Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 presidency swap: Bug fix required (typos corrected)

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Volker,
I agree that in the end it does not change the game a lot.

However the results are not 100% identical.

Yes I remember that Lemmi moderator asks, the issue is mainly whom to 
ask and when. The devil is in the details. ;-)

What is easier and also on my wish-list is a certificate correction mode 
that allows moving around certificates between players.

Implementing that is easier and helps in more cases than adding more 
options how the president exchange should be handled. ;-)

Thanks for your input,

Stefan


On 08/30/2015 10:43 AM, Schnell, Volker wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> in the end it should be the same result.
>
> Lemmis moderator: when in doubt about the certificates, there is a
> popup, where the user has to decide.
> This is for me the best way, because the decision has an impact on the
> certificate limit.
>
> greetings
>
> Volker
>
> Am 29.08.2015 um 12:58 schrieb Stefan Frey:
>> Hi Volker,
>>
>> I agree that there is a difference between buying and selling and that
>> in the case of another player buying more is different and is and will
>> be handled as you described.
>>
>> Caveat: There is no mechanism yet in Rails to ask the old director for
>> his choice in the case of another player getting more shares. (e.g.
>> buying or during share exchange of the Prussian minors/privates).
>> However I changed the current implementation that the old director
>> receives the multiple share if possible.
>>
>> The difference in understanding the rules is what happens exactly
>> during share selling: Selling to the Pool or Exchanging the Presidency?
>>
>> It is clear that the president certificate cannot end-up in the Pool
>> in non-pure-Tresham 18xx. However in my view is that if you sell more
>> than needed for dumping, your president certificate ends up for a
>> "virtual" second in the Pool and then the new president receives the
>>
>> There are technical reasons (ease of implementation, generalization to
>> 30% director shares, etc.), but in addition it is my view that selling
>> the director to the Pool (even it it cannot stay there in the end) is
>> more fundamental than the specific interpretation that the old
>> director "always" chooses what he receives in return. Especially if he
>> ends up with nothing in his portfolio in the end.
>>
>> I hope that you can live with that rule interpreation. And
>> unfortunately I will not add a game option to play it differently, as
>> this would require drastic changes how share selling is implemented in
>> Rails.
>>
>> The current algorithm is much more robust to (potential future) share
>> structures than a specific solution for 1835 only.
>>
>> By the way: Do you know how Lemmis moderator handles those cases?
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>> Those are the examples where our view differs:
>>
>> ** The result differs mainly for examples of that structure:
>>
>> X has 40% [d, 2*n]
>> Y has 40% [m, 2*n]
>>
>> Pool has 10 [n]
>>
>> I understand that you prefer the outcome for those cases where X sells
>> 10% or 20%, where in your interpretation the old president X is
>> allowed to choose the m certificate in exchange.
>>
>> However in those cases where X sells 30% or 40%, the m certificate
>> possibly ends in the pool, which I think is counter-intuitive.
>>
>> ** But a more extreme example:
>>
>> X has 20% [d]
>> Y has 20% [m]
>>
>> Pool has 40% [4*n]
>>
>> How does X sell 10% here? In standard 18xx this no problem: Sell d to
>> the pool, receive one n in exchange and the d moves to Y in exchange
>> for 20%.
>>
>> But in your interpretation X first exchanges d with m and then puts m
>> into the pool and receives one n from the pool?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08/29/2015 12:14 PM, Schnell, Volker wrote:
>>> Hi Stefan,
>>>
>>> I don't agree with your opinion, that the exchange of the directors
>>> certificate works with the bank pool.
>>> in all 18xx games, except with receivership like 1829, 1853, the
>>> certificates are exchanged between players.
>>> The Change of director is also possible, when buying shares.
>>>
>>> 1835 cases.
>>>
>>> Nominal certificate 10%
>>> Director certificate d=2 20% share
>>> Multiple certificate m=2 20% share
>>>
>>> X has 40%, x = 4 [d, n, n]
>>> Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]
>>>
>>> X sells one share, the old director decides about the make up of the
>>> percentages (english rules IV.3 last sentence), he receives 1m or 2n
>>> from Y.
