The Gaming Den

It's possible to order online, but I'll probably try heading into the city and checking the gaming stores there first. Mind Games (covers board games, card games (both CCG like Magic and those all-in-one things like Munchkin and Lunch Money), roleplaying stuff and wargame minis) should have it.

Kaelik wrote:

fbmf wrote:You can't buy money for more than its worth. You can buy property or GoJF cards, but not money. Buying money for more than its worth is you giving someone money, which is forbidden:

http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/monins.pdf

Page 5, under miscellaneous rules.

Right, there is a rule directly prohibiting lending. But there is no rule prohibiting buying money for money. So why would it be illegal?

I mean, I guess if you want to really weird about it, they have to have one purple shitty property that goes into the loan, IE "I will buy your shitty purple for 1400 dollars." followed two turns later by a buyback for 1600.

That's my point, how the fuck do you enforce rules like that in monopoly?

"I know you just landed on my Hotel, but I would like to buy your shitty purple off you for the exact amount you owe me plus one dollar. Then sell it back to you for 1 dollar. Then you can pay me the rent you owe me."

Every possible deal is manageable under these restrictions as long as you own one purple, light blue, or utility.

I get what you're saying, and I suppose your right, but Monopoly is a competitive game, so why would you?

And the fact remains that you would have to go through all of that rigamarole. You can't just give someone money. If for some reason (out there in crazy land but possible) you don't have the assets to do the back and forth trading of property and money, you can't.

(Confession: I've done it before to buy someone else out who wanted to quit, but never just to help them out.)

I admit, though, it's not as big a deal as the auction and the free parking "lottery". As long as you're buying property ASAP and not putting money into the game, the game goes a lot faster.

I guess "don't help anyone not lose in the game you're trying to win" is just always the strategy I've gone with. I'm such a colostomy bag.

Game On,
fbmf

?? Nothing about that involves helping out other people. You only make those deals if you think they increase your chances of winning.

IE, Make a deal where you give them the exact amount of money they owe you in exchange for property you want, so that you can get it without the bankruptcy auction, ect.

Or instead of them having to mortgage all their property and not go bankrupt and you still won't have that property.

The point is that because all deals are possible, including "You never have to pay rent on this property" type deals without breaking the rules, all those deals that make the game longer are still there.

Kaelik wrote:
IE, Make a deal where you give them the exact amount of money they owe you in exchange for property you want, so that you can get it without the bankruptcy auction, ect.

Or instead of them having to mortgage all their property and not go bankrupt and you still won't have that property.

1. If a person goes bankrupt because they owe you money, you get all of their property (they have to sell back houses and hotels, but you get the proceeds).

2. Then you've bought property, which is kosher.

The point is that because all deals are possible, including "You never have to pay rent on this property" type deals without breaking the rules, all those deals that make the game longer are still there.

Emphasis mine.

That is not a legit deal without the back and forth trade. You can't give another player money.

And why would you? It's a competitive game.

Game On,
fbmf

fbmf wrote:1. If a person goes bankrupt because they owe you money, you get all of their property (they have to sell back houses and hotels, but you get the proceeds).

2. Then you've bought property, which is kosher.

1) Unless they owe the bank, or the other player, in which case you might want to "buy some property" to keep them in the game, and get you that property instead, and then you can have him pay you back with more phony property sales.

2) Yeah, that's the point. Using phony property sales, anyone who owns even a single property without hotels can be given, or give money. Since you can do that, it is possible to make any deal imaginable in the game. It is totally legal to give money through property sales where title doesn't even change hands, and therefore, you can mimic any deal you want.

The point is that because all deals are possible, including "You never have to pay rent on this property" type deals without breaking the rules, all those deals that make the game longer are still there.

Emphasis mine.

That is not a legit deal without the back and forth trade. You can't give another player money.

And why would you? It's a competitive game.

But that's my point. If you want to make a deal where you sell a property to someone and then you are immune to paying rent on that property, you can totally do that. Watch:

"I will sell you X for Y dollars, provided that you never charge me rent on X." "Okay."

