Market stall - to buy and sell like we've always wanted to.

[*Wiro]

This is pointless. Using examples, you can negate everything.

I don't care as much about this suggestion, but if I had to I could think up a bunch more. What it comes down to is:

1. Something bad happens.
2. The bad person uses market stall.
3. The person behind that market stall would've NEVER sold to that bad person.

And will this basically remove all risks in trading? That's lame. Or maybe more like laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame. Speaking about making it easier for older characters.

[Cogliostro]

If you get excited by that so-called trading risk, then just don't use a stall to trade. It's not fair to the original idea to keep on counterposing it with regular trade. After all, the stall doesn't in any way exclude or preclude the possibility of normal trading.

Yes, there is a certain universalism inherent in using the market stall. Anyone can buy from you at any time, but that's the point of this particular feature of the game! There would be no whitelists or blacklists at all, and if you want to only sell a certain amount at a time, then you have to manually only set up that amount for sale at a time. Sorted!

Funny aside note about trade risks. In my many years of playing Cantr, I have only ONCE been the victim of "trade risk". Someone took off with the trade goods I gave them without giving me their part of the deal. Once only, in all those years. And you know what else? It was Rigel Kent's character and the only reason he did it was due to being stoned out of his mind, as he was happy to let me know using an OOC: comment.

[catpurr]

Yes, there is a certain universalism inherent in using the market stall. Anyone can buy from you at any time, but that's the point of this particular feature of the game!

Yes there is universalism inherented in it, and thats why it is IMHO violating the cantr principle:

Third, the in-game economy and laws are entirely determined by the players. The game`s code provides the means to produce physical objects; what you do with those is not (and will not be) coded. No social structure will be coded. No concept of ownership will be coded. No rules or laws will be coded, beyond some limitations on violence.

The code provides the means to produce physical objects. Not more.

Not automated transactions!

No rules and laws will be coded, yet with market stalls you would code the social rule of universalism into it.

[Cogliostro]

Actually, let's be fair here. There is a lot of healthy "universalism" in many of Cantr's mission-critical features. Witness how if you are on a ship, there's no discrimination whatsoever whether you are the captain or not, anyone can control the ship. That's just one example, but you'll find it anywhere that you find the game offering players the equal convenience to do something regardless of what the context is.

Why doesn't anyone raise a lawyerly objection to that, though, and point to the front page? Answer: 'cause that's a pointless, anal retentive exercise, (unless you are gearing up for law school down the line). Very similarly, I think we can categorize what you're saying as the same kind of thing.

Meanwhile I think the beef-objection you have in mind is that you're using sealed envelopes as currency and think that's a clever idea. But in the way I suggested it, it wouldn't be possible to use your envelopes as currency for stalls. I guess you are not aware, either, that seals can be very easily forged... Or you even accept that, because you really want to use something like that. Just for the sake of argument, what if stalls did accept your envelopes?

My point which I'm having to make over and over, is that having a market stall feature/option in no way stops you from continuing to use your envelopes or anything else you like. It's you, rather, who is imposing a limit, by arguing against allowing others to use the stall for convenient, gameplay-enhancing trading. Your specific objections are esoteric and nitpicky, and all come down to simply being against it on principle - you think Cantr doesn't deserve its own functional trade mechanism! It should be admitted openly, you're not saying you found something wrong in practice with the idea of people using stalls (exploits etc.), but rather saying that people SHOULDN'T be able to use stalls, because just because. That's your point and opinion, for which you can later contrive the examples to fit. Otherwise I did appreciate your well-constructed arguments!

Also before pointing to the front page as though it was the Holy Bible, it'd be good to make sure we understand the intent of what it's saying, rather than being stuck on following everything it said to the letter (like lawyers would). If you look at it from this perspective, then you will see that the "universalism will not be coded" objection is in every way equivallent to "automation will not be coded". But it's already been demonstrated that there is no automation here, and a feature usable by all players must of necessity be "universal" in that sense you mean - just like sailing ships, or driving cars, or joining and leaving projects - think about the terrible universalism inherent in that; people can join your projects without your permission! Or, they can give you stuff without you ever wanting to take any of it. The list of rampant white anglo-saxon protestant universalism in the game goes on and on.

Holding that thought about the intent being much more important than the literal contents of a communication, I got a question for you - why do you think a Cogliostro would push for a new idea like these market stalls in Cantr? Could it be because he has nothing better to do? Or, what if, he came up with that as an actual solution to something else, something that interestingly isn't being directly stated? I am talking, of course, of our heated past discussions about asynchronous combat in Cantr. Side by side with something like that, we introduce an asynchronous option for goods exchange. Doug likes telling me to go to another game for that, since after such changes Cantr wouldn't be Cantr any longer. The question is whether it's worth it to try completely new things at this particular juncture, when the English part of the game is rapidly dying away. Doug's right, but so am I - because I think unless we do something serious that changes everything for the better, pretty soon I'll be having to learn Polish if I want to keep on playing Cantr.

[catpurr]

Cogliostro, you are messing things up.

The ship is a physical object. In the way it applies universalism there is exactly to *not* code social order and values into it. Its cantr philosophy

The market stall in contest *does* code social order and values into it. It *does* do automation to what is considered to be a person handling, and does codes unversialism as social order and value into his behaviour.

To argue that sealed envelopes is not a good idea is a weak point here. Maybe it isn't so what? But its up to the cantr people to decide! Not up to the game coder what kind of social organisation to support. I think this is the fundamental point you are not getting.

