Posts: 9,706
Threads: 69
Joined: Dec 2010
Hey, everyone, just posting to give my support to the team.
I think the best answer to 3M is to be very blasé about all this. If we say something agressive, trolly or anything like they deserve (  ) they'll be able to channel their guilt into our comments so as to make them think they were right about helping the attack against us. If we keep our cool and act like what they've done is fair game, I really doubt they'll ever be able to lift a finger against us in this game again. It won't help us right now, but maybe it can make a difference later.
Posts: 6,893
Threads: 42
Joined: Oct 2009
I think we should try to put some "civilized" pressure on them. Here is 1 potential response:
Quote:You're deal breakers. Now it is time to act honourably and quit pointless lawyersim. To fix this withdraw your support from Gillette and start sending those catapults to us. I'm sure we can offer more than Gillette ever could. Now you're just assisting Gillette to win the game. It doesn't improve your situation at all.
Sounds weakish, but I think it is ok. Gillette might skip a whip or 2, if they see this message.
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
*lawyering
Otherwise that looks good to me, I guess. I think Ichabod has a point, too.
If you know what I mean.
Posts: 1,780
Threads: 16
Joined: Jan 2006
I dunno, I think Ichabod has a good point & too much direct pressure might just put their backs up in a way that doesn't even do us any good. But I don't know that I can write anything better (and anything I write will probably descend into a wordy mess of parenthetical remarks and that's just so not plako's style ).
Maybe something like:
Quote:We're not sure why you're surprised we reacted poorly to being betrayed - we thought we had friendly relations with your team and then you broke our deals. Wouldn't you have been upset if it had happened in reverse?
We do understand it is a strategy in the game, but surely you can understand deal breaking is a strategy that tends to irritate the target and to be remembered for future games where deals are being made ...
As far as the future of this game goes, as you didn't technically break the NAP we see it as still in effect. Perhaps you intend to return to honouring all your deals and give us information on Gillette as you promised you would? If your support is available to the highest bidder, maybe we can come to some arrangement for some of those handy catapults of yours? Or perhaps a Ballista Elephant or two?
Maybe without the pointy sarcasm at the end (tho it may not read quite as biting as it sounds in my head  ).
March 22nd, 2013, 15:32
(This post was last modified: March 22nd, 2013, 15:34 by plako.)
Posts: 6,893
Threads: 42
Joined: Oct 2009
I don't like Ichabod's approach much. If we don't state our objection, it could be easily interpreted that we accept their actions. This is something I really don't want to happen.
I prefer saying it out straight yet politely. We demand they fix things out. I think my message gets this point through.
Posts: 6,893
Threads: 42
Joined: Oct 2009
Message from Gillette. No surprises here. One positive point is that they consider our NAP over EOT T140 so we basically got another turn to prepare.
Quote:Sorry to be so hard to reach over the last few weeks. I don't think we can afford to agree to the NAP extension we were discussing as you are just too good at this game. That means that our current NAP will run out EOT 140. I hope there are no hard feelings.
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
Yeah, that extra turn is very valuable. Kudos to Gillette for not trying to lawyer any advantages there. (They probably also wanted to be explicit about it, because they don't want us to move first.)
On reflection, I'm fine with your message to M3, Plako.
If you know what I mean.
Posts: 9,706
Threads: 69
Joined: Dec 2010
Well, my approach is based on the fact that I think M3 know they did something wrong, even if they are trying to explain to us that they didn't. And it's better to create a guilty conscience by not giving your subject a way to channel it into something else like anger (that inevitably comes from arguing). But now that I think about what I've just written, I realize it's not a good way to play a game or treat someone. Besides, it's likely to not work, because is based on a lot of (very possibly flawed) assumptions.
That being said, I wouldn't say things like "you are throwing the game to Gillette". That's close to saying "your strategy is very stupid and it'll make you as likely to lose the game as if you hadn't do it". It may be right, but it's too antagonistic. Better to just say we didn't like their approach and that we demand reparations, but not criticize the reasoning behind their play.
Posts: 6,893
Threads: 42
Joined: Oct 2009
Sent the message below. It got very short after removing controversial material .
Quote:You're a deal breakers. Now it is time to act honourably and quit the pointless lawyering. To fix this, withdraw your support from Gillette and demand your catapults back.
Also sent 1 liner to Gillette. Thanked that they responded and no hard feelings.
March 22nd, 2013, 19:36
(This post was last modified: March 22nd, 2013, 19:43 by spellman.)
Posts: 875
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2011
Seems a touch harsh. Granted, I can't think of a NAP where the other side gifted units here in RB (I don't follow all games though), but it is "time honored" in the same sense the USA stayed neutral in the early years of WW2 but still sold weapons to Britain. At least it's not all-out war.
I was hoping to go closer to pling's response. Remember, to them, they aren't deal breaking, so either saying why we feel they lawyered their way out of the NAP and giving a possible recourse would have been nicer imo. But what's sent is sent.
MP
Pitboss Demo - Darrell's Tropical Trolls
PBEM45G - Sareln
|
