#Collaboration vs Cooperation

1 messages · Page 2 of 1

brittle kindle
#

it is. now imagine you are fresh to the server and you have decided, since you're new to the game perhaps, that you want to mine and earn some coin to build yourself a nice house. imagine what you can do against the "fair market value" rocks

dusty tree
#

In referance to "fair price" is fair market price. Your stones are not part of the rock market persay. you cleared 100 rocks... ive cleared 20k this week

jagged jackal
#

Personally, I'm a perponant of supply & demand based pricing, but this absolutely does play a part in an assessment of fair. It's of course subject, however it's which factors you apply

remote epoch
#

By absurd if everyone would DM'ed me will be still collab, because I will not be able to check all my DMs, so there are people which would still be at disadvantage

dusty tree
remote epoch
jagged jackal
#

So, In this situation, have you done anything that you would do only specifically for me, and not anyone else? In my case, do I need to wait for player B to come online before I engage in a trade with player A?

jagged jackal
dusty tree
brittle kindle
dusty tree
dusty tree
remote epoch
jagged jackal
dusty tree
#

I do want to make myself clear here, i am making arguments based on where i think a healthier server state would be.

dusty tree
jagged jackal
remote epoch
jagged jackal
brittle kindle
jagged jackal
#

It doesn't make sense. I broke down the parts of the argument and took them to the extreme to show where the problem of the argument is

raven walrus
#

In the everyone DMs you case - that’s general chat - it’s available to everyone - so treat general chat as the everyone case

remote epoch
raven walrus
remote epoch
jagged jackal
brittle kindle
#

fair item price (whatever your definition might be) * 4 is possible and people will buy it. why? because there are times it's impossible to challenge a set value.

jagged jackal
dusty tree
jagged jackal
brittle kindle
raven walrus
jagged jackal
jagged jackal
brittle kindle
raven walrus
brittle kindle
#

whatever the definition is

raven walrus
#

Different play styles regardless of the label

brittle kindle
#

because that is what we are discussing here. preferred playstyles compared to others and based on preferred playstyle decide what is fair or not.

raven walrus
#

Right but you are arguing to eliminate one to make it fair for the other - rather than they coexist

brittle kindle
#

that is not an argument i made

raven walrus
#

No collab - active play is collab is definitely the argument made

dusty tree
raven walrus
#

Maybe not by you but by the proposal

jagged jackal
brittle kindle
jagged jackal
raven walrus
#

I wouldn’t say active is necessarily hardcore but if you wanna work in those terms sure - it’s saying make hardcore play style illegal

#

I would say hard core is no life play - online 90% of the time, min max type

dusty tree
#

And most of their income is via the gov

remote epoch
jagged jackal
raven walrus
jagged jackal
raven walrus
#

I actually don’t want to collab but I don’t want to sit on my thumbs waiting on passive sales either

brittle kindle
#

fair and unfair is exactly what we are talking about as this is in the eco context

remote epoch
dusty tree
#

should fair vs unfair be part of what is legal vs non legal?

raven walrus
#

And as I don’t see business relationships as collab - I don’t think what I want to do is “wanting collab”

brittle kindle
restive olive
#

Rule

brittle kindle
#

to toss in between. i hope nobody feels they are being targetted personally. if so please say so

#

i don't want anyone to feel bad

jagged jackal
remote epoch
dusty tree
# brittle kindle thats is how the current law came to be

which is why i brought it up, this kind of price guging past a cost index should be outlawed altogether. Having a way to determine a cost index in game would do amazing things to help bring the econ into a more fair and legal state. Something likeover the last 24 hours the average price of was x euro, It would be considered unlawful to sell above or below that threshold by a % tbd.

jagged jackal
#

So, I'm going to share an opinion.... The government had a responsibility to act fairly towards all citizens. Private citizens have a duty to not discriminate against any or all citizens, but not an inherent responsibly. They should do so, but not necessarily "must".

brittle kindle
#

sadly i have to leave the discussion. my cat came to tell me we're past bed time. i enjoyed the discussion ❤️

remote epoch
dusty tree
#

esp when it is a good that is sold hundreds of times

jagged jackal
#

So, break this down for me. Is privately messaging a potential supplier or customer regarding a trade, with no further context considered Legal, or Illegal?

dusty tree
jagged jackal
#

Thumbs up for Legal, on that statement, thumbs down for illegal.

dapper depot
#

Can't sleep

remote epoch
dapper depot
# remote epoch True. And I would say this is the only server which *has a rule* on collaboratio...

First it needs to be said that the collaboration rule would only loose the extended interpretation, people that wish to share deeds, property or workforce would still be subject to company as per usual.

I'd like to see if the people in here can find a compromise on things. But something we could also do is to have less of a rule, but more of a spirit we desire:

Players are expected to treat all players equally regardless of their personal relationship and should strive to proactively offer their deals to everyone - they may not limit access to their business to specific players or offer preferential treatment or special prices without reasonable business grounds available to everyone equally.

#

But with that I will try to sleep.

raven walrus
# remote epoch True. And I would say this is the only server which *has a rule* on collaboratio...

But that excludes other play styles which is discriminatory which is against the spirit of the server also. I get the need to protect the solos and definitely don’t want rampant collab, but your definition is not the common dictionary definition and is not written down. Admittedly - I didn’t know it was a rule interpreted (particularly to business relationships) as a newer player. The rule states no collab except in company. I do not see myself as collabing with anyone. I am also a solo player, but I engage with the economy differently than you. I only found out recently in this discussion that that was “against the interpreted spirit of the rule”. I do not think it is fair to say that is against my white tiger and you should go play on other official servers. I do not want to play on other official servers as I like my white tiger. And no I am not taking it personally - just trying to make the argument that different people get different things out of their game and want different experiences. So I would seek a compromise solution over an outright ban on the play style that I and many others enjoy

dapper depot
#

Eh, we do kinda use our own definitions:
Collaboration - Working on a common goal
Cooperation - Helping someone with their goal

raven walrus
dapper depot
#

My go to examples:

  • If you are interested and profiting off a good outcome both, you are collaborating. You and your friend working on your university project you both will be graded for is collaboration.
  • If that is not the case, you are cooperating, like helping your brother do his homework so he gets a good grade, but it doesnt do anything for you other than that you like your brother and want him to succeed or find the topic interesting.
raven walrus
#

I used an example earlier - a business relationship between a furniture seller and furniture buyer is not collab because there is no common goal - the buyers goal is to increase housing value. The sellers goal is to make a profit. This is not collab, even if privately arranged. It would be collab if they lived together or made a hotel together

dapper depot
#

But that means that behaviour where both people profit due to acting together is collaboration, which fits every trade mentioned here.

junior birch
#

Are donations cooperation if the person donating has nothing to gain from it

restive olive
#

donations are kind of a no go here 😐

dapper depot
#

Donations on WT is the term for gifts towards government, in private usage it's called gifting.

#

The latter is fine, the first is prohibited since two cycles.

dapper depot
#

Then it's a trade.

#

Just because minecraft server admins don't get that, doesn't mean they are right

dapper depot
#

The four people reported are obviously collaborating as per the definition i have given, as they are actively trying to give everyone of them a mutually good place in economy through supporting each other as a group via voice chat. They all support each other to have the best state possible together. Because they are friends.

#

The same happens in towns, though.

raven walrus
dapper depot
#

And a company.

#

And those four people with neither

raven walrus
#

My question is - is it exclusive? Or is that town open to retail traffic - can other people buy and sell there?

dapper depot
#

It's also when two people simply want to work on a ... glass maze they are both interested in and consider "their work".

#

That is the case where GM's can suspend the rule on request.

#

Or it can be done as government work, where the rule doesnt apply.

dapper depot
#

E.g. a solo player.

#

Probably most often all it would take them is also getting into a group.

raven walrus
#

Could a stranger join the town and be equally supported and included? Or is it solely the condition of their friendship

dapper depot
#

But there was this kind of utopian thing where this local grouping wasn't a thing and everyone was equal.

#

But v10 of the game clearly went a different direction.

#

The thing is that i very rarely in vanilla see solos (willing to) grouping

#

Like they are basically: I should be able to be the same without needing to group.

#

And that is their valid expectation.

