Started by Sami, December 09, 2017, 05:52:52 PM
Quote from: dmoose42 on December 11, 2017, 01:04:21 AMGenerally, I don't feel strongly that the existing system needs to be tweaked. I feel like we have a tendency to make rules for the sake of rules. If anything the game has been tilted to protect less successful airlines/less experienced players over time (some changes have improved the game, some I would question, but that's for a different thread). The problem with making such rules is that they frequently don't help them actually become better players because BKing (or almost BKing) is one of the strongest learning tools that exist. Without having gone through those scares in the early days, I wouldn't have learned as much as I did.That being said, tying the sale price to book value is a terrible idea. Book value is purely an accounting amount, affected by purchase price, depreciation, etc. If one airline paid full price for a plane and another purchased in bulk and got the 20% (or more) discount - their book values would be different. Why should the amount they would be able to sell the plane for be different. If we want to add a rule that if you buy an aircraft from another airline, you can't sell or scrap it for x period. one year sounds reasonable to me.If the issue is really that we are trying to avoid airlines helping each other, the mechanism we are doing this is horrible. We are creating convoluted game play rules to achieve an end that is not possible. We say the purpose of alliances is to help each other. So why not let them help each other. Allow alliances to fund loans to distressed airlines to use how they see fit. If I have the money and want to throw money into a sink hole - then why shouldn't I be allowed to do it. I have spent many games (not recently due to rule changes) of having competitors receiving this benefit and i can't say that it made the game less fun, or more fun. It just was a different challenge. I don't regret that in any way.So if we want to prevent alliances from helping each other, or really any airline helping any other, then we should prevent airlines form selling planes to each other. I mean that's the logical conclusion of all of this. But does that make sense? Of course not.So what is the answer? If we are really concerned about struggling airlines getting unfair help, make a simple rule, that an unprofitable airline (however defined) can no longer sell assets to other airlines. Does that make sense? Of course not.So...i disagree that additional changes are necessary, but if we have to do something, what I propose is that if the airline is unprofitable, it can't sell assets above market price to alliance airlines. it's clear, simple, and loosely solves whatever problem we are trying to solve.
Quote from: Talentz on December 11, 2017, 02:49:31 AMMoney laundering is against the rules, in whatever form you figure out how to get away with it. No matter how you try to explain it, its still wrong. ~ Whatever agenda you cling too, is perfectly fine. Still doesn't make that action correct. But its ok. It's your choice. Rules/regulations exist to punish those who seek to undermine the "free market/free will" people howl about. If you want the choice to be still possible, I'm ok with that as well. If you get caught doing nefarious actions, don't cry about the punishment when it happens.If your arguing about there not being consequences to your nefarious actions, you are truly dreaming. Cause that's not happening folks ~Talentz
Quote from: schro on December 11, 2017, 01:19:30 AMInteresting perspective. I agree that additional rules/constraints need to be put in place rather than get a clarification of an existing rule. When I read the current rule about repeated sales to other airlines that generates profits/money for only one airline, I interpret that as "buy junk to scrap" sorts of transactions are not permitted. However, we've not had that explicitly stated in the game rules, therefore, it's a point that needs clarification. If such transactions are allowed, then great, I'll join in the fray. If they're not, then that needs to be made clear that those types of transactions fall under the existing rule. Of course, alliancemates should help each other out - and even the occasional plane here or there to be bought for scrap isn't necessarily a problem. The problem is when there's say, a billion bucks a quarter going down that sinkhole.
Quote from: dmoose42 on December 11, 2017, 04:15:23 AMI disagree with this in its entirety. Rules/regulations exist to protect the losers from an entirely free market. They do not exist to punish those that are looking for a free market. Many regulations can be argued support 'fair competition' but then it's a question of what is deemed to be fair or not. Now my personal view is that a good number of rules/regulations are needed to protect market abuses, but I am not under the illusion that those protections protect a 100% free market, they are designed to facilitate certain outcomes, one of which (in AWS terms) is to minimize the competitive advantage achieved by size. There is no way that you can argue the current commonality penalty system is designed to support a free market. It is designed a gameplay mechanism to force difficult choices (airlines of all sizes) and has a growth inhibitor on the largest airlines.
Quote from: dmoose42 on December 11, 2017, 04:15:23 AMIn regards to money laundering, how is buying a plane money laundering...Per wikipedia (obviously the best source for everything)..."Money laundering is the process of transforming the profits of crime and corruption into ostensibly "legitimate" assets." If i buy an airframe from another airline at more or less market value, how is that money laundering? I think that it is a gross misuse of the term and implies a level of criminality that is not commensurate with the actions of either party. Most of the times i have been involved in assisting other airlines, it has been less about the gain/profit on selling the airframe, it's more about ensuring a rapid sale to provide liquid funds quickly. If it then takes me a year to sell he plan and recoup my funds, I don't care, but to the struggling airline, they couldn't wait a year. To me that's a liquidity issue, not a money laundering issue.
Quote from: dmoose42 on December 11, 2017, 04:15:23 AMSeparately, if you are arguing that i was implying that i personally was behind whatever nefarious actions you are referring to, I take offense to that. If you were making a general statement against those that break the AWS rules, then I agree that whatever the rules are, agree or disagree, if you break them, then you have to live by the consequences of your actions.
Quote from: MuzhikRB on December 11, 2017, 11:23:51 AMjust ban plane trade to any other human player if the plane age is 15+.
Quote from: MuzhikRB on December 11, 2017, 01:11:49 PMI say nothing about lease Gaz.only about selling 15+
Quote from: Dasha on December 11, 2017, 03:27:29 PMSo according to some people here, as an alliance member, you are not allowed to help out your fellow alliance member by buying a plane and scrapping it immediately.
Quote from: MikeS on December 11, 2017, 04:27:44 PMReading through the discussion it appears to me that it boils down to whether Team Play should be allowed. T
Quote from: schro on December 11, 2017, 04:09:47 PMWell, there's a rule on the books (that has been there for years) that prohibits cash transfers/one-sided transactions. It doesn't explicitly say that such transactions are not permitted, however, the substance of the transaction looks a lot like a cash transfer/one-sided transaction. Therefore, there's this discussion thread about clarifying and providing interpretation as to whether this practice violates the rule. From the way you wrote your reply, you appear to believe that such transactions are not representative of a cash transfer/one-sided transaction.