Later, you land on X. Then you owe 500 dollars, or whatever. So he buys Z off you for 501 dollars. Then you pay him 500 dollars, then he sells Z to you for 1 dollar. Done. You didn't really pay rent, even though you did according to the game. And you can totally do that, because giving money is allowed as long as either one of you owns a single property without a hotel.

So if you want to make the deal, you can make any deal.

And once again, the reason you would want to give another player money is so that you can execute complex deals. If you can execute complex deals, you might want to. You make complex deals because it's a competitive game, and sometimes complex deals help you win.

Later, you land on X. Then you owe 500 dollars, or whatever. So he buys Z off you for 501 dollars. Then you pay him 500 dollars, then he sells Z to you for 1 dollar. Done.

Hell no. Properties must be auctioned. You cannot agree to low property prices, you must always sell them to the highest bidder.

You can bid unreasonable amounts for any shitty property up for auction to save someone from bankruptcy, or any other reason, but you can't expect to get it back unless you've got a lot of money spare and are about to win anyway.

Mostly someone in trouble will put up something you have to buy to stop a third party getting a good set, and if they've just dumped some houses on the market in the late game you need cash spare for them too.


EDIT: THIS IS VERY WRONG, and I apologise. Left intact for quiet shame.

No tussok, that's completely wrong. Read the rules:

… Unimproved properties, railroads and
utilities (but not buildings) may be sold to any player as a private
transaction for any amount the owner can get; however, no property
can be sold to another player if buildings are standing on any
properties of that color-group. Any buildings so located must be sold
back to the Bank before the owner can sell any property of that color-group.
Houses and hotels may be sold back to the Bank at any time for
one-half the price paid for them...

DSM wrote:So, before I get into the actual problem, I have to correct you on this one business. Theism is an uncountably large set of claims, not one individual claim, and it is a subset of evidenceless propositions. You are not comparing one to infinity, you are comparing two uncountably large infinities to one another.

OK, now I see where you're being wrong. You're fundamentally confused about how infinity works. That's OK, infinity is complex shit. You're thinking that if you just make your wild ass guess goalpost-shifty enough that it becomes a reasonable statement. That if one evidenceless proposition is a one divided by infinity chance of being right, that infinity evidenceless propositions has some reasonable chance of one of them being correct. And you're wrong. Infinity doesn't work that way.

Let's consider Invisible Unicorns on Venus for a minute. There's no evidence for them, because they are not real. They don't exist. Saying that they do exist is an evidenceless proposition. But you'll notice that the proposition doesn't define their height. The Invisible Unicorns could be 13 hands high or 14 hands high. Or one thousand kilometers high. Or whatever. There is an infinite number of heights that an Invisible Unicorn could have and thus an infinite number of propositions of Invisible Unicorns that could be made. And that doesn't make Invisible Unicorns any more likely, because Invisible Unicorns are fiction and not real. We could shift the goalposts infinitely on any other trait you care to mention. They could be smart or stupid, strong or frail, happy or sad, or whatever. We could choose an infinite number of sliding scales and vary our acceptable parameters infinitely on any or all of them, creating an uncountably large number of potential evidenceless propositions and every one of them could collectively be discounted immediately and without evidence because it's still fucking retarded.

The thing is that however big a set of "stuff you just made up" you care to make, the set of "all the shit you could make up that isn't real" is still many orders of infinity larger than that. It never ever gets large enough to play the odds against the sheer size of the collective possibilities of fictional speculation.

Unless and until you extend your made up bullshit parameters to include something that there is some reason to believe actually exists, there's still no reason to believe it exists. And the fact that you have a lot of made up bullshit doesn't make your bullshit meaningfully more likely to be correct. It just means that you're wasting more space with your fiction.

-Username17

fbmf wrote:[*]Rent collection is automatic. There is no "you didn't notice I landed there and the next person took their turn so you're screwed" rule.

I've always hated that rule, and everyone I play with likes to play with it. I'm always tempted to respond in two ways:

1) Simply say that if I can't trust them to pay me, then if I ever have to go to the bathroom, I'll simply wait until my turn, grab the dice, and make them all just sit there waiting for me. Same if I want to get another drink, or whatever.