#

There is tons of difficulties involved - I know Eco is played by a lot of players that are shy, do not really want to deal with others in socializing or have other "issues".

raven walrus
#

I don’t have much if any experience with vanilla as I like really populated servers which of course I naturally gravitate to WT with that

dapper depot
#

WT always wanted to be a place where people can also just play along and have a good time.

#

But I honestly can't assess how much that would actually change if the rule was changed.

#

People outright sharing will still be confined to their company

raven walrus
#

Right but the interpretation is not known - I had no clue and I actively look at the documents with the rules and laws. But no one reported me or sued me or anything because I never did anything “unfair”. There are probably lots of people that engage in the practice that would otherwise be considered a no no under the interpretation but it goes unnoticed

#

I wouldn’t say it’s fair to hold people to a rule that is not written - or clearly written to define its intent.

raven walrus
dapper depot
#

Literally needs no debating, as in the OP I already admitted you are correct 😄

raven walrus
#

Hehe I know I realize that sorry

dapper depot
raven walrus
#

But I’m also advocating for a better definition that doesn’t eliminate my play style :p

dapper depot
#

I have no interest in limiting peoples ability to play interactively and would find a solely passive economy absolutely boring as well. I do also have no interest in solos loosing protections they had without balancing by something else, though.

#

Just like with UBI, if we cannot help with limitations, we may need to with buffs.

raven walrus
dapper depot
#

In the end we always had the point of noone can be forced into grouping or specific activities here, but to compete they may at that point would have to. So I need to think of something else.

#

I love the hermits just playing along and having fun.

#

Would be sad if they'd no longer.

#

But again, I'm not sure how much actual gameplay balance effect it would even have - in the end it may as well only lead to political / opinion disagreements but little actual negative effect.

midnight parcel
#

Ok... I have been holding back for long, because did not want to get into this rabbit hole 😄 but after 1100+ messages... let me have my portion... 😄

Personally, I think that while the current law is not perfect, it is better than pretty much everything what was suggested here, which I believe would lead into even more bad blood.

To switch to passive trading only is a pipe dream, which especially for some professions, is not really possible.
Last two runs I have been Eng+Mech+Ind+Ele, once you get into Ind+Ele, your main income is from pre-orders, because you cant just craft a skid/exca/IGs, without having a pre-order, invest huge summ of money and just HOPE that it is going to sell.

And at the same time, my main work was to buzz smelters and miners to put enough bars on the market, so we can progress.
Now, since I was the one buzzing them to put something on the market, clearly I was the one having an advantage of knowing who is actually going to put some bars on the market.

Now would that be considered collab? Yes? No?
For me, as far as it is traded for a market price, it should not be collab.
I am a crafting profession, I will bother, whoever I need to bother to get me a raw resources, which by default, will give me some advantage if I succeed.

As far as I see it, SOME DM conversation will be always needed, which might and might not get someone advantage, but if it is traded for a fair price and state gets their share of taxes, we should be fine.

And for changing the definition into just simplifying that to "fair" trading, that just opens a can of worms for someone's "head-canon", which will fill in the gaps based on the precedents, without actually having it in the law. I would be always for as clear laws as possible, rather then laws being vague and up to interpretation.

Personally, I do have much bigger issue with donations vs gift, gift should be considered collaboration, plain and simple.
That part of the law is for me much more problematic...

raven walrus
midnight parcel
# raven walrus To be fair, the past/current interpretation is “passive trading only” …. Which a...

Yeah... and to be fair I play WT since the collaboration law has been introduced, that was actually my first WT run, and I DID NOT KNOW that passive trading is the goal of that law.
And I don't think I ever recall someone enforcing it in that way in the court.

For me collab rule was that:

  1. You are in the company if you want to trade/exchange directly
  2. If you are not in the company, you need to use shop with fair market price and do not discriminate people
raven walrus
#

I knew passive stores was a thing for government stores but I thought that was government only

midnight parcel
remote epoch
restive olive
remote epoch
#

Why should I ask? They should be on market

restive olive
#

Hate to say it but stuff like that run the risk of costing someone 1000s of euros. They will make a small amount of by request only most of the time

remote epoch
#

I didn't ask for my tractor, my steam truck, my transport ship...

restive olive
#

all of which dont cost over 12k to make

#

10k+ normally goes into skid just alone when they come out

raven walrus
remote epoch
#

If you really want, you can ask in general chat let's say

midnight parcel
restive olive
#

Still circles back. Whats stopping you from requesting one as well

#

Im sure any player would make a second skid on request. I just dont see them making 2-4 to keep in stock if they dont think it will sell

remote epoch
#

I have didn't yet calculate the price for it (this cycle), but I usually have buy orders for what I want

midnight parcel
remote epoch
#

That's not good

raven walrus
remote epoch
#

You are not offering the same opportunity... Put it on sale and who wants it buys it

restive olive
#

That is normal brother. A basic business practice. Dont make what wont sell.

midnight parcel
raven walrus
#

Or as a producer to actively take inventory of all the global buy orders - it’s too much

remote epoch
#

No

midnight parcel
#

Yes

restive olive
#

Its def weird for players who try to passive trade only expect the benifits of active trading. I get it, it can be hard to get things some times but thats the trade off. People spend time socializing, that shouldnt be shunned

remote epoch
#

You check what is being requested and you make what is requested, otherwise you are discriminating other players

restive olive
#

People requesting something for a price that doesnt work for you wont work

remote epoch
#

And that's collab

restive olive
#

Anyone can request a skid

raven walrus
#

And your passive store requires action from another player - if everyone was passive the economy wouldn’t move

remote epoch
#

Doesn't matter that anyone can request... It's about transparency

#

It's about me being able to buy that product

midnight parcel
remote epoch
#

If you want to discuss and get an economic benefit, then it's collab

raven walrus
#

What economic benefit?

restive olive
midnight parcel
remote epoch
raven walrus
midnight parcel
remote epoch
restive olive
#

Like dude, the cost to make a skid steer is a massive amount, not including the food balance need to keep and the time to takes to make. It takes a lot of effort. People demanding less they the value wont cut it.

midnight parcel
#

even in a real world, some expensive products are only for ORDER, that's how it works

#

not off the shelf

raven walrus
#

I put things in my buy orders just to easily keep track of the price globally - I don’t expect anyone to deliver as it’s not priced correctly for that.

#

I would never expect someone to produce based on my buy order that is just a price tracker

remote epoch
restive olive
#

For you its an asking price. That doesnt mean it will sell for that price. The one selling the good has the final say in a price and demanding that they just sell at what the buyers want at their store is not only insane, its harmful.

midnight parcel
# remote epoch That's the risk you are taking as a crafter

now lets put that theory on the other issue I said which bothers me much more...
because if I craft that skid, where there is 10 buy orders for, but I GIFT it to ONE person...
by the current definition of the rules, that IS ok...

how is gifting ok, but active trading is a collab?

remote epoch
#

Gifting is not ok

raven walrus
#

It is

remote epoch
#

I think it is only to Gov

restive olive
#

gifting is ok

midnight parcel
#

THAT should be changed, and not passive/active trading

raven walrus
midnight parcel
remote epoch
raven walrus
#

“The latter is fine”

midnight parcel
restive olive
#

Private gifting

#

Meaning player to player

#

Gifting to the government is called donations and is NOT allowed

remote epoch
#

It's the other way around

midnight parcel
#

I know it might be hard to believe... but IT IS actually ok

raven walrus
#

Latter means the second item listed

restive olive
# remote epoch It's the other way around

Tear, its not. I was one who actively fought to remove donations as a concept for the government. I was a pretty big deal when they were removed. I hate saying this but I would know.

remote epoch
#

According to this rule, these are prohibited. This is how I read it.

image.png
gaunt lily
#

playing gifting allowed, donating to goverment not allowed

gaunt lily
remote epoch
#

Leaving is an excuse...

gaunt lily
#

well you are allowed to gift just not right before leaving lol

restive olive
remote epoch
#

We are all going to leave on server's reset 😄

midnight parcel
gaunt lily
#

so?

remote epoch
#

And actually it says in the Federal Constitution:

image.png
restive olive
#

Donations are only used in specific cases involving event based cycles

midnight parcel
restive olive
#

in the bast, we had a cycle where we built the Birmingham palace. Donations would be acceptable there

gaunt lily
remote epoch
#

Someone else can be president also Domination victory

restive olive
#

For one cycle and they only really get to change one thing for that cycle

#

Example, Elmeye had federal canals instead of the highway

#

That one change has to be within reason for dennis to agree too

gaunt lily
#

huh

#

no they get both

#

they get a server concept change

#

and the power that the federal president has for one cycle

restive olive
#

Thats expected

gaunt lily
#

thats what it says if it was just 1 concept change then there be no reason be even make them president in the first place.

remote epoch
#

@midnight parcel And also, this making the products available based on a list discriminates other players and according to Federal Law:

image.png
restive olive
#

The reason i didnt say that was to show that you cant just change everything if your get a dom victory. Theres limitations

raven walrus
remote epoch
#

All this things need to be more clear, so that there are not so many discussions on the topic

#

That is discriminatory, unfortunately...

midnight parcel
#

so there is no discimination going on

raven walrus
#

Please explain the discrimination

remote epoch
#

There is... You choose to give the product to a person, without giving the same opportunity to all

#

That's what about this whole discussion/topic is about

midnight parcel
raven walrus
#

the opportunity does not have to be in the same manner that you prefer, just has to be available.

remote epoch
#

No... You are punishing then my playstyle... Maybe I want just to see my mining and buy the stuff from the market without speaking to no one...

