Slynky's Demise

[Lord Chane]

spoon said:

Speaking of poker... for some reason, this quote reminds me of the old poker adage:
"If you look around the table and can't find the sucker, it's you!"

You've got me there, Spoon. I am a sucker I guess and it's cost me a few games. But then again I'm not aware of anyone not wanting to ally with me because I can't be trusted. Maybe that's because I'm an easy mark and folks know they can take advantage of me, at least once.

[Grandpa Kim]

Lord Chane said:

If at work "we are on the same team", then why would your boss be using you? From my perspective, someone who is using you isn't on your team. They're on their own team. A team has a common goal. If I'm using someone on a team, then I'm attempting to gain an advantage to advance my goals, not the team's goals. Sometimes a team member has to subordinate their goals for the good of the team. Sure, they'd like to be the star player, get the accolades, win the individual awards, but they forego that for the good of the team. Team members who advance their own goals first don't seem like team players to me. So I submit that if your boss is using you, then you and he/she aren't really on the same team. But that's just my opinion.

A valid point. I can only say that team play and using or being used are not mutually exclusive. My boss uses my talents to further his company, I use his company to further my reputation and earn more and more money. When one or the other is not making a sufficient gain, the relationship will end. In the meantime the more effiently we can build a quality product remains our mutual goal. You can relate this almost directly to the way I play SEIV.

While the alliance was in place I did nothing to further my position at the expense of those two allies, who I'm pleased to say treated me the same in reverse.

This is exactly the way I play alliances. Small transgressions lead to friction. Depending how I'm roleplaying the game, this may lead to immediate war or a long period of building distrust leading to eventual war or anything in between. Often the transgression is corrected, but that seed of doubt has been planted and remains throughout the game.

For myself, I don't recall ever using a pearl harbor attack. You will always get a warning. For instance,

"For our empire's security, we require you to vacate the Freduk system by 2409.4 to make room for our new colonies and military bases."

Not much reading between the lines required there.

[AMF]

This back and forth gets to what my point was, albeit I obviously didn;t make it clearly.

I come at this game from the perspective of a student of political science. Let me use an analogy from international relations to get at why these two views (Geoschmo & Chane's) are not actually contradictory from a game-play POV.

There are a wide variety of different theories that explain how nations interact with each other in an anarchic environment (ie: an environment without an overarhcing authority to enforce laws and order). These theories range from the various realisms to things like various institutionalist, constructivist, and other approaches.

Goeschmo is espousing an essentially realist POV: it's a harsh world out there and you do what you have to do to survive. Chane seems to be espousing more of a institutionalist/neo-liberal view wherein cooperation can lead to greater benefit to all parties.

So, in the exact same way that nations act different in reality, so do our Empires in SE4. And (this is the key here) the real challenge comes when one "mode of behaviour" has to deal with another: a nation/space empire that works for cooperation and non-zero sum outcomes MUST always be cognizant and prepared for that nation/space empire that does not. Until just recently, the US has been at the forefront of a instutionalist power, in which it played a key role in creating, supporting, and legitimizing the postwar system of alliances and interlocking economies - and this was a non-zero sum effort. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean that they could afford to ignore those nations that act in a zero-sum manner (north korea, etc...).

And that is why players with very different approaches can still interact in the same game, and it makes it even more interesting when they do.

I generally play the same type of empire, one that practices a neo-liberal non-zero sum approach. But, my empires, alas, almost always live in a universe where there are aggressive empires that thrive on conflict and practice realpolitik. The greatest pleasure is the politics involved in dealing with these empires. So, when Geo and Chane are in the same game, they really are practicing two different value systems that must interact in a anarchic (hobbesian) universe - the trick is doing that in ways that remain within their approaches. It's a study in philosophical interaction.

Off my rant.

Alarik

[tesco samoa]

hi away on vacation still at a computer near a lake ... not mine...

but anyways... I like the story along the way.

Playing both styles of players. WHat i do not like is players who forget what is the game and what is not. That to me is rather strange and a little disturbing.

[Lord Chane]

tesco samoa said:
WHat i do not like is players who forget what is the game and what is not. That to me is rather strange and a little disturbing.

