Reasoning expressed in the Spartan trade thread.
Accept it.
Decline and demand the terms are accepted after current trade.
Decline, and envoke embargo on all trades with Sparta until they revoke or modify terms.
Decline.
The Spartans are trying to spoil our position as tech brokers. Posted in Aimoo:
20 years is a huge period in SMAC, especially multiplayer. The game could be over in 80 years. Furthermore, if we got Doc: Mobility and cannot trade it to the Angels, they'll wonder what's going on, and we would have broken our agreement with them.This is a matter that requires your immediate attention.
The Junta has decided on the following rules on technology trade:
- Tech Levels: The principle is established that tech-level trades (eg a level 3 for a level 3) need no add-ons for offer or acceptance by either party (subject to below)
- Embargo on third party onward trading: - Onward trading (to any third party, human or AI) is prohibited by both Sparta and Gaia for a 20 year period following such trade exchange (subject to variance by mutual agreement between Sparta and Gaia).
These clauses are for the protection of both you and us, and the Federation hopes that you find them acceptable. We also hope they won't delay the ongoing trade; if for them to be enacted, a delay is inevitable, we can deal with the delay. I would also personally like to apologize for this late amendment to the matter. It is essential that these rules are followed, or we can not agree to any tech trade on the table right now.
Spartan terms are outrageous in my opinion. I would respond with embargo on all trades and communication with Spartans until this terms are revoked or severly modified. However, the choice is yours.
SMAC/X FAQ | Chiron Archives
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. --G.B.Shaw
Reasoning expressed in the Spartan trade thread.
Agreed with CT. Small note: since there is about three regualry active members (binTravkin, me and CT) and two sporadicaly active members at best - majority of three votes should be considered as decisive in poll results).
SMAC/X FAQ | Chiron Archives
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. --G.B.Shaw
A democracy of 3? Oh well...
Well, I know it is poor, but since we ahve a pool of around six players - (CT, me, BT, smacksim, Hydro, Ouro + Natalina, Laurentius, Net Warrior Smacksim and Livid are the only one who pay enough attention to game - Natalina is not here around, Smacksim is gone, Laurentius would have to be pushed into voting, and Net Warrior is not around) - this leaves us with pool of around five or six voters sadly - I took majority of four votes before, but since our active numbers dwindle every day, I guess this is the enxt logical step. Perhaps we should maintain majority of four votes further. Now, excuse me, I am going to try and drag Laurentius from IRC to vote. Oh and I checked - most of polls in last 15 days has 4 voters only.
SMAC/X FAQ | Chiron Archives
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. --G.B.Shaw
Googlie edited Kassiopeia's post to add this: "Nor is it allowed to turn over control to another faction of a unit with new weapons, abilities, etc... derived from a traded tech."
SMAC/X FAQ | Chiron Archives
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. --G.B.Shaw
The 20 year tech embarge is a common feature of many techs trades the in the Civ3 Team DG world. But, 20 Civ3 turns aren't the same as 20 SMAC years. It shouldn't be too hard to talk them down, I think, for the same term, but for only 5 years, which I think is reasonable.
Join a Democracy Game today!
| APO: Civ4 - Civ4 Multi-Team - Civ4 Warlords Multi-Team - SMAC | CFC: Civ4 DG2 - Civ4 Multi-Team - Civ3 Multi-Team 2 | Civ3 ISDG - Civ4 ISDG |
There is three votes for last option- by the time I wake up tommorow (12 hours from now at most) - the poll should be clear. I believe that Lady Deirdre Skye will then respond to their proposal.
SMAC/X FAQ | Chiron Archives
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. --G.B.Shaw
Small note: Spartans are very interested in our response - in last thirty minutes every their member checked that thread, and Maniac even came to Poly IRC server (I do not remember when was the last time I seen him there). Since no one said hello to them from available Gaians (Octavian, Laurentius and me), he was there for around five minutes and departed, probably reporting activity in our channel. There are without any doubt very interested in our response.
SMAC/X FAQ | Chiron Archives
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. --G.B.Shaw
Candidate response:
Though it undermines trust to add clauses to an agreement after the other party has agreed to it, we have considered your proposal. We feel that twenty years is far too long a time for our sovereignity and intellectual freedom to be restrained. On the other hand, we understand your concerns and will hold secret your technologies for a period of five years, and will never trade technologies to who we know your enemies to be for as long as we are on good terms (in game terms, not vendetta'd or overtly desiring vendetta).
Commentary:
Hostilities with another faction are not desirable in general, even if they would have a hard time hurting us. Five years is long enough for the Spartans to think they have a shot at contacting the Angels themselves. The last clause we may or may not want, but the intent is to assure the Spartans that we will not covertly ally against them.
I am worried about the first clause too - it allows trading worthless technologies for imporatant ones, simply because they have the same level.
SMAC/X FAQ | Chiron Archives
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. --G.B.Shaw
Good point, I'll ask what they mean by that.
They want no additional incentives - eg - under this terms trading Optical Computers for IA would be okay - IA grant a great SP, crawlers and Wealth, while Optical Computers are worth something only as a prereq technology. Some technologies are more important than others, and want to bypass these obstacles in trading - for example giving a same level technology for a great technology like IA or Fusion or DAP. I would advise against it, since they are obviously trying to remove all incentives from trading.
SMAC/X FAQ | Chiron Archives
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. --G.B.Shaw
We can look a little deeper from that perspective:
If they play Momentum-style, and we play Hybrid-style, we'll have more choice over what techs we get. Thus, our techs will be superior. That can be blunted somewhat by their rule. Furthermore, since we can depend on mind worms for a good portion of our military, we don't want several military techs. They want to make better use of their military techs, and since our army is good enough already, giving us weapons wouldn't particularly strengthen us.
These threads certainly are upping activity...
So few voters on such an important-sounding issue...
And what became of all this? Perhaps I shall find the answer in later threads, perhaps not.
Five voters actually a huge number. There are polls with two or three voters sadly
SMAC/X FAQ | Chiron Archives
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. --G.B.Shaw
I think we should show those idiots that "free flow of information" is one of our primary goals as it's needed for democracy!
We could also make it (the free-flow thing) a good reson for rising our relations with Angels..
Say:
Hey friend, these nasty spartans want to put an embargo on trading - that's in violation your Constitution and our beliefs, so why don't we use some political force here..
-- What history has taught us is that people do not learn from history.
-- Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks