Slynky's Demise

[Lord Chane]

geoschmo said:
I have occasionally allowed them to feel like we are allies, while being intentionally vague about how long it is to Last.

A bit of a grey area. I wouldn't have a problem with that so long as there was some sort of notice given when the alliance is being terminated. Something more than a fleet showing up over one of my planets and a note saying that the alliance is over.

geoschmo said:
People will very often hear what they want, regardless of what you actually say. My sins would be more of ommision in that case.

A player certainly can't be held responsible for what someone else chooses to believe.

geoschmo said:
I have on occasion enterered into negotiations for a treaty with absolutly no intention of joining an alliance. Just to buy time so that I can attack. Is it bad faith negotiations? Perhaps. But it's negotiations. It wasn't an actual alliance.

That is most definitely part of the game.

geoschmo said:
I might have a person I am in alliance with, and give "aid and comfort" to their enemy. Not that I would neccesarily tell them what my allies plans were, but I might also "forget" to mention to my ally that there might be a build up of this third parties forces in an undefended sector.

Another gray area. But I'd tend to say that's acceptable depending on the terms of the treaty. For example, you and I have a treaty in TGE and I wouldn't expect you to warn me if someone was going to attack me.

geoschmo said:The main thing that is an irritant to me is when you join an alliance with someone and they assume you are joined at the hip. If you don't give them every piece of technology you have they feel like you are not being a good ally. Mainly because I think that style of play is simply boring, but also because I don't want to help them that much. And you always have to attack everyone they are at war with? Even when it's not in my interests? That's no fun.

I agree completely, unless the alliance specifically calls for that sort of thing. I prefer to use alliances to secure my borders so I can use the forces that would otherwise have to defend them to attack someone I'm not allied to elsewhere.

geoschmo said:
Your real life examples are most definetly apples to oranges. Honestly I am strugling not to be personally offended at some of your comments here. If you think just because I'd break some of your own personal unwritten rules in an SE4 game that I would be the kind of unethical person that would injure another human being, you really are way off base.

I'll start by saying I'm sorry if I've offended you. I've tried to write everything I've said to take issue with the opinion you expressed and not you personally. There's a difference between the thought and the person who expressed it. I've made no personal attacks, accused you of nothing, and stuck to disagreeing with the opinion and not the author. I can't help the fact that you happened to have expressed the opinion I disagree with. You expressed dismay "... that few people get the same satisfaction from this style of play that I do. So I find that people don't want to be allies with me to begin with because of what they have heard abotu me form other players, or comments I've made in the forum." By this I assume that you are bothered that more people don't adhere to "your own personal unwritten rules in an SE4 game". I'm merely expressing my dismay that the style of play you described is appealing. Am I not as entitled to my opinion as you to yours? I haven't said you are an unethical person, nor have I said that you'd injure another human being. I don't know you but I've no reason to believe that you are or that you would. What I have said is that some of our personality shows through in the way we play, probably even when we are role playing. I've also said that folks who truly believe in winning at all costs in a game probably don't end it there. It's just not in their personality. I've also mentioned several times that games specifically marked as role-playing are exempt from those thoughts. There have been several counter Posts suggesting that I learn to separate what occurs in the game from real life. Perhaps you can help me with this one. How do I pick out those players who are just role playing from those players who really are prepared to win at any cost, whether it's in the game or real life? Surely in your years of playing and running the SEIV site you must have met a few real jerks. Do I take it on faith? Do I ask the person and then believe their response without question? You see what I mean? Have you ever met people who in real life will say or do anything to get what they want? Slander a co-worker, let a project fail to make themselves look better, take credit for someone else's work, lied to a girl so they could get her, etc., etc., etc. Do you think that sort of person might also be the kind of person who'd screw an ally over in SEIV? Are you one of those kinds of people? Certainly not. Is everyone who espouses a win at all costs attitude a nice guy? Certainly not. The key is once I've been betrayed by an someone I trusted, in this case an ally, how can I ever trust them again? And unless someone can share the means of determining who is role playing and who is just letting their personality show through, I can't tell what kind of person I'm truly dealing with.

geoschmo said:
Puposly hurting someone in a sporting event is wrong.

I agree. But it goes on all the time and it goes on in the name of "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".

geoschmo said:
It is most definetly against the rules in every organized sport I know of.

There are a lot of grey areas in sports rules. And even where something is clearly against the rules it's oftimes difficult to say whether it was intentional or an accident. If I have the basketball and an opponent is trying to slap it away from me while I'm moving it around, who's to say whether the broken finger they just got was on purpose or just an accident? Do you watch football? Ever see a late hit on the QB that puts him out of action for a bit? Was it intentional or an accident?

geoschmo said:
Any player that would do it, or coach that would encourage it has no business being in teh sport. Whether or not you could do it and get away with it is possible, but doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

I agree. So why do players do it and why would a coach tolerate it or tell them to do it? Because right or wrong, it's part of the game. The same as steroids, illegal performance enhancers, practicing early, recruiting violations, covering up sexual misconduct, having someone else take tests for an athlete, and so on. It's all become part of the game. And why? To win! And I'm sure that many of those coaches and athletes who indulge in these behaviors are otherwise nice guys and gals. They behave one way in a game and completely different outside of the game.

geoschmo said:That's the point I'm trying to make to you here. I'm not talking about doing stuff in SE4 games that is wrong, but being able to get away with it. I'm talking about doing stuff that is perfectly acceptable, but that you somehow have decided is wrong.

I understand that we aren't talking about cheating or a clear rules violation. But I think there is a difference between being acceptable and being the right thing to do. That's my opinion, no one has to agree with me, I'm not trying to convert anyone. I just don't see it the same way.

geoschmo said:
And your guy that left Clevland and went to Salt Lake, I don't know anything about pro basketball, but that's not ethics guy. That's business. Pro sports is millionaire players negotiating with millionaire owners.

