• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

The case FOR open trading.

Status
Not open for further replies.

mucksterme

Oh Wise One
Imagine you have a ten year old son
Your son is a big baseball fan so his grandfather gives him a box of old baseball cards
One day your son takes is $5000 Ryan/Koosman to a collectibles shop and the guy there gives him $50 for it.
You son is thrilled, he's never had that much money before in his life and he can buy pizza and snickers bars for ever.
The guy at the shop is thrilled for obvious reasons.
Now when you hear about this transaction do you just say, "Well they are both happy with the deal they made so that's fair" ?
 

DeletedUser27062

Guest
you have harmed the players

There appears to be a logical inconsistency in your argument.

You have said, repeatedly, that;
1) only the player can determine the value/profitability of a trade
2) any external measure of fairness is artificial & incomplete

therefore it stands to reason that players are the only ones who can determine when and if something is harmful. It is logically inconsistent to claim the current system is harmful whilst maintaining that harm/benefit can only be determined by the individual. To do so is to impose your own point of view as yet another artificial, incomplete and external measure of what is fair to them.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
There appears to be a logical inconsistency in your argument.

You have said, repeatedly, that;
1) only the player can determine the value/profitability of a trade
2) any external measure of fairness is artificial & incomplete

therefore it stands to reason that players are the only ones who can determine when and if something is harmful. It is logically inconsistent to claim the current system is harmful whilst maintaining that harm/benefit can only be determined by the individual. To do so is to impose your own point of view as yet another artificial, incomplete and external measure of what is fair to them.

1 is true. And I stand by it
2 is the problem. I'm arguing that since the rules reflect and are based upon an artificial and incomplete measure of the trade to enforce them is to attempt to make the players use that artificial and incomplete measure of the trade. The harm is not in the trade itself, though it might me, it is in the rules telling others how to value that trade since those rules reflect a system of measurement that might not be accurate. In other words the rules are an attempt to take from the player his or her right to value their own trades in any manner they desire.

Think of it this way. Suppose you think you have to use the star system to value a trade and you do so. Later, you discover that the trade you just made was not as beneficial to you as you could have made. Example: you use the star system to determine that you should buy scrolls with silk at a 1:1 ratio. Later, you discover, that you could have gotten more scrolls for your silk. You could have gotten 1.1 scroll for each silk. The problem is you had to obey the rules. You could not offer 1 silk for 1.1 scrolls as that is against the rules of your fellowship. The result, as you discover for yourself: you lost a benefit of more scrolls. That's what you discovered. That's how the rules harmed you. If there had been no rules you could have easily understood that you could get more scrolls for your silk because the trade board would have reflected the actual ratio. Such mistakes would never happen in an Open Trading system because there are no rules in an Open Trading system other than the ones imposed by the game itself. In an Open Trading system nobody is telling you what your goods are worth. In the star system and the rules they are.

Hope that clarifies what I mean by harm. It's not the harm of the actual trade as that's in the hands of the traders, it's in the harm of being unable to maximize the benefit of your trades because an outside set of rules is restricting what you can offer and ask for in exchange.

Imagine you have a ten year old son
Your son is a big baseball fan so his grandfather gives him a box of old baseball cards
One day your son takes is $5000 Ryan/Koosman to a collectibles shop and the guy there gives him $50 for it.
You son is thrilled, he's never had that much money before in his life and he can buy pizza and snickers bars for ever.
The guy at the shop is thrilled for obvious reasons.
Now when you hear about this transaction do you just say, "Well they are both happy with the deal they made so that's fair" ?

Ignorance is bliss only so long are it remains ignorance. The son is happy with the trade UNTIL he finds our he could have done better. Read the response above and ask if the one trading scrolls for silk and finding out later that he/she could have gotten more scrolls for his/her silk doesn't also feel cheated? (Not to the degree of the baseball cards, but to some degree). The current system sets people up to benefit less not because the price of a particular good doesn't allow more benefit, but because the system is telling them what their goods are worth.

Take the baseball card scenario. Suppose the kid found a book on the value of the baseball cards. The book, which was recently published, says the card is worth $50. The purchaser of the card says, "Kid, that's what it worth according to the book." So the kid sells it for $50. What's wrong with that? He's happy. The purchaser is happy. And the book still says the card is worth $50. Now of course, the problem is the book. The book doesn't reflect the fact that last month 450 of the 500 known cards were destroyed in a fire. (I just made that up, of course). NOW the value of the card is a lot higher on the open market. But the book doesn't reflect the actual current supply/demand.