2) Say that, if their justification is that the rules don't say that you can't do it, so it must be legal, then I'll start picking up the dice immediately after I roll them, before anyone can verify the result. I'll then claim whichever number between 2 and 12 is most advantageous, and doubles, if that number is even. Doing crap just because the game doesn't say you "can't" probably doesn't improve the overall experience.


I only add +2 in there because I think everyone I know actually thinks that's how the game works by default.

Kaelik wrote: 1) Unless they owe the bank, or the other player, in which case you might want to "buy some property" to keep them in the game, and get you that property instead, and then you can have him pay you back with more phony property sales.

Then just buy the property you want and call it a day. Why the back and forth?

2) Yeah, that's the point. Using phony property sales, anyone who owns even a single property without hotels can be given, or give money. Since you can do that, it is possible to make any deal imaginable in the game. It is totally legal to give money through property sales where title doesn't even change hands, and therefore, you can mimic any deal you want.

How? Or do you mean "only temporarily changed hands"?

Game On,
fbmf

EDIT: The Board spazzed out on me when I first did this, but when I split it over two posts it seems to work fine

The point is that because all deals are possible, including "You never have to pay rent on this property" type deals without breaking the rules, all those deals that make the game longer are still there.

Emphasis mine.

That is not a legit deal without the back and forth trade. You can't give another player money.

And why would you? It's a competitive game.

But that's my point. If you want to make a deal where you sell a property to someone and then you are immune to paying rent on that property, you can totally do that. Watch:

"I will sell you X for Y dollars, provided that you never charge me rent on X." "Okay."

Later, you land on X. Then you owe 500 dollars, or whatever. So he buys Z off you for 501 dollars. Then you pay him 500 dollars, then he sells Z to you for 1 dollar. Done. You didn't really pay rent, even though you did according to the game. And you can totally do that, because giving money is allowed as long as either one of you owns a single property without a hotel.

So if you want to make the deal, you can make any deal.

And once again, the reason you would want to give another player money is so that you can execute complex deals. If you can execute complex deals, you might want to. You make complex deals because it's a competitive game, and sometimes complex deals help you win.

All of that assumes you have and your prospective business partners have the right assets to go through the motions of the phony trade. If I were playing, (A) I'd still want to see the back-and-forth each time, and (B) I'd wonder why the hell you were trying to help the enemy?

Because while with the phony property trade (if you qualify) you can make almost anything work, I still maintain that "reasons this is a good idea" are edge cases.

Game On,
fbmf

RobbyPants wrote:

fbmf wrote:[*]Rent collection is automatic. There is no "you didn't notice I landed there and the next person took their turn so you're screwed" rule.

I've always hated that rule, and everyone I play with likes to play with it. I'm always tempted to respond in two ways:

1) Simply say that if I can't trust them to pay me, then if I ever have to go to the bathroom, I'll simply wait until my turn, grab the dice, and make them all just sit there waiting for me. Same if I want to get another drink, or whatever.

2) Say that, if their justification is that the rules don't say that you can't do it, so it must be legal, then I'll start picking up the dice immediately after I roll them, before anyone can verify the result. I'll then claim whichever number between 2 and 12 is most advantageous, and doubles, if that number is even. Doing crap just because the game doesn't say you "can't" probably doesn't improve the overall experience.


I only add +2 in there because I think everyone I know actually thinks that's how the game works by default.

Stop the Presses!

I was dismayed to find that under the current tournament rules this is apparently legal. I still thinks its a crock, but it's in the current official rules under PAYING RENT.

Game On,
fbmf

fbmf wrote:Then just buy the property you want and call it a day. Why the back and forth?

Because as a general rule, people are reluctant to sell you a property that gets you a monopoly unless there only two choices are either lose right now, or sell the property. And maybe, if they have a third option, such as mortgage everything, you might need to sweeten the deal, perhaps with some kind of immunity.

How? Or do you mean "only temporarily changed hands"?

