Chaunk's departure

[Corellion]

Of course... but by then, everyone else will be Cyborgs, and thus will see the rationality of our rule... especially because it will be their rule too!

[Phenix]

Exactly,
Resistance is futile. Chiron, prepare to be assimilated

(hey, I used this Borg quote in the ADPSG too )

[Maniac]

I had a chat with Chaunk. This should be the PM he sent to Flubber:

Hi Flubber,

As a member of the CyCon (Although somewhat nominally recently, at not at all now, see later) I would like to pass on my personal apology for the treatment of your faction in the demo game. Personnally, I felt we were not acting in the way pact brothers should. My personal opinion is that a diplomacy deal is a deal, and should be honoured to the end. We made several deals, almost all of which involved far more giving on your part and far less on the CyCon's part. And the discussion seemed to reflect the fact that there was little intention of following up on the deal.

This I find completely unacceptable.

As such I have left the CyCon. This message hasn't been posted in the CyCon forum, nor will it be, although I will be sending a similar PM to Maniac.

I believe the final straw was the accepting of Doc:Ini. As you said, this is standard practice, and any queries should have been straightened out. In fact, they were not even brought up with you to my knowledge.

My apologies, I wish you and PEACE all the best.

Chaunk, former Omicron-8.

[Corellion]

[Googlie]

Thanx M

I obviously could not post what was (then) a priveleged message from C to F

But I think it's clear that he did not divulge any strategic plans or intentions, but did sow the seed for Flubber's "BULL" comment.

G.

[Maniac]

Our reputation is (naturally) ruined forever with PEACE, but I would like to avoid PEACE spreads their knowledge to other factions.

Googlie, would it fall under the rules of banning defection if we asked/demanded PEACE not to tell any other faction of this PM they received and its content? In normal circumstances PEACE shouldn't know this information. They only did because Chaunk said more than he was allowed to IMHO.

[Corellion]

What with PEACE's thinly veiled insults and Chaunk's actions, this game is becoming decidedly less fun. I hope this turns around very soon.

I was going to write an article about Chaunk tragically dying when faulty technical plans obtained from PEACE caused a large piece of metal to break off from a cruiser, but I don't much feel like writing such an article right now. I'm really trying hard to find a way to explain this while keeping within bounds.

[Googlie]

Originally posted by Maniac
Googlie, would it fall under the rules of banning defection if we asked/demanded PEACE not to tell any other faction of this PM they received and its content?

Flubber has already alluded to Chaunk's resignation:

Maniac, I believed it was a cheat to accept a tech when the offer came with a note not to accept it unless terms were agreed. I have been corrected on that point. However the belief is not that far fetched as I believe a member of your own faction resigned over this matter

I will post a note in the PEACE forum (where the original Chaunk PM was reproduced) forbidding onward transmission of its contents, either overtly or by covert hint

G.

[subsequent edit] I have posted this in the appropriate PEACE thread:

Flubber et al

In this instance I think Chaunk was offside in giving the details as to why he resigned (given our analogous "defectors' information" rule) in that you obtained CyCon "inner working protocols" other than thru the game mechanics.

You'll find it ironic, I know, but I must rule that this information (as to why Chaunk left the CyCon) go no further than PEACE members.

I have also advised the CyCon of this ruling

(I should prolly go offline for about a week, starting right now ..................)[/subsequent edit]

G.

[Drogue]

Thank you Googlie

[Corellion]

Yes, thank you very much.

BTW, why do you think you should go offline for a week?

[Kody]

*bump*

[Snowflake]

If you want my honest opinion, both of you have responsibilities in the incident, and both of your reputations had been damaged. However, reputation is a thing that can be build. The Hive had not trusted the PEACE until very late when they were about destroyed. But they have earned my trust in the end, if I can only say so for myself. And it did play a part why I tried desperately to save them from you, not for any strategic reasons.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by HongHu
If you want my honest opinion, both of you have responsibilities in the incident, and both of your reputations had been damaged. However, reputation is a thing that can be build. The Hive had not trusted the PEACE until very late when they were about destroyed. But they have earned my trust in the end, if I can only say so for myself. And it did play a part why I tried desperately to save them from you, not for any strategic reasons.

How did they earn this trust, HongHu?

[Snowflake]

They did not try to gain anything from us through sneaky deals, even at their most difficult time. They behaved bravely and honorably. They did not try to get any information about you from us as you feared, for example.