Sorry, I can't agree. It is ethics. If you tell someone you are going to do something, then you should do it. I don't care if it hurts. I don't care if you got a better offer. You gave your word. Now, if there's an extinuating circumstance that prevents you from following through, then that's a different issue. Ann Landers said it quite nicely in her Ten Commandments of Getting Along with People, "Make promises sparingly, and keep them faithfully, no matter what it costs." The one thing we all have that we can truly call our own is our integrity. It is just flat wrong to tell someone, even a millionaire owner, that you're going to stay and then leave. Boozer used them in every negative sense of the word. Not knowing whether you were familiar with this incident I didn't go into a lot of detail in my initial post. So, let me fill in some of that detail and see if you still think it isn't an ethical issue. The player was in an option year. Cleveland could pick up the option or let the player become a free agent. They could have picked up the option and paid him something like 6-7 million for the year. He'd had a really good year though. So, the Cleveland owner and coach talked to him and told him that they wanted to reward him with a new contract worth something like $48 million over I think three or four years. To do that though they'd have to let the option pass and allow him to become a free agent. Would he be willing to do that? Absolutely, he said. Besides, he and his wife loved Cleveland, loved the fans, and really wanted to stay there. So, the Cavs let the option lapse, making him a free agent. He immediately signed an offer sheet from Salt Lake for $68 million. Now, I can't know what happened behind the scenes, but that surely looks to me like he stuck a knife in Cleveland's back. I'd say he had it all plotted out ahead of time. To me the whole thing has ethics written all over it.

geoschmo said:
If you were no longer happy at your job and got a better offer wouldn't you go?

Yep. But I wouldn't lie to do it. And I especially wouldn't do it on the heels of my employer going out of their way for me. The millionaire owner in this case could have just exercised the option and locked him in for another year at the lower salary. It was a cheap shot on the player's part and he must have felt so too. He refused all interviews on the subject afterwards. I'd expect if he felt he'd done the right thing he'd have been more than happy to get up and defend what he'd done. As a side note, his leaving hurt the team, hurt the fans, hurt the owner, hurt the coach, and likely marked him as a mercenary who puts his agenda ahead of everything else. Oh, and by all reports the fans loved him. He was a nice guy who readily signed autographs, chatted with fans at courtside, and so on. I mention that as an example of how difficult it can be to pick out the nice guys from those who put their personal agenda in front of all other considerations. Oh, and should anyone answer that it's acceptable when there's that much money involved then I submit the following joke:

A man sees a beautiful woman in a bar. He walks up to her and strikes up a conversation. After chatting a bit he asks her if she'd be willing to sleep with him for a million dollars. "Sure!", she says. "How about for five dollars?", the man asks. The woman is outraged! "Of course not!", she replies, "What sort of girl do you think I am?" Smiling, the man answers, "We've already determined that. Now we're just haggling over the price."

geoschmo said:
Yes, it's the rule that says "DON'T CHEAT". What you describe is not a strategy or a tactic. It's not a grey area and cannot be justified. It's flat out cheating. You won't be commended for your cleverness, and we won't debate whether or not it's acceptable. You will be Banned for life from playing on PBW and blacklisted from PBEM games. It's not at all the same as espionage and it's way way outside the lines.

I agree. Have you seen the movie "A Few Good Men"? If so, remember the scene where Kevin Bacon's character has just finished his examination of a coporal where he's been asking the corporal to show him where in the SOP for GITMO it talks about Code Reds? The corporal says that Code Reds aren't in the SOP. In his cross Tom Cruise asks him where in the SOP is the section on how to find the mess hall. The coporal says that isn't in the SOP either. Cruise asks him if he hasn't eaten at all since arriving at the base. No, the corporal says, he just followed the other guys and found the mess hall. The point is that not everything is an official rule. So, just play the Devil's advocate, can you point me to where in the SEIV or PBW rules it specifically says that what I described is illegal and forbidden? My point is that not everything that's wrong is a rule, written down for all to see. Sometimes things are just accepted as wrong.

geoschmo said:
As far as competing in real life for a girl, or a job. In that case, yes, someone's going to get the girl or the job and someone isn't. But it doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do anything you want to the other person. You still have to follow the rules of soceity. You do the best to sell yourself, and hope they pick you. But even there it's not a zero-sum game. There are always more jobs, and more girls out there.

I only offered those thoughts to refute these statements:

geoschmo said:For me to do well in life I don not have to hurt those around me. For me to win the game, those around me must lose.

Sometimes winning in life means others have to lose too.

geoschmo said:As you gain life experience and perspective you will learn that.

Either you're older than I think you are or I'm not as young as you apparently think I am. I'm 47, Geo. My perspective is based on my experiences over those years. I know I still have a lot of learning to do though, and I don't mean that sarcastically. I work on that every day.

As you said, I suspect we really aren't that far apart on what behaviors we do and don't find acceptable in the game. More a matter of definitions and semantics I think. I don't think you and I have been in that many games together. You've never done anything I found objectionable and I've never heard anything negative about you. In fact, I was surprised when I read your post, the one that got me writing these Posts, because from what I know about you it seemed out of character. I've never met you and only know you from the limited dealings we've had in SEIV and here on the forum. That aside, you strike me as a nice guy. I don't have any problem with you and the bad traits and examples I've used in this thread were to describe win at all cost personalities, not you. Despite your post, I don't think that you are truly a win at all costs player. I can't express my opinion though without making reference to your post. Please remember though that it's the issue I'm attacking, not you as a person.