Lousy lousy cycon &%^$#%

Flubber · October 13, 2003, 07:28

Hi Captain and Ambassador,

Over the last few days there has been a lot of discussion among the CyCon about PEACE. Specifically regarding you stating in the past that you did not want Applied Physics, when we offered it, both to settle our old IndAut deal and for other trades. The reason you stated was because you had no use for such a level 1 tech. Yet now you have traded for Applied Physics with another faction. In previous trades you have also continuously asked for more and more techs and credits, your language suggesting, and even johndmuller actually stating, that due to your early game advantage as 'traders', you must capitalize on this advantage by pushing for more and more, and playing factions off against each other. While we understand this, we do not feel that is a way to treat your Pact Brother.

Therefore it has been decided by a majority in the Cybernetic Collective that we should reduce our relations to a Treaty status. We will still honour our existing deals, and are still open to new deals, but we cyborgs feel that in spirit PEACE and the Cybernetic Consciousness no longer act like Pact Brothers, and so feel a treaty is more appropriate. I am saddened to have to inform you of this, and I have tried to keep the Pact going for longer, but I was outvoted.

We notice that you have pre-accepted Doctrine: Initiative in the diplomacy box. Could you explain to us why you have done that? We have not received any communications from Ambassador Flubber.

Friendly greetings,

Mani Alpha-3
Second Function and therefore acting External Affairs Function (while DBTS is inactive)

Flubber · October 13, 2003, 07:30

I have also forwarded a copy of my email to DBTS to maniac this morning and also sent the message that follows

Flubber · October 13, 2003, 07:30

Re: Official communiqué: pact severance
I had no notice that DBTS was inactive as the last item I heard was that he was your ambassador. I sent a PM requesting trade negotiations and herc put in doc ini pre-accepted in the diplo window so we would have no repeat of our earlier miscommunications and not have it offered in time . .. MY PM indicated that it should not be accepted without a deal being completed

I am now doubly suprised as I hear that you folks have accepted doc ini and plan to break our pact. I feel this must have been your plan all along since you have hardly felt like pactmates to us all for a long time. We do have a quandry however if you have accepted something without reaching a deal. . . Future tech does not cut it as consideration this time . ..

As for applied physics . .. IIRC we picked it up where someone "Threw in" an extra tech since the one we offered was perceived as higher value . . . To quote you, your price was too high for a tech we could pick up for a lot less elsewhere. It was essentially free to us in any event.

Frankly, as soon to be ex pactmates, I don't feel we owe you any explaination.

Its too bad you feel as you do. I had looked forward to leveraging both our factions onward and upward together. But my instinct as to you as pactmates was obviously correct .. . How could we trust you as pactmates when you brak pact so easily??

I will send a separate PM with what I sent to DBTS on the doc ini trade issue . ..

Disappointed

FLub

Hercules · October 13, 2003, 10:47

Especially as we sent the communique on the 9th. This is the second time they've played the ' blame it on DBTS'.

In fact we were specifically asked by Drogue to bear no ill will towards him as Ambassador because of his 'error' re not changing to HEC.

Also if they didn't understand why they were receiving it why didn't they ask. And why did they accept.

Guess who is now high on our list to probe and shot up our most wanted list.

johndmuller · October 13, 2003, 11:48

No matter what all water may or may not have flowed under the bridge of our relations with the Borg, their acceptance of a tech from us which included a note "See Ambassador Flubber's Communication." with a response "As far as I know, we have not received any communications from Ambassador Flubber." is malfeasance and IMhO is grounds for deletion from the game. They obviously knew that they were not taking any messages into consideration and nevertheless accepted the tech which came with the imprecation to "see the message". This has gone beyond the bounds of any charitable, benefit of the doubt explanation short that of bad sportsmanship, pure and simple. I think we should request a suspension of play while Googlie investigates this matter.

Atlantian · October 13, 2003, 12:38

Could I get the In game date of when the pact was officially broken for historical records.