Tesco,

Tell me what the litmus test is for determining what portion of a player's in-game behavior is his/her game personna and which part is their true character shining through? If a player is so driven to win that they'd screw over an ally to achieve that, then how can another player know they're just "playing the game" and that they wouldn't behave the same way in real life? The motivation for backstabbing an ally is a desire to win. I've yet to see a single statement saying that the backstab was done to remain "in character". If a player has such a strong desire to win that they'd betray an ally in a game, then why wouldn't they do the same thing in the real world? Does the desire to win end when the game ends? It's tough for me to believe it does, and it wouldn't seem very logical either. In the game a player has little to gain, whereas in the real world there are all sorts of tangible benefits to be derived from screwing over an ally. Promotions, prestige, money, power, sex, etc. On the one hand we have plenty of motivations for backstabbing, while in the other we have the simple desire of winning a game. Yet I should apparently believe that the in-game behavior is all just role playing and that in reality the player's personality bears no resemblance to what I'm seeing. I think that defies human nature and it absolutely defies my experiences. Now, please don't forget that I'm talking strictly about regular SEIV games, not games specifically billed as role-playing. In a role-playing game I expect a player to be in character. Treachery and backstabbing included.

You find it "strange and a little disturbing" that some players don't separate everything that takes place in the game from the real world. In contrast, I find it curious that some players see everything that takes place in the game as merely game behavior. Does nothing of our true personalities, experiences, preferences, etc., show through in our game play? If the answer is "yes, they do", then as I said said in my opening sentence, please tell me what the definitive test is for determining which behavior is "just the game" so I can separate it from the player's real personality showing through.

[Lord Chane]

Grandpa Kim said:
I can only say that team play and using or being used are not mutually exclusive.

Sorry, I can't agree. In this context "used" means to take advantage of, abuse, victimize, exploit. Teams don't behave that way toward team members or they won't long be team members. Yes, teams use the member's skills but if it's truly a team, then the member's know what their role is up front.

Grandpa Kim said:
My boss uses my talents to further his company, I use his company to further my reputation and earn more and more money.

Yes, your boss uses your talents and skills to further the business of the company and in return the company pays you. That isn't used in the context I'm talking about. In that context you'd be used if your employer was severely underpaying you, or if your boss takes credit for the work you do, or if they somehow mistreated you because they knew you were in the country illegaly and couldn't do anything about it for fear of being deported. If your employer is mistreating, abusing, or victimizing you, then I doubt very much that you feel like your part of a team. Otherwise, I suspect you are part of a team and what you're describing are the different roles held by you and your employer.

Grandpa Kim said:
For myself, I don't recall ever using a pearl harbor attack. You will always get a warning.

The same here. I'm not advocating that no one should ever drop an alliance and go to war with a former ally, although I think there should be more justification for doing it than "so I can win". Just that if that becomes necessary, then the former ally should be given fair and adequate warning. And also that no hostile, subversive, or detrimental actions should be taken against an ally while you are allied with them.

[geoschmo]

Lord Chane said:
If a player has such a strong desire to win that they'd betray an ally in a game, then why wouldn't they do the same thing in the real world?

Because doing so in the game is acceptable behavior, and in fact a required part of the game where there can only be one winner. Doing so out of the game may be expected by some, and may in fact happen quite often, but it's not acceptable behavior in a civilized soceity. You play by the rules of the game while you are playing the game. You operate according to the rules of soceity and ethical behavior in real life.

Does the desire to win end when the game ends?

The desire to do well is universal, it's not limited to games. But life is NOT a game. There is not only one "winner" in life. 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.

[Roanon]

Lord Chane, how would a game of Space Empires ever end if your black/white morals of "once ally - forever ally" would be applied by everyone?

Even if you do not seem to be able to separate it, it is a game and not reality. I do not like having to agree to Tesco, but I too think it is important to separate game and life. And yes, kill me for it, I am playing games to win, even if I also have fun if I do not win in the end. That's the nature of a game.

I would never directly lie and deceive, but if it becomes obvious that the game is nearing a point where it is you or me, I will choose me and even attack first instead of waiting for your attack - or waiting for the game to end by the natural death of all players, as you seem to prefer?

This is of course different if team victory is possible, there just is no reason to become a sole winner then and attack an ally if he is not directly keeping you from winning. I'm refering to "Last man standing" games, and these include "all others down" when they finally end, and someone has to bring them down for the game to end.

[Lord Chane]

geoschmo said:
Because doing so in the game is acceptable behavior, and in fact a required part of the game where there can only be one winner.

