Cross-tier trades

[Alram]

Going back to the original statement ~ I don't mind people using the cross-tier trading when they are baby cities. And I will help them out as well. But, in my personal opinion, there comes a time when everyone needs to put an end to it. It's a bad habit to get in. The only thing I find aggravating is they tend to clog up my trader and confuse the heck out of me

The cross tier trades confuse me too.
I am also curious about what everyone means by "baby" cities, "small" cities, and "new" players. It seems to vary quite a bit.
At what are point are players expected to pull their own weight in tourneys and spire and be mostly balanced in general?

 

[DeletedUser20539]

I didn't. understand why people

The cross tier trades confuse me too.
I am also curious about what everyone means by "baby" cities, "small" cities, and "new" players. It seems to vary quite a bit.
At what are point are players expected to pull their own weight in tourneys and spire and be mostly balanced in general?

Alram, I was a "baby city" just a couple years ago. I never had enough goods to participate in the tourneys and spire. So I can only speak from experience when I say I was able to stop cross tier trading when I reached Level IV or maybe Level V. It's different for everyone. Some people (like me ) play every day. Some play only in the evenings. Some play on the weekends.

 

[Ashrem]

all the arguments I've seen are not logically compelling

Good grief. What about the illogically compelling ones......

edit: In case it's not obvious, that's sarcasm. An illogical argument should never be compelling.

 

[SoggyShorts]

I am also curious about what everyone means by "baby" cities, "small" cities, and "new" players. It seems to vary quite a bit.

The 2 main definitions in Elvenar are
1. Based on time played which is subjective just like IRL, now when I see 18-year-olds I think "kid"
2. Based on chapter. This is split into 2 as well
a) an even split first 6, mid 6 last 6 chapters (more or less) this changes as more chapters are released, and also becomes less accurate.
b) chapter length. the first 5 chapters can be completed in under 2 months total whereas some later chapters won't be completed in 2 months with normal play. This leads to definitions like my own (flawed) list:

"Baby/small/new/tutorial" =chapters 1-5 and/or under 3months experience
"Early game" = chapters 6-11
"Late game" = ch 12-15
"End game" = 16+
This kinda works on the bias that "the game doesn't really start until the guest races"

At what are point are players expected to pull their own weight in tourneys and spire and be mostly balanced in general?

Since it is possible to do so in chapter 3, I used to expect anyone joining my FS to pull their own weight about 2 months after joining, but now with the spire giving such great rewards and the tournament becoming so easy (at the bottom) I expect it in a month.
We will of course give whatever help is needed with coaching strategy and even including push trades to get a player there. But, self-sustainability is expected after a few weeks of that. i.e. use the goods given to upgrade goods factories, not just blow it all. "Teach a man to fish..."

 

[ajqtrz]

Good grief. What about the illogically compelling ones......

edit: In case it's not obvious, that's sarcasm. An illogical argument should never be compelling.

And a logical one should not either since a valid argument can rest on an untrue premise. So if the conclusion drawn is not warranted by the premise the argument is invalid. If the conclusion drawn is based upon a faulty premise the logic may be warranted, but the conclusion still false, and therefore, should not be compelling. And if an argument is illogical it can still be compelling, but not for the reason of the logic used. Because bad logic can sometimes draw a true conclusion purely by accident. Here's an example:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a cow.
Socrates is mortal.

This syllogism is incorrectly drawn and the conclusion illogical. But it is also true. The thing is though, to prove that it is true you have to redo the syllogism and make the logic warrant the conclusion.

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

Good grief. What about the illogically compelling ones......

edit: In case it's not obvious, that's sarcasm. An illogical argument should never be compelling.

And a logical one should not either since a valid argument can rest on an untrue premise.

{................a bunch of stuff in response to sarcasm.}

My point was that asking for "logically compelling arguments" is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen written. Why the redundancy unless you're still trying to support the vallidity of asking for "logical" arguments? Logical arguments are worthless unless supported properly and this thread is full of logical arguments that are based on poor, or no, data. Unless you're prepared to be swayed by magically-compelling illogical arguments (which strikes me as one o the least likely things to happen around here) why would you ask for that? IIn the context of pretty much every other point you've made here, it's a ridiculous turn of phrase.