*EDIT: NM, found it in another thread.*

Flubber · October 13, 2003, 13:20

I agree with Johnd

Flubber · October 13, 2003, 14:30

I sent this PM to maniac in hopes that maniac could explain

------------------------------------------

I hope this was a miscommunication
Maniac

I believe the following events have occurred

1. We offered doc ini in the commlinls with a message to look for communication from me. as to terms.

2. I sent a PM to DBTS on Oct9 outlining some preliminary ideas as to terms with the hoped of negotaiating a deal

3. You Pmed me inquiring what the doc ini offer was about in a PM indicating you were ending our pact

4. I am informed your faction ACCEPTED DOC INI.

5. Nobody in our faction seems to have received any communication as to your offers for this. Your communication to me indicated DBTS was away.

IS any of the foregoing in error ??

THis is not roleplaying. In any PBEM I have played, I often pre-accept offers in the diplobox so that the game mechanics are not an impediment to trade and the deal can be accomplished withinn the game once terms are settles by email or pm. Its ALWAYS understood that you can't just accept the tech. In fact it would be a cheat or a foul to do so, regardless of diplomatic status, unless you knew the tech was a gift. You definitely knew the tech was not a gift . . .

I am hoping that I am misinformed or there was some mixup that you can explain. Please advise

Flubber

Hercules · October 13, 2003, 18:15

I endorse the view that Googlie should investigate.

Googlie · October 13, 2003, 19:48

Flubber · October 13, 2003, 20:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Googlie
Accepting a 'pre-accepted' tech offer and then cancelling pact

I also posted this to the specific "GOOGLIE" thread

The question has been put to me:

"is this allowed, or is it cheating"

I ruled that this is a legal, permitted maneouver. Unsavoury pactbrother behaviour, to be sure, but permissible.

The closest PBEM rule is the one that covers accepting pending tech trades before declaring vendetta (which effectively stops the second party for acquiring it's half of the trade), which is not the case in this instance.

Googlie

Googlie I fear that if you permit things that look smell and sound like cheating, you have just thrown down the gauntlet for people to find exploits and cheats which have not been formally enshrined as part of the rules. The fact that they asked you ahead of time meant they knew this was questionable behavior-- backstabs are to be expected but exploiting the mechanics of how the diplbo works -- I frankly expected better

Googlie · October 13, 2003, 21:50

Flubber · October 13, 2003, 23:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Googlie
Flubber:
Perhaps if PEACE had been more honourable in dealing with the CyCon from the beginning of the pact it might never have come to this.

G.

Googlie I take offense to this. As the person dealing with them on the majority of occasions I didn't do half the stuff you claim . .. There were discussions of deceptions and the only one I know I did was say we were switching to plan nets when we switched to something else.

However, we kept our word on every deal . .. so don't put this back on us.

I guess I view the diplomacy part of this game differently than you. I see pre-accepting as a necessary part of keeping games flowing and making trades-- If abusing this and yes it is abuse, then no one can trade in an instance where pre-accepting is necessary since you can be doublecrossed because the GAME MECHANICS require a gift of one tech to get the next tech

Flubber · October 13, 2003, 23:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Googlie

Can you honestly say that PEACE in every dealing with the CyCon acted with honesty and integrity??

I didn't do every dealing. I only lied during the first plan nets trade and actully that wasn't a lie at the time I made my statements. I said we would research plan nets and I believed it at the time. Only later when I became aware we actually were researching soc psych did I mislead them --

Quote:

Originally posted by Googlie You lied to them about how you acquired techs, factions you had met, imminence of tech discoveries, etc etc. But that's diplomacy.

I have actually been pretty forthright. I never lied about where we acquired techs or whom we met . .. although I believe there was a misguided and clumsy attempt to hide the fact that we had met the PUT while I was away ( when anyone can see infiltration info with a pactmate)

When did we lie about imminence of tech discoveries? If this is the plan nets thing, I believed it at the time since our poll chose plan nets.)

Actually on the whole I was pretty honest with them. My sins were mainly sins of omission in that I didn't generally volunter information.

Oh and googlie you should NOT be suggesting tech trades to us, particularly if you know the other side plans to renege. We have lots of players that know how tech flips work and would have likely come to try for the same deal ourself. BUt your suggesting the deal and then ruling on the legality of reneging . .

