Rush Sykes' Blog

Thanks for the advice Kzoppistan, I have no doubt that Rush will greatly appreciate some tips from a veteran given his inexperience in FA wheelings and dealings.

Now see if you can find what's wrong with the above sentence.

Sorry Voytec, but I find your premise, that some one with a lot of experience can't learn more or take advise from others (Advice can't be given to Rush because he is experienced), to be immature and foolish.

Sorry Voytec, but I find your premise, that some one with a lot of experience can't learn more or take advise from others (Advice can't be given to Rush because he is experienced), to be immature and foolish.

In this case the advice being given is mindblowingly basic and obvious to anyone with even a smidgeon of astuteness (to the point where it was almost condescending of Kzoppistan to offer it). Sorry.

mindblowingly basic

Lol. I like that. So basic it blows your mind. Like, they can't believe it is SO BASIC that it completely blows their entire mind. My goodness, how the expectations have been so utterly crushed with the basic-ness of it all.

I'm going to use that sometime.

No, Voytek, I'M sorry that my idle thoughts on the matter were not up to your level of sophistication. Perhaps you would like to instruct us on the finer points?

(Don't worry, SCY, Voytek has gone out of his way to take a potshot or two at me before, so this is just par for the course. You can't be everyone's friend, I suppose )

Lol. I like that. So basic it blows your mind. Like, they can't believe it is SO BASIC that it completely blows their entire mind. My goodness, how the expectations have been so utterly crushed with the basic-ness of it all.

I'm going to use that sometime.

No, Voytek, I'M sorry that my idle thoughts on the matter were not up to your level of sophistication. Perhaps you would like to instruct us on the finer points?

Apology accepted, no harm done. Just try to think a bit harder about whether the person you're talking to is likely to already be aware of the advice you want to give them next time

Apology accepted, no harm done. Just try to think a bit harder about whether the person you're talking to is likely to already be aware of the advice you want to give them next time

In fact, I did just that, and provided my thoughts on the matter that I felt would have solved this particular issue. I'm flattered you felt the need to critique them, but perhaps you should have just provided your own expert advice.

And yes, thinking hard about what you are saying, and the ramifications, is always time well spent.

tbh, Voytek, I do think Kzopp's advice was genuine and not ill intended. Even if Rush probably didn't need said advice.

That being said, can we all go back to discussing when/how we're going to roll FAR?

Diplomacy fail?

I don't think so. People fail. Deals fail. Nations fail. Diplomacy is neutral. It is a tool. Does a saw or router fail? Not unless they are active, and being used as intended. Diplomacy may break, or even stop.

People fail. Our expectations fail. It's $3M. It's 100 tech. Is that the price of a nation's, or an alliance's good name or reputation? Is that the cost of broken diplomacy? I presume your purpose for this post was to examine diplomacy, and not a struggle to be "right".

I have made the very same mistake your dealer made before. I very simply forgot. I will never forget again. Mine wasn't intentional, although I can fully understand why my trader would be convinced it was. I had to face my trader, my Trade Director, and my alliance. I did not prevaricate, and I did not hesitate to return twice the tech of the original agreement, with my sincere apologies for my failing. My reputation was tarnished. I lost an excellent trader, and I brought shame to my alliance, and doubt to my own word. I was a brand new player to the game. I gave my word, and forgot that I did. What diplomacy could overcome that?

My alliance has extremely strict codes, or standards of conduct for its members. Every member, from the newest applicant to our alliance commander is expected, as a matter of honor, to adhere to these standards. What the external planet may see in times of question regarding those standards is entirely different from the internal reality of accountability to those standards. We do not voluntarily (usually) "air our dirty laundry" as a matter of course. Alliance founders/leaders spend years establishing their internal operations and external reputations in this game. I know of none willing to place the nerve center of their work on the block knowingly because of one blown trade deal. Evidently, your logs would indicate that at least one person believes this is an appropriate response. Will the response change in the light of public debate?

Doubtful. More's the shame. Diplomacy has been forced out of the arena, in trade for personal failings. That is the choice others, not yourself, have made. They must live with their choice, as you must live with yours. Diplomacy broke in this instance. It often does. That's one reason wars begin. But, diplomacy is also a reason wars end. It is the most powerful weapon (IMHO) any alliance has at its disposal when used effectively. Sometimes, you get results in diplomacy you do not anticipate or expect. Welcome to Planet Bob!