#

So you are discriminating

midnight parcel
remote epoch
#

You are discriminating based on my playstyle

#

It is

restive olive
#

No

#

No it’s not

raven walrus
#

It's a choice

remote epoch
#

As discrimination based on town citizenship is prohibited this is also

restive olive
#

That has nothing to do with this topic

remote epoch
#

It has, because this is about collab...

raven walrus
#

It really doesn't, but discrimination would be "you're not allowed to have one because you don't talk to me" - you can still have one, it just will be later when it might be more widely available (MU5 like Krei said)

midnight parcel
raven walrus
#

But the opportunity is available to you as early as everyone else, you just choose not to participate based on preference

remote epoch
#

You can play vanilla then, no collab rules there... As I said earlier also, WT is the only SLG server which protects solo players.

raven walrus
#

You forget, I am also a solo player ChillBar_shrug

restive olive
#

That doesnt mean people are FORCED to interact with you

remote epoch
dusty tree
# dapper depot The latter is fine, the first is prohibited since two cycles.

Doesn't this directly contridict Server rules S2 (4) 1Players may not give up and unclaim their deeds. 2They may also not donate or give away any property when considering or already having decided to leave the server. 3Violation of this rule may incur a warning, in severe cases a temporary ban, and will entail all measures necessary to restore a game state consistent with its intended goal.

restive olive
#

Xaler, key word is leaving

midnight parcel
raven walrus
remote epoch
midnight parcel
restive olive
#

Nvm, dennis is here

dapper depot
dusty tree
raven walrus
dapper depot
remote epoch
raven walrus
midnight parcel
dapper depot
dapper depot
# midnight parcel

Really, you're making a screenshot to split it with explanation, topkek

midnight parcel
raven walrus
#

it was apparently necessary

midnight parcel
raven walrus
dapper depot
#

But yes, the key word is leaving.

dusty tree
#

I guess why are we having a discussion then when gifting is 100% fine

dapper depot
#

And I want people be nice to newbies.

dusty tree
#

i changed my price, the difference is a gift

restive olive
#

you are gaining something from that

#

so its not a gift. Gifts are one sided

#

Me giving someone a truck with no expectation in return

#

Gift

dapper depot
dusty tree
dapper depot
dapper depot
#

As such you cannot evade a tax.

remote epoch
midnight parcel
# dapper depot Gifts are gifts. You get nothing for it, you do it because you are nice.

Yeah, but that is kind of hard to draw the line.
Last cycle we had people gifting scrolls, which in return gave them town citizens with key professions and return in taxes...
And it discriminated other people who had to pay for that scroll to compete on the market.
Gifting and not expecting something in return, is the same kind of utopia as passive trading.

dapper depot
#

Yes, you see correctly that fair market rate is no longer considered tax evasion.

remote epoch
dapper depot
#

I like to think about problems when they appear, so far noone seems to have dared to try that.

dusty tree
#

you are literally saying gifts are ok here, which undermines the entire idea of no co operration

dapper depot
#

But yes, would be fine if you don't have an advantage from it.

raven walrus
# dapper depot I dont think we define "discriminate" in the rules anywhere at all?

Under Basic Rights in the constitution:
"(1)They enjoy freedom of faith, conscience and ideological confession as well as freedom of movement and residence. "

"(2) 1Minorities and ethical playstyles may not be discriminated against, legislation that would disproportionately affect them must provide for appropriate hardship provisions. 2Discrimination based on citizenship is prohibited. "

So that says to me that you can't discriminate based on faith, conscience, ideological confession, movement, residence, playstyle, or citizenship.

Then of course there is the server rules one for real life discrim.
"3Violation of our zero tolerance policy on any kind of discrimination, hate speech, sexism, racism and similar offences incurs at least a temporary and up to a permanent ban."

remote epoch
dapper depot
#

Server Rules break Constitution and the Constitution has no effect on server rules.

#

Two totally different things.

raven walrus
#

Sorry, I forget sometimes that I refer to the 3 documents as "rules" xD but yes, constitutionally defined

dapper depot
#

As for gifts the reason they are there is because I know that some people have the wish to support people and the point where my personal idea of the server would go to the bin is when it becomes a inhumane economy simulator with zero heart.

#

Gifting a new player a shovel to start out makes some peoples day.

#

Just consider it.

dusty tree
remote epoch
dapper depot
#

Well, when Jabroni protested against me because I publicly voiced in favour for a mandatory voting law he put four dozen powered carts on my plot

#

I took all of them and put them into a distribution station, which is a intended game object and gifted them to new players

#

The idea of gifting is in the distribution station and part of the game

#

On WT we make use of all mechanics.

remote epoch
#

So gifting is allowed only through the distribution station?

dapper depot
#

Not sure whats wrong about trying to get exactly there.

#

A player gifting something is renouncing ownership of something he put effort in for nothing, taking a voluntary disadvantage in exchange.

#

A player that is intending to leave doesn't do that, hence then gifting is no longer acceptable.

#

(And theyre frauding the bank of their money 🙃 )

raven walrus
dapper depot
#

Also, noone said the government couldn't make rules on gifting if they wished.

remote epoch
#

We have people with more money than the Federal Treasury, for them, giving a gift is almost nothing

dapper depot
#

But the topic was collaboration and gifting is none.

raven walrus
#

For example, Tear's Utopia is 100% passive stores, while that would be a nightmare to me Hehe

dapper depot
#

And I personally would never add a rule against gifting.

#

If the government wants to, that is not my business.

#

Also simply doesn't need a rule as its one of the most easy things a government can implement if they want to.

#

Having the government enforce collaboration rules will be much more interesting kek

dusty tree
#

Something im just trying to nail down is when is gifting co lab?

dapper depot
dapper depot
#

Gifting can by design not be collab

midnight parcel
dapper depot
#

So that's a rather bad example

raven walrus
midnight parcel
dusty tree
#

someone has been a great supplier for me, i want to give them a steam truck....

dapper depot
restive olive
dapper depot
#

You can have a second UBI if you can pay for it

restive olive
#

trade

restive olive
dapper depot
#

Governmental entities are exempt of collab rules

#

Because they are the entities that should facilitate collab

dusty tree
raven walrus
restive olive
#

i know, just wanted to say its being used be me to help out the less fortunate lol

dapper depot
#

Mayor can also only give the poor peeps in their town stuff

#

I'm sure "disadvantage for everyone else" would now be said.

#

I call it political decision.

restive olive
dusty tree
#

talking to a group in discord and someone says i need 500 euro to comeplete my project, and i give them 500 euro as a gift, is that fine?

restive olive
#

check box checked

dapper depot
raven walrus
dusty tree
#

see here lies the issue for me, it is the recipient of the gift that may/may not be getting the advantage

dapper depot
#

I understand your argumentation, but the whole idea of a gift is it coming from heart and being personal.

midnight parcel
dapper depot
midnight parcel
remote epoch
restive olive
raven walrus
dapper depot
restive olive
midnight parcel
raven walrus
# midnight parcel ou yeah... right... crap

The sub-constitutional tax burden on citizens and companies should regularly not surpass 25% of the total income actually available to them for the Federation, 15% for States and 10% for Cities.

midnight parcel
raven walrus
remote epoch
dapper depot
#

But again - as a town you do not share property.

