[PB70 Mjmd] STAND AS ONE!

[Mjmd]

It was not a casual pivot. Luckily I saw before end of my GA and Bing also gave me a loan. It was probably the correct choice for safety, but I was eyeing education just so I could force you to fire off lib (I thought there was a chance you went deep with it) plus for universities and oxford.

I would not have been able to pull off the HG play without creative. Cities, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 9 (although 8 as well because I could choose spot I wouldn't have otherwise). Below is resources got thanks to creative. I've stared cities 3 and 4 because it mattered most there and those are the ones that enabled me to pull off the HG play. HeaveAwayJohnny could not have been settled where it was without creative or been even slower than it already was.



I wouldn't have thrown units against Charriu / left them up there long if I thought I would just have to go round two with you guys next. The fact SD was up there where he couldn't do as much damage, was forcing Charriu to retreat (/ he chose to), and he would lose some units were what allowed me to be confident about doing more.

[Qgqqqqq]

I think the key thing is the idea that you were unwilling in the deal. You signed it, you said you'd do it. If you were so mad you could have said no and dared him to come at you. Maybe that means he burns cities - in actual fact that's unlikely given what you knew about the game. Which comes down to the odd legalistic idea around when it is or isn't willing, which I don't want to relitigate. But you always had s choice, and you chose to do what you did.

[Mjmd]

I was mad and while I may be stupid, I'm not that stupid.

That is the classic storybook though. The hero has a weapon pointed at a loved one, the villain saying do "x" or your loved one dies. The hero leaps for their weapon and somehow the villain horrifically misses or the hero somehow disarms the villain without the villain doing damage. They then have an epic fight.

Normally that isn't how things actually work though as much as it makes for a good story. Normally either A) the deal is honored because the unwilling party can't stand up for themselves (or don't think they can) to threatener, B) the unwilling party runs away, C) the threatened party takes legal action (if they are lucky to live in a safe part of the world), D) if they don't live a safe part of the world they seek protection from another party) or E) the threatened party takes some direct action against the the party threatening them. Basically the only time the deal is honored is A.

Again, I understand people expect more of me than other players who normally break deals. But to me it was justified and mind you I keep my deals normally so know I believe this. I'll trust you all that civ4 multiplayer cultural norms, which don't have to make sense, dictate that a NAP made under what I believed to be a viable threat are somehow binding and somehow worse than breaking a willing defensive pact and is evidently utterly binding despite the threat. I was unaware of these cultural norms. If by miracle I participate in another diplo game I will keep this in mind. If I send you a fish for fish in a normal game know that you are good for 10 turns though.

[Mjmd]

This btw is why historically if a country forced another into a deal that a family member of that country being a "guest" for a while was common. If you are going to make a deal by force in the normal course of things you need collateral. In a diplo game you could extort gold to hold as collateral or a city ect.

[Qgqqqqq]

No, the story is where the villain mobster has their gun out and threatening the hero, asking for peace so he can extort a neighbourhood while the hero keeps to their patch. The hero agrees, and the villain turns their back, and the hero shoots them.

I find it hilarious that you think the only time a deal is honoured is where a party doesn't have the strength to break it. It's a real might makes right argument.


Also, the defensive pack is really not that big a deal. People are not expecting more of you than others. One was a diplo deal with full communication. The other was non diplo - and also didn't have the same instant breaking. I personally think people are too uptight about fish for fish deals or the like. I'm sure it's relevant in the emotional story that one had the frontrunner stabbing the number two, and the other has a clear second trying to attack the complete runaway.

[Mjmd]

That is the story here yes. I like that. There are a lots of good story examples really and we never really feel bad for the villain who threatened the hero when the hero defeats the villain.

I'm talking specifically about deals under duress. People have broken these deals when they didn't have the strength too, but those usually end poorly, but I should have included that as an option. I've been told I go into history too much though. Anyways, deals are usually kept much better in situations if not under duress. If you've read the political thread one of the reasons I like democracies is that they tend to set up a more stable legal system and fairer contract law to better enable business's to make and keep deals. But people haven't liked my legal arguments either so /shrug.