Googlie · October 13, 2003, 23:55

Hercules · October 14, 2003, 00:16

Quote:

You lied to them about how you acquired techs, factions you had met, imminence of tech discoveries, etc

If you are referring to me in this instance I don't believe I lied. I said things such as we have acquired the tech but I was careful to avoid saying from where.

Quote:

it had to be pre-offered if there were any chance of the CyCon switching that turn to HEC, thus netting another tech for PEACE in exchange. So greed motivated the pre-accepting, not gameplay.

Actually we were owed a tech if you recall and this speeded up the conclusion of the deal otherwise it would have been another 12 years before we got our side of the deal concluded. And don't forget the cycon also get the new tech much earlier than they would have done. So again we help them out.

Also we sent the PM to DBTS on the 9th some 2/3 days before they got the turn so as to try ensure it wasn't rushed.

Quote:

That they reneged on an implied deal IMO is no worse than they themselves were subjected to by PEACE.

There was no deal because they didn't respond to the PM. So what exactly was the implied deal they reneged on. We wanted a deal but we also have the right to decline if the terms aren't agreeable. That's normal diplomacy.

[quote](The Borg have complained in the past about PEACE dragging out negotiations until the 11th hour and 59th minute of their turn, forcing them to a hasty decision)[/bquote] Once I think.

Hercules · October 14, 2003, 00:40

Quote:

Most of the shady dealings were during the Herc/jdm early August days, when a 3-way PUT/CyCon/PEACE deal was being brokered.

That's when the CyCon felt they were "taken for a ride" and things have just festered since

Really, My understanding is that they were relieved the deal succeeded, as were we at the time. What do you mean by shady: the fact I wouldn't acknowledge contact with the PUT. They themselves at one stage said they didn't care where the tech came from. However it was my impresssion they would have wanted the PUT comm link in as part of the deal or shortly after and our Peace faction policy on comm link trade was clear.

johndmuller · October 14, 2003, 02:05

Googs, you are so off base here

.

You need to reexamine your facts.

I resent very much that you are trying to lay the blame at my door for the deceit of the Cycon. If you care to rely on the facts, you will note that I was arguing for completely honest and forthright dealings with them in the beginning, not the "shady dealings" you attribute to me.

I'm sure there are places where I discuss strategy in a less than saintly fashion, but I have been mostly distant from the trade negotiations after my initial attempts at the very first deal (where Flubber took over after my futile beginnings and gave them a perspective that caused them to accept a deal that they have apparently been resenting ever since). When Flubber was on vacation, I mostly provided research path analysis and proposed deals that the Borg or Hercules rejected - I again got tired of the constant babying that dealing with them required and ultimately Herc concluded that IndAuto deal for the most part; but it was conducted on our part with a desire to make the relationship work, and without any reliance on deception.

Please make sure that you know what you are talking about Googs, before you accuse me of that kind of stuff.

You Googlie, are the one who blew it if you told the Borg it was OK to lie about such game-unrelated matters such as whether they received emails or not - or whether so and so, who was the one with whom we thought we were communicating, was MIA or didn't tell so and so whatever. Taking the tech in spite of the accompanying instructions to take it only if they agree to accept the conditions is bad enough if the reason is bad communication or disorganization; that was enough for me to file my original complaint but if the supposed excuses themselves are outright baldfaced intentional premeditated lying, that is another level of bad sportsmanship all together.

Surely the message that Flubber received from Chaunk (where it states that he quit the Borg faction because they were doing all of this intentional lying stuff consciously and intentionally) is damning enough evidence for anyone, even someone who might be retroactively trying to justify misguided advice given they were giving out. Googs, my opinion of your objectivity has just had a severe reality check. I hope you realize what you are doing to this game and get yourself back on course. Do you honestly prefer a game filled with people who are lying and cheating - just for the hell of it - to a game where people try to play the game with a modicum of integrity?