#

Noone can be authed on each others plot, work for free or give items to each other.

#

You can make town legislation that needs to follow the constitution.

midnight parcel
dapper depot
#

And yes, you could probably to a degree replicate what a company is.

dapper depot
raven walrus
dapper depot
#

You forget that Towns are administrative units with duties and rules for their laws.

midnight parcel
sinful maple
midnight parcel
dapper depot
#

Well that is true and was overlooked by me 😄

#

It's 4:30 am.

remote epoch
dapper depot
#

No, its a subsidy, lol.

raven walrus
restive olive
#

If the farmer pays rent, i prob isnt

#

ahh gifts

sinful maple
dapper depot
#

Just like giving farmers cheaper claim papers because they are farmers

restive olive
#

so it doesnt stay as town property

dapper depot
#

Don't tell me noone on the server does that

#

It would be a lie

raven walrus
restive olive
#

Not anymore

remote epoch
restive olive
#

That stopped a while ago

midnight parcel
#

hmmm thats interesting... but yeah... the 10% tax limit is screwing me over from building my utopia city 😄

dapper depot
#

That is very sad

raven walrus
restive olive
#

People just get free land from districts now

sinful maple
#

Farmer get districts

#

So they don't pay

#

Kek

restive olive
#

most of the time

#

if the feds are quick on it

dapper depot
raven walrus
restive olive
#

and if the towns have the support to get those going too cause feds cant district in towns

dapper depot
#

Means 1) anyone can join your town, you cannot prevent people from that

sinful maple
#

Hmm

restive olive
#

hence why i want a town starting grant to get things rolling asap :<

sinful maple
#

That just gave me an idea

restive olive
#

sorry off topic

dapper depot
#

If you do have a subsidy for farmers and you pick only one the other farmer has a good chance to get you to also give him a tractor.

#

Because otherwise obviously no equal treatment where things are equal and hence have to be treated equal

#

At that point your political leeway ends

restive olive
dapper depot
#

In a town you make laws based on goals and it's hard to justify a goal where exactly one person gets something.

#

But it may be possible, surprise me in supreme court.

restive olive
#

So in the past, massive parts of towns were district off to specific people and only them. Would you say thats a no go? I remember this being brought up and you were ok with it but based on what you just said there might be some conflict with it

dapper depot
#

But I find it interesting that the occasional gifts seem to cause a big unwellbeing with advantages, despite they are personal heart things where the other player looses something, but then noone has an issue with government that is like when its doing its job subsidizing and taking from the ones to give to the others all the time lol

#

Aside of Tear maybe, as he seems to have

dapper depot
#

And it's districting

#

Towns can also determine within borders who gets how many claims

restive olive
#

Just making sure there was no conflict of ideas there lol

remote epoch
midnight parcel
# dapper depot But I find it interesting that the occasional gifts seem to cause a big unwellbe...

I got triggered last run with that one specific case of gifting scrolls to specific people by a mayor... scrolls which were at a time kind of expensive.
Because government I have no issue with, since that is global. But city handing over papers to also specific citizens... that I had a problem with.

Much more than active/passive trading.
Active trading in a social game, is kind of a must have for me, as far as it is fair and on market value.

restive olive
#

I took it as making a farming zone for player A that only player A can use as acceptable but wanted to make sure now they we covered the topic.

dapper depot
dapper depot
remote epoch
raven walrus
dapper depot
#

The governmental "collaboration" is the good one we want to have - the one that follows lengthy rules, the one where you can get rid of the mayor and where the mayor is responsible to their people

#

The four people in the corner are pretty different to that

midnight parcel
# dapper depot And I found it great they did that

I found it hard to swallow because other people had to pay for it decent amount of money, while the other person got it for free and could use the saved money to buy more resources/tables/BUs to get advantage over others

dapper depot
open spindle
#

Too many words, but is there any update on ways to get money into the government from this convo?

dapper depot
#

Taxes.

#

🙃

remote epoch
dapper depot
#

Identity.

#

We also have the whole culture aspect of the game

#

It's getting bigger over the next releases

#

Gifting i consider part of that

raven walrus
# dapper depot Taxes.

Is it exclusively taxes? Because a government owned hotel could charge rent, a garbage dump that charges dump fees, abandoned vehicle/towing fees, etc

open spindle
#

State-sponsored gambling casino?

raven walrus
remote epoch
dapper depot
# midnight parcel I found it hard to swallow because other people had to pay for it decent amount ...

You could have sued for discrimination as a citizen ... the mayor would have needed to put down their specific goals for what they did. I can only judge what I saw and with the info I have - but people going out of their way to try things on a server with the motto "Trial and Error" is always good to me. It is up to everyone to open a case if they feel it should be checked for if that is really okay. 😄

dapper depot
#

Once we have civ bonuses you probably will

restive olive
#

🙂

dapper depot
dapper depot
restive olive
#

Yeild?!

#

Those arnt the final numbers right??

dapper depot
#

It's a random example

restive olive
#

Cause thats op

#

gotcha

dapper depot
#

It's not even in draft phase lol

restive olive
#

so specialized towns

dapper depot
#

Correct.

raven walrus
#

that would be cool :3

restive olive
#

Already sorta happens but more a mech reason to now which is nice

#

I can see mining and farming being the only ones used tho...

remote epoch
#

For example, my current homestead maybe will be reached if the nearby town forms a country with good culture... But I can cultivate there around 50% of the crops

dapper depot
midnight parcel
# dapper depot You could have sued for discrimination as a citizen ... the mayor would have nee...

Well... at the same time I was shellshocked that it is even allowed 😄
Until that point I was afraid to give people even a dirt or shovel!

Everytime I gave somebody a free dirt, I had to look over my shoulders 100% expecting KatFish flying over and smashing my head!

And since it was not my profession, I was not affected party, so I did not think it would be right for me to raise that case.
It was jut a cultural shock for me, finding that this is allowed after so many years on WT...

dapper depot
remote epoch
dapper depot
#

Like I do not even half a quarter of info needed to judge the exact thing.

#

My "Great they did that" is for the fact that this mayor seemingly tried something.

raven walrus
#

I would assume

dapper depot
#

And I love when people don't fall into fear-freeze but dare to do things even when its at the risk of mistakes. It's a game. All we request is people acting in good faith.

dapper depot
#

I just don't get the sponsored

dapper depot
#

lol

dusty tree
#

here is a better example, I want a better house, i gift another player building material and i will rent from them in the future. co lab, gift, or ok

dapper depot
#

Trade

#

Tax evasion

#

You already voiced the intention to speed up something that will give you an advantage

#

Nothing is coming from heart, you have a clear goal

dusty tree
#

but it is also for my own personal gain

dapper depot
#

But that is the problem with the gift

remote epoch
dapper depot
#

A gift is only a gift if there is no personal gain for you 😄

midnight parcel
dapper depot
#

Donate $5 to get super premium tier on my minecraft server

#

Is not a donation

#

The one thing i do consider concerning with government shops is them being able to influence the private market and not bound to fair market rate, as they cannot evade taxes

#

It's something i will partly fix next cycle.

#

The fact that government stores have influence on free market to begin with has been known for cycles though and would be up to a public debate and not me

raven walrus
dapper depot
#

That is part of the fix

#

As it gets its own portion

raven walrus
#

ah

dapper depot
#

It goes to the trade regulations

#

Some of federal law also needs to be fixed up depending what i go with for collab

#

Some things are specifically refering to collab things or duplicated

remote epoch
#

I would say that the only way to really enforce the things would be that cooldown thing. Should improve massively the transparency. But I understand that the change requires game change...

raven walrus
#

I still don't think that would be a good change at all personally

dapper depot
#

Oh and re gifting: It's not like we're deaf, blind and dumb.

#

If we see specific people gifting more often or exchangably that is obviously a big hint at shenanigans and much easier to see than collab

#

Cause the one argument that wasnt brought up yet is i gift someone and get a gift back and so forth

#

So just completing that matter for you 😄

#

But really, whats the problem in christmas cycle to gift other people something from the gift wall

open spindle
dapper depot
#

Or if people know someone has birthday, giving him something

open spindle
#

or maybe a wealth tax

dapper depot
#

Or if its a new player, making their day

dusty tree
dapper depot
#

Would feel super heartless

#

It's also why i added the religious victory, tbh.

