Practical Trading in PBEM

[jshelr]

The structure of delayed communications within the game proper is making it much easier to take trade discussions out of the game structure and to communicate by message or email.

To do that effectively, it would be helpful if we set agreed standards on what discussions mean.

For example

Would you trade the wheel for 50 gold is a question.

I will give you 50 gold for the wheel is an offer.

When you make an offer, the person you are communicating with should be able to conclude a deal by agreeing to an offer.

For example, you send I will give you 50 gold for the wheel

And you get back "done" from the person you have contacted.

I believe it would be to everyone's benefit we all understood that it is not honorable to fail to carry out a transaction that has been agreed to clearly in back channel communications. This is true even if something better shows up before you get your chance to validate the transaction on the screen.

This is not an issue of morality but rather a way to make the backchannel market work well. Do you agree that back channel communications actually represent an integral part of the game and that a done deal should be followed up on the screen, even if something better intrudes?

(That's not to say betrayal will not happen. However, it would clarify what betrayal is.)

[SpencerH]

jshelr, I think you're over analysing the situation. Do we really need to codify human to human communication? It's gonna be more complexthan human to AI. Thats what we all expect and thats why we MP rather than SP. We will skip all of the rules and quirks of deal making and breaking that occur with SP. In dealing with humans its an open slate. If you break a deal with me (or vice versa ) I can choose to advertise that fact or not depending on the circumstances. Who knows, you may agree to pay me not to advertise that fact. If you break a lot of deals/treaties, other players will change how they trade with you, just as in real life.

'Spies' will also work again. You may be interested in tactical or strategic info I have on another player. I may sell it to you or I may sell you false info. I'm looking forward to the complexity of it all.

[jshelr]

I actually agree fully with your basic thrust and you may be right that I'm over analyzing, but maybe not. In the game, if you screw me, it's up to me to get even if I can. But, you don't want me to think you screwed me if you didn't intend to.

Based on experience trading with the nasty folks in the so-called real world, it is efficient for both parties to know what statements mean to each other.

If we don't evolve a simple language for PBEM, then backchannel communication becomes less useful and we are all stuck in a situation where it takes three turns to trade a tech that it only took six turns to research. Meanwhile, you are not even sure you've traded it successfully.

The reason you may be right about overanalysis is that a simple language will evolve by itself without any push on my part

Markets always evolve a language that is crisp and clear to those who particpate. That does not prevent participants, as you can read every day in the paper, from hatching their nefarious schemes as they will.

BTW, reputation is going to be a real grey area. Who else will really know if you break a deal with me. Anyone can cut and paste any "evidence" into any email they want to. I think reputation might turn out to be largely a bilateral deal.