Official: CyCon negotiations

[Kody]

The problem is we don't know all the things they have available.

Impact infantry with amphibious on a crusier transport.
(impact, marine ability, crusier)

For

Ecological Engineering and Ethicial Calculus.

We can probably get the armor off the drones if it's alot of trouble getting it off the cycon.

Some crazy ideas:
We could possible sell them ethicial calculus, or sell them gene splicing. 150 ECs for ethicial calculus and 200 ECs for gene splicing would go a long way to helping us pop boom. However, that should only be suggested if they have trouble giving us those prototypes. Or possibly we ask for the money as a retainer until they get the prototypes to us.

__________________________________________________ __
As it may be a number of turns before you are able to give us the prototypes to us can we have a loan. Giving you the techs earlier gives you an advantage, a loan that will be repaid upon receiving the prototypes would be useful for the hive.

We wouldn't need all the money at once.
__________________________________________________ __

Maybe we sell them ethicial calculus for 100 ECs on the understanding that 100 ECs will be paid back when they are able to get a certain prototype to us.

Okay the EC ideas should probably be brought up later. After we have figured out how long it will take for them to get us the prototypes, and what the actual trades are.

[Voltaire]

Speaking of the CyCon, we need to seriously discuss what we will do with them in the long term. By this I refer to their desire for a joint-victory pact (AKA permipact).

I will say this now, we will not betray the Drones (not that anyone has suggested such a move), discussion of such a nature at this point would be ludicrous given that we have committed so much to our alliance, and furthermore the ethical dilemma (for you moralists out there) with breaking the Drone pact would be much more complicated than using the CyCon.

My stance on the issue remains that we should utilize the CyCon as a tool for as long as possible. This implies that if lies become necessary so be it, we will lie. If betrayal becomes necessary (which at some point it will) we should betray them. This in essence advocates the Machiavellian approach to foreign relations with the CyCon. I am well aware that certain individuals (you know who you are) have objections to this policy on moral grounds. I’m afraid I will need more convincing than simply moral arguments against such an approach. What I am looking for in this discussion tends toward rational arguments in favour of whatever policy toward the CyCon one might support. If it can be demonstrated that we gain more via a non- Machiavellian policy then we will adopt such a policy for it would be the rational approach.

Now to get to the specifics, in the short term a Machiavellian policy would require that we lie to the CyCon and accept their joint-pact. This will allow us to use them more closely for our own gains, the downside being that if the CyCon request of us an action which we cannot do (i.e. attack the Drones) our incorporation makes the pact null and void, and hence our objectives of using them fail. Now the chances of this seem rather unlikely if we operate on rational principles and steer CyCon policy so that we do not encounter ourselves in such a position, IMO this can be done, and the risks of attempting so remain negligible enough (since the CyCon themselves will act rationally, or at least the probability that they will remains high) and the potential rewards remain high, we should adopt the Machiavellian approach.

Chairman Voltaire,
Foreign Policy for Planet, Datalinks

[Kody]

Well my opinion is we currently have such an advantage that we don't need to even use them let alone betray them.

A betrayal of the cycon to the magnitude of joint-victory pacting with them then betraying would likely see a few people leaving the hive in disgust. In fact the cycon have already had one person leave their faction in the wake of the peace-cycon incident. What you advocate is far worse.

Finally, wouldn't a victory be far more satisfying for all involved if we did not have to adopt underhand tactics to achieve our goals. If we win without adopting these kinds of tactics we will likely be congratulated and we'll then move on to the next game. However, by betraying someone there will likely be a fair amount of animosity for months after the game is finished.

Furthermore, the cycon have shown they are not necessarily professional in their game dealings, letting their angry over the game incident spill into real life discussion. Their anger came from frustration at the pirates holding back in their pact. Think of how they’ll react if we betray them.

Also accepting a joint-victory pact with the cycon then betraying them will raise questions in the drone’s mind about what the hive is actually capable of. If I was part of the drones I would be seriously questioning the trustworthiness of the Hive.

I'm not going to even relay this conversation to the drones. As this is probably the worst idea I've seen yet in the hive.

[Kody]

.... and apparently everyone I've talked to agrees with the chairman.

[Snowflake]

I'm sorry I am on Kody's side this time. I am willing to go as far as to pact with them and do not reveal that we have perm pacted with the Drones. I am not willing to flat out lying to them saying that we will enter a joint victory pact with you with the full intention of betraying them. I thought we were the strongest faction in the game. I didn't know that we would have to resort to such desperate measures to deal with a faction with mainly politicians, a faction with wimpers who cannot take a loss gracefully, and a faction with professors who are not equipped to fight, even if they pact with each other.

I had said that I would go whereever the Chairman directs. However I hope the Chairman will not make such a decision. I would have to make hard choices in such occasion. Either I break my promise to the party and choose to reveal the true Hive's attention in the CyCon Embassy, or I might have to die in the hospital bed. (What a lame death. I would rather have died in Marshal's arms.)

[Snowflake]

Ok, if you are really into roleplaying and stuff, how about this. I'll post the real poll result into the embassy, let it stay for couple hours. And then draft a very ambigious official reply implying the possibility of a future joint victory pact. Then I'll be fine with you guys do whatever you want. They would have had sufficient warnings. And you got to play the evil backstabbing devils. The risk is that the CyCons will freak out and refuse to pact with us. But it is not very likely because the poll result show most of us are truthful and friendly to them. So a reasonable move by them would be to pact with us with cautions.