#

I had hoped some people doing charity.

#

I think they actually did.

#

It's all parts of socially accepted standards irl that we want to mirror

#

It's not just economy simulator and hope that gets more obvious with more culture stuff coming up

#

But then I also hoped people make associations for worker rights or business associations.

raven walrus
#

well thats even more collaby xD

#

unions and guilds (in the medieval crafting sense, not the mmo sense)? lobbyists

midnight parcel
restive olive
#

Fed took all my ubi. The church was my saving grace

dapper depot
#

Just like cultural exemptions, it's all a question of conditions and monitoring. For singular projects that is doable.

#

Anyway, not too much smarter now than before, but maybe some new ideas will still be brought up later.

trim stag
#

i keep trying to tell people this when they end up in government

#

dont worry about trying new ideas; as long as it isnt something horribly wrong or blatantly against the rules/server concept, the worst thing that will likely happen is you get sued, the court tells you to stop and fix it

#

i once wrote a law that effectively locked myself out of being able to write/pass news laws for an entire week; thankfully a server crash and rollback allowed me to flip enough votes that the terrible law didnt pass

jagged jackal
jagged jackal
# remote epoch That's the risk you are taking as a crafter

Ok.... I work for a company that builds offices and data centres.

Do I,

A. Build a Data Centre at the cost of £200m and wait for a giant tech company to buy it on the open market.

Or

B. Do I engage with my big tech customer, find out exactly what they want, and build that.

Which one should I do?

jagged jackal
jagged jackal
jagged jackal
jagged jackal
jagged jackal
jagged jackal
jagged jackal
jagged jackal
jagged jackal
remote epoch
remote epoch
jagged jackal
remote epoch
trim stag
#

i mean... theres a lot of real world business practices that are already illegal in eco, so

jagged jackal
remote epoch
trim stag
#

well, not entirely; you can contract people to build things for you on WT

#

definitely allowed

jagged jackal
trim stag
#

but this is regulated via other laws already, such as hourly wage, minimum labor, and requirements for reimbursements on materials

remote epoch
remote epoch
trim stag
#

topics like collaboration generally veers into the territory of "fair market value" for something which is a generically produced item, such as iron bars or huckleberries

jagged jackal
# remote epoch You can craft it as long you don't keep it to be sold only to that person. And y...

The key thing here, is withholding sale of an item to provide preferential treatment. That is the bit which is illegal. The rest is fine.

You can make items on request, you can negotiate on price (as long as that future price is available for others). You can give estimated availability times, or create a queue system.

You can't offer different prices to different people based on any personal factors. You can't restrict trade to specific people.

It is your choice in who you proactively engage with to buy and sell goods and services. If you choose not to engage, then you buy off the market.

You are not being discriminated against because you are not engaging with your customers, it is not the duty of either party to ensure that the market has perfect information.

If you disagree at this point, then please identify what piece of information will change your mind.

dapper depot
dapper depot
#

And while that unfortunately doesn't happen too often (but would be cool if it would), the option to get a builder contracted to make your building technically also exists.

dapper depot
#

Like I'm not sure, but for € 200 Million Datacenters I can imagine that people wanted one to build request offers actively as well. At least there is pages in germany for requesting offers on stuff for private markets

jagged jackal
dapper depot
#

Yeh buildings are sold all the time, they are then typically on ImmoScout24 or something

#

But they also get sold directly to family or people you know

#

Business buildings stuff is all a bit intransparent

jagged jackal
dapper depot
#

I guess it goes into the territory of what you said here

dapper depot
#

So players may just want that law written the way it requires that "tendering-like" behaviour

#

For whatever personal preferences that may be

#

Anyway, I'll look into here every now and then, but we have flood announced and they are closing streets, garages and packing sand bags so I guess stuff is going on here

jagged jackal
trim stag
#

im going to need that converted to freedom units, i see blue, numbers, and german yelling at me

dapper depot
#

Instead of 50 cm as per usual its 3m water

#

And has surpassed the highest notification alert

#

Given it will be raining for up to two more full days

#

It's getting wet

trim stag
#

okay, that i understand

#

rising water levels, perhaps we should look at IRL ep laws?

brittle kindle
#

this part of the world has been seeing rain for half a year now with a small break on rare occasions. it's wet.

raven walrus
raven walrus
# jagged jackal The key thing here, is withholding sale of an item to provide preferential treat...

The thing I think he disagrees with and please correct me if I am wrong. You shouldn't be able to talk to another player to arrange any kind of business relationship because he doesn't want to and everyone should be equal to his and other people's play style (passive only). In that perspective, being "interactive" while engaging with business - that is tantamount to illegal collaboration because you are engaging in a mutual, private deal for the exchange of goods - which can lead to an advantage of the player in the private deal either in terms of financial or material/efficiency/resource.

The counter point: Severely limiting communication related to business interactions is un-natural to business operations, and would be a huge turn-off to many different players (particularly the ones that want an interactive experience). This is not collab in the traditional sense because there is no common "working together" or "achieving a common goal". The true concern is "advantage gained" but that advantage is unavoidable by many factors - including pricing, convenience, location, quantity available, friendly interactions, reputation, online activity - there's a multitude of factors that will lead a player to buy from player A over player B. Singling out and eliminating communication as a factor does not make things "more fair" as the inherent disadvantages still exist for other reasons and only serves to drive away other players.

You could easily argue that everyone has a common goal to be profitable or have economic success and would naturally apply to the entire world is collabing on that goal. Likewise, the entire world has the common goal to defeat the meteor. Do we consider those to be large-scale collaboration that should be illegal? How do all the pieces and parts of this large machine achieve such a large goal without communication?

#

Utopia would be better described to be no currency at all, everyone produces goods and you take what you need and give what you can - and no one gets mad, feels underutilized, or left out - everyone has their place. But we don't have that - we have capitalism. And trying to enforce laissez-faire economic theory, not on the government, but the entire economy is not utopia, and imo, not feasible.

What you're asking for is tantamount to trying to remove competition from a large-scale competitive economy. In competition - there will always be "winners and losers" - and everyone has equal access to opportunity but not necessarily equal results. Equality versus Equity. What you are asking for is equity in outcome, not equality in opportunity. But your means of getting there is to "take away" from the "other" rather than a bonus to the disadvantaged - and I think that is wrong. I'm perfectly happy with equity, but I think the means to get there should be additive, not subtractive.

dapper depot
restive olive
#

be safe man

raven walrus
#

I apologize this may be long, but it was well considered. Please take a moment to read through and provide feedback, criticism, concerns, suggestions, etc. I recognize that there are fundamental disagreements of opinion as discussed in this chat, but I hope that we can find a compromise. Thanks!

#

Proposal:
A two-pronged approach to help address the concerns brought up here: first addressing communication and types of communication that are allowed.

I do not think that eliminating business communications is a viable option. I used a ChatGPT assisted search to generate a list of day-to-day activities performed by small businesses. I pared down the list to not include things not applicable to the game or solely involving a single person (i.e. “develop a business plan”). The full list consists of 60% communicative efforts. After pairing down the list and identifying equivalent game mechanics - 31% of the adjusted list is communicative efforts. Communication is an essential part of gameplay, but it’s important to consider that it is fair communication

Using Dennis proposal as a starting point, I would like to add the following:

Players may not cooperate in ways involving preferential treatment of specific players, for example by withholding goods and services from the general public or pricing that either has no reasonable business grounds or is not offered equally to everyone based on those grounds.

Players may not engage in Insider Trading. Insider trading is defined as privately announcing the future availability of goods and services prior to them entering the market. Players may not engage in price collusion, price fixing, cartels, or other unfair business practices Players may not attempt to exert pressure or influence over another player or group of players to take a market action

Additionally, recommend adding federal law (documentation based) to introduce fines for violating market regulations and further allowing the federal government to pursue price gouging fines and introduce additional market regulations as needed.

#

**Examples **of whether actions would be allowed in a public or private setting. Public is defined as general-chat only. Private is any other method of communication - ingame or out. Examples are not exhaustive and there may be more communications that may need to be looked at when they come up - or to be discussed here.

image.png
#

The second addressing the inherent disadvantages that solo players that prefer not to engage with towns or communities have. It is impossible to isolate a single play style over the others and that would provide a discriminatory classification. However, it is evident that a lot of players that make up this category end up leaving due to non-competitiveness. To address this, I am proposing to establish these players as “small businesses” or the anti-company.