You are a good player, and a good diplomat. Learn, grow, and share. Keep your expectations in focus, and never "forget" when you have given your word.

Sometimes, the planetary environment can depend upon it.

tbh, Voytek, I do think Kzopp's advice was genuine and not ill intended. Even if Rush probably didn't need said advice.

Didn't say it wasn't, but you always need to think about how you're likely to come across to the other person when you're offering them advice because a lot of the time it ends up doing more harm than good.

Edit: See above for another classic example.

Didn't say it wasn't, but you always need to think about how you're likely to come across to the other person when you're offering them advice because a lot of the time it ends up doing more harm than good.

Yes, and other times the intent of well meaning advice can be misconstrued by a third party simply because they see an opportunity to do so.

Edit: Hmmph. Redacted. Speaking of advice, I'm going to take a cue from Potato and simply say: roll FAR.

(Don't worry, SCY, Voytek has gone out of his way to take a potshot or two at me before, so this is just par for the course. You can't be everyone's friend, I suppose )

Well, anyone can be my friend

BTW, come hang out w/ me on #MCXA from time to time.

Roll FAR.

Session Start: Sun Jun 13 21:02:34 2010

Session Ident: RushSykes[Athens|MoFA]

01[21:02] <ComradeDamsky> Yo

01[21:02] <ComradeDamsky> You got tech scammed?

01[21:02] <ComradeDamsky> How much are you owed?

[21:12] <RushSykes[Athens|MoFA]> I was owed 100... Im no longer interested in recovering it though

01[21:12] <ComradeDamsky> I can pay it if you want.

[21:13] <RushSykes[Athens|MoFA]> No, while I appreciate it... you should not be punished for anothers actions. and I would not feel good about myself allowing you to do so.

Don't moan. Anyone who's dealt with Nando before knows he can occasionally be a little...difficult. When someone from an alliance offers to reimburse you the tech then you should accept it; don't go bashing the persons alliance all over the forums.

The offer's still on the table if you want it by the way.

Roll FAR.

Don't moan. Anyone who's dealt with Nando before knows he can occasionally be a little...difficult. When someone from an alliance offers to reimburse you the tech then you should accept it; don't go bashing the persons alliance all over the forums.

The offer's still on the table if you want it by the way.

I made my stance very clear after I was given Fernando's "final word". At that moment, it stopped being about the 100 tech. It then became about his a) abject failure to treat someone with respect. and b) call them a liar.... and c) even offer to work towards a solution. His advice to me, was to forget the 100 tech and move on. Turns out it was great advice. Also... the notion that he can be difficult to deal with, is not a valid excuse for his actions. If he has that problem, and you(FAR) as an entity, continue to have him in a position where he behaves like this, then you(FAR) as an entity, have no recourse but to deal with the fallout of his inability to engage in diplomacy. That being said... Stealing Pandas is to be commended for his role, as are you, and as is Sir Exodus. But... as Fernando pointed out so clearly... his word is final for FAR. And his word, is what is the issue here.

I've been in the same position of Rush Sykes many times but in all my dealings with various Alliance leaders of alliances of all sizes nobody acted like Fernando did, even if Rush Sykes hadn't proofs(screens shots) it's cleary that nobody will deliberately accuse someone of tech scammer if it didn't happened.

Fernando you should have payed yourself the 100 tech than transform it in a FA mess.

It's hard to me to say that but I agree with an Athens gov.

I've been in the same position of Rush Sykes many times but in all my dealings with various Alliance leaders of alliances of all sizes nobody acted like Fernando did, even if Rush Sykes hadn't proofs(screens shots) it's cleary that nobody will deliberately accuse someone of tech scammer if it didn't happened.

Fernando you should have payed yourself the 100 tech than transform it in a FA mess.

It's hard to me to say that but I agree with an Athens gov.

Rush was speaking to Sir Exodus in query last night. Sir Exodus informs me that they want Great1 cleared to be attacked for being an aid scammer. That's a huge accusation. What Rush wants is for Rush to be believed. It must be his word over a FAR member. So what he is saying is that Great1 is a liar.

See how it goes. He put me in a position on who to support. He loses. Neither Rush or Great1 has anyway of proving that tech was not paid or was paid. The slots have since been deleted. So, again I am going to support my fellow FAR member.

