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