Changing hands for 1/8th of a second is meaningless.

fbmf wrote:

But that's my point. If you want to make a deal where you sell a property to someone and then you are immune to paying rent on that property, you can totally do that. Watch:

"I will sell you X for Y dollars, provided that you never charge me rent on X." "Okay."

Later, you land on X. Then you owe 500 dollars, or whatever. So he buys Z off you for 501 dollars. Then you pay him 500 dollars, then he sells Z to you for 1 dollar. Done. You didn't really pay rent, even though you did according to the game. And you can totally do that, because giving money is allowed as long as either one of you owns a single property without a hotel.

So if you want to make the deal, you can make any deal.

And once again, the reason you would want to give another player money is so that you can execute complex deals. If you can execute complex deals, you might want to. You make complex deals because it's a competitive game, and sometimes complex deals help you win.

All of that assumes you have and your prospective business partners have the right assets to go through the motions of the phony trade. If I were playing, (A) I'd still want to see the back-and-forth each time, and (B) I'd wonder why the hell you were trying to help the enemy?

Because while with the phony property trade (if you qualify) you can make almost anything work, I still maintain that "reasons this is a good idea" are edge cases.

Your original complaint was that this sort of deal is not allowed in the rules, but that people make houserules that allow it, and this extends the game. If you think it's never a good idea, then you should say that you think people's bad monopoly skills make the game longer, not their houserules.

The deal is allowed by the RAW. Therefore, whether or not it is a good idea or not, they don't have houserules that make the game longer. If you think it's never a good idea to make such a deal, that's fine, but that would mean that even if people did have "houserules" that allowed the deal, it wouldn't make the game longer, because if they were really such a bad idea, people wouldn't do them.

Now, I'm going to take a moment to call you an idiot, because your weird hatred of deals is making you act like a fucking retard.

fbmf wrote:(B) I'd wonder why the hell you were trying to help the enemy?

You've said things like this many times, and it is a fundamentally dumb as shit thing to say.

It is a motherfucking deal that you make. If I see A give B a green property, and B give A $500, I could ask why A is helping B, and the answer he would give is "Because I think this deal is in my best interest, and I needed to give B a green to get $500." If I asked B why he's helping the enemy A, he would give a similar answer.

So when two players make a deal such as, "I will give you a red, and you will give me a yellow, and we will each be immune to the others monopoly on that color."* the answer to the question, "Why are you helping the enemy?" is going to be, "Because I think this deal is in my best interest, and I had to give the other guy 'help' in order to get what I wanted."

So every time you say, "But why are you helping the enemy by making a deal with him?" about a monopoly game, you sound like a motherfucking idiot, because monopoly is always won by someone with a monopoly, and people rarely just roll and land on all of the same color, so as a general rule you have to help some enemy at some point in order to get a monopoly and be in the running to win the game.


*I will sell you a red for $1, and you will sell me a yellow for $1, and in the event of either of us landing on the other's monopoly when we have enough assets between us to do so, we will make certain that each person is in identical condition before and after the rent is payed through valid trades, and [a clause distributing the burden of paying mortgage interest in the event that mortgaging is required to meet the rent payment].

fbmf wrote: Stop the Presses!

I was dismayed to find that under the current tournament rules this is apparently legal. I still thinks its a crock, but it's in the current official rules under PAYING RENT.

Game On,
fbmf

Oh well. I guess they were right.

Tournament Rules.
For Monopoly.
There are Tournaments.
For Monopoly.
WAT . . .

Frank wrote:OK, now I see where you're being wrong. You're fundamentally confused about how infinity works. That's OK, infinity is complex shit. You're thinking that if you just make your wild ass guess goalpost-shifty enough that it becomes a reasonable statement. That if one evidenceless proposition is a one divided by infinity chance of being right, that infinity evidenceless propositions has some reasonable chance of one of them being correct. And you're wrong. Infinity doesn't work that way.

Uhh, no. That's not what I said at all, and it doesn't follow from anything I said. You are confusing the shit out of my post.

You originally said:
For all (finite set: m, infinite set : n), |m|/|n| is effectively zero. That is true, but irrelevant, because the size of theism is not finite, it is another infinity.