[Drogue]

I trust until shown otherwise. PEACE showed otherwise. The Drones didn't reply often. The Hive seemed trustworthy, but various incidents caused me to doubt this, especially the council motion, that made me lose all faith. PUT were honourable to us throughout.

[Snowflake]

You were wise to distrust the Hive since the council motion. The Hive had clearly changed its stance toward you at that time. I only wish we didn't have to go there.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by HongHu
They did not try to gain anything from us through sneaky deals, even at their most difficult time. They behaved bravely and honorably. They did not try to get any information about you from us as you feared, for example.

I'd LOVE to know on what grounds PEACE decided to play straight with the Hive yet try to jerk CyCon around.

Can anyone who has access to their forum tell me, or is getting authorised for there easy now they are supposedly thrown open?

[Kody]

Well here's my impression that I recieved from reading their forum.

They saw themselves as playing the pirate strategy, where you meet everyone early and trade techs between each of the factions you meet. The precieved it as part of the strategy when playing the faction to milk as much of this early advantage as possible as it doesn't last.

From what I could see, at the time the cycon decided to spilt with the pirates, the pirates realised they needed to start making a long term relationship.

So the pirates started making moves to strengthen their pact with the cycon to include an joint victory. Ofcourse by that time it was too late as the cycon had already made up their mind that they didn't want to associate with the pirates.

The peace were playing straight with the Hive, not because of anything to do with the Hive. Rather by that time they knew they weren't the tech brokers anymore. Also there was very little to gain by "working both sides". They believed were far more likely to gain surivial from the faction that was gifting them ECs, and at least making a token effort to protect them than the one that betrayed them in the past.

Edit:
It was a token effect, because of the war preparations elsewhere, and because I think the turn player at the time didn't quite realise the amount of military would be required in protecting the Peace until it was too late.

I figured that to protect the peace we should have built 1 probe foil, 2 needlejets, 2 choppers, 2 missle foils.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Kody
They believed were far more likely to gain surivial from the faction that was gifting them ECs, and at least making a token effort to protect them than the one that betrayed them in the past.

Interesting... the feeling when I joined here was that they definitively betrayed US.

So which was it? Surely there was a first betrayal... This is something that's been bugging me for ages, as I joined just after the main event(s) happened and thus it was the first topic of interest for me.

[Kody]

Well I read your forum. I think what triggered it was the pirates trying to gain the advantage with tech trading with the cycon. They squeezed the Cycon for extra cash while trading and there was a whole ruckus about that. Also there was a time when the pirates traded industrial economics from the university and then tried to trade industrial economics with the cycon. I think the cycon knew that the pirates hadn't gotten IE from the AI and complained about not getting the university comm-frequency.

I don't actually see the pirates betraying the cycon at any stage, maybe I missed it. I do see the pirates squeezing the cycon for extra advantage during the first two trades I think. As the pirates were obviously only looking out for themselves with those two trades.

The cycon didn't like the first few trades and that seemed to set the cycon's tone for the rest of the diplomancy.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt


Interesting... the feeling when I joined here was that they definitively betrayed US.

What do you mean by "betray"? My impression is that the CCs were annoyed by the PEACE becaus they did not seem to be sincere and they seemed to be trying to trick you. They also accused CCs of things that are RL related. So you broke the pact and took their tech offer without giving them the tech you promised.

[Hercules]

Kody :[Quote]I don't actually see the pirates betraying the cycon at any stage, maybe I missed it. I do see the pirates
squeezing the cycon for extra advantage during the first two trades I think. As the pirates were obviously only
looking out for themselves with those two trades.

The cycon didn't like the first few trades and that seemed to set the cycon's tone for the rest of the diplomancy.


__________________

And I was just back from Hols and missed some of this annoyance.

[foolish_icarus]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
I'd LOVE to know on what grounds PEACE decided to play straight with the Hive yet try to jerk CyCon around.

Can anyone who has access to their forum tell me, or is getting authorised for there easy now they are supposedly thrown open?

Herc is authorizing all who apply.

Adding to other's posts, yes it was mostly an issue of what we could get away with. In the early game we signed pacts basically as a gesture of goodwill and for the trade revenue. To us, a pact was a treaty where we got a little more energy and infilitration, we never put as much store in it as e.g. the Hive and Drones. There was consensus within the faction that the ambassadors should try to get everything they could out of every trade.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that much of the frustration on your side came from not just the substance of the proposed trades, but the accompanying diplomacy.
I think the fundamental cause of the breakdown was that you needed the trades more than we did, and we exploited that by attempting to factor "necessity" into the price, which from your side appeared to be inflation beyond its intrinsic worth.

[Hercules]

Well getting Ind Econ from the AI cost us a considerable sum, 100ecs at the time when we were cash strapped. We did it because there was the chance for both of us to leap frog to Ind Auto. But the Cycon saw things differently: they saw it as Peace trying to get further advantage from a tech trade after their earlier experience.

Also by this stage Drogue was already determined to wage war with Peace,
(read the threads).

What he didn't forsee which we did, was that the only way for us and them (and possibly PUT) to win the game was to stick together. But I guess Drogue just wanted to have fun.

[Hercules]

One further point:

When I aquired Ind Econ from the AI there was only short time frame to leap frog to Ind Auto: like 2/3 turns. This gave rise to the perception ( in Cycon circles) of Peace always pressuring Cycon , which wasn't the case.

However as I now understand it. Cycon were already on a war route with Peace: they saw acquiring Ind Auto as a bonus exploitation of Peace en route to elsewhere.

If they had had experienced Pbemers in their midst they might have seen things in a longer game perspective. But that's life.

[Kody]

I wasn't experienced, and I knew exactly what early trading and cooperations means.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kody

I don't actually see the pirates betraying the cycon at any stage, maybe I missed it. I do see the pirates squeezing the cycon for extra advantage during the first two trades I think. As the pirates were obviously only looking out for themselves with those two trades.

The cycon didn't like the first few trades and that seemed to set the cycon's tone for the rest of the diplomancy.

Kody thats exactly right. Read our boards and there was never a plan to backstab the cycon's . We were taking the long view and the Hive-Drone domination was so apparent that alliances were the only thing that make sense.

We negotiated hard but in the first deal we gave up a tech and 20 ec's for a tech. I am still hard-pressed to see where we gained advantage there.

Bottom line on the trustworthiness issue is to ask

1. Who gave techs based on the word of their pactmate
2. Who broke pact and attacked without any provocation.

The only lies I am aware of are

1. Indicating our research path-- I remember wanting to switch to plan nets and the poll indicated we would do that-- but johnd switched us to soc psych instead on the belief we had a deal to get plan nets-- I had to maintain that deception-- The cycon boards are crystal clear that they would have reneged if they ever caught wind we were not researching plan nets

2. There is a lot said about us lying about the source of ind econ but that took place during my August vacation-- Did peace lie about that?? herc??

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by foolish_icarus

To us, a pact was a treaty where we got a little more energy and infilitration, we never put as much store in it as e.g. the Hive and Drones.

That alarms me a little. I would have thought a pact was a tacit friendly agreement to play it straight with your opposite number...

There was consensus within the faction that the ambassadors should try to get everything they could out of every trade.

Fair enough, but hardly a way to win over a potential pactmate.....

If I had been around at the time, knew there was talk of signing a pact and then heard that PEACE was trying to squeeze all they could out of a trade, I would have been annoyed. Maybe not enough to go to war over just that, but certainly pretty cheesed off.

[foolish_icarus]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
That alarms me a little. I would have thought a pact was a tacit friendly agreement to play it straight with your opposite number...

That might have worked better

At the time, at least the way I saw it, you could always refuse a trade, and if we wanted it badly enough we would give a better offer.

And it was a race. While the idea was tossed around, there was never a formal plan in our faction for "permapacting", although we did try to patch things up near the end. Being in the middle of things, we figured alliances wasn't going to do it for us alone, they would have to be supported by power. Obviously this is a simplification of a lot of people's views over a long period of time, but it was a strong force in our faction's decisions.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Hercules
If they had had experienced Pbemers in their midst they might have seen things in a longer game perspective. But that's life.

A longer game perspective would involve not trying to exploit your weaker pactmate for your own maximal benefit.

Originally posted by Flubber
The only lies I am aware of are

Here also:
I find it funny how you and Hercules constantly downplay your own lies and attitude and blow up the CyCon lies. Is it so hard to admit to yourself that both sides have responsibility in the affair and that you aren't entirely innocent, instead of throwing ALL the blame at the CyCon's feet?