Finally, suppose the kid ignored the book and went on the Internet. He looks up the current value and finds that, wow!, it's selling for a LOT, LOT more than the book says. He goes to the potential buyer and that potential buyer says, "Kid, nobody is going to give you more than the book because the book is the final answer. In fact, if you try to sell it for more than the book price, we're going to black ball you and you'll never sell a card in my shop again! In fact, I'll pass your name to every shop in the area as an unethical trader!" Now the kid has a choice. Sell the card at $50 and lose big time, or keep the card and lose whatever he wanted the money to purchase. And that's only if he's aware of the actual CURRENT value of the card.

I hope that's clear. It's the rules (the book) that's the problem. It can't keep up with market fluctuations and uses an artificial and incomplete determination of the value of the goods. AND to enforce it's use as the standard of "fair" is therefore also artificial and incomplete.

AJ
 
Last edited:

mucksterme

Oh Wise One
Ignorance is bliss only so long are it remains ignorance. The son is happy with the trade UNTIL he finds our he could have done better. Read the response above and ask if the one trading scrolls for silk and finding out later that he/she could have gotten more scrolls for his/her silk doesn't also feel cheated? (Not to the degree of the baseball cards, but to some degree). The current system sets people up to benefit less not because the price of a particular good doesn't allow more benefit, but because the system is telling them what their goods are worth.

Take the baseball card scenario. Suppose the kid found a book on the value of the baseball cards. The book, which was recently published, says the card is worth $50. The purchaser of the card says, "Kid, that's what it worth according to the book." So the kid sells it for $50. What's wrong with that? He's happy. The purchaser is happy. And the book still says the card is worth $50. Now of course, the problem is the book. The book doesn't reflect the fact that last month 450 of the 500 known cards were destroyed in a fire. (I just made that up, of course). NOW the value of the card is a lot higher on the open market. But the book doesn't reflect the actual current supply/demand.

Finally, suppose the kid ignored the book and went on the Internet. He looks up the current value and finds that, wow!, it's selling for a LOT, LOT more than the book says. He goes to the potential buyer and that potential buyer says, "Kid, nobody is going to give you more than the book because the book is the final answer. In fact, if you try to sell it for more than the book price, we're going to black ball you and you'll never sell a card in my shop again! In fact, I'll pass your name to every shop in the area as an unethical trader!" Now the kid has a choice. Sell the card at $50 and lose big time, or keep the card and lose whatever he wanted the money to purchase. And that's only if he's aware of the actual CURRENT value of the card.

I hope that's clear. It's the rules (the book) that's the problem. It can't keep up with market fluctuations and uses an artificial and incomplete determination of the value of the goods. AND to enforce it's use as the standard of "fair" is therefore also artificial and incomplete.

Yeah see, this is why so many people are fed up with your walls of words.
All you want to do is argue.
But changing the whole premise of a question is not winning.
My question was very plainly about the parent not the kid.
Also my question established up front that the card was worth $5000.

And you know what is wrong with this ?
"The son is happy with the trade UNTIL he finds our he could have done better."
The buyer broke the law. You see you can't just carpe diem your way out of being a sleeze ball.
According to consumer laws, when an expert ( the collectibles store ) is dealing with an amateur, the expert is required to give a fair market valuation.
Hey, the more you know, right?

I'm going to ignore you now.
What is the sense in trying to have an honest debate with someone who totally ignores your post, but invents a whole different scenario then writes a useless response three times longer than your post?
You just proved you cannot have an honest discussion.
 

DeletedUser27062

Guest
1 is true. And I stand by it
2 is the problem. I'm arguing that since the rules reflect and are based upon an artificial and incomplete measure of the trade to enforce them is to attempt to make the players use that artificial and incomplete measure of the trade. The harm is not in the trade itself, though it might me, it is in the rules telling others how to value that trade since those rules reflect a system of measurement that might not be accurate. In other words the rules are an attempt to take from the player his or her right to value their own trades in any manner they desire.