So to actually disprove theism this way, your argument should have been:
For all (infinite sets : m,n), |m|/|n| is effectively zero. That is not true. Counter-example: let |m| = sum(x) over x, |n| = sum(2y) over y. |m|/|n| = .5

So when you say shit like this:

FrankTrollman wrote:That if one evidenceless proposition is a one divided by infinity chance of being right, that infinity evidenceless propositions has some reasonable chance of one of them being correct.

You are interpreting my statement as:
For all (infinite sets: m,n; likelihood: x) |m|/|n| > X (X is, in this case, whatever you mean by reasonable chance).

That's a fucked up and wrong interpretation of my argument, but hilariously it's the sort of misintepretation everyone seems determined to make. You made an argument asserting the likelihood of god's non-existence; I criticized that argument. Criticizing your argument for the likelihood god's non-existence is not an assertion of the likelihood of god's existence. Do not confuse "that is a bad argument because it makes no sense" with "that is a bad argument because the conclusion is wrong." Those are entirely different statements. The only claim I have made concerning infinity is that the ratio between two infinitely large sets is not necessarily zero, and that is true so what are you doing?

FrankTrollman wrote:Let's consider Invisible Unicorns on Venus for a minute.

"Why? What does considering them help us explain? Nothing? Then it's a pointless fucking question to begin with and talking about them at all is unscientific."

Pointing out that there are ridiculous evidenceless propositions that I can't disprove doesn't phase me, because my position doesn't actually obligate me to pay any attention to them. It obligates me to keep assertions concerning those evidenceless propositions out of my model of the universe. I can adequately explain all observed phenomenon concerning Venus without talking about the existence or nonexistence of invisible unicorns living there, so appending either statement is stupid and unnecessary.

God's existence is not necessary to explain our observations about reality, but neither is god's non-existence; any scientific model of reality should include neither statement because they are both totally unnecessary and irrelevant.

FrankTrollman wrote:The thing is that however big a set of "stuff you just made up" you care to make, the set of "all the shit you could make up that isn't real" is still many orders of infinity larger than that.

I almost want to say citation needed to be a dick. Proving theism is a relatively infinitely small subset of evidenceless propositions seems non-trivial. But I don't really care, and I suspect it will turn out to be true; you're still assuming a uniform distribution across the space of all evidenceless propositions, and that is the big problem.

Kaelik wrote:

How? Or do you mean "only temporarily changed hands"?

Changing hands for 1/8th of a second is meaningless.

No it isn't. If it were meaningless you could ignore it, but you later admit that you still have to go through the back-and-forth and can't ignore it.

Kaelik wrote: Your original complaint was that this sort of deal is not allowed in the rules, but that people make houserules that allow it, and this extends the game. If you think it's never a good idea, then you should say that you think people's bad monopoly skills make the game longer, not their houserules.

Emphasis mine.

No, I said another player can't loan you money. Only the bank can. That is correct. Without the back and forth exchange of assets (a series of sales, not loans) you can;t just get money from another player. Maybe you've never played in a game where Players A&B are boyfriend/girlfriend and girlfriend bitches until boyfriend tries to pay her debts, but it happens. And it is against the rules.

Re: Deals: If they are strictly quid pro quo, I get it. I think the "rent dodge" deal is chickenshit, but as long as you have the assets and do the back and forth it is RAW legal.

But the back and forth isn't meaningless and you can't ignore it.

Game On,
fbmf

DSM wrote:Proving theism is a relatively infinitely small subset of evidenceless propositions seems non-trivial.

Uh... no it isn't. Start with all bullshit evidenceless propositions that have a number on them. Then consider all of those whose number is nonrational, and every evidenceless proposition whose nonrational number is negative and every evidenceless proposition whose nonrational number is imaginary. Potential bullshit evidenceless propositions are the highest order of infinity it is possible to have because it includes all possible numbers modified by all possible predicates across all possible modifiers, operators, and locations. Any possible subset of evidenceless propositions is by definition many orders of infinity smaller than all of them, because by declaring any fixed goalposts at all you are excluding uncountable infinities of other reams of bullshit you could be piling on instead.

