Lousy lousy cycon &%^$#%

[Flubber]

Hi Captain and Ambassador,

Over the last few days there has been a lot of discussion among the CyCon about PEACE. Specifically regarding you stating in the past that you did not want Applied Physics, when we offered it, both to settle our old IndAut deal and for other trades. The reason you stated was because you had no use for such a level 1 tech. Yet now you have traded for Applied Physics with another faction. In previous trades you have also continuously asked for more and more techs and credits, your language suggesting, and even johndmuller actually stating, that due to your early game advantage as 'traders', you must capitalize on this advantage by pushing for more and more, and playing factions off against each other. While we understand this, we do not feel that is a way to treat your Pact Brother.

Therefore it has been decided by a majority in the Cybernetic Collective that we should reduce our relations to a Treaty status. We will still honour our existing deals, and are still open to new deals, but we cyborgs feel that in spirit PEACE and the Cybernetic Consciousness no longer act like Pact Brothers, and so feel a treaty is more appropriate. I am saddened to have to inform you of this, and I have tried to keep the Pact going for longer, but I was outvoted.

We notice that you have pre-accepted Doctrine: Initiative in the diplomacy box. Could you explain to us why you have done that? We have not received any communications from Ambassador Flubber.

Friendly greetings,

Mani Alpha-3
Second Function and therefore acting External Affairs Function (while DBTS is inactive)

[Flubber]

I have also forwarded a copy of my email to DBTS to maniac this morning and also sent the message that follows

[Flubber]

Re: Official communiqué: pact severance
I had no notice that DBTS was inactive as the last item I heard was that he was your ambassador. I sent a PM requesting trade negotiations and herc put in doc ini pre-accepted in the diplo window so we would have no repeat of our earlier miscommunications and not have it offered in time . .. MY PM indicated that it should not be accepted without a deal being completed

I am now doubly suprised as I hear that you folks have accepted doc ini and plan to break our pact. I feel this must have been your plan all along since you have hardly felt like pactmates to us all for a long time. We do have a quandry however if you have accepted something without reaching a deal. . . Future tech does not cut it as consideration this time . ..

As for applied physics . .. IIRC we picked it up where someone "Threw in" an extra tech since the one we offered was perceived as higher value . . . To quote you, your price was too high for a tech we could pick up for a lot less elsewhere. It was essentially free to us in any event.

Frankly, as soon to be ex pactmates, I don't feel we owe you any explaination.

Its too bad you feel as you do. I had looked forward to leveraging both our factions onward and upward together. But my instinct as to you as pactmates was obviously correct .. . How could we trust you as pactmates when you brak pact so easily??

I will send a separate PM with what I sent to DBTS on the doc ini trade issue . ..

Disappointed

FLub

[Hercules]

Especially as we sent the communique on the 9th. This is the second time they've played the ' blame it on DBTS'.

In fact we were specifically asked by Drogue to bear no ill will towards him as Ambassador because of his 'error' re not changing to HEC.

Also if they didn't understand why they were receiving it why didn't they ask. And why did they accept.

Guess who is now high on our list to probe and shot up our most wanted list.

[johndmuller]

No matter what all water may or may not have flowed under the bridge of our relations with the Borg, their acceptance of a tech from us which included a note "See Ambassador Flubber's Communication." with a response "As far as I know, we have not received any communications from Ambassador Flubber." is malfeasance and IMhO is grounds for deletion from the game. They obviously knew that they were not taking any messages into consideration and nevertheless accepted the tech which came with the imprecation to "see the message". This has gone beyond the bounds of any charitable, benefit of the doubt explanation short that of bad sportsmanship, pure and simple. I think we should request a suspension of play while Googlie investigates this matter.

[Atlantian]

Could I get the In game date of when the pact was officially broken for historical records.