I disagree with the "required part" of your statement. I've won a few games, all without betraying anyone. Slynky's won a few games, and to the best of my knowledge he hasn't betrayed anyone either. I've played in a few games that Asmala was in and have never seen him betray anyone either. So, it seems it is not "required", merely an option. I want to make sure I'm absolutely clear on what I consider betrayal. Using a treaty to bypass an ally's defenses; Pearl Harbor style attacks where as an ally you position fleets over one or more of the ally's worlds and then drop the treaty; agreeing to some action (e.g. trade, gift, etc.) then not following through and blaming it on a game glitch; allowing a third party to attack an ally through your space; talking your ally into attacking a third party or waiting until they've done so and then attacking them; passing information you gained from an ally to a third-party without your ally's permission; and any other actions which take advantage of your alliance to the detriment of your ally. In a "Last man standing" game, such as the tournament game I mentioned in an earlier post, it's inevitable that you'll have to fight your ally if the game comes down to the two of you. That's fine. You can stipulate that at the begining of the alliance. This alliance is for x number of turns, or until a certain goal is met. When it's time to end the alliance you can send a notice to the other player giving them fair and ample warning that the alliance is about to end. And I see it as perfectly valid to terminate an alliance if your ally proves untrustworthy or gets you into a jam. In some games I spell out terms of any alliances I enter into. I'll propose making them for specific amounts of time, renewable if both parties agree. That way the other player knows what the situation is and can plan accordingly.

geoschmo said:
Doing so out of the game may be expected by some, and may in fact happen quite often, but it's not acceptable behavior in a civilized soceity. You play by the rules of the game while you are playing the game. You operate according to the rules of soceity and ethical behavior in real life.

In a role-playing game I agree wholeheartedly. In other games I don't agree. There's ethical and unethical behavior, whether it's in a game or not. Let's see if I can make a couple of analogies to illustrate my point. Is it acceptable for a player to intentionally injur a player on the other team to enable their team to win? I played basketball in high school and started to play in college, a junior college, too. One of the first things the coach discussed was protecting the ball. One of his instructions was that if an opponent was trying to slap the ball out of your hands to try and hit them on the on the point of the finger with the ball in the hopes of injuring the hand and slowing them down or putting them out of the game. Now, there's nothing expressly in the rules about that, at least as far as I know, so I guess it's okay. It might be lumped in under "unsportsmanlike conduct", but it's one of those things that would be almost impossible to prove. But it sure sounds unethical and unsportsmanlike to me. Enough so that I quit playing basketball. I didn't want to win that bad. Apparently the coach did want to win that bad. Carlos Boozer of the Cleveland Cavaliers jumped ship and went to Salt Lake City after having promised Cleveland that he'd stay with the Cavaliers. Is there anything in the rules that says he can't do that? Nope. Is it ethical? Nope.

The desire to do well is universal, it's not limited to games. But life is NOT a game. There is not only one "winner" in life. For me to do well in life I do not have to hurt those around me.

Again I am forced to disagree. A new position comes open and you and a coworker friend are the only two in line for it. There's only one position so one of you will win and the other will lose. You and a friend both have the hots for the same girl. What's the rule, "all's fair in love and war"? Ethics goes beyond rules, whether it's in life or in a game. Let's say I figured a way to read SEIV turn files. Is there a rule that says I can't use my newly discovered skill to win games? Or should I be saluted for my cleverness? After all espionage is a key part of the relationship between real nations and cvivilizations. Everyone has the same opportunity to do what I have done so am I inside or outside the lines here?

[Grandpa Kim]

Looks like definitions have tripped us up once again, Lord Chane. I agree making use of another's skills and assets is acceptable while abuse is unacceptable. On that basis, I concede your point.

All in all I don't think any of us are totally black or totally white. Lord Chane, I think you will agree there are cases where an alliance must be ended. As a game evolves, needs change and often the allied parties cannot agree on how to satisfy these changes. The solution is often a change in treaty status. (Wouldn't it be nice to go from "partnership" to "trade alliance" without starting over?)

By the same token I think Geo would agree that sometimes it is not just a good idea, but absolutely essential to hang on to a treaty. Your ally may be overbearing, threatening and unreliable, but without him you are nothing. Here, you hang on in a perpetual state of fear hoping and planning for a better future.

Okay, I said a lot of nothing there and said it in a wishy-washy manner

I just want to add, I have no real solution for the orignal problem that Slynky presented. I too, have had my feelings hurt at times plalying SEIV. I have managed to adjust my outlook so that I can get past these crises quickly. It helps immensely that the SEIV crowd is the most gentlemanly (or ladylike) crowd I've ever dealt with. They don't rub it in, they help you get over it.

Slynky, I too advise you take some time off. A couple weeks or a month. When you come back, pick and choose your games carefully.

Y'all come back now y'hear!