>>>
>>> Same situation but Y buys n, he has now 50% and receives the
>>> directors certificate (d). the new director now hands 1m or 2n to the
>>> old director, while the old directer decides about the make up.
>>>
>>> Greetings
>>> Volker
>>> Am 28.08.2015 um 22:47 schrieb Stefan Frey:
>>>> Follow-up to my proposal below:
>>>>
>>>> * Remark first: "Certificate" versus "Share"
>>>>
>>>> To be precise I use "certificate" to the physical representation of
>>>> shares in 18xx. I use "share" is the smallest unit of the division of
>>>> the share capital in 18xx.
>>>>
>>>> So the president certificate in 1830 represents 2 shares, the other
>>>> certificates are single shares. Each share represents 10% of share
>>>> capital.
>>>>
>>>> In 1835 the companies of the second group (BA, WT, HE) feature a
>>>> double-share certificate at the bottom of their IPO stack.
>>>>
>>>> The new mechanism is implemented now. As far as it possible and/or
>>>> technical feasible at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> * What are the current limitations on selling shares/certificates?
>>>>
>>>> - Selling certificates can only be done in groups that represent the
>>>> same number of shares.
>>>>
>>>> - As the president certificate can be sold in "parts" (and the old
>>>> president receives Pool certificates in return), it belongs to the
>>>> single share group.
>>>>
>>>> Example: In some cases in 1835 the double share certificates have to be
>>>> sold before it is possible to dump the president.
>>>>
>>>> - Exchanges to the Pool for the new president are executed by returning
>>>> certificates which represent minimal shares. Thus the new president
>>>> prefers to give up two single share certificates instead of one double
>>>> shares certificate.
>>>>
>>>> * What is the long-run target?
>>>>
>>>> Players first select what percentage they want to sell. For Example:
>>>> "40% of BY". If there are several combinations of certificates that
>>>> allow 40% the next step allows to select which certificates to sell.
>>>>
>>>> If the new president has choices what to return to the Pool in exchange
>>>> for the president certificate he is asked to choose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * Reason for this limitation:
>>>> I am reluctant to change the action definitions of selling shares just
>>>> before the Rails 2.0 release.
>>>>
>>>> However behind the scene the code has been changed substantially and is
>>>> already based on the long-run goals.
>>>>
>>>> The automated test games run again and I have added a few new specific
>>>> test cases. However I am still a little bit reluctant and will
>>>> release a
>>>> new Rails 2.0 beta 5 tomorrow based on the new implementation.
>>>>
>>>> As before feedback welcome and thanks again to John David Galts ideas I
>>>> have based my implementation on.
>>>>
>>>> Stefan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08/23/2015 04:37 PM, Stefan Frey wrote:
>>>>> John:
>>>>> I really like your suggestion. I think it is a good way to handle
>>>>> those
>>>>> cases in a rigorous way. In addition it is fully compatible with the
>>>>> standard way of how standard 18xx treat the change of director in such
>>>>> cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> I adapted your proposal to include that it is not allowed to sell
>>>>> multiple certificates such that you are able to get a nominal share in
>>>>> exchange, which Volker and Erik referred to.
>>>>>
>>>>> However it is still possible for the director share, which I
>>>>> believe is
>>>>> important. (The second edition of the German rules claim that this is
>>>>> not possible, however I do not agree with that ruling).
>>>>>
>>>>> And Dave is fully right, game rules are not written as algorithms.