And you know what? It doesn't fucking matter, because it's all fiction. And no matter how "big" you make your bullshit evidenceless proposition, it's still something which we have no reason to believe and therefore we mark it false.

How can you prove I don't have -3i+4 golden apples? Or 19302875065π^e fairy friends? Or what fucking ever!?

Fiction is fiction. If it is a piece of bullshit you pulled out of your ass, it is not true, and we don't have to even consider giving it a non-zero truth value unless and until you provide some fucking evidence!

-Username17

fbmf wrote:No it isn't. If it were meaningless you could ignore it, but you later admit that you still have to go through the back-and-forth and can't ignore it.

No, it's totally meaningless in the sense that it has no effect on the game. I personally would ignore it, for example, by playing a game of monopoly, and not actually handing the property to them, and then back, because there is no reason to do so when it will only be for 1/8th of a second.

It does have one practical effect, in that it actually requires all deals to be made where one of the two parties has a property that does not have hotels. But since the number of deals that occur between two players who neither have such a property is basically zero, I'm not worried about that situation arising.

fbmf wrote:No, I said another player can't loan you money. Only the bank can. That is correct. Without the back and forth exchange of assets (a series of sales, not loans) you can;t just get money from another player. Maybe you've never played in a game where Players A&B are boyfriend/girlfriend and girlfriend bitches until boyfriend tries to pay her debts, but it happens. And it is against the rules.

Re: Deals: If they are strictly quid pro quo, I get it. I think the "rent dodge" deal is chickenshit, but as long as you have the assets and do the back and forth it is RAW legal.

But the back and forth isn't meaningless and you can't ignore it.

First of all: "Giving another player money (unless specifically instructed to by a CHANCE/COMMUNITY CHEST card or some shit) is forbidden. You can buy something from them, but not just hand them money. This precludes things like making deals with someone to not owe you rent if they land on a property for whatever reason."

Oh wait, you were totally wrong.

But the point is that it's perfectly possible to lend money in practice by just doing a double sale for one amount at one point, and a larger amount later. That's a loan. But additionally, your complaint is about a guy paying his girlfriends debts, and that's totally fucking legal. He just buys one of her properties for the value of her debts + $1, then sells it back for $1.

And yes, the back and forth is meaningless, because you will basically never be in a situation in which you can't do it, it has no real effect on the game, and if I were in a game with you, and attempted to make a loan of money, or even a rent bypass deal, with another player, and you objected because it was an illegal deal, then I would point out exactly how I would make it a legal deal, and if you expected me to physically hand a property back and forth, I would laugh in your face, and then make an elaborate presentation of this meaningless exchange as a mockery of you, and be sure to point to everyone else playing monopoly that the game just got slightly longer because fbmf insists that a property be handed back and forth every time.

But the point is that it's perfectly possible to lend money in practice by just doing a double sale for one amount at one point, and a larger amount later. That's a loan.

No. It's a series of sales. If Player B fucks you and decides not to pay you back, you're stuck. Because you sold the property to him.

As long as you acknowledge that it is not a loan (illegal) but a series of sales (legal), we're good.

But additionally, your complaint is about a guy paying his girlfriends debts, and that's totally fucking legal.

Not it isn't.

He just buys one of her properties for the value of her debts + $1, then sells it back for $1.

If they qualify for the back and forth fine. But he can't just pay her debts without the series of sales.

Game On,
fbmf

fbmf wrote:No. It's a series of sales. If Player B fucks you and decides not to pay you back, you're stuck. Because you sold the property to him.

Well yes, because it's a game of monopoly. Of course, if you hand them $500 and then they refuse to give you the property you 'bought' you're also stuck. Because the police don't police a game of monopoly, and the only possible resolution mechanic is social pressure. But if you know anyone who will make a deal in monopoly, and then not keep it, why the fuck would you be friends enough to play monopoly with them? Or are you saying that you personally are 100% pro making promises to your friends and then not keeping them?

fbmf wrote:If they qualify for the back and forth fine. But he can't just pay her debts without the series of sales.

What the mother fuck is wrong with you? I mean, if I were having a conversation with someone about D&D, about whether or not someone could make a spot check, and they kept repeating obsessively a mantra about how they would have to have a d20 to roll a spot check, that would also be true, but fucking pointless, because of course in a game of D&D, someone somewhere has a d20 he can use.

In a game of monopoly, they qualify for the back and forth. Because everyone always qualifies for the back and forth 100% of the time.

Kaelik wrote:Well yes, because it's a game of monopoly. Of course, if you hand them $500 and then they refuse to give you the property you 'bought' you're also stuck. Because the police don't police a game of monopoly, and the only possible resolution mechanic is social pressure. But if you know anyone who will make a deal in monopoly, and then not keep it, why the fuck would you be friends enough to play monopoly with them? Or are you saying that you personally are 100% pro making promises to your friends and then not keeping them?

Since we are now talking "tournament rules" rather than normal rules, the fact that there are a series of trades and one person can choose to break the deal between any trades is in fact important.

-Username17

But if you know anyone who will make a deal in monopoly, and then not keep it, why the fuck would you be friends enough to play monopoly with them?

If it's the game winning move in a one off competitive board game, I'd do it and not feel the least bit bad.

Better example: You and I have made this deal...

Kaelik wrote: *I will sell you a red for $1, and you will sell me a yellow for $1, and in the event of either of us landing on the other's monopoly when we have enough assets between us to do so, we will make certain that each person is in identical condition before and after the rent is payed through valid trades, and [a clause distributing the burden of paying mortgage interest in the event that mortgaging is required to meet the rent payment].

...and then you land on my reds and I know you can't afford the rent and it will drive you out of the game, I'm hoisting my middle finger in your general direction as I tell you to pay up.

Because everyone always qualifies for the back and forth 100% of the time.

Game On,
fbmf

FrankTrollman wrote:Since we are now talking "tournament rules" rather than normal rules, the fact that there are a series of trades and one person can choose to break the deal between any trades is in fact important.

Well, we actually were never really talking about Tournament rules. I agree that if you play in a tournament, that might matter, but the original complaint was:

1) Monopoly takes too long.

2) If you play by RAW, it's shorter, but most people play with houserules like these, the game gets longer.

Because I think we can all agree that the tournament people aren't using houserules, it seems like the common topic of discussion is random friend groups playing monopoly.

fbmf wrote:...and then you land on my reds and I know you can't afford the rent and it will drive you out of the game, I'm hoisting my middle finger in your general direction as I tell you to pay up.

And then I would never play monopoly with you again, or really, ever do anything at any point in which I would have to trust you to follow your word. Because when someone explains to me that they are a lying asshole who agrees to deals in monopoly they won't keep, I know that they are a psychopath who cannot be trusted in any way, and I should definitely never go hunting with them.

fbmf wrote:

Because everyone always qualifies for the back and forth 100% of the time.

Yes, really. I am aware that at the very beginning of the game, when no one owns any property, or owes anyone any money, they can't make such a trade, however, as soon as the first property is bought, that player can make any kind of gift or receipt of gift to either other player, and from very soon after until the end of the game such trades will be okay.

Yes, when I made a hyperbole, it was not literally true. It is only literally true that they qualify 99.999% of the time, and 100% of the time that it matters.

Kaelik wrote:

fbmf wrote:...and then you land on my reds and I know you can't afford the rent and it will drive you out of the game, I'm hoisting my middle finger in your general direction as I tell you to pay up.

And then I would never play monopoly with you again, or really, ever do anything at any point in which I would have to trust you to follow your word. Because when someone explains to me that they are a lying asshole who agrees to deals in monopoly they won't keep, I know that they are a psychopath who cannot be trusted in any way, and I should definitely never go hunting with them.

Bit of a leap from "breaks deals in a boardgame" to "is a murdering psychopath".

For the record, I'd hang out with you, Kaelik, but I'd never want to play any sort of game with you. Don't take offense. I feel that way about a lot of people on TGDMB.com.

Kaelik wrote: Yes, when I made a hyperbole, it was not literally true.

Big of you to admit that you were wrong. All good.

Game On,
fbmf