5521 Another 48 hours

[HabeusCorpus]

UN-AM

I will take the Red Elk Mount next turn for $10K assuming no artifact number needs to be disclosed. It makes no sense to me to have a GPS tracker on my agent and not sure why that should be disclosed in a 3 turn diplomacy game? Purpose of the three turn diplomacy requirement is to speed up the game and to eliminate scenarios where people gang up on each other. Trade - commodities or artifacts is a key part of the game that shouldn't be restricted (in my opinion).

I have a PM in to RyVor for guidance since the issue has been raised. When I hear back I will post in the game - which will either confirm the trade or cancel it.

If they need to be disclosed then I will be cancelling or unwinding the Totem trade (i.e. reversing it) as well as I also don't want a GPS tracker on my military - depending on when I hear back from Ryvor.

HabeusCorpus

[Agent Orange]

UN-AM

I will take the Red Elk Mount next turn for $10K assuming no artifact number needs to be disclosed.  It makes no sense to me to have a GPS tracker on my agent and not sure why that should be disclosed in a 3 turn diplomacy game?  Purpose of the three turn diplomacy requirement is to speed up the game and to eliminate scenarios where people gang up on each other.  Trade - commodities or artifacts is a key part of the game that shouldn't be restricted (in my opinion).

I have a PM in to RyVor for guidance since the issue has been raised.  When I hear back I will post in the game - which will either confirm the trade or cancel it.  

If they need to be disclosed then I will be cancelling or unwinding the Totem trade (i.e. reversing it) as well as I also don't want a GPS tracker on my military - depending on when I hear back from Ryvor.

HabeusCorpus

I can understand that, since it was forum negotiated, i dont suspect an issue with the PM for short name.

[HabeusCorpus]

UN-AM

I heard back from RyVor - while I still had some follow up questions I got enough to suggest that we cancel the trade this turn for the Totem. I will clarify with everyone once I get those follow up questions answered but for now please cancel the Owl Totem trade.

HabeusCorpus

[Lord Thanatos]

AM-DU/UN
Both artifact trade orders are submitted for10k gold.

DU, i'll issue the trade gold for food starting next turn 15kgold for 31k food

I also have the red elk mount

I guess the no PM idea of Forum-only communication is already out the door?

Seems like an easy bright line rule which everyone knew and agreed to in advance.

When the idea was first suggested to trade an artifact it should have been apparent that the no PM rule forbade exactly what happened here in this game.

Now we need Ry Vor to suggest a solution as to when we can violate the no PM rule?

[Lord Thanatos]

UN-AM

I will take the Red Elk Mount next turn for $10K assuming no artifact number needs to be disclosed.  It makes no sense to me to have a GPS tracker on my agent and not sure why that should be disclosed in a 3 turn diplomacy game?  Purpose of the three turn diplomacy requirement is to speed up the game and to eliminate scenarios where people gang up on each other.  Trade - commodities or artifacts is a key part of the game that shouldn't be restricted (in my opinion).

I have a PM in to RyVor for guidance since the issue has been raised.  When I hear back I will post in the game - which will either confirm the trade or cancel it.  

If they need to be disclosed then I will be cancelling or unwinding the Totem trade (i.e. reversing it) as well as I also don't want a GPS tracker on my military - depending on when I hear back from Ryvor.

HabeusCorpus

"Trade - commodities or artifacts is a key part of the game that shouldn't be restricted (in my opinion)."  But we all agreed to Forum-only (no PM) communication in advance.

As players we don't have to agree.  But once we do, we should live up to our agreement.  Full-diplomacy games are an option.  This game is NOT that.  Whether you guys complete your trade or not we have already violated our own agreement to play without PM communication.

Crazy . . .

[Agent Orange]

UN-AM

I will take the Red Elk Mount next turn for $10K assuming no artifact number needs to be disclosed.  It makes no sense to me to have a GPS tracker on my agent and not sure why that should be disclosed in a 3 turn diplomacy game?  Purpose of the three turn diplomacy requirement is to speed up the game and to eliminate scenarios where people gang up on each other.  Trade - commodities or artifacts is a key part of the game that shouldn't be restricted (in my opinion).

I have a PM in to RyVor for guidance since the issue has been raised.  When I hear back I will post in the game - which will either confirm the trade or cancel it.  

