[PB70 Mjmd] STAND AS ONE!

[Mousey]

Just a few questions that get at why I find the NAP stab so egregious:

Scooter was very honest about his military position to the point he gave up any chance of making any naval forking a surprise, something that is generally a bad idea when engaging in geopolitical posturing compared to having hidden intent/military advantage. Why didn't you reveal how soon you could have galleons when you were proposing the counter-offers? If his "threat" was so severe, why not neutralize that threat and level the bargaining position? (Even just a bluff could help!)

If the only reason the NAP deal was so insulting/unequal was the 20 turns of NAP with Charriu, why didn't you only break that part of the treaty? Why did you jump to the option that was most catastrophically punishing for Scooter and self-rewarding for yourself? At the point you broke any NAP with Charriu, surely Scooter would have been committing against Bing and you would have had plenty of time to prepare your defences against a naval forking.

Between these two choices it feels more like you reacted emotionally to the deal and immediately started planning how to extract maximum revenge, not helped by the very emotive (and poor taste) comparisons to historical "unequal treaties" and other oppressed societies.

[pindicator]

Well, despite your regret it sounds like you don't think appealing to scooter diplomatically is an option, so I'm going to say you're resigned to him being your enemy the rest of the game. In that case you should try to fork his cities and burn as many cities on that coast as possible. You want to eliminate his ability to hit you back and he can't really send galleons if he doesn't have coastal cities. (He can send them around from the other side of the map, but that will take a lot more time.)

Sorry, I've been mostly skimming the moralistic discussion. I keep thinking back to 65 and our dust-up. Do you see me as never trustworthy with a Fish for Fish deal now? I think your answer will partially lie in that.

[Mjmd]

Which assault option Pin?

I'll ded lurk Scooter in the Variant game, does that work? Continue trend lol. I think motivations matter for future trust. SD does it whenever he feels like it. I've done it once with reason. You said yours was a mistake, works for me.

[pindicator]

So options. What should I do now? There are a few.

1) make a push at mids holy city. Not a bad one to raze to keep SD from benefiting from.
2) Fork the other 3. <--- THIS ONE
3) load up siege and land a large force on skinny island.
4) Play defensive assuming Scooter will try something. In general I assume this.

Note this doesn't account for the other direction. I'm mainly focused on building Galleons over there to defend that way, but there is AN option over there
5) Play defensively over east (where screenshot is from) use gg to create two 6 move Galleons and hope he doesn't have a patrol vessel over in west.

6) In general play defensive and wait for SD and Bing to come on in. Has side benefits of having troops back just in case Charriu breaks NAP or SD breaks NAP. Main problem is if Scooter decides to just pull everything to the island to spite me.

7) Things I'm not thinking of atm.

[Mjmd]

Just a few questions that get at why I find the NAP stab so egregious:

Scooter was very honest about his military position to the point he gave up any chance of making any naval forking a surprise, something that is generally a bad idea when engaging in geopolitical posturing compared to having hidden intent/military advantage. Why didn't you reveal how soon you could have galleons when you were proposing the counter-offers? If his "threat" was so severe, why not neutralize that threat and level the bargaining position? (Even just a bluff could help!)

If the only reason the NAP deal was so insulting/unequal was the 20 turns of NAP with Charriu, why didn't you only break that part of the treaty? Why did you jump to the option that was most catastrophically punishing for Scooter and self-rewarding for yourself? At the point you broke any NAP with Charriu, surely Scooter would have been committing against Bing and you would have had plenty of time to prepare your defences against a naval forking.

Between these two choices it feels more like you reacted emotionally to the deal and immediately started planning how to extract maximum revenge, not helped by the very emotive (and poor taste) comparisons to historical "unequal treaties" and other oppressed societies.

Risk mainly for the first question. Its by far the fairest question someone has asked and I was wondering when someone would. Scooter came on very strong, if I revealed his leverage would be gone soon, the MOST likely scenario is he decides to hit me (IE I would be in the situation where I tell him to come boat me because I'm not accepting the deal). COULD it have turned out differently. MAYBE. 

