Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Unanimous decisions

Majority decisions

Plurality decisions

Highest !influence/join time

[Maximum Spin]

Not sure how you got ^1800 but fair argument, still, for majority it would require either many people to do this for all ships or a few people to invest even more, so it's still would be harder to cut someone out.

^40*(5+10+30), the minimum share orders for the three auctions.

As for the rest, the problem isn't whether it makes it easier or harder to cut someone out, but that it restricts this ability to those with more money. As it stands, certainly, a cabal could buy a minimum share order in every ship and prevent everyone else from using it, but, when the time comes for them to use their leftover cash to buy a ship to try to actually make money, individual players can do the same thing in return. Under majority rules, a modestly-sized cabal is undermineproof.

[evictedSaint]

Personally, I think the game is more fun if people are allowed to play. It's more enjoyable if ships are getting imports and exports, rather than every ship sitting in dry dock in permanent gridlock.

[Maximum Spin]

Personally, I think the game is more fun if people are allowed to play. It's more enjoyable if ships are getting imports and exports, rather than every ship sitting in dry dock in permanent gridlock.

That's exactly why it should start requiring unanimous agreement — that disincentivises gridlock by making it available for everyone, so that anyone trying it would essentially lock up the game pointlessly. It's like nuclear brinksmanship. My operating assumption is that people will not want to render the whole game pointless, because that would be dumb. On the other hand, under majority rules, that power becomes one-sided, so there's no reason not to use it.

In other words, what you're saying here is exactly my point.

[Madman198237]

Several things make the "cabal" scenario you keep going on about impossible.

1. This is B12. We won't be getting a horrible player-count-murdering group going through everybody's ranks with fire and sword in the name of winning the game through the most unfun means possible.
2. Individual players win, not a cabal of hypothetical players willing to steadily buy out the competition and force their ships to do what they want.
3. It's bad economics to have majority shares in a ship and NOT have it do anything that earns you more money with which you could buy out the other players *if* they're willing to sell.
4. Technically this has to happen eventually for someone to win, i.e. someone has to drive everyone else bankrupt.
5. If you're worried about a cabal blocking everyone else doing unanimous votes is the WORST POSSIBLE SOLUTION since it allows them to bankrupt everybody else just by buying ONE STOCK or whatever the minimum is in every ship and then forcing those ships to do nothing while their own ship does things.

EDIT (I forgot to add this to the end):
6. eS isn't going to let the game get murdered by players trying to avoid playing the game.

[Kashyyk]

SMSI bids ^8 for 25 shares of MerchantVessel #1
SMSI bids ^8 for 5 shares of MerchantVessel #2

Spoiler: SolarMax Shipping & Industry Inc. (click to show/hide)

Stock Symbol: SMSI
Credits: ^500 (^240 earmarked for auction bids)
Influence: !0
Assets: Small Warehouse#1 (10 Space) (1/1 shares owned)

[evictedSaint]

EDIT (I forgot to add this to the end):
6. eS isn't going to let the game get murdered by players trying to avoid playing the game.

[m1895]

Buying 2 shares in the Consortium instead

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Company: Nagant Ventures
Stock Symbol: NVS
Credits: ^500
Influence: !1
Assets: Small Warehouse#1 (10 Space) (1/1 shares owned)

[a1s]

The Mun Consortium has decided to lower the required number of shares from 11 to just 7. Anyone who didn't get a chance to join receives my sympathies, but the Consortium is now live:

List of current shareholders:
A1S: 2 shares
LBR: 2 shares
NVS: 2 shares
IMP: 1 share

List of Assets:
^1400

Spoiler: Assets (click to show/hide)

Company: Aywanez 1st into Space
Stock Symbol: A1S
Credits: ^100
Influence: !0
Assets:
Small Warehouse#1 (10 Space) (1/1 shares owned)
Contracts:
"The Mun Consortium": 2 shares.

[Ray_Anor]

TMC™️ CEO election starts in next 2 hours from this post.

[Maximum Spin]

Several things make the "cabal" scenario you keep going on about impossible.

1. This is B12. We won't be getting a horrible player-count-murdering group going through everybody's ranks with fire and sword in the name of winning the game through the most unfun means possible.
2. Individual players win, not a cabal of hypothetical players willing to steadily buy out the competition and force their ships to do what they want.
3. It's bad economics to have majority shares in a ship and NOT have it do anything that earns you more money with which you could buy out the other players *if* they're willing to sell.
4. Technically this has to happen eventually for someone to win, i.e. someone has to drive everyone else bankrupt.
5. If you're worried about a cabal blocking everyone else doing unanimous votes is the WORST POSSIBLE SOLUTION since it allows them to bankrupt everybody else just by buying ONE STOCK or whatever the minimum is in every ship and then forcing those ships to do nothing while their own ship does things.

EDIT (I forgot to add this to the end):
6. eS isn't going to let the game get murdered by players trying to avoid playing the game.

Right, you're still missing the point that I just made earlier. It's not that I'm worried about people doing so, it's that having the power to do so restricted to one side makes politics unnecessary since majority holders do not need to care what the other shareholders want.

[Ray_Anor]

Right, you're still missing the point that I just made earlier. It's not that I'm worried about people doing so, it's that having the power to do so restricted to one side makes politics unnecessary since majority holders do not need to care what the other shareholders want.

I understand perfectly well why you are lobbying for such an idea. After all, having a minimum package of shares on each ship, you can sabotage their flight missions. But. Do you know what, if you want to control the ship - become its main holder, and do not buy the minimum package.

[Maximum Spin]

I understand perfectly well why you are lobbying for such an idea. After all, having a minimum package of shares on each ship, you can sabotage their flight missions.

I have no desire to do so and it would be pretty stupid given that I do not have enough money to recover from doing so.

But more importantly, the argument I'm making is completely separate from my actions thus far. Remember how we have the opportunity to withdraw bids right now, anyway? If all I cared about was my own plans, I would change them.

Although, in retrospect, I guess I don't have to bid quite so much.

SYS bids ^15 per share for 15 shares of MerchantVessel#1.
SYS bids ^15 per share for 10 shares of MerchantVessel#2.

Is this why I'm drawing so much aggro from the mewn crew? You all assumed I wanted to scuttle your ships? I'm not a complete moron.

ETA: I'm also bumping the price on EZ-Venture™ shares. You may think this makes no sense since they didn't draw any interest, but they're still already an insanely low price for the offer?

[Ray_Anor]

SYS bids ^15 per share for 15 shares of MerchantVessel#1.

minimum bids for #1 is 10, not 5.

[a1s]

That's ok Ray_Anor, he bid for 15 of them.

[Ray_Anor]

That's ok Ray_Anor, he bid for 15 of them.

I don't quite understand. This is the minimum order size or the minimum size of the block of shares.