Commodore set up the defensive pact to specifically make sure the attack took place in his time frame. I would NEVER do this. I have never broken a fish for fish in the next 10 turns. I also don't think how far behind or ahead someone is / how powerful someone is should effect the morality or legality of something. This is the heart of my argument. In pb66 Gav tried to extort a city off of me because Plemo was leading. I was more powerful than Gav, but just not in that area. You better bet I focused my attention there and would have gladly let Plemo win if Gav hadn't backed down. Now mind you there wasn't as much 'formal' negotiation, but his messaging was clear. I'm taking this, go worry about Plemo. Just because he was weaker and correct does that mean I should have rolled over? I really need to go read his thread for why he did that......

Again, I think the best argument here is that due to older cultural context NAPs actually are viewed as utterly binding, but I certainly didn't understand that at the time / I still don't but am willing to accept it is the case. If I had to guess prior to game in seriousness WILLING deals I would have ranked Alliance > Defensive Pact > NAP > Fish for fish. If I have an alliance based on friendship and mutual benefit I will now correctly rank a NAP made by force over it and let my ally die..... Does that sound right to you? It doesn't to me, but that is the vibe I'm getting. Now listen I didn't have an official alliance with Bing, but I meant what I said in our last deal / conversation

BING_XI_LAO — 08/03/2023 11:20 PM
Sure
How about an indefinite NAP which requires a 3-turn grace period for cancellation?
Mjmd — 08/03/2023 11:22 PM
5 turn grace period, but I'll tell you for free I'm not declaring


Post game:
Mjmd — 08/10/2023 9:51 PM
thanks for being a good partner this game.

Partner vs ally is probably more appropriate, but still. Obviously this was only part of it. It was part of what affected my timing though 

Feel free to set up your own diplo game if you want. Play it. Feel it. I reacted in a fairly normal human fashion and I have a feeling you would too.

[Qgqqqqq]

Of course we don't sympathise with the villain - they're a villain! But the rest of us won't automatically cast you as the hero. If anything, you played the part of the villain here.

Are you a lawyer? As I've said before, I don't agree with your interpretation of this - you had a clear contract (if we apply those rules to a video game). And I agree that the power differential doesn't determine whether a deal is right or not (though isn't that what you argue re your supposed duress?) but it does affect how people will interpret your actions. If you stab the leader it's still a stab, but feels less icky than the leader stabbing someone else. We've litigated duress extensively so no point delving into it again.

Re priority of deals - I think the onus is on you not to sign one that would put you in breach of another. Yes, clearly breaking a formal diplo alliance or defensive pact would be worse than breaking a NAP. But that's not on any other player.

I will never play a diplo game lol. This game is just one example of why. As fun as chatting with people is, I don't have the time. And they basically always end in tears because you get so much more invested in human relationships that then get broken.

[Mjmd]

The person originally threatening someone into submission and going after the neighbor is the hero? Your mobster story makes more sense. Or if possible can I be James Bond being forced to drop his weapon, but then taking out the villain with a gadget? I'll take that too.

Lets introduce two characters. 'Dad bod' meets up with buff still plays football (American for clarification) competitively coworker. 'Dad bod' pull a weapon on buff coworker and demand he sign a contract selling some of his impressive liquor collection for way below what its worth. Buff coworker tries countering that he will sell some of it still at a good price. Dad bod tells him its either his contract or he uses the weapon. Now buff coworker has a weapon himself back at his vehicle which isn't far away, but he would get hurt trying to get it so he signs.

Is the contract valid? I am willing to post the above on any legal forum of your choosing. Not only would I bet the final contract is void but even if he had signed the counter offer I bet he could void it (I wouldn't have, but I am pretty sure it would still be void).

Proving duress in a contract requires two things be proven:

1) The contract was signed by a serious threat of unlawful or wrongful action. Blackmail or physical violence are examples of signing a contract under duress.
2) He or she must also show that they had no reasonable alternative but to agree to the contract.