*EDIT: NM, found it in another thread.*

[Flubber]

I agree with Johnd

[Flubber]

I sent this PM to maniac in hopes that maniac could explain

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


I hope this was a miscommunication
Maniac

I believe the following events have occurred

1. We offered doc ini in the commlinls with a message to look for communication from me. as to terms.

2. I sent a PM to DBTS on Oct9 outlining some preliminary ideas as to terms with the hoped of negotaiating a deal

3. You Pmed me inquiring what the doc ini offer was about in a PM indicating you were ending our pact

4. I am informed your faction ACCEPTED DOC INI.

5. Nobody in our faction seems to have received any communication as to your offers for this. Your communication to me indicated DBTS was away.



IS any of the foregoing in error ??

THis is not roleplaying. In any PBEM I have played, I often pre-accept offers in the diplobox so that the game mechanics are not an impediment to trade and the deal can be accomplished withinn the game once terms are settles by email or pm. Its ALWAYS understood that you can't just accept the tech. In fact it would be a cheat or a foul to do so, regardless of diplomatic status, unless you knew the tech was a gift. You definitely knew the tech was not a gift . . .

I am hoping that I am misinformed or there was some mixup that you can explain. Please advise

Flubber

[Hercules]

I endorse the view that Googlie should investigate.

[Googlie]

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Googlie
Accepting a 'pre-accepted' tech offer and then cancelling pact

I also posted this to the specific "GOOGLIE" thread

The question has been put to me:

"is this allowed, or is it cheating"

I ruled that this is a legal, permitted maneouver. Unsavoury pactbrother behaviour, to be sure, but permissible.

The closest PBEM rule is the one that covers accepting pending tech trades before declaring vendetta (which effectively stops the second party for acquiring it's half of the trade), which is not the case in this instance.

Googlie

Googlie I fear that if you permit things that look smell and sound like cheating, you have just thrown down the gauntlet for people to find exploits and cheats which have not been formally enshrined as part of the rules. The fact that they asked you ahead of time meant they knew this was questionable behavior-- backstabs are to be expected but exploiting the mechanics of how the diplbo works -- I frankly expected better

[Googlie]

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Googlie
Flubber:
Perhaps if PEACE had been more honourable in dealing with the CyCon from the beginning of the pact it might never have come to this.

G.

Googlie I take offense to this. As the person dealing with them on the majority of occasions I didn't do half the stuff you claim . .. There were discussions of deceptions and the only one I know I did was say we were switching to plan nets when we switched to something else.

However, we kept our word on every deal . .. so don't put this back on us.

I guess I view the diplomacy part of this game differently than you. I see pre-accepting as a necessary part of keeping games flowing and making trades-- If abusing this and yes it is abuse, then no one can trade in an instance where pre-accepting is necessary since you can be doublecrossed because the GAME MECHANICS require a gift of one tech to get the next tech

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Googlie

Can you honestly say that PEACE in every dealing with the CyCon acted with honesty and integrity??

I didn't do every dealing. I only lied during the first plan nets trade and actully that wasn't a lie at the time I made my statements. I said we would research plan nets and I believed it at the time. Only later when I became aware we actually were researching soc psych did I mislead them --

Originally posted by Googlie You lied to them about how you acquired techs, factions you had met, imminence of tech discoveries, etc etc. But that's diplomacy.

I have actually been pretty forthright. I never lied about where we acquired techs or whom we met . .. although I believe there was a misguided and clumsy attempt to hide the fact that we had met the PUT while I was away ( when anyone can see infiltration info with a pactmate)

When did we lie about imminence of tech discoveries? If this is the plan nets thing, I believed it at the time since our poll chose plan nets.)

Actually on the whole I was pretty honest with them. My sins were mainly sins of omission in that I didn't generally volunter information.



Oh and googlie you should NOT be suggesting tech trades to us, particularly if you know the other side plans to renege. We have lots of players that know how tech flips work and would have likely come to try for the same deal ourself. BUt your suggesting the deal and then ruling on the legality of reneging . .

[Googlie]