>>>>> It is
>>>>> our task to transform those rules into an algorithm which most people
>>>>> can agree on that the algorithm is a good representation of the
>>>>> game rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> So my proposed algorithm (based on John David Galts suggestion) is
>>>>> found
>>>>> below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again feedback is very welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stefan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * Algorithm for Change of Director after Sale of Stock:
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Definitions:
>>>>>
>>>>> Share nominal n%
>>>>>
>>>>> Nominal (n) certificate 1 times n%
>>>>> Director (d) certificate has d times n%
>>>>> Multiple (m) certificate has m times n%
>>>>>
>>>>> Director X  has x times n% of stock
>>>>> Potential director Y has y times n% of stock
>>>>>
>>>>> Pool P has p times n% of stock
>>>>> Pool limit p_max times n%
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Steps:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Director can trigger change of director if he sells s >= (x-y) + 1
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Only allowed if (s + p) <= p_max
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Director puts d and other certificates (total o) into the pool,
>>>>> such
>>>>> that (d + o) >= s. Choose o such that o is minimal.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Potential (new) director exchanges certificates (of his choice, but
>>>>> see below) of total size e = d with the pool for the director
>>>>> certificate
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. (Old) director receives [(d+o) - s] (of his choice) from the
>>>>> pool, if
>>>>> this is not possible the previous step is repeated with a different
>>>>> choice until the old director receives the required amount of shares
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. If the last step cannot be executed in any way, selling s is not
>>>>> possible
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Remarks:
>>>>> - The program only offers choices in step 4 that allow step 5/6 to be
>>>>> succesfull
>>>>> - The program only offers transaction of size s that can be executed
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Examples:
>>>>>
>>>>> A) 1830 standard case
>>>>>
>>>>> Nominal certificate 10%
>>>>> Director certificate d=2 20% share
>>>>>
>>>>> X has 40%, x = 4 [d, 2*n]
>>>>> Y has 30%, y = 3 [3*n]
>>>>>
>>>>> Pool has 30%, p = 3
>>>>>
>>>>> Director sells 20%  (s=2)
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Yes: s= 2;  (x-y) + 1 = (4- 3) + 1 = 2
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Yes: s + p = 2 + 3 <= 5 = p_max
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Director puts the director certificate, but no other into the
>>>>> pool (o
>>>>> = 0). (d + o) =  2 >= 2, minimal o
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Potential director exchanges 2 10% shares with the pool
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. Old director gets nothing in return, transaction finished
>>>>>
>>>>> B) 1830 selling the director partially
>>>>>
>>>>> Certificates as above in A)
>>>>>
>>>>> X has 20%, x = 2 [d]
>>>>> Y has 20%, y = 2 [2*n]
>>>>>
>>>>> Pool is empty, p = 0
>>>>>
>>>>> Director sells 10%  (s=1)
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Yes: s = 1; (x - y) + 1 = 1
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Yes: s + p = 1 + 0  <= 5 = p_max
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Director puts the director certificate, but no other into the
>>>>> pool (o
>>>>> = 0) d + o = 2 >= 1, minimal o
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Potential director exchanges 2 10% shares with the pool
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. Old director receives 1 10% share from the pool
>>>>>
>>>>> C) 1835 case
>>>>>
>>>>> Nominal certificate 10%
>>>>> Director certificate d=2 20% share
>>>>> Multiple certificate m=2 20% share
>>>>>
>>>>> X has 50%, x = 5 [d, m, n]
>>>>> Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]
>>>>>
>>>>> Pool is empty, p = 0
>>>>>
>>>>> Director sells 30% (s=3)
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Yes
>>>>> 2. Yes
>>>>> 3. Director puts director certificate d the pool and a 10% share.