Googlie · October 14, 2003, 04:20

Hercules · October 14, 2003, 06:05

In the Ind Auto negotiations our end of the deal was delivering Ind Base. As the Borg stated somewhere during the negotiations it didn't matter to them where we got it. Yet Maniac kept querying.
At the time I genuinely thought we could buy it (Ind Base) from Roze if pushed down that route (through PUT declining) but I was concerned that BioGen would be offered instead and that we would all lose out. JDM explanation to them re Biogen and Applied Physics was the truth.
As I had just paid 100ecs for Ind Econ, our faction was a tad short of cash, so the PUT trade, if doable, was cheaper.

The 'deception' as you call it was not relevant to the deal with Cycon. We delivered Ind Base and Ind Econ as per the final agreement. We didn't acquire any extra tech from them, we provided them with a short cut to Ind Auto. These are not the actions of a faction setting out to wilfully deceive another faction for additional gain at the expense of a partner.

And when they switched to Doc: Flex we were the ones who lost out.

I accept your impartiality and would like you to continue as CMN. Technically you were correct on the ruling. But they were in breach of unwritten codes of pbem playing.

I think we in the Pirates (well speaking for myself) do not think their unsavoury unpact like behaviour is of the same order as you suggest ours was.

johndmuller · October 14, 2003, 06:19

Googs, I have no particular gripe with you about instigating anything over there; I don't think you told them to lie about all that stuff about not being able to talk to each other or read our messages, but you damned well knew all about it and nevertheless made that cryptic remark about us offering them Doc:Init. Whether inadvertently or not you sanctified that transaction by your implied endorsement - but that isn't really a big problem for me, although it shows questionable judgement on your part. What still bugs me is that you not only enabled their unsportsmanlike tactics by giving them your approval (if not approval, then something amounting to it by allowing the tactic) - not only did you do that, but now, even with Chaunk's revelation that it was all premeditated and out and out lying about non-game stuff like getting emails (which are the only way to talk to each other really, since I believe it was you who pointed out that the ingame dialog is insecure) - even now you continue to support their activities. You've got all the facts and you're still holding onto that really dumb position. They need to go.

Since we're into reviewing the past, I thought i'd provide my own set of clippings here which show me arguing in favor of been open and coming clean with the Borg pretty consistently. These were from the thread listed in first post cited and comprise pretty much my record on the series of trades leading up to IndAuto, including the imfamous Industrial Base shuffle. I don't think I cut anything relevant, but feel free to read the whole thread. The last clipping interestingly, is one that Googlie seemed to be using as an example of how I was lying to the Borg. If you read the context in that thread before and after that post, it seems to me that the deal with the PUT was still up in the air and what I told the Borg was in fact actually the true representation of the situation - we didn't know if the PUT were going to be forthcoming and really did think that we might have to get the IndBase from the Datatechs. I don't appreciate being quoted out of context.

As I said before, I'm not as pure as the driven snow; I was obliged to follow the will of the faction ocassionally and I'm sure that I let my Machiavellian side show through from time to time, but I was pretty consistently arguing against BS'ing the Borg through these negotiations. I'm not running for Sainthood, part of my reason for being open is that they could infer a lot from their infiltration and I had to keep arguing that point with Cap'n Herc, who was a late convert to that notion, but the rest of it was that I really didn't want to have to lie to them.

So Googlie, I believe you owe me an apology. I think you will be left with noone from our faction who was bent on deception - do you really believe that of the Borg?

I'm sorry if you find it offensive that I'm speaking my mind about this situation. My gripe is with the Borgs and their childish, assinine behavior, not reallly playing the game, but playing all of us. You have gotten in the middle of this by defending their antisocial behavior. We've all put in a great deal of time and energy into this game, and you as much if not more than anyone, and the tactics employed by Drogue, Maniac, et al are making a mockery of it all and I'm very pissed off - and I'm really sorry you can't see that because you are being mocked perhaps more than anyone else by what they are doing.

Flubber · October 14, 2003, 09:10

Googlie

you must have way too much time on your hands . . .( re the clips)

As an aside, there is no LEGAL WAY the cycon could know about the plan nets deception as we are calling it. That deception

1. only came about since the cycon were backing down on what Maniac had already agreed

2. hurt then not even a little bit-- it was solely designed to reduce our tech cost
3. resulted them in gettin a tech and energy for a tech-- whats even the slightest bit shady about that