Think of it this way. Suppose you think you have to use the star system to value a trade and you do so. Later, you discover that the trade you just made was not as beneficial to you as you could have made. Example: you use the star system to determine that you should buy scrolls with silk at a 1:1 ratio. Later, you discover, that you could have gotten more scrolls for your silk. You could have gotten 1.1 scroll for each silk. The problem is you had to obey the rules. You could not offer 1 silk for 1.1 scrolls as that is against the rules of your fellowship. The result, as you discover for yourself: you lost a benefit of more scrolls. That's what you discovered. That's how the rules harmed you. If there had been no rules you could have easily understood that you could get more scrolls for your silk because the trade board would have reflected the actual ratio. Such mistakes would never happen in an Open Trading system because there are no rules in an Open Trading system other than the ones imposed by the game itself. In an Open Trading system nobody is telling you what your goods are worth. In the star system and the rules they are.

Hope that clarifies what I mean by harm. It's not the harm of the actual trade as that's in the hands of the traders, it's in the harm of being unable to maximize the benefit of your trades because an outside set of rules is restricting what you can offer and ask for in exchange.

There are two parts to my response: 1) my opinion on trading and trading rules and 2)my rebuttal to your response. I'm making this clear because in my second part I'll be using your own premises and conclusions against you and want it to be clear that I don't actually support them and am only using them to show that your argument is logically flawed. If I was better educated i'd be able to apply some modifier like "invalid" or something but I'm not so "flawed" will have to do.

Part 1

I'd like to state for the record that it's my opinion that 0 & 1 star trades are exploitative and should be avoided. I can't possibly know the full circumstances of those who take my trades so if I post 0 or 1 star trades I may harm some player by profiting off of their need which is exploitative. I acknowledge that a player may think my 1 or 0 star trades are good value but that isn't good enough for me when I know I can just as easily place a 2 star trade without appreciable losses. I agree that the star rated trader is an inaccurate measure but I believe it is sufficiently accurate that I can use it and not go bankrupt or cause others to go bankrupt. I believe the majority of the community feel the same way. If I feel compelled to seek more profitable trades I'll look out for 3 star trades and take those and you, yourself, have stated that you do.

Secondly, I believe that unrestricted trading would be disastrous to the trading economy (as much as we can call it a true economy given its incompleteness). I believe that allowing 0 & 1 star trades would result in a collapse of the trading economy where 1 star trades would become the new equivalent of 2 star trades. Yes, the economy would eventually stabilise once people could no longer sustain the imbalanced trading but only the cities with enough wealth would survive. Many players, unable to trade sufficiently and unable to change what they produce to meet the demand, would simply walk away from the game.

You've said that the rules influence behaviour and I agree but what you're failing to acknowledge is the role peer behaviour has on others. People are influenced to a greater degree by modeled behaviour than they are by rules and as a matter of fact social rules are most often based on accepted social norms. We know this is true on Elvenar because we've seen the influence of the community in effecting change from the devs. Originally the devs had a "fair" ratio of T3:T2:T1 goods that was much higher than it is now. The community disputed that "fairness" and the devs responded and reduced the ratio. This doesn't mean that the community is always right about what is appropriate but it does mean that there is a working means of addressing issues that suits most people most of the time. If 0 & 1 star trades were allowed then more people would do it thus modeling a new norm and we'd all lose out for the reasons I stated above.

Part 2

It seems to me that when you said, in your introduction, that the purpose for this discussion was to either confirm your premises & conclusions or correct your thinking that you may not have be genuine because I've seen repeated instances where you've subtly shifted the goalposts in order to avoid being caught in logical contradictions (and thus maintain your 'rightness'). They are as follows:

1) The interpretation of "harm". In previous comments, both in this thread and others, you have equated "harm" as: a loss of resources; less profitable trades; less beneficial trades. Now you want it to mean loss of individual rights. It was not a misunderstanding or lack of clarity as to what you meant but rather that you've changed what it means for a player to be harmed. Even the example you provided above is a logical contradiction to the example you gave earlier. In the comment above you said:
"Such mistakes would never happen in an Open Trading system"
and earlier
"For others it may mean some mistakes are made, but the mistakes will be their own, not because they are following an artificial and incomplete measure of their trades. In some ways that's the ultimate nature of the game -- to make choices and do the best you can without being forced by social pressure to make choices that might not be in your best interest."
Even though you've changed how you frame harm you're still equating it with a potential loss of resources which clearly & logically contradicts your point that only the player can determine what the value of a trade.

