Public Announcement from Gathering Storm

[Togas]

With your permission I would like to quote the PM to straighten this out, because you didn't imply that you would negotiate, instead you gave me a pointless lecture about how it's bad policy to buy from some other source and how they were untrustworthy and may not give us the tech in 10 turns, clearly because you didn't like our diplomatic tactic of trying to bid down the price of a tech...

Originally posted by DeepO
(quoting their price, which we find appalling diplomatic tactics as it was only intended to get us in a bidding war)

Originally posted by DeepO
when you know that in 10 turns time you could probably be double in strength is not honorable.

Maybe this is just a bad translation issue, but I have no idea what you're saying here.

Here's the deal: It's a Free Market. All if fair, and the merchant who offers the best price AND gives the best service gets the sale. These haughty ideas about "appauling diplomatic tactics" and "not acting honorably" because we didn't go the extra mile to BEG you to please reconsider negotiating with us astounds me! You guys have no idea the sort of wrangling we have to do in the tech market because GoW is so damn good at it. Frankly, I don't care who gives me the tech so long as I get it for a good price, and GoW delivered that good price to me, were willing to negotiate, were amicable with their terms, and are trustworthy and reliable merchants who have a track record in Spain of excellent service.

How dare you act as if we slighted you by buying something from them? You had every opportunity to sell us the tech, all you had to do was beat their price. You refused to do so because you found such behavior to be beneath your standards, and so long as you employ such standards you will continue to lose out on potential sales.

In the end we got the tech, Gow got the cash, and GS got nothing. What did those "honorable" trade policies do for you in the end?

... sigh ...

--Togas

[UnOrthOdOx]

Forth, if we or GoW or ND or Lego wants to sell a resource to Vox that's our business. We don't appreciate being vaguely threated in this fashion. We could easily sell resources to GS. We could trade techs. We have not embargoed either party. We have not refused to trade with either party.

Let me jump in for one second here.

Togas, you almost make it sound as if you speak for all of the teams. I can assure you that GoW did not feel threatened by the statement made earlier, hell we don't even have spare Iron so none of this even concerns us presently.

On a PERSONAL note (not neccessarily a GoW statement) I see no problem with a team requesting that the other teams please keep out of the business militarily. Iron IS a military resource, therefore a military support.

Did it come off as confident and threatening?

Yes, definately. Mistakes happen to all of us.

Could it have been handled more diplomatically?

Certainly. As proven by later posts.

Is it an unreasonable request given the circumstances?

Absolutely not.

[mrmitchell]

* Spamish jumps in on the scene of the diplomatic incident and speaks to Togas. *

Whoa, my King, have patience and understanding! Whut you say here could determine ours, our children's, and our children's children's lives. Do not speak with haste, speak with wisdom. For, though your emotion is a powerful resource, many a life have been lost to it in matters of this scale.

[mrmitchell]

DeepO

Certainly there's an online translator or dictionary you can use if you're having that much trouble? Well, anyways, you're doing a pretty good job at speaking English IMO--in fact, it's better than most of it I hear regularly

[ruby_maser]

You don't use mustard to fix a watch. The Mad Hatter knew this well. Butter... maybe, but certainly not mustard.

If you understand that, my teammates, you know as much as the Mad Hatter about restraint.

[Arrian]

By the way, regarding the feudalism trade issue:

I didn't follow that as it developed. As far as I'm concerned, RP didn't do anything wrong or dishonorable.

You guys were willing to wait 10 turns and get a better price. We didn't come up with a lower offer. So we lose. That's fine, unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible, since I do tend to neglect the diplo log threads and concentrate on military & economic areas (which are the 2 scholias I'm part of).

But please cut DeepO some slack - he has little hope of communicating in English as well as a native English-speaking lawyer, even though I think his English is excellent.

-Arrian

[Hot Mustard]

Why haven't we seen any statements or reaction from ND or Lego? C'mon guys, you don't want me labelling you as isolationist too, do you?

[Arrian]

Oh, and by the way,

UnOrthOdOx -

That's a pretty fair assessment, I think. Thanks.

-Arrian

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Arrian

But please cut DeepO some slack - he has little hope of communicating in English as well as a native English-speaking lawyer, even though I think his English is excellent.

-Arrian

I agree. Both Togas and Arnelos have left me running for my dictionary on more than one occasion, I can only imagine how a non-native speaker feels. Honestly, though DeepO is doing a great job, I hadn't even noticed, frankly.

[DeepO]

Togas, you do NOT have permission to quote the entire message in public, as it does contain remarks on other team(s). We do not give out diplomatic messages, I even crossed the line too far in trying to defend myself personally. If you want, we can take this private, where you can quote our messages if you want.

Maybe this is again a misunderstanding, however I thought (and still think) that the sentence I'm referring to was very clear (third sentence of my reply). You can hardly call that implying... although I'm the first to confess it is far from legal speak.

I know you have a different idea of how diplomatic negotiations should proceed, and I know that for you, nearly all tactics are allowed in what you call free market. But as a result of the first commotion about all the "ringers" in GS, we commited to play it honorably, even if in many cases it would not give us the best deals, or even if it would mean we would lose this game badly (say end in last place). I admit, that that line of thought in many cases makes us think that other teams are crossing the line, when in reality it is our self-imposed line they cross, and they did not promise anything, hence are not breaking any commitment. Sometimes, this troubles relations because of wrong assumptions, sometimes it makes us appear arrogant, but normally we're only commenting on our own policy, not another team's.

