A ruling by googlie that suprised me ( will shed a little light on his resignation)

[Flubber]

RULES CLARIFICATION



A recent ruling by googlie suprised me. We had pre-accepted a tech to the cycon with a note in the commlinks to look for a message from me. I sent a PM to the person the cycon had listed as their ambassador, 2 to 3 days before the cycon got the turn setting out turns and stating explicitly that the tech should not be accepted unless a deal was reached.

The cycon decided to accept the tech as a gift ( and break pact with us on the same turn but thats another story and pretty much irrelevant except for some roleplaying to come). They checked with googlie beforehand and googlie ruled that it violated no rule to accept a tech in the diplobox regardless of any conditions attached. He considered it unsavory and backstabbing behavior but not a cheat.

I agree there is no specific rule on this but had always considered this to be an exploitation of a game mechanic. Many trades are made when discovery is imminent and pre-acceptance was just a way that permitted the game mechanics in a turn-based game to not obstruct desired trades. The bottom line is that with this ruling, any preaccepting of a tech risks a backstab losing that tech for nothing. It makes certain tech trades ( pretty much any leapfrog research) impossible to complete without risking a backstab.

I expect backstabs and traitorous actions as part of the game but in the interest of allowing diplomacy to flow better, I thought that permitting stealing from the commlinks should be prohibited and franky I still do. This is just one more rule I have to add to my PBEMS.

I have played a lot of PBEMS and never ever thought it would be acceptable to take a tech from the commlinks and ignore any conditions contained in the offer. Perhaps I was naive.


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

THE GOOGLIE PART


Googlie was the first person in our private forum that suggested we trade the tech in question to the cyborgs by pointing out if we did so they could switch to other techs we desired without losing research . He did this even though he had actual knowledge of the cyborgs intentions ( if I am reading his posts correctly he has not denied this). He did not advocate the trade but merely pointed it out as a way the cyborgs would not lose their research and could move on to other techs. Personally, while I think it would have been more prudent for him to say nothing, we have enough experienced PBEMers on our team that we would most likely have come up with the trade option ourselves.

This action combined with his ruling, so flabbergasted one of our players, that certain things were said questioning googlie's role in all this. As far as I know it was one individual only and I don't see a retraction yet although the person's comments have moderated a bit.

Personally I don't agree with the ruling and think it is the wrong way to run a PBEM. I also think that Googlie made an error in mentioning a trade when he knew the other side had plans to renege. Despite my opinion on these two points I still respect him as a CMN and fervently hope he continues in his role

[Nubclear]

Googlie made his ruling. Because he was the CMN of this game, his ruling was final.
Also, I would like to remind *everyone* that every situation has two sides to it

And I'd like to remind CyCon that until they obtain the commlink for the faction(s) they do not have the commlink for, they cannot publickly (or at least directly) respond to comments made.

I'd also like to remind everyone that the ruling made by the CMN is final, as he is/was the CMN of our game. Respectful complaints should be addressed to him in private, not publickly as has now been decided.

[Drogue]

Googlie ruled that since PEACE have all the commlinks, they are allowed to post this. However the CyCon do not, and therefore are unable to reply, as would all other factions who do not have all the commlinks be. Therefore as Prime Function of the CyCon, I will PM all the heads of factions that we have the commlink for to offer our side of the story.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
And I'd like to remind CyCon that until they obtain the commlink for the faction(s) they do not have the commlink for, they cannot publickly (or at least directly) respond to comments made.

That would also go for the other factions. No-one can post a public response to this unless they have all the commlinks.

My post above doesn't go past that rule does it? It is purely an OOC post about what Googlie did or didn't know. If necessary I will edit.

[Nubclear]

I believe the second half of your post does go past this rule.

And I will review the Pirate save file to ensure their compliance with the rules.

[Googlie]

And to further elaborate;

My suggestion to PEACE that the CyCon could save losing 1/2 research points if gifted the tech was made on October 9th, in the morning (PST) and subsequently discussed by PEACE as an acceptable tactic.