 

[mucksterme]

I joined the forum about four months ago and I'm still here. I will say, though, there have been more than a few times that I spent forty minutes to an hour (occasionally more) proofing and analyzing my response, and then just deleted the draft because I knew/expected a handful would rip it apart anyway. I spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to minimize likelihood but in the end, decided it was likely futile because there were a couple of spots wherein all it took was having used an adjective or term or phrase they didn't like to release the dogs (and the ensuing argument disguised as intellectual discourse would distract from my message). I post less often than I used to post and hold my breath when I check the alerts, especially if I had felt compelled to give my two cents on a controversial (actual or probable) topic. The observation "If there isn't any New Blood around then they are at each others throats till some New Blood does show up!" is disturbingly familiar since the behavior has inhibited open communication (whether they know and accept it or not). Much of the time, I am entertained by or find interesting the lively back-and-forth, but it doesn't mean I feel free to share. I do not believe I'm oversensitive or alone in being affected by this. Even though the Forum is (or can be) a great player resource, I'm probably only still around because I like some of you guys since you make me laugh and are supportive (even if you disagree).

You missed a comma.
Please proof read more carefully in the future.

 

[ajqtrz]

My point was that asking for "logically compelling arguments" is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen written. Why the redundancy unless you're still trying to support the vallidity of asking for "logical" arguments? Logical arguments are worthless unless supported properly and this thread is full of logical arguments that are based on poor, or no, data. Unless you're prepared to be swayed by magically-compelling illogical arguments (which strikes me as one o the least likely things to happen around here) why would you ask for that? IIn the context of pretty much every other point you've made here, it's a ridiculous turn of phrase.

You assume that logic is compelling an if that were the case "logically compelling" would be redundant. But an argument can be logical and still not compelling. Here's an example:

All men are immortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is immortal.

An argument can be valid and compelling, but the two terms are not redundant because they each refer to two different concepts. "logically" refers to a process by which you arrive at conclusion. That process may be valid or invalid, terms which refer to the correctness of the reasoning/logic used to move from premises to conclusions. Thus, "logically compelling" means the logic of the argument compels belief. "Compelling" refers to the agreement the hearer of the argument gives to the conclusion. So "Logically compelling" refers to the use of logic to compel belief.

Having said that, a "logically compelling" argument can still be false. If you agree with false premises from which you use logic to get to the conclusion, and the logic is valid, the conclusion is false even if you were "logically compelled" to believe it. For a truly "logically compelling" argument to be made here, it would have to begin with premises the reader agrees are true and the logic used to get to the conclusion be valid. Which is why, in another tread, I've laid out my premises and the conclusions I derive from them.

Your point that logical arguments are "worthless unless supported properly" is a good one. But to restrict the types of support to data, is not always needed or possible. Suppose you and I were discussing the need to repair the pot holes on our street. We don't need to count them, show them, prove that they are there, because, do to our experience, we both agree. We call that "stipulations" and they are points of information not disputed in a debate. "I stipulate that there are too many pot holes in the street" is not, usually, stated, but if it is, the proper response would be "I agree." Once that is done, formally or not, claiming that there are not too many pot holes in the street later on, when trying to prove something, is not, in formal debate, allowed. That's why most appellate courts cannot accept new evidence unless that evidence was withheld from one party or another in the original trial.

But you do have a very good point. A lot of what we say does rest on our experiences. The problem is, of course, our experiences may differ and so the "stipulations" we use (usually unspoken) aren't always clear and agreed upon. The thing is, though, we have little ability to actually gather statisical data here and so all we have is premises and reasoning from those premesis.

AJ

 

[DeletedUser27062]

My point was that asking for "logically compelling arguments" is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen written. Why the redundancy unless you're still trying to support the vallidity of asking for "logical" arguments? Logical arguments are worthless unless supported properly and this thread is full of logical arguments that are based on poor, or no, data. Unless you're prepared to be swayed by magically-compelling illogical arguments (which strikes me as one o the least likely things to happen around here) why would you ask for that? IIn the context of pretty much every other point you've made here, it's a ridiculous turn of phrase.