2) The criteria for determining what is "fair" in trades. In your introduction you closed out with this:
"Overall conclusion: Since the two main restriction in trading: the 0 star and 1 star rule and the no cross tier rule (with exceptions of course) cause players to inadvertently make less than optimal (and thus "unfair") trades, the rules should be dropped and players trained to ignore the star system and measure the value of the trade including the intangibles."
Here you claim that the inability to post 0 or 1 star trades means players profit less than they could have and that this is unfair yet you have repeatedly claimed that no one except an individual player can determine what is fair for them. You cannot, logically, claim a system/trade is unfair for another person under any circumstance whilst also claiming that only the individual can decide the criteria for fairness.

Conclusion: I found your argument to be logically unsound and completely uncompelling. Whilst some of your premises are true the majority rely on things that are unknowable. We can't know if the trader star system is truly inaccurate or to what degree. It's reasonable to expect that it is but it seems to work fine for most people. You present open trading as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. People are not quitting because they can't profit off of the backs of others. It is reasonable to suggest there might be a goods imbalance but there is no evidence to suggest that Inno hasn't put balancing actions in place and unreasonable to expect they would do nothing.

This will be my final comment on the matter so thank you for the opportunity to discuss this and for the practice in logical reasoning.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
2) The criteria for determining what is "fair" in trades. In your introduction you closed out with this:
"Overall conclusion: Since the two main restriction in trading: the 0 star and 1 star rule and the no cross tier rule (with exceptions of course) cause players to inadvertently make less than optimal (and thus "unfair") trades, the rules should be dropped and players trained to ignore the star system and measure the value of the trade including the intangibles."
Here you claim that the inability to post 0 or 1 star trades means players profit less than they could have and that this is unfair yet you have repeatedly claimed that no one except an individual player can determine what is fair for them. You cannot, logically, claim a system/trade is unfair for another person under any circumstance whilst also claiming that only the individual can decide the criteria for fairness. [Bold added]

You are right about a lot of things. The moving goalposts is certainly true. And the changes in emphasis and even in understanding. My "problem" for which I am habitual, is that I think things through using conversation. I start with some understanding, put it out the best case I can, and then let others respond. Sometimes they reveal to me different aspects and understandings, and I try to incorporate those into my thinking. In the process I usually come to a better understanding of the question. In this case I began contrasting two systems of trade, but the contrasting was incomplete and the wrong focus. I came to discover that it wasn't the trading systems in play, but the insistence that we use one over another to the point of making rules about it.

In addition, I did find that, for most people, aspects of Open Trading put too much responsibility on the players to not make mistakes. Many predicted dire consequences should Open Trading be adopted, a sort of side-ways acknowledgement of my point that human behavior would be the same in the "economic system" of Elvenar as in the "real wold," where unbridled capitalism can lead to really, really, bad outcomes. That such dire consequences would happen, I do not know, but fear is a powerful motivator and thus many are motivated to avoid the risk.

So in the midst of a lot of unknowns, I could only go on what was known: that rules are forms of social pressure and that social pressure to not be called a "gouger" or some other negative name, mean people will think of the star system as the measure of fair. That, the star system is artificial and incomplete and that it, therefore, will influence people to inadvertently make less optimal decisions than they might if they weren't guided by it. And that does harm them. That in Open Trading they can also make mistakes is obvious, I just think they would make fewer mistakes if they were free to trade as they wish.

There is a lot for me to learn here. I have to decide if using the brains of others to push into a subject through debate is as good a thing for everyone as I tend to think. Obviously most people don't have the stomach for it. I do, but that's just me. I have to decide if my goals are to learn and grow or to persuade others. If the latter I need to focus on developing my arguments better before I speak. That would help reduce the shifting and looking as if I'm just trying to win. "Thinking out loud" is not always a good thing, especially when you look like those thoughts are your final word on the subject, which when I speak, is often the case. Of this I am guilty.

So thanks for the pretty accurate assessment of my methods. You are pretty perceptive.