The offer was made by Flubber to DeathbytheSword in a PM on Oct 10th, so the first the CC knew about the possibility of aquiring the tech was the day after I had suggested trading to PEACE as a solution to their problems

And as of yet I have had no response to my query to PEACE:

"If the CyCon that turn had accepted the tech as well as accepting all the attached conditions, then next turn abrogated the pact and told you that they no longer felt constrained by those conditions would you still be shouting "cheat" or just be simmering inside at the duplicitous CyCon"

I think we all know the answer but PEACE are reluctant to give it as the ground is then cut out from under their grievance

G.

[Maniac]

Googlie resigned because of personal insults towards him from a certain PEACE member. Drogue has in the past thought of quitting the ACDG because of personal insults from a certain PEACE member. And though I haven't thought of fully leaving the ACDG, I deliberately chose to switch my focus from the ACDG to the ACPSG because I was fed up with the implicit insults and hypocrisy of certain PEACE members.

Is it just me, or do certain people in PEACE have an attitude problem?

[Nubclear]

I have reviewed the save file, and PEACE is in compliance with the commlinks rule.

[Snowflake]

Comrade Tass, my personal opinion is that the issue at hand here does not have anything to do with who has whose commlink. Factions are not allowed to communicate before they make contact in the game in the sense they cannot discuss how they could cooperate tech research, military action and so force. Those are game related stuff. But as in the past, people have been exchanging opinions on issues about how the game should be run. I think that should be permitted.

[Nubclear]

I thank you for your concern Honghu.
The second half does allude to an in-game action which, although it was mentioned by PEACE, I believe should not have been said.

[Snowflake]

My opinion on this issue is as follows:

1. We should pursuade GooglieGod to continue serve as our CMN.
2. GooglieGod's judgement call should be accepted by the involving parties.
3. A poll could be started aiming to decide whether we should amend our rules regarding backstabbing in tech exchanges.
4. Comrade Tass should investigate whether GooglieGod has any prior knowledge of the possible backstabbing and report to the public. I'm with hope that Tass would find evidence that would clear Googlie and alleviate PEACE's concerns.

[Nubclear]

Honghu, I would need PEACE cooperation on this matter to investigate it.
Meaning, I would need to be authorized into their forums.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
I thank you for your concern Honghu.
The second half does allude to an in-game action which, although it was mentioned by PEACE, I believe should not have been said.

Thanks for the clarification Tass. I agree that game related information should not be publicly disclosed by factions that have not contacted all the others.

Since PEACE have contacted everybody so it's ok I guess for them to give out the info. And then if CC doesn't give out any additional info then it should be ok right?

[Nubclear]

CyCon may give info only to factions it has commlinks with. These factions can then, of course, give the info to other factions they have commlinks with.

However, no contact shall be made between two factions unless they have a commlink.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
I believe the second half of your post does go past this rule.

I am sorry. it has been deleted.

[Flubber]

Googlie

To answer your question

I agree that whenever you bargain for future consideration there is the chance of a backstab and this is NOT a cheat.

It may seem a marginal distinction but in my PBEMs there is often the practice of offering a tech preaccepted ( particularly if the opponent is about to complete researching it) so that a tech trade can be complete that other wise could not be ( since they would discover the tech if it were not preaccepted to them)-- I have NEVER before had a problem with this issue in about a hundred PBEMs. Everyone I played with seemed to consider it normal practice.

I consider that your ruling makes it impossible for people to avail of the preaccepted trade tactic without throwing themselves open to a possible backstab. Thats why I think its a bad ruling . . . it prevents a method of trading to be securely completed. The trading mechanism is clunky in this game so IMHO anything that inhibits it is wrong

Note if a party accepts a deal and goes back on it later thats duplicitous only. For a party to accept a tech in the inbox when preaccepting is the only means to complete a deal should be a cheat IMHO

[Flubber]

Also googlie

last I checked you had erased all of your posts in our private forum so I can't pull out the bits where it clearly seemed you did not deny foreknowledge of cycon plans. personally I think that is a minor matter anyway as we would likely come up with the trade idea ourselves.