And this, but "you don't have to use it" point is mood. As I explained it does create unbalance in favor of specific kinds of organisation over others. you could as well argue to include nukes into the game? Don't like them? Just ban them from your town. You see how its a mood point?

To your last point. Yes I agree to Doug, you are obviously trying to make cantr to a game that cantr is not.

[BZR]

That's way the vending machines, proposed originally few years ago would be a better solution.


You build a machine and receive a key.

Inside, you can store one pile or several objects.

You set input - object or resource

You set output - object or resource.

Anyone with a crowbar can break into it.

Too much automation?

Since I started playing Cantr, so for few years, I have traded... about six times. It demands too much work from me, as a player. When I tried to play a trader, I had almost have to beg other characters to trade with me. Some of them told me that, the trade because they like me. When traders visit the location where my char is a townleader, I usually trade with them for the sake of RP. Becaue they usually have nothing interesting to offer.

Food is for free almost everywhere for few reasons.

1. It's cheap
2. It's easier to keep newspawns
3. Nobady likes to be busy trading 200 grams of carrots for 10 grams of iron.

To conclude, I would prefer automatic vending machines then market stalls. They seem more natural to me.

IMO, it would really fit the Cantrian climate. Cars, rakers, radios, battle axes and woolen cardigans.

[*Wiro]

That's way the vending machines, proposed originally few years ago would be a better solution.


You build a machine and receive a key.

Inside, you can store one pile or several objects.

You set input - object or resource

You set output - object or resource.

Anyone with a crowbar can break into it.

Too much automation?

Since I started playing Cantr, so for few years, I have traded... about six times. It demands too much work from me, as a player. When I tried to play a trader, I had almost have to beg other characters to trade with me. Some of them told me that, the trade because they like me. When traders visit the location where my char is a townleader, I usually trade with them for the sake of RP. Becaue they usually have nothing interesting to offer.

Food is for free almost everywhere for few reasons.

1. It's cheap
2. It's easier to keep newspawns
3. Nobady likes to be busy trading 200 grams of carrots for 10 grams of iron.

To conclude, I would prefer automatic vending machines then market stalls. They seem more natural to me.

IMO, it would really fit the Cantrian climate. Cars, rakers, radios, battle axes and woolen cardigans.

Agreed.

[catpurr]

Actually I too would like vending machines more than market stalls. Not loving it, but rather be yet okay with it. They'd be physical objects that behave just the way the behave.

They have to be "manually operated" just as market stalls as a player has to fill all objects and set all prices. The "non automation" in market stalls is just it locks a player char to sit in there.

But I think we are just trying to cure the sympton. While trading can be nerving it is likely not done, because most want to not trade. You'd in many cases rather just get that stuff yourself.

As explained a good organized player managed trader could work with a single turn take. A trusting shop (that hunts thieves) could even work without turn taking trusting players to pickup only what they drop in paying for and to hunt down those who not.

[Marian]

To conclude, I would prefer automatic vending machines then market stalls. They seem more natural to me.

IMO, it would really fit the Cantrian climate. Cars, rakers, radios, battle axes and woolen cardigans.

Same here, actually. I just figured if vending machines were a definite 'no' this would be the next best thing.

[Cogliostro]

Is buying and selling, especially with stalls, the instantiation of a specific social order? Yes, it most definitely is.

But the burden of proof is still on you to show how a market stall (an optional thing) favours some social order and disadvantages another. As I see it, it simply gives a new option that we didn't have before - without taking anything away.

Let's hear what you think on that!

(and what do nukes have to do with anything?)

[*Wiro]

Is buying and selling, especially with stalls, the instantiation of a specific social order? Yes, it most definitely is.

But the burden of proof is still on you to show how a market stall (an optional thing) favours some social order and disadvantages another. As I see it, it simply gives a new option that we didn't have before - without taking anything away.

Let's hear what you think on that!

(and what do nukes have to do with anything?)

I am starting to like the general idea of it more, but we need to look at the problems too. There's enough troublesome scenarios with this. The vending machine solves a lot of them.

[catpurr]

Is buying and selling, especially with stalls, the instantiation of a specific social order? Yes, it most definitely is.

But the burden of proof is still on you to show how a market stall (an optional thing) favours some social order and disadvantages another. As I see it, it simply gives a new option that we didn't have before - without taking anything away.

Let's hear what you think on that!

(and what do nukes have to do with anything?)

I'm sorry if you are still not able to get it, that an "optional thing" still changes the game as it does make some society organisations now easier than other or not able to understand the logical instrument of analogy. I don't know what to do.

[Cogliostro]

catpurr: I'm calling you out to state things explicitly on purpose, and you are weaseling out of it on purpose. A fine bunch we are!

The thing of course is that once anyone tries to state it, they'll see that if it's only about "social order" then one can't even write down your objection properly. It's all generic, theoretical-esoteric terms with nothing concrete (relating to Cantr's actual gameplay) beneath.

[catpurr]

cogliostrio, i *did* wrote already several times very clearly, you just *decided* not to want to grasp it, and to pick around on some unimportant detail of a post instead, or to confuse around concepts with similar sounding names.

[*Wiro]

Funny aside note about trade risks. In my many years of playing Cantr, I have only ONCE been the victim of "trade risk". Someone took off with the trade goods I gave them without giving me their part of the deal. Once only, in all those years. And you know what else? It was Rigel Kent's character and the only reason he did it was due to being stoned out of his mind, as he was happy to let me know using an OOC: comment.

By the way that was probably a lie just so his character would survive, you know.