-**- GOOGLIE -**- Please look into the Borgs' Behavior

[Googlie]

And in turn I apologize for probably over-reacting to my perceived "slander' at jdm's hands. With hindsight we should prolly have settled it between our two selves rather than going through the resignation/ retraction route

(a result of which is permanent deletion of many posts that I considered useful - as well as removal from my uploads of some pretty key images)

Some key "takeaways" for me are:

Unpalatable as it might be for some, I will consult Tass on every request for a ruling in future. Having a second head to bounce things off can be invaluable

I will strive not to let my preconceptions or desire for certain outcomes determine any advice given - or witheld (and in this regard, in the interests of fairness, I posted a similar message to every faction as was put in your forum thread here

If I have an issue with any team member of any faction I'll try to resolve it privately before going public

Googlie

[Googlie]

Originally posted by Flubber
Chaunk from the cyco sent me this PM and indicated he is quitting their faction. It clarifies that their failure to complete tech deals was intentional . . . I have his permission to reproduce this here

Flubber et al

In this instance I think Chaunk was offside in giving the details as to why he resigned (given our analogous "defectors' information" rule) in that you obtained CyCon "inner working protocols" other than thru the game mechanics.

You'll find it ironic, I know, but I must rule that this information (as to why Chaunk left the CyCon) go no further than PEACE members.

I have also advised the CyCon of this ruling

Googlie

[Hercules]

I was looking at the rules for AC tournanment pbems to check about stockpile in the build queue after a mulitary unit.

When you replace a player and are used to a certain set of rules such as here, this is one of the rules you quite easily forget what applies in the game you're playing and nor do you necessarily check if the other players are abiding if you don't think you have to.

That's bye the bye.


There is a rule there, the gist of which is that if employ a tactic that will change the dip status towards vendetta you can't complete trade or tech in the same turn. Something like that.


To inhibit the legal (but unfriendly) steal of pre agreement ecs or tech , perhaps the rule should require the faction doing so to go to vendetta.

You know when the AI does something sneaky a screen advises 'this is a just cause for vendetta'. Then it is up to you to decide whether to do so or not.

In the scenario where a faction accept a pre agreement offer with the intention of not fulfilling their side of a deal or possible deal. then I am suggesting that they must declare vendetta.

It has of course downsides for the offended against faction, eg your troops may be in transit to somewhere beyond their territory and would have to return to your territory and vice versa; you lose commerce and are caught on the hop.

But there are downsides too for the 'offending' faction that in declaring vendetta they know the additional costs and loss of commerce. PACT AI's and PACT mates would be compelled to join the aggrieved side. Also having been the first to announce vendetta the faction's reputation would suffer somewhat.

So yes the action is legal but the consequences in game could be substantial
(especially in the mid and late game).

Just an idea (not fully examined) for much later discussion.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Googlie


Flubber et al

In this instance I think Chaunk was offside in giving the details as to why he resigned (given our analogous "defectors' information" rule) in that you obtained CyCon "inner working protocols" other than thru the game mechanics.

You'll find it ironic, I know, but I must rule that this information (as to why Chaunk left the CyCon) go no further than PEACE members.

I have also advised the CyCon of this ruling

Googlie

Hmm -- a member of a faction told me something-- just like I tell stuff to other factions all the time and their ambassadors tell me stuff all the time-- For all I know, chaunk could be lying or part of some deeper cycon plot.
this could all be part of the roleplay-- I am half expecting Chaunk to be annointed as their new leader as the masses " overthrow" the leadership and a new more trustworthy cycon government is installed LOL.

However, I understand the reasoning for the rule and will abide by your ruling--

[Googlie]

Originally posted by Hercules
But there are downsides too for the 'offending' faction that in declaring vendetta they know the additional costs and loss of commerce. PACT AI's and PACT mates would be compelled to join the aggrieved side. Also having been the first to announce vendetta the faction's reputation would suffer somewhat.

This is true. if an attack in a PBEM is made against a player pacted with others, the game's inbuilt AI automatically causes the other pactmates to declare vendetta against the attacker.

In many PBEM's the human controllers "kiss and make up", but there is the loss of comerce income, the instant relocation of units to home bases, etc etc to contend with (which could be embarrassing if a convoy were, say, in transit past one of those "other" pactmates en route for a full scale invasion, and suddenly got dumped back at the starting gate)

G.

[Googlie]

Originally posted by Flubber
I am half expecting Chaunk to be annointed as their new leader as the masses " overthrow" the leadership and a new more trustworthy cycon government is installed

LOL, Flubber.

Can I pass that on to the 'Borgs?

(Actually, if the general thread weren't padlocked, it'd be worth a post there by you querying "So when can we expect Chaunk to emerge as Prime Function" or summat like that)

G.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Googlie


LOL, Flubber.

Can I pass that on to the 'Borgs?

(Actually, if the general thread weren't padlocked, it'd be worth a post there by you querying "So when can we expect Chaunk to emerge as Prime Function" or summat like that)

G.

Actually I am hoping to do a roleplay post ( very long and told in a pirate voice) where I go through everything including chaunk ( to the extent I can) My thoughts are I would post it here first ( since I have been shooting off my mouth on my own way too much) and might even send an advance copy to the cyborgs if my faction sees the content as not giving away too much-- Heck-- we could even decide to agree to post the cycon's rebuttal . I actually think they are in a stronger position saying that they can't explain than if they actually felt they HAD to explain-- I hope to have some fun with it.

But as i think about it, Chaunk is in no way a necessary part of the story so share with the cycon if you think it will amuse them.

[H0bbes]

Well, see what I missed! I will try to check more regularly now!
My 2 cents worth is that while a horribly nasty, unethical & just plain naughty act, the Cycon double-cross was a perfectly legal act. As I play, a preaccepted tech swap is given in exchange for promise; and like all promises, such a promise may be broken. Of course such broken promises must be dealt with swiftly and with overwhelming force. Hang them from the yard-arm I say!!

Hobbes