I explained this to Charriu a little bit in diplo, but why would I go after him when Scooter threatened me? Now I may still invade Charriu this game for normal civ reasons of wanting more land, but betraying THAT NAP would have been scummy as hell. I mean I take it that is what the lurkers already think of me, but breaking that portion of the treaty once they had both jumped in on Bing would have been HORRIBLE. 

Again, the historical examples are to make people realize that treaties under duress are not valid. It was the easiest logical leap for people to make. I could bring up less well known examples, but it wouldn't be AS obvious for people. Real life is also a lot more complicated. Internal divisions exist and military modernization is FAR from being as easy. They were not used for direct comparison purposes, but in order to walk the logic in a way people understand.

[Qgqqqqq]

Again, because I'm strong but don't currently have a gun, but will, I should abide by a contract I was forced into signing with someone who had a gun pointed at me at the time, but is slightly less strong than me? That is basically your argument? Let me know what I'm getting wrong here.

I used the easiest historical analogies as they are the easiest for people to understand going back on a deal signed against your will ISNT wrong. Most people understand that historically and morally. That is why I asked the question about one of those nations acquiring technology and then going back; it was to get you to think. After their civil war / restoration it isn't surprising that the Japanese went on one of the most impressive fleet modernizations in history for example, but it still took 40 years before they could start dictating terms / negotiating as equals. The fact my tech wasn't that far away and that reality was closer (and much easier to do) than historically doesn't change the core tenant of the argument.

I'm glad I at least moved your argument from "it wasn't duress" to "I'm not willing to define duress and it isn't grounds". Again, legally it is. I would again recommend answering my first paragraph.

(1) You didn't have a gun pointed at you. You were facing a player who perceived themselves to have an advantage, which they did not, in fact, have. (2) you were not forced to do anything. You chose to sign the deal. You could have threatened, negotiated, fought, gone silent or done anything other than choosing to sign a deal knowing you were planning on reneging on it.

I'm not addressing the historical points. They really don't apply. You are Britain, France, Russia in the 19th century, not Japan or China. And as someone from a country founded by a Treaty that was breached many times, I find the reference to indigenous peoples deeply distasteful.

I haven't moved my point. This whole time I've rejected the idea that a NAP can be invalid due to 'duress'. But by any reasonable definition of duress this wasn't that - and especially by any legal definition. Again, what would a limiting principle be, if we accepted that concept? How could we stop virtually every deal being subject to undermining if a perceived temporary military advantage that was stated aloud is seen not as a bargaining context but enough to destroy it entirely?

Your arguments are not good outside a computer game. More than that, the world outside of the computer game that they are relevant to is this forum where we all exist and seek to have fun together. And as one of those people who you want to be able to coexist with, this has made me think less of you.

I'm not interested in arguing about the details of yours and Scooters positions in this game, or defining duress in these terms, because I'm a global lurker and I shouldn't be talking to a situation reported on by multiple people with different knowledge. Personally, I was hesitant to even start giving my opinion here, and offered to delete it in the lurker thread in case people thought it was inappropriate influence on the game.

[Mjmd]

I was facing a person who did have an advantage, stop twisting the facts. They didn't have it for very long, but it was enough. Again, I could run to get a gun, but I didn't have one at the time.

I tried negotiating. You've seen that proof. I could gone silent or fought (silence prob would have led to fighting). I doubt many people would have made it. I have purposeful done things in games that I know will lower my chance of winning because they were the right thing to do. Hell my initial assault would have been more effective if I had delayed the turn until Bing responded, but I did the right thing and played my turn. I've lost cities on it before, but purposefully saying come burn me? In a non diplo game you can send confusing signals to try to delay, but when the person bargaining will hold the turn until you give a clear answer? Again, lurkers are not in the trenches and I find it doubtful all you high and mighty would have done.

Again, your trying to distract from the main argument. Is burning 3 cities duress? I would expect that to have been the minimum I lost. Sure we can have a more in depth legal argument about duress, but I think its fairly clear 1/6 of my empire is duress. And again it wasn't perceived, it was a direct believable threat not "perceived". Don't say words that aren't rooted in fact.