I thought I said that when I said that we do not want you to mention what others are asking for a tech (assuming we trust you, and the price is accurate). It is your good right to try that tactic, but we won't do it, and don't like it when someone uses that bidding war tactic on us. I wanted to say that in the first quote, even if it came out poorly.

In rereading the PM for the 5th time or so, I realize that seeing it from another PoV, you could interpret part of the message as kind of dubious to such a bidding war, but again, that's bad English that is showing, and if you consider our PoV for only a second, there is no doubt.

The second quote: We could play a victim, but it didn't catch on (remember the "moral high ground" thread?). If we would have sneak attacked Vox, violating a NAP, that argument would have made all teams gang up on us. Why? Vox is the underdog, so they are 'allowed' to be creative with breaking treaties. We don't get support for being right... maybe a little support at first, but the moment other teams started to realize that Vox was not going to win, and possibly we would not get damaged as much as hoped for, there was no sympathy left. That's a normal human reaction, so playing a victim in a PR war when you're actually the biggest kid on the block is simply pathetic, nothing more... we may not have made any friends in this war, at least we kept our dignity.

I know, I know... you don't value dignity, as this game is a "free market" in many ways. But we don't play to win at all costs, we play to win (or at least survive) in a fun, and honorable way. Call us idiots if you want, but that's how we want to play.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Thanks for the comments on the quality of my English, however there is a problem here. I do not grasp all hidden meanings in sentences, nor am I aware of all I imply in what I write. I don't need a on-line dictionary (those are awfull most of the times), and of course I'm used to write English, but that is in a totally different context... I can easily see some confusion coming from using 'difficult' vocabulary, while I miss the simplest words from time to time, but that's because I'm used to reading academic papers, and talking in English in an academic environment. Let me tell you, the differences in word usage are considerable when compared to trying to be an ambassador

DeepO

[Hot Mustard]

RE: DeepO

Originally posted by Arrian
But please cut DeepO some slack - he has little hope of communicating in English as well as a native English-speaking lawyer, even though I think his English is excellent.

So do I. And I always cut ESL'ers slack, but that didn't seem to be the issue here.

DeepO stated that he (or some of GS) believed a particular theory on the basis of "clues". Togas took issue with that, as any lawyer would. You can't leap from "clues" to "conviction" without proof.

DeepO also stated that Togas was taking apart his sentences, which I don't see any evidence of.

I sympathize for DeepO if he feels intimated by Togas' vocabulary, but it doesn't change the fact the he (and other GS members?) were judging RP without facts. I would love to hear an example of a "clue" that wasn't merely pure speculative conversation.

RE: Arnelos - What black hole did he get sucked into, anyway?

RE: Feudalism - A shame. I obviously wasn't around or paying attention, I would have preferred to get it sooner than later.

RE: Mustard - What are you talking about? Mustard fixes all wrongs!

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Togas

How dare you act as if we slighted you by buying something from them? You had every opportunity to sell us the tech, all you had to do was beat their price. You refused to do so because you found such behavior to be beneath your standards, and so long as you employ such standards you will continue to lose out on potential sales.

In the end we got the tech, Gow got the cash, and GS got nothing. What did those "honorable" trade policies do for you in the end?

All we had to do was accept a price representing less than 10% of the cost of our research (if I remember the numbers correctly). That in a game with six teams currently active, and in whch we were at war with one of those six and so could not expect to trade with them. In the short term, accepting such a deal would have profited us more than letting GoW have the sale did. But in the long term, setting such a precedent would have been highly problematical to say the least.

If we're going to have research in this game, civs need to be able to expect their customers, collectively, to pay a reasonable share of the price of that research. That's not going to happen if any civ selling a tech has to worry about competing with its first customer in trying to sell the tech to anyone else. In the past, 10-turn delays combined with teams' preference to deal with the original researcher had always seemed to be enough to ensure sane results. But in this case, the rest of the world could hardly have shafted us more effectively if they were engaged in a deliberate conspiracy.

Do we really want a world where the only way civs can research safely is to line up ironclad trades in advance before they even start researching a new tech? If not, pitting original researchers in bidding wars against their own customers is ultimately self-defeating, however good a deal it might look like in the short term.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Togas
Actions have logical consequences that we must all be responsible for.

I think that this succintly sums up this entire thread. If another team decides to intervene in the war on our continent, then there will be repercussions. We did not interfere in The War Against Luxian Agression, knowing that there would be repercussions. Surely you can see that there will be repercussions if there is proof of aiding Vox militarily?

GS would want nothing more than to revert to builder mode after Vox has been dispatched. We were, after all, just builders when Vox attacked, we had virtually no military. After the war, GS would like to turn our chariots into plowshares, but intereference with our affairs....


note: the above is from a silent member of GS (who would kill to be allowed to participate again, alas. )

[Arrian]

who would kill to be allowed to participate again, alas

Your participation is missed.

-Arrian