It seems to me that you want to tie the usage of the word 'logical' to its strictest formal meaning regardless of the context in which it was originally used.

The Oxford dictionary offers multiple definitions for the word logical:

• i) of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument;
• ii) characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.

The latter is how I define 'logical' within the context of its use in this forum and I'll continue to use it in this manner because it works (for most people).

If I ask for logically compelling arguments against cross trading I'm asking for arguments that are characterized by clear, sound reasoning AND that compel me to not only agree that cross trades are a problem but also that the problem is severe enough to warrant banning cross trades.

Now I know you're probably going to point out that a logically sound argument should be compelling or that illogical arguments should never be compelling but the truth of the matter is that illogical arguments can be very compelling and we know this is so because we have websites dedicated to exposing logical fallacies - those errors in logic that people find so very compelling that they make them all the time. The brain uses 200+ cognitive shortcuts every day to make decisions but these shortcuts aren't very accurate nor do they need to be. They operate within a 'good enough' system which means people will be compelled by arguments that may appear logical but often fail under scrutiny. Advertising is a very good example of how corporations exploit these weakness in people whilst creating compelling media.

 

[Ashrem]

You assume that logic is compelling an if that were the case "logically compelling" would be redundant. But an argument can be logical and still not compelling. Here's an example:

All men are immortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is immortal.

An argument can be valid and compelling, but the two terms are not redundant because they each refer to two different concepts.

I've asked before privately, I won't bother again. I'm just not going to read more than a paragraph of your reply to a single point.

I assume nothing of the sort. What I assumed is that someone as bright as you obviously are would never find an illogical argument compelling. I don't care about the opinions of people who find illogical arguments compelling. That makes "logically compelling" redundant, especially coming from you.

 

[Ashrem]

he Oxford dictionary offers multiple definitions for the word logical:

• i) of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument;
• ii) characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.

The latter is how I define 'logical' within the context of its use in this forum

They are the same thing. You are straining to transform the phrase "logical argument" into something it isn't. I no longer care what you want or how you wish to justify asking for it.

 

[ajqtrz]

They are the same thing. You are straining to transform the phrase "logical argument" into something it isn't. I no longer care what you want or how you wish to justify asking for it.

One suspects that if the two are the same thing the Oxford English Dictionary would have only one entry....you pick which.

• i) of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument;
• ii) characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.

Many, many words have a colloquial meaning and a more technical meaning. Most of the time when people say, "It's a valid argument" what they mean is that they are convinced by it. A technical use would mean that all the logic of it is warranted from the premises upon which it is based. One of things you have to do as you get into a discussion, is sort out the various uses of the words and try to be clear about which you are using. Sometimes things move into the technical use and people go back and read the technical meaning into the non-technical use. Like, in response to: "It's a valid argument" with "valid" used colloquially, they might go back and point out how the argument is NOT technically valid and then chide the user for their "error," sometimes implying their failure in reasoning (which may or may not be true). The non-technical use, in this example, isn't claiming the strict warranting of all logical connections, but only summarizing the speakers sense of the conclusion being true. "Valid" is another term, in that case for "I believe it's true."

AJ

 

[Lelanya]

I am out as well. This has reached a third dead end with circular arguments.

 

[Ashrem]

you pick which.

Well, since they didn't ask for "logic posts," but "logical arguments," I already know which one I picked.

 

[Ashrem]

Since I (in my rush at bedtime last night) didn't answer your actual question, @ajqtrz

As far as the two definitions go, they are definitions for the word logical, not the phrase "logical argument." Even setting that aside, (repeat: setting that aside) when I earllier said they are the same thing, it's becuase in the context of this discussion, neither supports a definition of "logical" which excludes logical arguments based on weak or unsupported premises. The simple fact is, there are plenty of logical arguments in the thread, by any definition, technical, or common usage (if, perhaps, not someone's personal definition of what constitutes common usage). The logic might be weak, the logic might be based on suspect premises, the logic might be based on perfectly reasonable premises which are too anecdotal to be acceptible to anyone who's instinctual experience is different. None of those things change the logical nature of the arguments. They do, and should, make them less compelling. I find it difficult to believe that you, AJ, are supporting the position that those arguments are not logical arguments, regardless of what "common usage definition" someone wants to claim for requesting "logical arguments."