>>>>> It is
>>>>> not allowed to choose the 20% share here, as o has to be chosen to be
>>>>> minimal
>>>>> 4. Potential director chooses to exchange the director certificate
>>>>> from
>>>>> the pool with either the multiple certificate m or the two nominal
>>>>> certificates
>>>>> 5. Old director gets nothing in return, transaction is finished
>>>>>
>>>>> D) Another 1835 case
>>>>>
>>>>> Certificates as above in C)
>>>>>
>>>>> X has 40%, x = 4 [d, m]
>>>>> Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]
>>>>>
>>>>> Pool is empty, p = 0
>>>>>
>>>>> Director sells 10% (s=1)
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Yes
>>>>> 2. Yes
>>>>> 3. Director puts director certificate d the pool, but no other
>>>>> 4. Potential director can only exchange the 2 nominal certificates, as
>>>>> otherwise the director cannot receive the 10% share in step 5. If Pool
>>>>> contains a nominal certificate it is his choice
>>>>> 5. Old director receives 1 10% share from the pool
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/21/2015 11:59 PM, John David Galt wrote:
>>>>>> Please use this version, I hit send too soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-08-21 13:18, Stefan Frey wrote:
>>>>>>> Another 1835 implementation issue:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> President swaps are not easy to understand for newbies in any
>>>>>>> 18xx (you
>>>>>>> are not allowed to sell the president share, however you are
>>>>>>> allowed to
>>>>>>> tear it apart, virtually sell one half of it to the pool and then
>>>>>>> receive two shares by the new director, who gets the fixed director
>>>>>>> certificate, then the old director puts one of received shares
>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>> pool and keeps the other).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In 1835 the 20% shares make selling the presidency even more
>>>>>>> interesting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Selling the president certificate involves two steps of share
>>>>>>> movements:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A) Exchange the president certificate with shares from the new
>>>>>>> president
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> B) Move the remaining sold shares into the pool
>>>>>> I do not agree that these are separate steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In 1835 both steps could include either 10% or 20% shares (PR: 5%
>>>>>>> or 10%
>>>>>>> shares)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Depending on what the president received in A) this might even
>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>> the possible options for B.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However it implies that the current president has to choose both A)
>>>>>>> which certificate to exchange with the new president and B) which
>>>>>>> certificate to put into the pool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The current implementation only asks for A) and has some serious
>>>>>>> bugs in
>>>>>>> executing the share transfers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I intend to fix those bugs before the next release, however I
>>>>>>> would ask
>>>>>>> if anyone has a different opinion on how it works for 1835?
>>>>>> I have not seen any case in which the current program gets it
>>>>>> wrong (in
>>>>>> my view) -- however, I have not exhaustively tried every single case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following is the exact sequence of events I expect to happen
>>>>>> in any
>>>>>> purchase or sale of stock (after any starting packet). This
>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>> all games, not just 1835.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a purchase of stock:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) The player buys a certificate, not share(s).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) If the purchase causes a change of president, then the new
>>>>>> president
>>>>>> exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of
>>>>>> shares
>>>>>> of that company) for the president's certificate, wherever it is.
>>>>>> (This
>>>>>> is a direct exchange between two players, unless the president's
>>>>>> certificate is in the bank pool, as it might be in 1829
>>>>>> (receivership)
>>>>>> or 1853v1 (when the company hasn't floated yet).)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (In 1835, if there is a choice, the outgoing president chooses which
>>>>>> certificate(s) he receives from among those in the new president's
>>>>>> hand.
