Add bills of sale for items with the Steam Launch

[elentari 2,660]

Kept reading the forums these days and someone suggested we should add bills of sale to items. Mulling the issue a bit I saw how it could actually be a nice addition to prevent any potential drama.

 

Simply have a piece of paper co-signed by two players. Bills of sale could be stored in the token for easy access in a different section called "Archives".

Thus if any disputes happen, GMs can look up the bills of sale, if they are signed and verified and dispute is solved.

 

[Maiya 490]

whats wrong with using money ?

[elentari 2,660]

Let's say Player A wants to sell his drake set.

Player B offers 80 silvers.

 

Player A makes the transaction but later claim's he's been cheated.

Gms have to investigate. It takes time for them to read the logs before they reach a conclusion.

A bill of sale simply takes care of that by providing a written accord between the two parties.

[Finnn 3,303]

no and no

 

Mailing system with cod is fine.. yet mailing a bunch of small things like sprouts and such costs a bit nutty bit much for pixel transfer but that's another topic....

 

We just need a way to recall sent cod items within a period of say 2 days on demand if the buyer does not pickup and pay for the items on the other side within 2 days.. you should NOT be forced to wait whole 14 days to get your drake set returned.. the 2 weeks in this case is retarded long period wasting your potential sale TODAY.

 

1 on 1 trades are exactly for that.. you give 5 copper and get a branch... you two have to be accepting the trade at the same time with none of the sides changing the content on their side.

What's wrong with 1-on-1 trades to need bills and visible trade item history?

 

Do we have many cases of people selling for X and than recalling Y amount of currency?

 

[Madnath 3,113]

I'm less inclined to use a system if I have to do some weird fanny on about it. Make the mail system better, allowing us a much better overview of what's sent. No need for an awkward system like this.

[TheTrickster 2,284]

I know I had mentioned a bill of sale here,

 

 but what I was suggesting was that it be for objects to which permission management would otherwise apply.   I can't see it being practical for stuff that is itself mailable or traded "in person".  My thought was a mechanism to allow things to be traded those ways that otherwise would need to be permission/ownership managed and payment settled by paying silvers for scrap wood.  With the RMT ban, this would be a good thing because it would help eliminate obviously large payments for obviously low-value objects.

 

Owned objects like vehicles and lockable objects like crates.  The bill of sale, or bill or lading, or whatever you want to call it, would include name the object and list its contents.  It would mean you could sell vehicles and bulk mats through a trader, or by "mail order" for pickup, or even just through the trade window.  It would be like trading the key (actually, it would effectively be like trading the key PLUS a new lock/key set) but would also include item description.

 

I do like the idea of having COD bounce-back time shortened, either by default for COD or by an ability to recall.

 

9 hours ago, elentari said:

Let's say Player A wants to sell his drake set.

Player B offers 80 silvers.

 

Player A makes the transaction but later claim's he's been cheated.

Gms have to investigate. It takes time for them to read the logs before they reach a conclusion.

A bill of sale simply takes care of that by providing a written accord between the two parties.

 

I am having difficulty seeing how this could happen.  If it is by trade window, Player A must "accept" to finalize the trade.  If it is by COD, Player A sets the amount at the time of mailing, whether it is the set or some scrap. If it is by scrap, either payment is made up-front or after the fact - a bill of sale as you described would be exactly the same and open to exactly the same kind of exploit.  It adds a layer of complexity without providing any additional protection for anyone, because the the whole second paragraph about claims of being cheated and investigation would still need to happen.

Edited June 23, 2020 by TheTrickster

[Finnn 3,303]

additional items to hold/store/trade etc.. is going back to the dark ages.. new permission system is better, only downside is cross-server-management but mailing system, branding, caring-for, etc.... all have that, documents is just more micromanagement and caring for more items

 

-1 from me for extra complexity and new items, old writ system was craB compared to new carefree body -> manage-> anything with ease

[TheTrickster 2,284]

23 minutes ago, Finnn said:

additional items to hold/store/trade etc.. is going back to the dark ages.. new permission system is better, only downside is cross-server-management but mailing system, branding, caring-for, etc.... all have that, documents is just more micromanagement and caring for more items

 

-1 from me for extra complexity and new items, old writ system was craB compared to new carefree body -> manage-> anything with ease

 

For me a major downside of the permission management to facilitate transfers is that the permission system is an information age technological  intrusion into dark-age technology setting.  What I had proposed is in fact less complexity than the current system.

 

Proposed - 

1. right-click a locked/owned item
2. select "create transfer doc" (or something)
3. trade that.

Current -

1. right click a locked/owned item
2. select manage
3. set the new permission/ownership, probably by typing or copy/pasting the buyer's name
4. select something else to trade
5. trade that

Even if you place the creation of the document under manage, it is still simpler because there is no need to specify the buyer at that point and you don't have to trade something else.  It means the actual trade/transfer is ONE transaction, the change of ownership and the exchange of payment happen in the same transaction.  It is both simpler and more secure.

 

It would also allow selling bulk materials, vehicles, even buildings and animals, through merchants.