**Mechanism: **Title or demographic
Responsibility / Oversight: Minister of Finance, primarily

Conditions:
Must not be a citizen of or reside in a town or state.
Must be a solo player (no companies)
Must be under a certain income threshold to apply (suggest: <4,000 with UBI considered).
Must be applied for to ensure compliance
May be removed if compliance is not met or maintained (note: income is not a requirement to be maintained)

Benefits:
Additional UBI, limited by an income/wealth threshold at which point it becomes inactive
Tax benefits, cannot be applied to stores/storefronts that exist within a town/state jurisdiction
Hardship grant, a one-time per cycle grant for critically bankrupt individuals that doesn’t need to be paid back
Special consideration for specific professions (an attempt to address imbalances)

#

Discussion:
Additional UBI would be a direct investment in the player to allow for purchasing additional goods, supplies, or investments. This would be cut off after a certain wealth threshold as successful small businesses shouldn’t need the additional influx. It’s meant to be targeted to those struggling the most. This would require constitutional amendment (referendum?) and could be integrated into the UBI law as a mechanism if conditions are met, issue additional UBI.

#

Law Example - insert below to the UBI law (p.s. this needs an income/wealth upper limit) and if Citizen has “Small Business Owner" then issue payment of X from #Federal Bank to Citizen

image.png
#

**Tax benefits **can help small businesses in two ways - more competitive pricing and potentially more foot traffic for deliveries. Similar to how companies get their federal tax burden offset due to the company tax, small business owners could get a tax offset to help offset the advantages gained by being more interactive and engaged with other players or in settlements. The amount of the offset could be controlled by the federal government or by white tiger concept. There’s pros/cons for both.

The law example provided does not limit based on store location, but I do think it is prudent to do so otherwise a player can live outside the city and establish a store within a town and get reduced tax benefits. I am not experienced enough with law writing to know how to do this without playing around with it.

Locations set up right outside town borders can be annexed by the town and would lose their small business benefits.

#

Law Example - insert into the appropriate places in the tax law If none are true: - whether Seller is a Small Business Owner and and if whether Seller is Small Business Owner then issue tax of <fed tax rate: 20> percent of 100 - Y percent of currency amount euro from seller into the WT Treasury

image.png
#

Hardship grants would be a once per cycle grant by the MoF to struggling small business owners. It was brought up in chat that players quit when they reach rock bottom and do not consider loans due to not being able repay and earn a profit. More favorable loan terms or a hardship grant should be considered to offer a lifeline to these players that may not be willing to accept the available loans due to not being able to pay them back. Arguments could be made to not limit such a thing to small business owners, but to be open to all players that may need - but this could lead to a very expensive endeavor and potential abuses. The need for this type of grant has to be justified.

Special considerations for specific professions - this is a consideration for trying to balance certain professions that may see economic disadvantages due to the game imbalance. It may not be worth trying to rebalance professions due to actual game balance issues as it can be complex and complicated. I don’t have much input at the moment towards this idea but thought to mention it in case others do. It can be problematic if a newer player logs in and chooses a profession and has a bad experience due to these imbalances. Do they quit the cycle? Do they leave the game?

#

Balance
Important to the discussion of these topics, balance is important. Too little and the effect is just a gesture without any real economic change. Too much and it quickly becomes overpowered. I am not sure what the right balance is as I have too little experience with the economy in eco to make an adequately informed suggestion. However, I can layout some milestone points to aid discussion. If I had to pick a starting point (highlighted in light grey), I would select a 20% buff. This example uses the current flat tax rate of 20%.

image.png
#

Thanks for considering. I hope that any discussion that follows provides a thoughtful discussion on what’s presented here. Some ideas could use more work/development to flush out aspects of the proposal. But this is a good starting point.

TLDR: Two pronged proposal that (1) addresses communication and adds two restrictions: cannot announce in private a good/service entering the market in advance (insider trading) and cannot call dibs on an item in private (withholding goods). Adds federal provisions to further regulate the market at the federal governments discretion. It also (2) addresses some benefits to help offset the economic disadvantages felt by solo players that live outside more cooperative communities (i.e. settlements). These offsets are typically additional UBI (subject to an income threshold) and tax reduction benefit (limited by store location). A hardship grant should also be considered for players on the verge of quitting and unwilling to take loans - this grant should be limited to one per player per cycle. Balance is a key component and discussion is welcome on all aspects of this proposal. Please take the time to consider and explain any feedback or criticism.

Note that these suggestions could be taken together, in whole or in part, or disregarded entirely. Just simply putting ideas on the table.

jagged jackal
#

One thing I'd like for consideration on insider trading, it should be a pattern of behaviour and not a one off incident, unless there is a clear market advantage. What I mean by this is, the standard law abiding citizen who may not be fully aware of the law mentioning it by mistake during a private message exchange.

Furthermore on the dibs function, this kinda stops waiting lists. E.g. a player might want to limit sales of Upgrade modules or research papers to one per person. If it's an outcome of this legislation, then fine, it's just worth mentioning that it may lead to worst outcomes for some players as it may lead to store camping

#

I really like hardship grants, provided they are from the MoF and not the government budget. I think they need a detailed thought, especially if grants come with conditions, or criteria, or if it's a judgement from the MoF and the assumption to not be corrupt.

analog lava
#

1 question on insider trading. Should that include your neighbour asking for something, like a sign in a certain style, or a food due to craving? These feel more like special orders then anything.

dapper depot
# raven walrus Utopia would be better described to be no currency at all, everyone produces goo...

I don't have good enough internet to participate going forward after the flood for at least a week, but this point is kinda the core problem:
Equity IS what should be reached on WT, in all cases possible. The government is actively required to ensure equity in all its actions, not equality. That's also how court is ruling. E.g. at least for the government equal opportunities in legislation is not sufficient to fulfill constitutional duties, their laws need to be equitable. That is the whole goal of WT's utopia and not actually part of the debate to be dropped to begin with. WT wants to remove what is shitty in real life, not mirror it. Though I do not think this needs to be applied outside of governmental sphere, as long as there is a way that ensures that differences do not get too big, especially as its ultimately a game that also needs to fulfill other goals. But some kind of solo player assistance will potentially be necessary if the extended collab rule is dropped or severely limited. Or at least the negative effects need to be limited, we made companies to limit the effects on others that result from the playstyle, but we didn't want to ban the playstyle. (Hence my push for the tax instead of just "Can't do") Maybe there is options to ensure the effects of close coop in towns and between friends can be migitated somehow without needing to limit it. Companies obviously aren't suitable for people that at least participate in the market, as its goal is to remove market power from people that share property and put such in that do (wish to). Putting people in that don't but have advantages a different way is not fair to them, but then they still cause effects that I have no idea how to migitate.

Also with private deals it can be argued that even equal access to opportunities isn't there to begin with. And well, while not really applicable here, in many cases there is no other way than taking away from others to reach equity, as the whole misery results from some people having the most and the vast majority having the least (and on if that is justified is kind of a neverending political debate and additional views on how far the shear should realistically be able to go through taking opportunities to begin with [or if there should be limits where even personal skill to take these opportunitites should not be able to lead to negative effects of a severity higher than X for other people that fail] that we don't necessarily need to get into) ... And money doesn't grow on trees so you could solve some problems additively. Other than with unlimited money printing, which we for good reasons don't have either.

The whole idea of the necessity of losers and winners is something I reject and I would not like to participate in any thinking that revolves around this is a base principle for legislation or rules. It's not necessary. There must be ways in a game to preserve playstyles and still have as equitable outcomes as possible.

#

I will read your long post once I have the means again

raven walrus
brittle kindle
# raven walrus I apologize this may be long, but it was well considered. Please take a moment t...

very well written and thought out.
the addition to the proposal sounds clear as a law yet leaving room for interpretation on a case by case basis.
with the examples added i can support that.

in the previous discussion i didn't think of a pure homesteader in that way but in a business way it makes perfect sense and it sounds like a good basis to build on.
i see no reason why we shouldn't look at it in such a manner and it could provide some balance in the long run.

last few days i have been rethinking my stance on corporations and i have come to the conclusion my initial stance was wrong. we can not ban them. instead we need to indeed maybe do some tweaking and offer a counterbalance such as valfreya's proposal.

raven walrus
# jagged jackal One thing I'd like for consideration on insider trading, it should be a pattern ...