If anyone follows the politics thread they will know I like logical arguments. One of the things in argument is not to fall prey to ad nauseum. IE don't just keep saying "deals under duress aren't valid". In the politics thread I once laid out an argument for why peaceful transfer of power was a key pillar of democracy, because I had been using this in my argument over and over again without proving it, so I did. How do you prove deals under duress aren't valid? Well without getting into the deep philosophy of morality the easiest way is to show a clear example that people can go "yes this deal under duress isn't valid". The clearest historical example are the imperialistic uneven treaties. The fact you find it distasteful proves that BASE logical argument I'm making is sound. The China example is probably closest as they were a large country, but again real life is so much messier. But again I try to walk the logic, what if China suddenly gets ships of the line? No one I think doubts the logic that they would go back on the deals forced on them. I got a navy and went back on the deal forced on me. Its just much easier to build a navy and keep an empire together in a computer game than real life. It took China a long time to start raking back those deals.

Are my arguments good outside the game. Lets test it. I will suffer any punishment the lurkers want if someone posts on reddit or similar (since reddit is dark atm?) the man with the gun example I posted earlier and doesn't get overwhelming support for the deal not being void. I am serious about this. I will turn over my civ to you Q, quit, give Scooter all my stuff, whatever punishment lurkers decide. But I am supremely confident that just because I had a gun out of reach at the time it doesn't make the deal valid.

As for in the game, how much fun is it for my empire to be threatened? I can tell you it wasn't great, but its part of a diplo game and what you sign up for. So I would argue is going against agreements when someone forces them on you. If threatening for a deal is part of a diplo game, why am I being judged for a logical reaction to said deal? Its a very interesting double standard.

[Qgqqqqq]

I've no interest in your civ, and no one hear wants you replaced in this game. This isn't a democracy or a plebiscite. You asked for out of game examples. The verdict of those observing is near-unanimous. There's no consequence of that bar whatever social consequences as they are.

I'm distracting from nothing. You've said that 1/6 is duress. What is the limiting principle? When is it, and is not duress? Can you give us an edge case for where you're unsure? I've said I disagree, and that (if such a principle did exist) it would be existential in nature. 1/6 is a wound, not a mortal blow - it's not a gun, a headshot, but a deep cut.

Re perception, if 1-2 turns is a real advantage then whatever. But the speed of your counter offensive makes this hard to take serious.

You negotiated, but as has been said, you didn't play your hand in two ways. One you didn't reveal your strength. But two you didn't say you were prepared to go to war. You didn't say the bargain was unacceptable and push for more. You can say that would have led to an imminent attack. I think it's just as likely it could have led to a player deciding they weren't ready or willing to enter into war that posed risks for them.

MJ, you're a preeminent power in this game. You were negotiating, in a Molotov-Ribbentrop manner, the affairs of smaller nations with the other leading power. You didn't like the deal so you snapped it in two. My country is built off a treaty between a strong power and a weaker one, where the weaker one grew in strength and breached said treaty, fighting violent war to expropriate land and resources from that people and oppressed them. I live in a society riven by those wounds every day, where tangata whenua hold few of their taonga and are far, far poorer and live shorter lives than others. I pass homeless Māori on the street every day, I work for a organisation trying to pinch us closer to the Crown fulfilling its obligations under the Treaty.

Can you not see why I would find it frankly offensive for you to compare yourself to indigenous people striking against a coloniser?

[Qgqqqqq]

This is the last I'll say on this topic. I think everyone's views are clear and theres no value to continuing this.

[Tarkeel]

I'll also say I would prefer discussion here than in the lurker thread where I can't defend myself. Edit: some people may even claim you would be dishonorable for insulting someone where they can't defend themselves, but obviously the lurkers know all about honor. 

Pin at some point if you can kindly go over the options I presented and give opinions I would appreciate it.

It is very, very hard to discuss this without revealing lurker knowledge, and I wouldn't trust myself to that.