And if they are turned against us and into the university's cuddle, well it would be a nice challenge for us.

Anybody up for this?

If not, I need directions about what I should tell the CyCons in our official response.

[Jamski]

I reccommend we tell them we really need to think about this for a little time, but that nothing will change at the moment. Something like :

We'd love to attach ourselves to your faction, but we ARE a democracy, and such a large step must be debated with the whole faction at some length.

-Jam

[Snowflake]

Proposal 1 (Chairman's idea - basically lie to them about joint victory pact)

Poll Result: Perm pact with CC?
Go for perm pact now 0 0%
Non perm pact with CyCon and be truthful about it 1 11.11%
Non perm pact with CyCon and don't tell them until later 1 11.11%
Non perm pact with CyCon, do not tell them and go for surprise attack 2 22.22%
Non perm pact with CyCon, wait to see what options are open 5 55.56%
Write in 0 0%
xenodoughnuts 0 0%
Total: 9 voters 100%

Official message:

Dear Function Drogue and Function Delta:

After further discussion and consultation among the Hive governing and administrative bodies, I'm happy to bring you the Hive's official message: it has been decided to formally issue an offer to the CyCons of a research and non-aggression pact with a high likelihood of it being developed into a joint victory permanent pact. We would appreciate if you could pass this information along to the CyCon government for approval. May peace and friendship between the Hive and the CyCons last forever.

I will then edit the poll result and only leave the option with the 5 votes.

[Snowflake]

Proposal 2 (basically the original idea):

What relationship are you for between Hive and CC:
permanent pact 1 14.29%
non permanent pact with set time limit 1 14.29%
non permanent pact without set time limit 5 71.43%
write in 0 0%
xenodoughnuts 0 0%
Total: 7 voters 100%

Official message:

Dear Function Drogue and Function Delta:

After further discussion and consultation among the Hive governing and administrative bodies, I'm happy to bring you the Hive's official message: it has been decided to formally issue an offer of research and non-aggression pact. In order to take into account changes in public opinion we would ask that our pact have a clause stipulating that the pact will be brought up for review and renewal in 35-years. We would appreciate if you could pass this information along to the CyCon government for approval, if you do not agree with the stipulated review-renewal period you may reject the issued proposal and we can continue negotiations further until both parties are satisfied.

[Jamski]

Perhaps it would be wise to edit out the people voting for WAR!

-Jam

[Snowflake]

For Deputy Chairman:

Basically we are discussing two ideas here:

One holds by Kody, me and some others, we should just say we would like to pact and need more time to think about joint victory permanent pact. (reflected in my proposal 2)

The other one, holds by the Chairman and I believe Marshal and "everybody else Kody talked to", that we should flat out lie to them and accept their joint victory permanent pact proposal with a full intention of betraying them through surprise attackes. (reflected in my proposal 1)

I am opposed to the Chairman's idea and was trying to develop one that I could accept while still satisfying the need of people who has a unstobable urge for backstabbing. So in my proposal 1 I reveal the possibility of war to the CyCons while give them some sweet language in the official language. Then I will edit out the war options and make it appear it was an mistake. This way it adds more salt and pepper into the situation and make it more unpredictable and that's what will need to pursuade me to accept the backstabbing strategy.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Jamski
We'd love to attach ourselves to your faction, but we ARE a democracy, and such a large step must be debated with the whole faction at some length.

-Jam

This was the line I used about 3 or 4 days ago. Of course we could delay it some further. But I need to know which poll result should I publish in the embassy.

[Jamski]

Hmmm, its a bit of a sticky one. Perhaps we SHOULD permapact with the CyCon in order to bring the game to an end faster. I mean we want to win, we like the Drones, we like the CyCon. Lets get together and KICK SOME ARSE!

Seriously, its always good to have more allies, more tech, more power, more money.

My official and final opinion is : Better to have the CyCon as a permanant ally, rather than part of a Uni-CyCon-Pirate pact against us and the Drones, which is the only other alternative.

-Jam

[Snowflake]

Deputy chairman, you realize that when you raised this opinion before you didn't get many supporters? Drones doesn't like it. GooglieGod doesn't like it. I like it because I love the CyCons. :weep: But I'm a nobody. And I don't think the Chairman, Marshal, Kody, and Vander, Micha, hmmm who else, well everybody else don't like it. Vev on the other hand, hmmm, he might just obstain. Sorry.

[Jamski]

Yeah HongHu, but WE'RE online and they're not...

Go on, you know you want to exercise some power.

Aaagh, isn't it clear to everyone? When the other factions realise how good our link with the Drones is, and how much it is helping us (a strong partnership of 2 teams vs 3 individual teams) then they will want to make an opposing faction - perhaps around the Uni. (2 teams vs 2 teams vs 1 team) Now one faction is left out in the cold, and can't POSSIBLY compete with the two teams. So they join up with one of them (2 factions vs 3 factions) This WILL happen, or I will eat my hat. The simple question is : Do we want to be on the big team or the small team? The answer HAS to be the big team, assuming we still want to win. Why make like harder for ourselves?

-Jam