxe" version of a game (replace Deluxe with KS, Limited edition, etc.) constitutes something for nothing, I had X, now I have X+Y.

I think the Game for Game + Expansion case makes it even more obvious that this is arbitrage, you are gaining the expansion whilst losing nothing.

It would be a nightmare for anyone to have to moderate all the lists to check for different cases, especially because languages are often only specified in the description, not codified in any way, so it seems like the only sensible approach is to ban all instances of trading the same game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
askgar wrote:
I think the Game for Game + Expansion case makes it even more obvious that this is arbitrage, you are gaining the expansion whilst losing nothing.
I agree 100% - that's what arbitrage is.
askgar wrote:
It would be a nightmare for anyone to have to moderate all the lists to check for different cases
Not really - how often does it happen? Very infrequently. Checking these infrequent instances is far preferable to bending the definition of arbitrage until it breaks.
askgar wrote:
so it seems like the only sensible approach is to ban all instances of trading the same game.
It's a 'conveniently easy' approach, not necessarily a sensible one. Surely as gamers most of us are used to poring over the minutiae of rulebooks so it isn't outside our skill-set to click on a link or two once in a while (if we care very much about these edge cases; I don't) to see if the rule has been broken.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
askgar wrote:
so it seems like the only sensible approach is to ban all instances of trading the same game.
It's a 'conveniently easy' approach, not necessarily a sensible one. Surely as gamers most of us are used to poring over the minutiae of rulebooks so it isn't outside our skill-set to click on a link or two once in a while (if we care very much about these edge cases; I don't) to see if the rule has been broken.
The current rule on arbitrage anyway does not prohibit the exchange of equivalent versions (where there are only language or artwork differences, for example-
wrote:
Money and geekgold arbitrage are strictly prohibited (you are not allowed to try to trade your £20 for someone else’s £30). Doing this will cause you to be banned from the next UK MathTrade. Similarly you are not allowed to trade a game for a "better" version of the same game.
Given that one language version cannot be said to be "better than" another (both people simply prefer one or other version) it seems perfectly acceptable to make this trade. One could argue similarly about different artwork: for example, I own 3 x different versions of Medici - each of them has its own merit in terms of artwork and components (none of them is perfect!) but none of them could be aid to be objectively better than another.

Similarly there is much debate between players of 'Steam' type games about whether discs or train meeples are better: there are strong preferences expressed, but there is absolutely no consensus about either component being objectively better.


Here is the much more explicit and yet understandable definition of arbitrage used in the European Maths trade:
wrote:
Also, please avoid offering an exact subset of the item you are asking (do not try to trade your agricola for agricola + sweetener).
The above rule has nothing to do with the values of the items - you may trade a low value for a high value item, as long as it is not exactly contained in the bundle you are asking.
I commend it for consideration.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
enoon wrote:
askgar wrote:
so it seems like the only sensible approach is to ban all instances of trading the same game.
It's a 'conveniently easy' approach, not necessarily a sensible one. Surely as gamers most of us are used to poring over the minutiae of rulebooks so it isn't outside our skill-set to click on a link or two once in a while (if we care very much about these edge cases; I don't) to see if the rule has been broken.
The current rule on arbitrage anyway does not prohibit the exchange of equivalent versions (where there are only language or artwork differences, for example-
wrote:
Money and geekgold arbitrage are strictly prohibited (you are not allowed to try to trade your £20 for someone else’s £30). Doing this will cause you to be banned from the next UK MathTrade. Similarly you are not allowed to trade a game for a "better" version of the same game.
Given that one language version cannot be said to be "better than" another (both people simply prefer one or other version) it seems perfectly acceptable to make this trade. One could argue similarly about different artwork: for example, I own 3 x different versions of Medici - each of them has its own merit in terms of artwork and components (none of them is perfect!) but none of them could be aid to be objectively better than another.

Similarly there is much debate between players of 'Steam' type games about whether discs or train meeples are better: there are strong preferences expressed, but there is absolutely no consensus about either component being objectively better.


Here is the much more explicit and yet understandable definition of arbitrage used in the European Maths trade:
wrote:
Also, please avoid offering an exact subset of the item you are asking (do not try to trade your agricola for agricola + sweetener).
The above rule has nothing to do with the values of the items - you may trade a low value for a high value item, as long as it is not exactly contained in the bundle you are asking.
I commend it for consideration.