The date of the actual offer was not relevant since I had mentioned days earlier the possibility of trading the tech so plans could have been made in the event it was offered. .. .

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Honghu, I would need PEACE cooperation on this matter to investigate it.
Meaning, I would need to be authorized into their forums.

The two points that Flubber offered are:
1.

Personally I don't agree with the ruling and think it is the wrong way to run a PBEM.

2.

I also think that Googlie made an error in mentioning a trade when he knew the other side had plans to renege.

For the first point, I believe we need a poll to see if the rules need to be amended.
For the second point, I think perhaps Comrade Tass could determine by reading CC's forum when GooglieGod is made aware of CC's plan.

I would also like to comment on Captain Flubbers wording of his second point. He did not make accusations that GooglieGod intentionally aided any cheating, and he also stated that Googlie had not encouraged the tech trade. I think we should all adopt such neutral tone in discussing the issue and try to avoid any overemotional accusations.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by HongHu
My opinion on this issue is as follows:

1. We should pursuade GooglieGod to continue serve as our CMN.

I agree wholeheartedly

Originally posted by HongHu
2. GooglieGod's judgement call should be accepted by the involving parties.

I also agree. I don't think it is the right call but I intend to abide by it. I just don't know how you do a tech leapfrog but perhaps someone else can work out a way

Originally posted by HongHu
3. A poll could be started aiming to decide whether we should amend our rules regarding backstabbing in tech exchanges.

Not a bad idea but rulechanges mid stream seem somehow odd to me

Originally posted by HongHu
4. Comrade Tass should investigate whether GooglieGod has any prior knowledge of the possible backstabbing and report to the public. I'm with hope that Tass would find evidence that would clear Googlie and alleviate PEACE's concerns.

I only speak personally on this but I don't see the need. Just like any judge, I may not always agree with all the decisions but I can respect the institution. I find this point to be minor . . . I don't doubt googlie's impartiality but do think that googlie would have been better advised not to make the comment . . . I , again personally, don't think it made one whit of difference in how we played our turn and would have offered the tech trade in any event

[buster]

From what I get here there is no question the ruling was correct. Even if the the Cycon had accepted - written back "suckers" and posted stories in the public forum about how they were laughing all the way to the lab it is still an allowed action.

There is no rule saying you must act honorably. Hell - the AI backstabs as hell. They will say give us X or we will attack & if you do say "fine but we also want y" and after you have given it attack you on next turn anyway.
Should we kick that one from the game too for cheating.

Same - a CMN pointing out that a certain action can be done is not the same as advising it. There is a big difference between a "a rover can actually 6 squares if on road" and "saying - I think you should go west along the road with the rover". A CMN should not do that as the CMN should not take part in the game.

The important point here is to distinguish between giving advice and clearing up a technical point. It may not be totally clear to all when one or the other is done but there is a clear difference. One can be done by a CMN the other cannot.

Whether an ambush is waiting there or not is not relevant. If the Peace actually thought they were following CMN advice they have even more to sort out. A CMN is not supposed to give advice as far as recommending a certain action and players are not supposed to accept it if it ever happened. Blaming the CMN because you got in trouble following his advice is way out there where it has already gone seriously wong and players are doing I don't know what. They definitely are NOT in a position to accuse anyone of being cheats.

[Snowflake]

The important point here is to distinguish between giving advice and clearing up a technical point. It may not be totally clear to all when one or the other is done but there is a clear difference. One can be done by a CMN the other cannot.

This is a very good point.

[Corellion]

Originally posted by buster
From what I get here there is no question the ruling was correct. Even if the the Cycon had accepted - written back "suckers" and posted stories in the public forum about how they were laughing all the way to the lab it is still an allowed action.