Do not come asking for a fellow member to be cleared for attacks because my first answer will be no and your burden of proof will have to be 100%.

Londo wanted the question asked, it was asked and answered. Its a case of Rush's recollection versus Great1's. Anyone can believe what they want.

To: Fernando12 From: Great1 Date: 6/13/2010 10:03:28 PM

Subject: RE: Did you finish all tech deals?

Message: I finished all of my tech deals a few weeks ago. I'm sure if I did sell him tech that I sent it to him. I messaged my buyers like was showed. I had all of them the same day so they had to wait to get their tech. I'm sure all of them received their tech. I quit selling because the hassle and little profit was not worth it.

I support my fellow FAR member and will not clear the way for him to be attacked.

Think less of me? So be it. I will stand up for my fellow FAR members.

I agree that having our nation cleared as a tech spammer and open to attacks is ridiculous. However, I do think that an alternative can be reach and abrasive behaviour and actions aren't needed. We guarantee our tech as Nando has said and this shouldn't have come down this road. Rush, We will give you the tech since it is what you are owed. Proof is important too however, and can not be left out. In saying that tlak to me on IRC and we can work something out.

I stand up for FAR nations too but we don't need to take things to a level that is overly aggressive. Our member is sure that he finished the tech deals but he may be mistaken. We can figure this out in a more subtle method without altercation. I hope we can solve this without any further difficulties.

To hell with tech deals.

I support rolling FAR over their lack of an original name.

Rush was speaking to Sir Exodus in query last night. Sir Exodus informs me that they want Great1 cleared to be attacked for being an aid scammer. That's a huge accusation. What Rush wants is for Rush to be believed. It must be his word over a FAR member. So what he is saying is that Great1 is a liar.

See how it goes. He put me in a position on who to support. He loses. Neither Rush or Great1 has anyway of proving that tech was not paid or was paid. The slots have since been deleted. So, again I am going to support my fellow FAR member.

Do not come asking for a fellow member to be cleared for attacks because my first answer will be no and your burden of proof will have to be 100%.

Londo wanted the question asked, it was asked and answered. Its a case of Rush's recollection versus Great1's. Anyone can believe what they want.

I support my fellow FAR member and will not clear the way for him to be attacked.

Think less of me? So be it. I will stand up for my fellow FAR members.

Man, for what I saw and unless I'm highly mistaken you and your gov turned a simple problem who could be fixed in 3 minutes in a mess. I had found myself in the same Rush Sykes position and it would be solved in the first query, after the nation who got scammed informs you about the problem it's your responsibility fix the matter as fast as possible and one of the reasons of the proof doesn't exist anymore is because you failed to do it.

If you want to blame someone blame StealingPandas who said:

[16:01:28] <StealingPandas[FAR]> I believe you... and he has 50. I have no idea why he wouldn't send it

[16:01:45] <StealingPandas[FAR]> I'll message him, and if he won't pay it then we'll find a way of getting it to you

If your gov says that he believes in someone, why would someone need a proof anymore?(While I agree that would be smart keep it or get it) Your member ignored messages(I hate when scammers do that) from your own gov and you still want to protect him, he isn't nothing more than a thief, it's a honorable but not an intelligent decision although I agree that try to made him send the tech first would be better than just attack.

Man, for what I saw and unless I'm highly mistaken you and your gov turned a simple problem who could be fixed in 3 minutes in a mess. I had found myself in the same Rush Sykes position and it would be solved in the first query, after the nation who got scammed informs you about the problem it's your responsibility fix the matter as fast as possible and one of the reasons of the proof doesn't exist anymore is because you failed to do it.

If you want to blame someone blame StealingPandas who said:

[16:01:28] <StealingPandas[FAR]> I believe you... and he has 50. I have no idea why he wouldn't send it

[16:01:45] <StealingPandas[FAR]> I'll message him, and if he won't pay it then we'll find a way of getting it to you

If your gov says that he believes in someone, why would someone need a proof anymore?(While I agree that would be smart keep it or get it) Your member ignored messages(I hate when scammers do that) from your own gov and you still want to protect him, he isn't nothing more than a thief, it's a honorable but not an intelligent decision although I agree that try to made him send the tech first would be better than just attack.

What you don't seem to get is that Great1 says he did pay Rush his tech. To me thats all I need and the burden of proof is with Rush. No screen shots, nothing. Just his recollection.