I entered this with a comment about the difference between logical argumetns and compelling arguments, and later included several examples of actual logical arguments for banning cross tier trades (of which I am still not in favour), and I'm not able to believe that you and I are really on opposite sides when it comes to those two things. Maybe we've just been in lock-down for too long.

 

[ajqtrz]

Since I (in my rush at bedtime last night) didn't answer your actual question, @ajqtrz

As far as the two definitions go, they are definitions for the word logical, not the phrase "logical argument." Even setting that aside, (repeat: setting that aside) when I earllier said they are the same thing, it's becuase in the context of this discussion, neither supports a definition of "logical" which excludes logical arguments based on weak or unsupported premises. The simple fact is, there are plenty of logical arguments in the thread, by any definition, technical, or common usage (if, perhaps, not someone's personal definition of what constitutes common usage). The logic might be weak, the logic might be based on suspect premises, the logic might be based on perfectly reasonable premises which are too anecdotal to be acceptible to anyone who's instinctual experience is different. None of those things change the logical nature of the arguments. They do, and should, make them less compelling. I find it difficult to believe that you, AJ, are supporting the position that those arguments are not logical arguments, regardless of what "common usage definition" someone wants to claim for requesting "logical arguments."

I entered this with a comment about the difference between logical argumetns and compelling arguments, and later included several examples of actual logical arguments for banning cross tier trades (of which I am still not in favour), and I'm not able to believe that you and I are really on opposite sides when it comes to those two things. Maybe we've just been in lock-down for too long.

"Context determine meaning," and after that, "the user can declare what they meant." I think, in the context of the use it was apparent what the speaker meant and there was an effort by that speaker to clarify what they meant. In both cases the colloquial use (#2 above) was apparent and even though I think sticking to it's technical definition better, what was said was in, in context, in line with the second definition.

I think we are pretty much in agreement about the technical use of "logic," "logical" etc. It's only a contextual conflict where you see the context as one thing and I another. Probably not worth, at this point, sorting out any more, so I'm willing to drop it.

AJ

 

[DeletedUser27062]

Well, since they didn't ask for "logic posts," but "logical arguments," I already know which one I picked.

I've been back through my comments and not once did I say that there were no logical arguments. What I said (repeatedly) was:
"Can you please link them as I haven't found any that justify banning cross trades." (https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/cross-tier-trades.25056/post-201324). This comment was in response to Lyapo's reply to me from this comment in another thread:
"There are many reasons for and against cross-trades, some are even valid but I have yet to hear of a single logical reason that justifies making rules against it."

Both times my use of the phrase logical argument/reason was a conditional clause and not a complete statement. You chose to take it out of its context to pull me up on my use of the word 'logical' claiming that I shouldn't ask for "logical" reasons when what I really wanted (according to you) was compelling reasons.

I've acknowledged that there are logical reasons but have stated that they're not compelling enough to justify banning.

 

[Ashrem]

Then I will bid one and all a final adieu. Best of luck in the game.

 

[LutherTheHairy]

Remnants of the past that are now deeply rooted in negativity.
In the past the trade ratio's where really bad 1 : 4 : 16 instead of the current 1 : 1.5 : 2.25

Thanks for explaining this mystery. Wow. It made ZERO sense to me before. I can understand it as a holdover perspective.

 

[SoggyShorts]

Thanks for explaining this mystery. Wow. It made ZERO sense to me before. I can understand it as a holdover perspective.

Not to re-hash this for the 100th time, but there are several very valid reasons other than an old perspective to hate cross trades.
Feel free to read the rest of the thread which outlines them quite well.
A simple test is and always has been:

"Are 99.9% of cross trades offering high-tier for low-tier goods?"
if so, that kinda points to them being uneven, doesn't it?

The second test/fact is that ALL fellowships who have a rule against cross trades will in fact let you post cross trades, but only if you offer your planks/stee/marble, so what does that tell you?

In 5 years of playing, I have NEVER seen anyone offering thousands of Planks for Gems.