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

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Drogue


because the insults made against me were never refuted by PEACE.

PEACE could not refute this since none of us would have knowledge of the insult, EDIT other than the person that made it END EDIT . Likewise you could not refute it if I said cycon player x insulted me since you have no control over or even knowledge of their personal messages or emails . I was suprised when you told me of this in a PM since it was the first time I had heard of the issue. I don't think any mention of any of this appears in our private forum.

[Drogue]

That is true, you did not know. Which is why I do not hold it against PEACE. On second thought, maybe the removal of that statement would be better, especially the last line.

The main thing I have against this thread is that PEACE are starting a thread explaining their side while they know we cannot reply. That is of course their perogative, since they have met all the factions. However if we can talk OOC, as Maniac's post was, then I do not see how his post is insulting while this thread is not. If it is against the rules, then remove it. If it is not, I do not see the problem. However with it causing offense, i will ask Maniac to remove it when he is next online.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Drogue
You well know that we have explained to Flubber on numerous occasions why we did not have 4/5 days. Yet you continue to persist in writing it in a place where we cannot explain why.

I don't see how talking about the timeframe of playing turns and receiving emails impacts on anything within the game . When you talk about failing to negotiate in a timely fashion, I take that as a comment as to game mechanics, outside the roleplay and actual gameplay . We are talking turns and emails here.

as for your explanation, basically your ambassador told me to send all messages to a certain individual who was the new ambassador, which I did about 2 days before the turn got to you. What you did with the game turn is a matter of gameplay and I'll leave that issue alone. Then you advised that your new ambassador was often unavailable and that was the reason you did not know our offers. (dang its tough to skirt gameplay matters and talk about procedural ones)

.The fact that the turn might have left us before the gameturn did or vice versa is entirely to do with the fact that I have a job, wife and child. But I have always tried to give a speedy reply to anyone that contacts me.

[Drogue]

I can't reply to that, as that would go into details that, since we haven't met some others, I can't go into.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Drogue

The main thing I have against this thread is that PEACE are starting a thread explaining their side while they know we cannot reply. That is of course their perogative, since they have met all the factions. However if we can talk OOC, as Maniac's post was, then I do not see how his post is insulting while this thread is not. If it is against the rules, then remove it.

I started this thread . . I have insulted no one and given a pretty bland recitation of the facts as they are known to me. Since we can talk to anyone, I have broken no rules-- I could go hog wild roleplaying but I didn't think that appropriate when googlie has yet to confirm he is staying . . . that can wait until we get away from the crap that led to this thread and get back to the fun of the game.

I wanted to do two things with this thread-- get the rules clarified ( for me if for no one else) and explain what led to googlies ( soon to be reversed I hope resignation)

Both objectives have been met but on a personal level I get peeved when someone accuses me of slow negotiating-- Thats an outside the game criticism and I responded.

[Googlie]

At some point I will run a poll on whether there should be a rule governing pre-accepted trades for leap-frogging purposes.

I may be thick, but I still don't see the difference (in using pre-accepted tech deals to facilitate leapfrogs) - other than "current turn/next turn" - between:


1) what the CyCon did:

take the proferred tech, close the diplo box and renounce pact

and,

2) my earlier questioning post:

accept the trade and in the diplobox say "we accept the conditions"

then next line in the diplobox say

"we have been so p'd off at this pact that we are downgrading it to treaty"

and then in the 3rd line say

"Oh, and btw we are not going to abide by the conditions we agreed to 2 lines earlier"

and

3) waiting a turn:

Accept the tech and the conditions this turn, stay pacted and then next turn abrogate the pact and say "Oh, and btw we are not going to abide by the conditions we agreed to last turn"

IMO if the third is OK, then so are the first and second.

Bu as there seems to be some agreement that a poll would solve things, I'll run a poll in a couple of days.

G.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Flubber
Both objectives have been met but on a personal level I get peeved when someone accuses me of slow negotiating-- Thats an outside the game criticism and I responded.

IIRC no-one has done that I don't think you negotiate slowly, and haven't seen anyone else post that. I'm sorry if it seems like I have.

[Flubber]

A poll is not necessary now IMHO . .. your ruling has been confirmed by archaic and buster as standard practice in many games. It was something I did not know and I don't advocate changing rules mid game . . .

In your example the only difference I see is this

1. If I want to trade x for y, we make the deal and both accept it, no backstab possibilities since the game mechanics allow both parties to see the deal and accept it at the same time.

2. If a player is about to imminently discover x and we want to trade them x, there is now NO WAY to securely complete this trade if they are to return new tech y that they will acquire IMMEDIATELY upon the tech flip. If the deal is honored the techs pass just like situation 1. If its not, the only recourse is to be pissed off.

3. In my games it is often done that players will offer a tech preaccepted as a means to speed up play. I will certainly discontinue this practice.