>>>>>>      I would follow this principle in any other game where any
>>>>>> company has
>>>>>> non-presidential certificates of more than one size, if the rules
>>>>>> do not
>>>>>> address the question.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a sale of stock:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) A sale that is going to cause a change of president may only
>>>>>> be made
>>>>>> if some other player holds at least the number of shares that the
>>>>>> president's certificate contains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Except for the special case given in point (5), the player sells
>>>>>> certificate(s), not share(s).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (3) If the sale will cause a change of president, then one of the
>>>>>> certificate(s) sold must be the president's certificate. Otherwise
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> seller must retain the president's certificate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (4) If the sale causes a change of presidency, then the new president
>>>>>> exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of
>>>>>> shares
>>>>>> of that company) for the president's certificate in the bank
>>>>>> pool.  (The
>>>>>> outgoing president does not participate in this swap and does not
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> any right to claim a certificate from the new president's hand.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (5) A special case is where a player who holds only certificate(s) of
>>>>>> two or more shares each in that company wishes to sell a number or
>>>>>> shares that is not divisible by one of his certificates. (For this
>>>>>> purpose "one share" is defined as the amount of the smallest
>>>>>> certificate
>>>>>> that exists for that company.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case the "fractional sale" may only be made if one of the
>>>>>> following is true in addition to point (1):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        A: The bank pool contains certificate(s) of the company in
>>>>>> the right
>>>>>> sizes such that the seller can be given the correct number of shares
>>>>>> from the bank pool.  In this case the seller exchanges
>>>>>> certificates with
>>>>>> the bank pool, and then point (4) applies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        B: Statement A above is not true, but, the sale will cause
>>>>>> a change
>>>>>> of presidency, and the bank pool and the old and new presidents'
>>>>>> hands
>>>>>> together contain enough certificates of the company to give both
>>>>>> the old
>>>>>> and new presidents the correct numbers of shares, with the new
>>>>>> president
>>>>>> holding the president's certificate.  In this case a three-way
>>>>>> swap of
>>>>>> certificates is performed.  If there is more than one correct way to
>>>>>> perform the swap, first the outgoing president chooses which
>>>>>> certificate(s) he gives up; then the new president chooses which
>>>>>> certificate(s) he gives up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the attached save file OL has the following share distribution:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Remark: this is from a replay of one of Bill Stoll's 1835 pbem
>>>>>>> games -
>>>>>>> see http://askwaltstollmd.com/bill/archive/1835zwolf/index.html
>>>>>>> Fun fact is that I played 1835 ftf with one of the players before he
>>>>>>> moved to the US)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eyal: 50% (1 20% director, 1 20% share, 1 10% share)
>>>>>>> Marco: 40% (1 20% share, 2 10% share)
>>>>>>> Nick: 10% (1 10% share)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are the possible scenarios for Eyal to sell his directorship?
>>>>>> If Eyal sells 10% (which does not change the presidency), he just
>>>>>> moves
>>>>>> his 10% certificate to the bank pool.  Done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Eyal sells 20%, he moves the president's certificate to the bank
>>>>>> pool.  Then Marco takes it and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10%
>>>>>> certificates) to place in the bank pool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Eyal sells 30%, he moves the president's certificate and the 10%
>>>>>> certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
>>>>>> certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10%
>>>>>> certificates) to
>>>>>> place in the bank pool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Eyal sells 40%, he moves the president's certificate and the 20%
>>>>>> certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
>>>>>> certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10%
>>>>>> certificates) to
>>>>>> place in the bank pool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Eyal sells 50%, he moves all three of his certificates to the bank
>>>>>> pool.  Then Marco takes the president's certificate and chooses 20%
>>>>>> (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to place in the bank pool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>> Some special (hypothetical) cases:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A) No shares in Pool
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
>>>>>>> Marco: 20% (20%)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IPO: 40% (4 10%)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
>>>>>>> Answer: No, as it not possible to get a 10% share out of IPO to
>>>>>>> Eyal.
>>>>>>> Eyal has to sell all 40%.
>>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> B) 10% shares in Pool
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
>>>>>>> Marco: 20% (20%)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pool: 40% (4 10%)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
>>>>>>> Answer: Likely yes? Is it possible for Eyal to swap the received 20%
>>>>>>> share from Marco with a 10% of the Pool?
>>>>>> In most games (and I think this includes 1835), Eyal is prevented
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> selling 30% because this would cause 70% to be in the bank pool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But let's change the example by having the pool hold two 10%
>>>>>> certificates and a third player hold the other two.  Then Eyal may
>>>>>> sell
>>>>>> 30% by placing both his certificates in the bank pool and taking a
>>>>>> 10%
>>>>>> certificate from the bank pool.  Marco must then trade his 20%
>>>>>> certificate for the president's certificate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eyal may also sell 10%.  In this case he just places his 20%
>>>>>> non-president certificate in the bank pool and takes a 10%
>>>>>> certificate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -end-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Rails-devel mailing list
>>>>>> Rai...@li...
>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Rails-devel mailing list
>>>>> Rai...@li...
>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Rails-devel mailing list
>>>> Rai...@li...
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>>
>