1) Looks easy to prove. Dad bod threatened buff coworker with a weapon twice. Even if dad bod had no plans of following through, there was a weapon and buff coworker took it seriously. 2) Could buff coworker try walking away? IE not take the deal. What would happen if he said "heh I got a weapon in my vehicle I can grab once I'm there". Dad bod has already threatened buff coworker that if they don't sign he will use his weapon. Buff coworker would get hurt if dad bod followed through once buff coworker didn't sign. Now once buff coworker has his weapon from his vehicle will he absolutely kick dad bods butt? Probably, but he would get hurt. He has some alternatives, but are they reasonable alternative? Risking an unknown amount of injury doesn't seem reasonable to me, but as you've pointed out, I'm not a lawyer. I'll tell you for free if someone pulls a weapon on me I'm signing whatever they want me to sign. Not worth the risk. Maybe if its a super old person who doesn't seem to be able to see well, maybe? Probably depends on the weapon although if I can get injured still probably signing.

Again, legally it makes sense. However, as I've stated cultural norms don't have to make sense. If you for whatever reason are trying to prove something here I'll accept it on those grounds.

Now either post the above in a legal forum or ask me a question about how good cultural is or suggest a more broken thing to do with American UB. Should I have moved my capital to an island and just done 4 merchants towards the end? If I hadn't spent my merchant would I have used it on cereals mills? (prob not, it was actually a good map for mining inc though)

[Qgqqqqq]

So I am a lawyer (non practicing, but I've written legislation), and I'm not sure why you're constructing a scenario here. We can just explore what happened! The analogy is necessarily constructed - you had a weapon in hand, it was just hidden, what is violence to an empire, etc. But I think the key is the second criteria you've listed.

You demonstrably had a reasonable alternative. There was no knife at your throat, there were (arguably) galleons outside your cities. You could've let them burn. If we think about it as a property portfolio, you could've accepted liquidating part of your assets while holding onto others. In a game of civ, we accept war as a fact of life (in a way we do not accept physical violence).

But anyway. I agree there's no point in talking through this. You can read the lurker thread, Scooters thread, and you can see how players have reacted to you since. As you say, regardless of your view, most observers (with some notable exceptions) saw it as a successful, but scummy move, that sealed this game but left it with a sour note. You don't have to reflect on that or change your views, or even see it as anything other than a quirk in how this community operates.

And that was this game.

[Mjmd]

I did not have a weapon in hand. I had a weapon available soon. IE the weapon nearby in my example. I actually am extremely curious if even having a weapon on hand is enough if another weapon is pointed at you. Does it change if you have weapons pointed at each other? Like is it reasonable to start a shoot out to avoid a contract? Again, not a lawyer, but personally I'm not starting no shoot out and certainly not at a disadvantage.

Yes I could have let them burn, but to me that isn't reasonable. Sure a couple of broken ribs will heal, but does that mean someone threatening to break my ribs isn't a threat? To use your example is only destroying some of my property a threat? YES. I'll take you posting that example too. We just bought my wifes grandfathers house / aunts house. It has a detached garage and a couple other out buildings. If someone said sign a contract or I'll burn down one of them I would 100% consider that a threat. I will give you full permission to keep posting if you find any legal basis for allowing that in any US or New Zealand legal code (edit case law would probably be better). If you are a lawyer and have proof of this PROVE IT. Otherwise you are just going ad nauseum (edit: also appeal to authority). I get if there is some deep cultural civ4 multiplayer culture that makes people hate what I did, but no one has been able to say anything other than "we didn't like it".

I really never cared about what other people thought of me. And I care less now that exactly 0 of them spoke up against what Commodore did. I'm not saying what he did justifies what I did, I've made separate arguments for that. But I will call you all a bunch of hypocrites on it. I've avoided the lurker thread so I don't feel forced to respond to everything all over again, but I will defend myself here.