Furious Noobs -EA- (Newbie Game, 10/10, Running) - Page 22

Happyfungi · #**211** June 2nd, 2013, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghoul31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trumelunki

I'll add as much time as needed Brain_Caster. Could you keep us informed on the situation if possible?

Now about the trade deal. Let's see if we can find some forum regualar...

from what I understand he borrowed 20 gems. Borrowing isn't trading.

Borrowing is trading for the same amount of gems as you will send back in the future.

Brain_Caster I hope you don't get hit by the flood.

ghoul31 · #**212** June 3rd, 2013, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happyfungi

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghoul31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trumelunki

I'll add as much time as needed Brain_Caster. Could you keep us informed on the situation if possible?

Now about the trade deal. Let's see if we can find some forum regualar...

from what I understand he borrowed 20 gems. Borrowing isn't trading.

Borrowing is trading for the same amount of gems as you will send back in the future.

Brain_Caster I hope you don't get hit by the flood.

If borrowing was the same as trading, then they would be one word

But they are two different words because they mean two different things.

And if America Borrowed something from Germany just before WWII. I don't think they would give it back after the war started.

Trumelunki · #**213** June 3rd, 2013, 06:09 AM

Why are you fighting on terminology? We should be talking about what the 'Trades are binding' means.

There was nothing about whether trades really are binding or not in the original post. When asked - I just made a ruling based on what is the multiplayer standard in this post. And yes, Time_Legend sort of threw the admin responsibility to me so I believe I had the right to make the call.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showp...&postcount=134

Now here is my interpretation. If you agree to some trade, the sending of gems/items part is binding. It does not matter why you agree to send that stuff or whether it makes any sense to do so. You have to do it.

Here is a thread from another forum which tries to explain the idea clearly.

http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/...?showtopic=726

Now, when you borrow some gems, there is an agreement that the lender sends some gems and then later the borrower sends them back. Both of these actions are binding, and are not affected on whether the parties are at war or not.

ghoul31 · #**214** June 3rd, 2013, 07:37 AM

"Trade agreements in this context are defined as any simple trades that are completed within a few turns"

It wasn't a trade it was a borrow, and it wasn't completed in a few turns.

So it doesn't count on either point.

GoodKnight · #**215** June 3rd, 2013, 07:42 AM

Do you guys want me to ask Cal or Maer?
(for those of you who don't know they are the most veteran in the community.. That I know of

)

Trumelunki · #**216** June 3rd, 2013, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghoul31

"Trade agreements in this context are defined as any simple trades that are completed within a few turns"

It wasn't a trade it was a borrow, and it wasn't completed in a few turns.

So it doesn't count on either point.

I don't care about whether it was called a borrow or trade. It was an agreement that exchanged gems for gems.

But you have a valid point in that it was not clearly very simple and it was not completed in a few turns.

For example, I would still hold that an agreement to borrow X gems for 2-3 turns would be binding.

I will have to agree that you have some good points and this might be a borderline case. I will withdraw my first judgement and wait till I hear some more opinions.

GoodKnight · #**217** June 3rd, 2013, 09:17 AM

I'm biased of course

But I'm in the idea that it is binding since gems did change hands and there was an agreement.

But in my opinion anything that includes gems and items in it is a trade agreement. If it was agreed that they would be returned in a few turns they should be returned..

Just my 2 cents I'd be glad to ask Maer and Cal if you guys want.

Happyfungi · #**218** June 3rd, 2013, 12:46 PM

Cal or Maer have probably run across this before, I would ask Maer first though, I think cal has a lot on his plate right now.

ghoul31 may be right he has been around a long time, but I also know ghoul31 likes a good argument. I am not sure if he is practicing his semantics or if he is trying to help.

Trumelunki · #**219** June 3rd, 2013, 02:19 PM

Awesome TimeLegend and congratulations!

You beat me fair and square with superior tactics. I have to admit it did not cross my mind that one spell could be that devastating for my army. Well it shows how much there is to learn in this game.

For others, I guess - the not that mighty anymore - Kailasa will continue the fight, but maybe from a little more defensive position now.

Arcane Domination and magic beings do not mix very well.

mattyburn7 · #**220** June 3rd, 2013, 02:34 PM

Not sure what was a sadder butchery...the Red Wedding on a Game of Thrones or the army battling itself on the fields of Tir Na