I don't disagree that it is within the rules to backstab. I don't disagree that if I agree to gift a tech, the other can take it and then attack on the next turn. a party can fail to give promised future considerations ( although the CIV3 SP version has ways to include these as well) To me breaking a pact was irrelevant as well.

Its all about how techs in the diplbox offers are treated . .. I always considered the diplobox to be a clunky mechanism and that the rules should be such to encourage offers in the box in a fashion that would encourage speedier play and the quicker conclusion of trades.

I see I was misguided and mistaken. Leave the rules as they are . . . its not such a big thing to get used to .. .

Googlie for my benefit, other than diplomatic consequences, is there any way to secure a trade ( say for a tech they will discover after a leapfrog trade) to ensure it will happen.?

I would like to be able to play such that I can put in the diplbox " I offer tech x if you send 50 ec by return mail"-- the intent is to make a trade immediately but there is no way for me to put the other sides 50ec in as the deal I want to accept . . So the deal has to wait another turn since thats the way the diplo box works, or you risk having the opponent abscond with the tech if you are so foolish to offer it preaccepted

[Googlie]

Originally posted by Flubber

Googlie for my benefit, other than diplomatic consequences, is there any way to secure a trade ( say for a tech they will discover after a leapfrog trade) to ensure it will happen.?

I would like to be able to play such that I can put in the diplbox " I offer tech x if you send 50 ec by return mail"-- the intent is to make a trade immediately but there is no way for me to put the other sides 50ec in as the deal I want to accept . . So the deal has to wait another turn since thats the way the diplo box works, or you risk having the opponent abscond with the tech if you are so foolish to offer it preaccepted

Flubber:

When smac first came out one could put negative energy credits in the diplobox - and the receiving faction would lose that amount when they accepted the trade. But that was corrected in one of the early patches, which was a pity, 'cos it could have served well in PBEMs (eg offer the tech plus negative energy credits that you repay when the promised exchange tech gets delivered)

Of course if the receiving faction were running on margin, then that might just mean that they get a tech for 17 credits or whatever (the patch came 'cos one could put, say, -200 credits in and if there weren't enough in the kitty the player would automatically lose faciltiies to get their sale price)

Those very early PMEMs were fraught with danger - one had to read the diplobox carefully.

But, no, I don't know of any secure way of ensuring that a pre-accepted tech agreement gets honoured, other than through absolute trust in the pactmate.

Googlie

[Kody]

Hrmm actually that gives away too much in game information.

[Kody]

Googlie,

I think it's a pity you need to worry about censoring yourself. I know that you derive much of your fun from talking to people and offering your advice on game rules.

As for censoring all the 200 odd posts to the hive. Well you really only need to censor maybe 20 game related ones.

[Googlie]

K:

I will be looking thru my Hive posts, but I don't think any were contained information that was derived from other than the Hive's own turns - and any Hive member could have done that

G.

[Googlie]

Mostly what I've done is what any seasoned PBEM vet would know - how to interpret pactmate infiltration data on third parties, for example. And I haven't limited that to any one faction.

I don't think I've inadvertently (or even advertently) revealed faction info to another faction that couldn't be derived from that faction's in-game information (well, maybe earlier on today when I accidently posted what the actual tech was that was in dispute - but as only CyCon and PEACE team members were reading those posts at that time I'm pretty sure that for the 2 minutes it was displayed no one else saw it)

But I did delete all my upload files first thing this morning, so there will be some residual posts of mine with a link to a now non-existent [img]

Other than that, it's been a hectic day

G.

[Corellion]

Originally posted by Googlie
Other than that, it's been a hectic day
G.

To say the least.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Googlie


But, no, I don't know of any secure way of ensuring that a pre-accepted tech agreement gets honoured, other than through absolute trust in the pactmate.

Googlie

and thats the situation that I think would benfit from protection . . . its only the clunkiness of game mechanics that mean that this trade can not be secured like a normal tech for tech trade.

I dislike the rule and ruling because

1. it requires no cleverness to backstab
2. there is no way to protect yourself in a legitimate tech leapfrog
3. Disallowing this ( ie requiring players to come across with whatever that is to be traded in THAT turn year) most approximates real roleplaying and life-- I'll give you x if you give me y and the trade is simultaneous-- If I agree to buy a car for 10000 with 5000 down I don't get the car unless I give the 5000 and they would call the cops if I drove away without paying the initial 5000-- failure to pay later installments would more likely viewed as a civil matter LOL

In my conceptualization of the way it "should be" any future consideration beyond the immediate year or anything that doesn't fit in the tech box (tech or credits only) would have no protection since the whole purpose is to not allow players to exploit the fact that the consideration requested back CANNOT be placed in the box. So if I see you are researching ethical calc and will discover it this year I can send the tech to you preaccepted with my request for 50 ec. . . . You could trade or not ( or even email me to negotiate) but taking the tech would NOT be kosher-- By having the rules otherwise means that someone can't even make the offer without opening themselves up to theft

I'll quit in this topic now