I can't comment on anything, but I can say this.

[Googlie]

Originally posted by Flubber
last I checked you had erased all of your posts in our private forum

As I had done in the CyCon's and the PUT's (after sleeping on it last night I awoke never wanting to have anything further to do with this game)

However I hadn't gotten round to deleting my 200 or so Hive posts (hey, even a diety can spam with the best of them)

But there remains jist one PEACE player that I am still offside with and I have e-mailed him to see if there is a sufficient level of trust for me to remain as CMN

If so, then I shall, as the groundswell has been encouraging.

Googlie

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Flubber
I just don't know how you do a tech leapfrog but perhaps someone else can work out a way

This is not the focus of the discussion but I just want to add a comment here. There is always risk associated with leapfrog researching and I blieve it is the right way for the game to go. The greater benefit from it is right to be offset by greater risks. It is not realistic if as long as two factions are doing tech leapfroging the pact will never be allowed to expire.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


I'd also like to remind everyone that the ruling made by the CMN is final, as he is/was the CMN of our game. Respectful complaints should be addressed to him in private, not publickly as has now been decided.

a complaint was made privately since I was genuine in my belief that the cyborg action was a cheat. Howver I wanted to publicize this:

1. so other factions aren't caught out by not understanding how the rules work here-- I didn't know this rule nor did any of our other players AFAIK

2. since something had to be said to explain what is happening with this googlie resignation thing

3. as part of the roleplay ( although that will come mainly later )

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

Edit changed the fifth word to privately

[Maniac]

Personally I don't see the need to change the rules of this game. This situation could have been avoided by a simple precaution of PEACE: contacting the faction you want to give a tech to well in time instead of on the last minute and while you still have the turn, and not a day after you sent the turn. That way all miscommunications and stress could be easily avoided, and deals wouldn't have to be rushed, with all the resulting mess and inclarity afterwards. Besides, I'm sure Googlie would have allowed to keep the turn longer a bit longer than 48 hours if very crucial negotiations were going on.

[Corellion]

Originally posted by Flubber
I also agree. I don't think it is the right call but I intend to abide by it. I just don't know how you do a tech leapfrog but perhaps someone else can work out a way.

I know of a way, and I'll tell you when we get everyone's commlink (if you'll review our past correspondences, you'll see numerous references to this method).

[Flubber]

Originally posted by HongHu
It is not realistic if as long as two factions are doing tech leapfroging the pact will never be allowed to expire.

All I am saying is that it would make for freer flowing diplomacy if the diplmacy box was used as I suggest. Game mechanics do not permit an accepted deal on each side in a tech leapfrog situation . . . Someone has to proffer the tech pre-accepted . . . Under these rules there is NO secure way to do the trade.

I have seen that buster has weighed in . . . given his opinion on this I can see that there are VERY experiennced players that see nothing wrong with googlies ruling

To be clear . . . I don't like the ruling and I think it has the effect of making the game more difficult to play-- The opposite ruling would

1. allow secure tech leapfrogs
2. allow preaccepted deals to avoid missed trade opportunities and speed diplomatic interchange
3. Still permit backstabs and failure to pay later

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Maniac
Personally I don't see the need to change the rules of this game. This situation could have been avoided by a simple precaution of PEACE: contacting the faction you want to give a tech to well in time instead of on the last minute and while you still have the turn, and not a day after you sent the turn. That way all miscommunications and stress could be easily avoided, and deals wouldn't have to be rushed, with all the resulting mess and inclarity afterwards. Besides, I'm sure Googlie would have allowed to keep the turn longer a bit longer than 48 hours if very crucial negotiations were going on.

BULL

I personally PM ed the guy you told me was your ambassador a full two days before you guys got the turn.

[DeathByTheSword]

damn...i am gone for 3 days and look what you all gotten "...anyways...Googlie MUST stay and the game has to go on