We discussed this all 2 months ago. I'm sorry you missed the discussion. Lots of people brought up the two main reasons why it is better not to allow (difficult to fairly police and it CAN be used as a way to game the system). A decision was made then. It's time to move on.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MC Crispy
United Kingdom
Basingstoke
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Can somebody explain to me how it is possible to Trade X for Y without both parties indicating that they want to make that exchange?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Bradford
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mccrispy wrote:
Can somebody explain to me how it is possible to Trade X for Y without both parties indicating that they want to make that exchange?


In a Math trade user A doesn't trade with user B directly (usually), what actually happens is a "chain" of trades, (e.g. A -> B -> C -> D -> A) where each send (e.g. A->B) was a happy trade.

It is possible for A -> B -> A to happen if both sides of the trades would be happy with it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
We discussed this all 2 months ago. I'm sorry you missed the discussion. Lots of people brought up the two main reasons why it is better not to allow (difficult to fairly police and it CAN be used as a way to game the system). A decision was made then. It's time to move on.
I wonder how exhaustive the discussion was and what sort of "people's vote" was facilitated? There's an awful lot of discussion in the real world these days about how decisions can be reviewed .... especially when people get to understand the nuances ...

It looks like there are a few people who want to discuss it further ...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mccrispy wrote:
Can somebody explain to me how it is possible to Trade X for Y without both parties indicating that they want to make that exchange?
No; no-one can. But you knew that: you make the point well.

There are 'arbitrage hunters' out there who don't understand what arbitrage is, nor why it is unpopular or unwelcome ... but they must denounce it even if they have not been affected (and no-one else has been either).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
askgar wrote:
mccrispy wrote:
Can somebody explain to me how it is possible to Trade X for Y without both parties indicating that they want to make that exchange?


In a Math trade user A doesn't trade with user B directly (usually), what actually happens is a "chain" of trades, (e.g. A -> B -> C -> D -> A) where each send (e.g. A->B) was a happy trade.

It is possible for A -> B -> A to happen if both sides of the trades would be happy with it.
But even in your first example, everyone was happy with the trade they made - except for the arbitrage hunters who would denounce A receiving a German language version from D of the English language version they sent to B. None of the traders would be unhappy, yet it seems that A would be removed from the trade and the trade re-run.

Baffling - especially if A is a native German speaker living in the UK who'd like to play the game with his German-speaking family now he's learned it on his English copy. That's not EU friendly!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MC Crispy
United Kingdom
Basingstoke
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
askgar wrote:
mccrispy wrote:
Can somebody explain to me how it is possible to Trade X for Y without both parties indicating that they want to make that exchange?


In a Math trade user A doesn't trade with user B directly (usually), what actually happens is a "chain" of trades, (e.g. A -> B -> C -> D -> A) where each send (e.g. A->B) was a happy trade.

It is possible for A -> B -> A to happen if both sides of the trades would be happy with it.
yes, but in all cases every participant said "I want to receive X for Y". Even in an indirect chain everyone has to be receiving the game they wanted in exchange for the game they are surrendering. That's what the OLWLG tool does - it allows participants to set up lists of "as long as I receive X, I am prepared to surrender Y". You never receive something that you didn't explicitly request and you don't surrender anything that you didn't explicitly indicate that you considered a fair exchange.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trevor Taylor
United Kingdom
FARINGDON
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
negatrev wrote:
We discussed this all 2 months ago. I'm sorry you missed the discussion. Lots of people brought up the two main reasons why it is better not to allow (difficult to fairly police and it CAN be used as a way to game the system). A decision was made then. It's time to move on.
I wonder how exhaustive the discussion was and what sort of "people's vote" was facilitated? There's an awful lot of discussion in the real world these days about how decisions can be reviewed .... especially when people get to understand the nuances ...

It looks like there are a few people who want to discuss it further ...


I'm afraid if you turn up 2 months late for a debate, you don't get to demand that people have the same discussion all over again. If you want, go back to the previous discussion thread and read it all. But again, it's done. Move on.

P.S. Comparing it to 'other' situations is stupid. Nothing has changed in the situation at all since the decision was made. No promises made were failed to be met. It's not been 2 years either, just 2 months.
 
 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:

Baffling - especially if A is a native German speaker living in the UK who'd like to play the game with his German-speaking family now he's learned it on his English copy. That's not EU friendly!


As has been said, this discussion happened last month, in depth, and I would prefer the discussion thread not be clogged up with another long discussion on it. I will summarise my position for you, as you seem to have missed it, but I will not be discussing responses to this:

The cases I banned last month were:
German edition for English edition - most British users would consider that an upgrade
Basic edition for a deluxe edition - most users would consider that an upgrade.