As for the "harm" you are right. At first I did view "harm" as a measurable thing in each trade and thus a judgement about the trade. But in thinking it through I realized the "harm" would have to be "inadvertent" (which is a qualifier of the part you underlined above) and thus, at the time, might be unknown by the traders. I surmised that a trade judged by the traders to be fair might be judged by the traders as "unfair" if they had a more complete picture than the star system offers. In other words, I came to the belief that the rules were influencing players to possibly and unknowingly believe the trade they were making was fair and that, had they not been influenced by the rules they may have made different choices and done better. The key here is that my thinking shifted from actual harm envisioned and predicted (it's still likely that in some cases the predictions would come true), to potential and inadvertent harm due to following rules based upon the wrong measure of a trade's value.

I do apologize that my thinking does shift as I get into a subject. It's not a good habit and I'll work on it.

Social rules do reflect norms. But the norms are not always helpful. Often the culture "don't snitch" means crime continues because the authorities don't get cooperation from the citizens out of fear. That's not healthy for the culture. Social norms usually grow organically rather than being rationally planned though, and thus, sometimes they just aren't thought through. I believe that the star system is such a system and the rules imposed upon players under it are also the same. I doubt anyone has done the analysis of the system before adopting the rules otherwise the issues I've raised here would have been raised before. I can't find that they ever were.

Thanks again for your response and I do hope you aren't too disappointed in my weaknesses. They are many.

AJ
 

DeletedUser27062

Guest
You are right about a lot of things. The moving goalposts is certainly true. And the changes in emphasis and even in understanding. My "problem" for which I am habitual, is that I think things through using conversation. I start with some understanding, put it out the best case I can, and then let others respond. Sometimes they reveal to me different aspects and understandings, and I try to incorporate those into my thinking. In the process I usually come to a better understanding of the question. In this case I began contrasting two systems of trade, but the contrasting was incomplete and the wrong focus. I came to discover that it wasn't the trading systems in play, but the insistence that we use one over another to the point of making rules about it.

In addition, I did find that, for most people, aspects of Open Trading put too much responsibility on the players to not make mistakes. Many predicted dire consequences should Open Trading be adopted, a sort of side-ways acknowledgement of my point that human behavior would be the same in the "economic system" of Elvenar as in the "real wold," where unbridled capitalism can lead to really, really, bad outcomes. That such dire consequences would happen, I do not know, but fear is a powerful motivator and thus many are motivated to avoid the risk.

So in the midst of a lot of unknowns, I could only go on what was known: that rules are forms of social pressure and that social pressure to not be called a "gouger" or some other negative name, mean people will think of the star system as the measure of fair. That, the star system is artificial and incomplete and that it, therefore, will influence people to inadvertently make less optimal decisions than they might if they weren't guided by it. And that does harm them. That in Open Trading they can also make mistakes is obvious, I just think they would make fewer mistakes if they were free to trade as they wish.

There is a lot for me to learn here. I have to decide if using the brains of others to push into a subject through debate is as good a thing for everyone as I tend to think. Obviously most people don't have the stomach for it. I do, but that's just me. I have to decide if my goals are to learn and grow or to persuade others. If the latter I need to focus on developing my arguments better before I speak. That would help reduce the shifting and looking as if I'm just trying to win. "Thinking out loud" is not always a good thing, especially when you look like those thoughts are your final word on the subject, which when I speak, is often the case. Of this I am guilty.

So thanks for the pretty accurate assessment of my methods. You are pretty perceptive.

As for the "harm" you are right. At first I did view "harm" as a measurable thing in each trade and thus a judgement about the trade. But in thinking it through I realized the "harm" would have to be "inadvertent" (which is a qualifier of the part you underlined above) and thus, at the time, might be unknown by the traders. I surmised that a trade judged by the traders to be fair might be judged by the traders as "unfair" if they had a more complete picture than the star system offers. In other words, I came to the belief that the rules were influencing players to possibly and unknowingly believe the trade they were making was fair and that, had they not been influenced by the rules they may have made different choices and done better. The key here is that my thinking shifted from actual harm envisioned and predicted (it's still likely that in some cases the predictions would come true), to potential and inadvertent harm due to following rules based upon the wrong measure of a trade's value.

I do apologize that my thinking does shift as I get into a subject. It's not a good habit and I'll work on it.

Social rules do reflect norms. But the norms are not always helpful. Often the culture "don't snitch" means crime continues because the authorities don't get cooperation from the citizens out of fear. That's not healthy for the culture. Social norms usually grow organically rather than being rationally planned though, and thus, sometimes they just aren't thought through. I believe that the star system is such a system and the rules imposed upon players under it are also the same. I doubt anyone has done the analysis of the system before adopting the rules otherwise the issues I've raised here would have been raised before. I can't find that they ever were.

