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

[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