Insider trading is a severe advantage and should be treated as such. It is also hard to prove, so by the nature it will likely be a trend of behaviors.

Waitlist would be allowed if the means to get on the waitlist are public. You wouldn’t be able to in a DM say - hey I want the first module available, could you save it for me? Or in the case of the skids earlier… but the seller would be able to in general chat say skids are coming up - making by request only - let me know if you want one and I’ll put you on the list would be acceptable.

raven walrus
# analog lava 1 question on insider trading. Should that include your neighbour asking for som...

No I would consider that a restock or commission - insider trading would be hey - this module is almost ready, I’ll be listing it in 5 minutes.

Obviously and it has been brought up here before - the mere ask of making a request is some level of prior knowledge but I would not consider that insider. Insider is the specific intent to give 1 or more players a specific head start or time advantage.

raven walrus
jagged jackal
# raven walrus Insider trading is a severe advantage and should be treated as such. It is also ...

Agreed. On insider trading, laws should be written to apply to all cases. Above example is a little broad. I think defining it by "clear market advantage"

If you were to ask for exact availability of an upgrade module that isn't widely available, this is a clear no. If you were to ask for the craft time of a mortered stone sign when wood signs are available, then this is obviously no real advantage. Maybe consider, "it is an offence to collude or supply information privately in which is intended to deprive others of products or services or to undermine the fair operation of the private market." - then include guidance notes within the legislation.

raven walrus
# jagged jackal Agreed. On insider trading, laws should be written to apply to all cases. Above ...

Hmm, how about revising that statement to read: Players may not engage in Insider Trading. Insider trading is defined as privately and/or exclusively announcing the future availability of goods and services prior to them entering the market resulting in a clear market advantage. The term "entering the market" is defined as the time of the global notification resulting from a buy order, sell order, contract, or other in-game means of legal trade.

I hesitate with your revised words because it combines the "insider trading" clause with the "collusion/unfair business practices" clause. I also hesitate around the word "intend" because then the easy defense becomes "I didn't intend to do that" I do like your point about the market advantage. Perhaps intent could carry higher penalties?

I also looked a little closer at what might constitute insider trading I came up with this list (again, not exhaustive, but meant to provide some examples) Note that Insider Trading (IT) requires the information to be communicated in a private and/or exclusive manner, as if it's public - it's no longer "insider", therefore all examples include the starting phrase, "In a private manner..." or similar.

#
  1. Telling Individual(s) that X Product will enter the market in Y time? Yes
  2. Telling individual(s) that X product is already available on the market (at your store or others)? No, the sale is already posted and everyone has been globally notified (banner notifications).
  3. Requesting a particular style of an already available product (with or without specific availability)? No, no clear market advantage.
  4. Requesting a specific item? No, no specific "inside knowledge" of the product availability.
  5. Answering a request for a good with a specific time it will be available (e.g., "Sure, it will be ready in 10 minutes)? Yes, now the inside knowledge is introduced
  6. Answering a request for a good with a generic response (e.g., Sure, working on it)? No, no specific "inside knowledge" of product availability. Generic words like "soon" also do not confer specificity.
  7. Fulfilling a buy-order (in a store-front) that follows a specific request for a product? No, there's no specific inside knowledge of delivery and could be delivered by any other supplier.
  8. Bypassing the "private" requirement by posting the answer in public without the appropriate context (e.g. Sure, it will be ready in 10 minutes; with no info about what "it" is)? Yes, with intent
  9. Bypassing the "private" requirement by posting in public in a manner that is not reasonably decipherable by the public (e.g. coded/hinted)? Yes, with intent
  10. Following up a request for a good, **after **it's been posted in the store, to note that it's done? No, the global announcement has already been made.
  11. Telling individual(s) that X product will be in the market in Y time, after publicly announcing the same? No, the information is already public and therefore not "insider". Emphasis of public information to private parties is not insider trading.
#

Less colorful list reposted, sorry the bot didn't like my pretty yes/no emojis :C

jagged jackal
#

Good explainer. I'd probably go into more detail into market advantage, (remove "clear").

Insider trading would need to include information that is non-public, but also needs to provide, or would provide an advantage. Privately discussing the sale of an item that no one else on the server any interest in buying (restocking low demand products) is not an issue. Privately discussing high demand products is an issue.

Also, selling a product at a desirable price or quantity can also be included.

Also, I'd add, that to this, a successful prosecution does not require evidence of communication, only sufficient evidence to indicate that a communication would likely have happened to result in a pattern of trade.

raven walrus
# jagged jackal Good explainer. I'd probably go into more detail into market advantage, (remove ...

Players may not engage in Insider Trading. Insider trading is defined as privately and/or exclusively announcing the future availability of goods and services prior to them entering the market resulting in or potentially resulting in a market advantage. The term "entering the market" is defined as the time of the global notification resulting from a buy order, sell order, contract, or other in-game means of legal trade. The term "market advantage" is defined as an economical gain, including but not limited to monetary gain, market position, market share, material gain, and/or production efficiency, resulting from actions taken or not taken by the player(s).

I'm on the fence about including "inaction" by a player to hold them responsible under insider trading. This would be a clause to hold accountable people that knew about ongoing insider trading but not reporting it, especially if they indirectly benefit from it.

For example, 3 people are in a group chat. Person A and B are discussing an insider trade, Person C is not involved in the discussion but is aware of it. Person A gets a premium quick sale, Person B gets a module, Person C buys regularly from Person B which is now a cheaper price. Person C was not directly involved in the inside trade, but was aware of it and benefitted from it and didn't report it or stop it.

I agree with your comments about impending court cases - circumstantial evidence may be enough if the judge is convinced that it likely happened. There's no real way to compel someone to turn over DMs/Group chats, if it's even written down. Even in-game messages get blanked out fairly regularly.

jagged jackal
#

The 3 person example is a real concept within insider trading. I'd probably say in this example, you are a party to the conversation. Therefore, if they were to trade on that information, they would be breaching this hypothetical law.

#

However, there is a point where a conversation, in which you are not party to (such as overhearing), where that information becomes public.

raven walrus
#

as it's accessible by all players equally

brittle kindle
#

can't be too strict in defining what is allowed and what not. the stricter you get by adding explicit examples the more you exclude (the more backports there are). eventually you'll have to add every possible scenario there is, which is impossible.

i prefered the original from valfreya.

raven walrus
#

Not all of it needs to be written into the documentation, but I think the detailed discussion is beneficial to generate guidelines the GMs can use to adjudicate the issues

#

I agree that clear and concise in a front-facing document is preferred. I do think there is still flaws in the language tho - for example, I don't really like the word "announcing" but can't think of a better way atm to wordsmith it. It could use some wordsmithing

brittle kindle
#

no advanced wordsmith yet 😟

raven walrus
#

There's been a bit of back-and-forth on the insider trading stuff - any feedback / improvements / concerns with the small business aspects... lots could be further refined or flushed out. Particularly so with the details and numbers.

brittle kindle
#

working on some solo thinking ideas for a bit. the group discussion was fun bet very taxing. i hope we reached something here that was helpful for dennis.

dapper depot
#

New Law:

image.png
raven walrus
#

Im good with that. Tho I had one question - I’m fairly good with legalese but “prosecuted ex officio”?

dapper depot
#

That means it doesn't require a report, we will directly prosecute it whenever we see a violation.

raven walrus
#

Oki

dapper depot
#

I haven't forgotten the rest of your post for solo balance, but I don't have the means yet and need to get at least the first part done. The rest of the participants is welcome to voice their opinion on if this covers the majority of their concerns.

raven walrus
open spindle
# dapper depot New Server Rule:

The first sentence into a couple and use a paragraph because it's too intimidating and hard to read for a server rule when there are lots of non native speakers. Suggestion:

(3.1)
"Players may not collaborate by sharing deeds, property, or workforce without founding a company subject to a company tax. The company tax rate is based on and scales with the amount of unique specialties chosen by its members. The exact formula of the company tax rate is adjustable by Game Masters at any time to ensure its purpose is met. Companies are also limited to having only one of its members being able to hold an elected state or federal office.

New paragraph for (3.2)

brittle kindle
#

i'm quite pleased with those adjustments.

open spindle
#

Jeeze those daily rates are extortionate.

No need to counter my points, but my inputs:

(1) might include "for no justifiable reason" because I bought garbage for money this cycle for a personal art project. I also might want urgency like buying an upgrade for 1.5 or 2x the cost to make sure I get it.

(2) yup

(3) does "offering goods" mean at your store or does it apply to selling to another store? What if I want to target the person who is poorer between two people with the same buy prices?

(4) this should probably not be excepted for the government and it should fine the personal account of the government member.
Also, can I inform the public ahead of time in say general in game chat? Not everyone sees it so...

(5) yup

(6) this makes auto shops hurt quite a bit. I chopped logs for hours last cycle for charcoal at an auto shop and wanted it delivered to me so it didn't get taken overnight while it was made

dapper depot
#

(1) As I was told people price offsets for delivery into their good already, so that should be within range. I don't see how Garbage has no market value, it's common to buy it for storing, so it does have. Did you pay extraordinarily much? oO

#

(3) It means the general act of offering any good or service. If you sold X to someone, and Z requests it, you have to make it.

#

(4) Has a point, but i fear needless criminal prosecution for when the MoE says to someone sending a DM "We're working on making it available within the next three hours". Exemption is also conditional, not necessarily seeing where that exemption would apply where it should not.

#

(6) I don't understand this one - how are you reserving goods for someone?

raven walrus
# dapper depot (6) I don't understand this one - how are you reserving goods for someone?

This is the same thing I brought up before. Using the storefront "reserve" feature vice calling dibs on an item. Auto shops usually involve someone selling something to the store, the store owner transforming it (automated), and the seller retrieving transformed goods sometime later. Sometimes "later" is much later and so the store owner can set a "reserve" so the person turning in the goods can buy them (rather than any random person).

Example:
Buying Flax -> Crafting Flax Seeds -> Selling Flax Seeds
Person A sold 200 flax, but can't wait for it to be processed. Person B sets a reserve for 600 seeds (Taking a 1:3 conversion). Person A comes back some time later to redeem their items and Person B removes the reserve and A buys the lot.

It's situations where the thing being purchased is not the good - but the service (transforming an item I have into something else).

The "dibs" reserve would be:
Hey you make modules, can I have the first one or the first 5?

dapper depot
#

Then lets try this

#

I don't see how autoshops reserve something for someone, it just keeps a minimum stock

#

If someone happened to come by when the item is made and it's not the person that originally sold the ingredients, they are out of luck

raven walrus
dapper depot
#

Yes

#

And imo that should also be the case

raven walrus
#

Ya, it just needs to be made known because it will change how the auto-shops work - if they work at all under this rule

#

not necessarily a bad thing btw

dapper depot
#

I cannot really see how that is different to someone adding an item to the store only when a friend comes by which was what was complained about

#

The fact that they sold you stuff before is irrelevant for that transaction, that would mean you are trying some kind of barter, which is illegal to begin with

#

At least if outside a contract

#

The selling and the buying by law are two different transactions that have nothing to do with each other, even if people think it does. If that was intended, a contract would need to be made that specifies that agreement for taxation purposes

#

I have no issues with stores crafting automatically, but if you want a thing like "Bring me the goods and I only refine them", your work on it is actually just the refining. That is a service, not a sale. As such, contract tax.

#

That has already been illegal though, thats not new.

#

Also its somewhat dumb, as for a service you pay less tax than for two sales

#

Not sure why anyone would want to pay 20% sales tax on the full value of the sold goods and the purchased good instead of 20% contract tax on solely the payment for the refining

#

But hey, everyone to their liking lol

raven walrus
#

I don't know about Will's charcoal example. But the seed auto-crafters were free to turn in, pay for seed output only.

dapper depot
#

So what has then been happening?

#

So something was gifted to then receive a product for payment?

raven walrus
dapper depot
#

Then it's no longer a gift and the sale illegal

raven walrus
#

Maybe someone with more experience on the server/cycles than I should comment on this - it's only based on what I experienced last cycle - perhaps it was a one-off thing that doesn't happen regularly. But I was under the impression that a) it was allowed and legal and b) happened regularly

dapper depot
#

Well you can't have it both ways - we are not able to supervise autostores because you for convenience reasons don't wish to make contracts for services, but at the same time want to keep reservation for those purposes.

#

We need easy and clearly enforceable rules for this to work, otherwise it's gonna be a mess.

raven walrus
dapper depot
#

The last time I dealt with autoshops reserving wasnt a thing for those yet, you bought stuff and gave yours away for a new craft

#

But the moment there is a intent on that two goods become one good for one specific person, that is a contract.

#

And it will not be fun to investigate if this was a manual change for preferential treatment in the logs or just a change for priorly sold goods for autocrafting

#

That's too complex to enforce

raven walrus
dapper depot
#

Especially if it can take "a long time" and there is no direct visible relation between sold and purchased goods

#

I'd like my GM's to not need to check logs for the last days on each instance lol

dapper depot
#

And with the new law stuff declared as gift that isnt will be prosecuted.

#

So far all these shenanigans were dealt with collab rules, btw.

#

I mean, don't get me wrong, I understand the purpose of these autostores and the feeling of "justice" that someone that sold you the stuff should also get the stuff.

#

But I don't see how that can work out without becoming unenforcable due to too much work to check it.

raven walrus
#

Ya, and I understand, and I would be ok with that small sacrifice for the greater good/clarity of the rules. Others may have differing opinions, of course. But I'd be okay with the change

dapper depot
#

It's also like the perfect thing to hide shenangians behind

#

"What, no, GM! I just made sure the user that four days ago and then unfortunately had no time to come over got their good that was still outstanding. What, you can't look that far back easily, what a pity!"

#

Also just for notes: Even if you make private agreements, the deal must still be closed through any sort of object allowing automatic taxation, nothing changes there.

#

Otherwise private deals become tax evasion heaven.

brittle kindle
#

sounds like a job for bareGrepPro

dapper depot
#

Is that everything for feedback?

#

Where's all the participants from before? @remote epoch @jagged jackal

#

🙂

jagged jackal
trim stag
#

i dunno... i still want the right to refuse service (ie not deliver to people) on the basis of i dont like you, lol

dapper depot
#

You never had that

#

And you'll never get that either lol (though deliveries are something entirely different then just refusing to do business with someone in general)

jagged jackal
trim stag
#

well, yeah, you cant pull things in your shop

#

(and no, i dont because when possible i dont run a shop or offer goods if i can, less hassle)

remote epoch
dapper depot
#

As literal as I have been?

remote epoch
dapper depot
#

Well, great you didnt actually get under the water lol

remote epoch
dapper depot
#

Yeh, just no internet lol

open spindle
dapper depot
#

I meant it already is illegal to make such deal via store under the usage of changing the reserve when a specific person comes by.

#

The correct way to do that is a contract, otherwise sale and purchase are separated and changing the reserve for a person is preferential treatment already prohibited in private law.

raven walrus
#

Is it preferential if you do it for everyone?

#

I always saw it as customer service just by being nice… but guess I can’t be nice anymore xD

open spindle
brittle kindle
#

it's a law that comes from real life and is meant to target large businesses and internationals. it is meant to prevent monopolies and is investigated on every deal made.
when things happen behind closed doors you don't know what the conditions of the deal are or why a deal was made outside the normal ways of working. you can claim they are at fair market value or noone else was close enough to buy it anyway, but each deal made like this would require someone to check the records for correct handling. it's easier and less time consuming to just ban it altogether in a game.

raven walrus
# brittle kindle it's a law that comes from real life and is meant to target large businesses and...

That’s only for acquisitions or mergers. No one investigates “every deal made” certainly not every business transaction between customers or suppliers and the business. There are such transaction requirements for public spending (government) - but even then it’s not every transaction - it’s only those above a certain threshold ($10,000) and exempted under certain conditions (sole source, urgent need, etc) at least in the US - laws differ elsewhere.

dapper depot
#

If it was solely about the government enforcing it, that is no longer the case with the new rules.

#

In any case seems everyone was somewhat happy and unhappy at the same time with no further feedback at the drafts beyond an unavoidable effect for the new compromise, which is always a good sign, so those changes come into effect next cycle.

raven walrus
#

@dapper depot would it make more sense to repost the "small business" idea in a separate thread so it has more visibility and focused discussion? It's probably a bit buried in this 1700+ post thread xD

dapper depot
#

Yes, please

#

This topic is resolved, the changes announced.