If they need to be disclosed then I will be cancelling or unwinding the Totem trade (i.e. reversing it) as well as I also don't want a GPS tracker on my military - depending on when I hear back from Ryvor.

HabeusCorpus

"Trade - commodities or artifacts is a key part of the game that shouldn't be restricted (in my opinion)."  But we all agreed to Forum-only (no PM) communication in advance.

As players we don't have to agree.  But once we do, we should live up to our agreement.  Full-diplomacy games are an option.  This game is NOT that.  Whether you guys complete your trade or not we have already violated our own agreement to play without PM communication.

Crazy . . .

Well, we did make it public in the forums, sending the code PM seems fair as to not make that info public.

[Ry Vor]

AM-DU/UN
Both artifact trade orders are submitted for10k gold.

DU, i'll issue the trade gold for food starting next turn 15kgold for 31k food

I also have the red elk mount

I guess the no PM idea of Forum-only communication is already out the door?

Seems like an easy bright line rule which everyone knew and agreed to in advance.

When the idea was first suggested to trade an artifact it should have been apparent that the no PM rule forbade exactly what happened here in this game.

Now we need Ry Vor to suggest a solution as to when we can violate the no PM rule?

I did post the rules for forum only diplomacy about 48 hours ago on this thread, page 8 I believe.  I don't know how to make it any clearer, and I also responded timely on an inquiry about whether a PM would be allowed and I replied in the negative.

[Agent Orange]

AM-DU/UN
Both artifact trade orders are submitted for10k gold.

DU, i'll issue the trade gold for food starting next turn 15kgold for 31k food

I also have the red elk mount

I guess the no PM idea of Forum-only communication is already out the door?

Seems like an easy bright line rule which everyone knew and agreed to in advance.

When the idea was first suggested to trade an artifact it should have been apparent that the no PM rule forbade exactly what happened here in this game.

Now we need Ry Vor to suggest a solution as to when we can violate the no PM rule?

I did post the rules for forum only diplomacy about 48 hours ago on this thread, page 8 I believe.  I don't know how to make it any clearer, and I also responded timely on an inquiry about whether a PM would be allowed and I replied in the negative.

Then whats a fair way to trade an artifact without giving the short name to each player. It seems to restrict certain trade aspect of the game.

[Lord Thanatos]

AM-DU/UN
Both artifact trade orders are submitted for10k gold.

DU, i'll issue the trade gold for food starting next turn 15kgold for 31k food

I also have the red elk mount

I guess the no PM idea of Forum-only communication is already out the door?

Seems like an easy bright line rule which everyone knew and agreed to in advance.

When the idea was first suggested to trade an artifact it should have been apparent that the no PM rule forbade exactly what happened here in this game.

Now we need Ry Vor to suggest a solution as to when we can violate the no PM rule?

I did post the rules for forum only diplomacy about 48 hours ago on this thread, page 8 I believe.  I don't know how to make it any clearer, and I also responded timely on an inquiry about whether a PM would be allowed and I replied in the negative.

Then whats a fair way to trade an artifact without giving the short name to each player. It seems to restrict certain trade aspect of the game.

There is no way to trade an artifact without giving the short name to each player.  Forum only communication absolutely does "restrict certain trade aspects of the game."  Intentionally so -- and by agreement of the players. [Actually, if a player already knew the name of the artifact from his own turn result he could state in the Forum, "Player ABC I will purchase your Axe of Hurblind for XX,XXX gold; I already know its short name. Acceptable?"] I am willing to trust that all players are honest about this sort of thing. But if you are offering an artifact to everyone you will have to supply the short name to everyone.

All this does is impact the value of the item being traded.  Some artifacts will not be purchased because they are not worth 10k if everyone else knows the short name.  Other artifacts will still be purchased, but likely at a reduced cost from what they would be sold if the short name was kept confidential.  Other artifacts are worth purchasing even if everyone knows the short name.  Such is capitalism . . .

In fact, in the previous turn two artifacts were offered for sale.  One purchaser was willing to buy with the short name made public while the other was unwilling.  Seems like trade is absolutely still an important part of the game.

[Diamond Cutter]

I think this is a communication turn? If so I'm open to extending the food trades with RD-AM (we still have a turn left already AM). If anybody else wants food I have additional food available.