I have in the past allowed an English edition to go for a foreign language edition of similar condition, as most British users would consider that a downgrade.

My reasoning for the game arbitrage ban is:
Any trade of a game for a same game will automatically ALWAYS get included in the trade loops, as it increases the number of trades which is what the algorithm looks for. Hence people upgrading their editions means that everyone else is automatically only given the option of the inferior edition, as that trade will always go through as long as the game itself trades. This effectively results in them upgrading for nothing (ok, actually the price of postage, but in most cases the upgrade is worth more than that). As this can be gamed by people putting up inferior versions of a game as soon as they see a better copy in the trade, it is not allowed. It's not a "new" rule, I'm working to the same rules that came from the European MathTrade discussion years ago that created their wording you quoted, but it hasn't come up recently other than for cash (with the new auto-tick box coming in, and catching people out).
8 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sa266 wrote:
As has been said, this discussion happened last month, in depth, and I would prefer the discussion thread not be clogged up with another long discussion on it. I will summarise my position for you, as you seem to have missed it, but I will not be discussing responses to this:
You needn't participate in the discussion if you don't want to, but it seems there are a few people who do wish to use this discussion thread to ... errr .. discuss the matter further.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sa266 wrote:
It's not a "new" rule, I'm working to the same rules that came from the European MathTrade discussion years ago that created their wording you quoted
I think not: that rule explicitly does NOT prohibit the exchange of language versions*. You have created your own interpretation and variant of that rule. Of course, as Moderator you can do that. People may, however, wish to discuss that variant as time goes on.

* You may ask Dimitris to confirm that if you do not wish to accept my assertion on this point.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
negatrev wrote:
I'm afraid if you turn up 2 months late for a debate, you don't get to demand that people have the same discussion all over again. If you want, go back to the previous discussion thread and read it all. But again, it's done. Move on.
I'm not demanding that anyone have a discussion; it seems however that one is happening whether you like it or not. Join in or move on, it's all the same to me.

negatrev wrote:
P.S. Comparing it to 'other' situations is stupid. Nothing has changed in the situation at all since the decision was made. No promises made were failed to be met. It's not been 2 years either, just 2 months.
If a decision was flawed two months ago it's still flawed today. That doesn't mean the decision doesn't still stand, just that it is flawed. A flawed decision will always be open to discussion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Bradford
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
askgar wrote:
mccrispy wrote:
Can somebody explain to me how it is possible to Trade X for Y without both parties indicating that they want to make that exchange?


In a Math trade user A doesn't trade with user B directly (usually), what actually happens is a "chain" of trades, (e.g. A -> B -> C -> D -> A) where each send (e.g. A->B) was a happy trade.

It is possible for A -> B -> A to happen if both sides of the trades would be happy with it.
But even in your first example, everyone was happy with the trade they made - except for the arbitrage hunters who would denounce A receiving a German language version from D of the English language version they sent to B. None of the traders would be unhappy, yet it seems that A would be removed from the trade and the trade re-run.

Baffling - especially if A is a native German speaker living in the UK who'd like to play the game with his German-speaking family now he's learned it on his English copy. That's not EU friendly!


This reply was to a very specific question that I deemed not to be about arbitrage (due to it not having a quote relating to the previous conversation) and being very similar to a question I've seen asked from beginners to an MT, I assumed it to be the case here. I was not intending to continue any conversation about arbitrage. I will not be replying further on the topic now.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mat FR
United Kingdom
Oxford
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
enoon wrote:
it seems there are a few people who do wish to use this discussion thread to ... errr .. discuss the matter further.


This discussion thread is for the UK Maths Trade April 2019. The rules regarding said math trade have been made very clear. This is clearly now not the place for the on-going discussion.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
matfr wrote:
enoon wrote:
it seems there are a few people who do wish to use this discussion thread to ... errr .. discuss the matter further.


This discussion thread is for the UK Maths Trade April 2019. The rules regarding said math trade have been made very clear. This is clearly now not the place for the on-going discussion.
I can't think of anywhere better to discuss the rules of the currently-running trade.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lewis Holt
United Kingdom
Great Torrington
Devon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sa266 wrote:

Create an altname tag saying "bundle of games", or similar. Use the altname +/- tags either side of whatever wording you want to use as the title of your bundle.

Otherwise when people add the bundle to their wantlist they won't be able to see clearly in stage 4 what they've selected.