Thanks again for your response and I do hope you aren't too disappointed in my weaknesses. They are many.

AJ

I'm actually really proud of you right now.

I have admired your tenacity and dedication to direct and open communication from the first time I saw your posts. When I read them I feel as those I can trust that you mean what you say. I don't have to guess if you're coming at things sideways, if you are trying to insinuate something whilst hiding it beneath the complexities of social nuance (something I really struggle with).

I don't think you need to apologise for your shift in thinking at all. That's a very good sign that you're refining your position which is a wonderful thing because the aim here is not to win at any cost but to find truth or as close to it as we can. I think you could have communicated that shift better by openly stating that you were modifying your position. I believe logic is a sharp blade capable of dissecting the toughest problem but the best place to use it is on ourselves, on what we believe to be true, first and foremost.

Whenever I approach a topic that I have an opinion on I always ask "how could I be wrong" first. I'd like to be able to say I do this as some sort of noble quest for the truth but it isn't. I'm terrified of making a fool of myself in public by saying something stupid or having a mistake exposed that I should have foreseen so I examine every single aspect of my position to look for issues. I wish I had half the courage you've just shown by responding as you have.

I want to respond to your thoughts on the topic but will take some time to consider them because it seems we are at a point where discussion about our perspectives on the subject is warranted.

I sincerely hope we get to do this again (but perhaps on a different topic ;) ).
 

GlamDoll

Well-Known Member
And I don't date except my wife of 40+ years. She's usually the one who asks me out since I'm a "like to stay at home" kind of guy.
And there is the #1 issue. Want some friendly advice? Take at least 90% of your time & energy, arguing & debating on THIS Forum & give it to her! BUT! Don't stop there...ASK her if she would go out on a date with you, now?! You are so welcome. She has NOT given up yet, or she would be your X-wife!!! Done here.

Choose wisely.
 

SlimTim

New Member
I like the current star system. I notice several misnomers in prior posts such as over abundance of scrolls ect, that depends on member you have accepted into your fellowship. Ideally you seek balance when choosing new members. But I am still an amateur at the game. But the stars give at least some semblance of balance of trade based on perceived value. Individuals can trade at whatever levels they choose.
 

Deborah M

Oh Wise One
WOW! I don't remember ever seeing a thread on this forum that was so long with 1 person writing missives to try and shove their opinion down everyone else's throat. Pretty pathetic IMO! This subject has been in so many threads that it really makes me wonder why anyone would want to become a pariah while beating a dead horse.

I just had a medical situation where I couldn't hardly be on my laptop for several days. Here is a perfect example why I disagree with the OP. Since I could only play on mobile I only played very minimally. One of the biggest reasons for that is the unfair trades! I don't want to accidentally tap them as I scroll & scroll trying to find trades for my city and to help others. It is really close to impossible to play this game without a usable & safe trader! Honestly, it has become a matter of principal. No matter how much of something I have I do not want to reward trades that are intentionally gouging other players. Yes, I know I said that in the other thread so no need to attack me again. I am more sure of that now than I have ever been thanks to this thread!

I do want to put out there that I believe Elvenar could go a long way toward solving a lot of this problem if they would just put filters in the trader, especially on mobile where it is so difficult to even use the trader.
 

CrazyWizard

Oh Wise One
This game is not some extreme right wing activist playground.
It's not and should not be a 100% capatalist game without boundries.

Remember this game was made for people that hate PvP, this audience of this game are people who don't like it.
I do not want to battle another rockerfeller.

Political ideals should be kept there not in this game. this ain't the right podium for that insanity.

I havent read a single line of your posts other than the title and your name, because once I noticed your name I already was like "not again"
and the few responses from others I have read are the same.
 

DeletedUser27581

Guest
I would say enough is enough here, when one player is causing such turmoil in the Forum Community, continuously.
This post topic is a violation of rule #5: https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.702/
How many times have we seen this very topic brought up in the General chat through the years?
Do what you will with trades but realize the rest of the community may not agree with you. It's chaotic and unnecessary to have multiple threads about this issue, when one player is the main instigator against the "norm".
Can we please close this thread, Mods?
Thank you. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top