Many thanks, I'll amend the entry before the end date.

.. .. Looks up at the rest of the thread.. , and I think it's time to unsubscribe.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Danil Potemkin
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Anyone advise re putting a played copy of Charterstone up for trade? It’s been played once, so still replayable with a recharge pack (but that’s not included in my trade). What’s the best way to put this up? Think someone might be interested in a trade, but don’t want traders to mistakenly assume it’d be a new copy...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fillipe Diniz
United Kingdom
london
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
legotortoise wrote:
Sorry making sure I understand this right, I’m currently listing Kodama Kickstarter edition in the hopes of getting second edition for it. I’ve listed it this way in a few previous maths trades so it’s never caused issue. Would this be considered arbitrage by that definition? I’m trying to get the second edition because it’s got a bigger box and the Kickstarter edition doesn’t have room to sleeve all the cards which I want to do because I love the game. If it’s arbitrage I can take it down though


This is not allowed, and it created a whole mess at the last math trade with many re-runs and people getting excluded. I'd advise against trying.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexis Massos-Gomez
United Kingdom
Harrow
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You can always just try to get the version you're after in this trade and then just move on the one you don't want next time or on the geekmarket etc.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Smith
United Kingdom
Sheffield
South Yorkshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
enoon wrote:
matfr wrote:
enoon wrote:
it seems there are a few people who do wish to use this discussion thread to ... errr .. discuss the matter further.


This discussion thread is for the UK Maths Trade April 2019. The rules regarding said math trade have been made very clear. This is clearly now not the place for the on-going discussion.
I can't think of anywhere better to discuss the rules of the currently-running trade.


I can. In your own thread, away from the current discussion of the April math trade.

That way you can avoid digging up issues that were settled two months ago and conveniently also avoid going against the very polite request of the trade organiser. You know, the person that puts this all together six times a year as a favour to the UK community.

If, having taken the time to try and empathise with those who may not want to rehash this, and having chosen to disregard the rules imposed by the trade organiser, you think your opinions give you the right to hijack this thread to run this debate again, then go ahead and live your best life.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Hinckley
Leics
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ramon_Salazar wrote:
enoon wrote:
matfr wrote:
enoon wrote:
it seems there are a few people who do wish to use this discussion thread to ... errr .. discuss the matter further.
This discussion thread is for the UK Maths Trade April 2019. The rules regarding said math trade have been made very clear. This is clearly now not the place for the on-going discussion.
I can't think of anywhere better to discuss the rules of the currently-running trade.
I can. In your own thread, away from the current discussion of the April math trade.
But the discussion (which I had thought had all but concluded until you popped by to add you contribution) is relevant to the extant trade and its rules.
Ramon_Salazar wrote:
That way you can avoid digging up issues that were settled two months ago
Settled No. Otherwise they wouldn't be being discussed again.
Ramon_Salazar wrote:
and conveniently also avoid going against the very polite request of the trade organiser.
She can request anything she likes, politely or otherwise; I can choose to ignore her request, politely or otherwise.
Ramon_Salazar wrote:
You know, the person that puts this all together six times a year as a favour to the UK community.
I have always regarded the Trade Organiser as the servant of the trading community, not someone dispensing favours from on high. I worship at no altar. Trade Organisers come and go. Of course their efforts are appreciated, but they must hold themselves transparently accountable to the community they serve. If they are uncomfortable with that, they need to move on.
Ramon_Salazar wrote:
If, having taken the time to try and empathise with those who may not want to rehash this, and having chosen to disregard the rules imposed by the trade organiser, you think your opinions give you the right to hijack this thread to run this debate again, then go ahead and live your best life.
Goodness me: if folks don't want to join the discussion they don't have to; if they don't want to read what I write then it is easy enough for them to create their own "safe space" in which I am not present. I do not disregard the rules imposed by the trade organiser - I simply find them flawed. I must abide by them, but I am free to challenge them.

I do indeed think my opinions give me the right to voice them, but I'm not sure how its possible to "hijack" a thread by discussing the rules of the extant trade when the Moderator opens the thread with
Quote:
This thread is for discussion of everything relating to the Uk Maths Trade April 2019. Please keep things friendly.
If you need a safe space to be comfortable - there is a way to avoid seeing opinions that trouble you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil McIntyre
United Kingdom
Chesterfield
Derbyshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I wonder, could we widen the definition of arbitrage to include the trading of sensible and insensible contributions to the discussion thread?

It might solve one of the problems we appear to be experiencing today.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [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.