Yesterday was the first I heard of this. And how do I hear about it. In our private channel I am told that Rush is here to get military clearance. So I query Rush and put a stop to that. At that point, he is dealing with me. He lacked any real proof. So my answer to him was no. My answer to him was and still is if I have to choose between Great1 v. Rush...Rush loses every time.

Like I said, don't come asking for a FAR member to be cleared for attack cuz the answer will be no and your proof better be 100%.

What you don't seem to get is that Great1 says he did pay Rush his tech. To me thats all I need and the burden of proof is with Rush. No screen shots, nothing. Just his recollection.

Yesterday was the first I heard of this. And how do I hear about it. In our private channel I am told that Rush is here to get military clearance. So I query Rush and put a stop to that. At that point, he is dealing with me. He lacked any real proof. So my answer to him was no. My answer to him was and still is if I have to choose between Great1 v. Rush...Rush loses every time.

Like I said, don't come asking for a FAR member to be cleared for attack cuz the answer will be no and your proof better be 100%.

So you show absolute confidence in Great1 - a member of your alliance, but therefore no confidence whatsoever in StealingPandas - who is government in your alliance. I can only assume that you believe StealingPandas to be completely incompetent for not only taking Rush at his word in the first place, but also promising that your government would help him recoup any losses.

So you show absolute confidence in Great1 - a member of your alliance, but therefore no confidence whatsoever in StealingPandas - who is government in your alliance. I can only assume that you believe StealingPandas to be completely incompetent for not only taking Rush at his word in the first place, but also promising that your government would help him recoup any losses.

Great1 had all his deals the same day. He could go a full 10 days before having to check his nation again.

Send someone a message. Tell them not to delete it. Guess what, its gone 7 days later...so it's possible Great1 didn't even see any of Pandas's messages asking about this.

So yeah, your little gotcha moment in trying to say that that's what I'm saying is completely debunked.

No investigation was made because no answers were given at that time. I don't believe Great1 purposely ignored any messages. Plus, he would have answered Pandas the way he answered me. That he paid the tech. Did you read my previous post here? Great1 answered that he paid the tech.

Great1 had all his deals the same day. He could go a full 10 days before having to check his nation again.

Send someone a message. Tell them not to delete it. Guess what, its gone 7 days later...so it's possible Great1 didn't even see any of Pandas's messages asking about this.

So yeah, your little gotcha moment in trying to say that that's what I'm saying is completely debunked.

No investigation was made because no answers were given at that time. I don't believe Great1 purposely ignored any messages. Plus, he would have answered Pandas the way he answered me. That he paid the tech. Did you read my previous post here? Great1 answered that he paid the tech.

None of which addresses StealingPanda's statement that he believed Rush, nor his statement that FAR would send Rush the tech if Great1 refused to.

So which is it? Does StealingPanda have no authority to speak for your alliance, or is your government going back on its word?

Great1 had all his deals the same day. He could go a full 10 days before having to check his nation again.

Send someone a message. Tell them not to delete it. Guess what, its gone 7 days later...so it's possible Great1 didn't even see any of Pandas's messages asking about this.

So yeah, your little gotcha moment in trying to say that that's what I'm saying is completely debunked.

No investigation was made because no answers were given at that time. I don't believe Great1 purposely ignored any messages. Plus, he would have answered Pandas the way he answered me. That he paid the tech. Did you read my previous post here? Great1 answered that he paid the tech.

Except that at the time I spoke to Pandas, my aid screen would have shown that no tech came from Great1. Its one thing to expect me to provide proof. Its another when a gov member says "I believe you" at a point in time when 2 clicks of the mouse will reveal the proof to him. I dont know if he did or did not check my aid screen. My aid screen at present, dates back to May 21. That would also, coincidentally, be the day I was owed the 2nd 50 tech (the message he sent me was on the 9th, he clearly stated that he owed 4 people tech tomorrow(10th) and me the day after(11th)... that would make the 2nd 50 due on the 21st. The only ... and I mean the ONLY way you can not believe me , is to think I made all of this up to scam 100 tech from FAR. And that, my friend, is the diplomatic mistake you made. You called me a liar at a point in time when Great1 had said NOTHING to ANYONE. You were, in fact, not even going to message him about it. You told me that you believe him(who has said nothing), over me. Maybe where you come from, that is acceptable. If so, that is unfortunate for you and your alliance. On a side note... Exodus and Pandas are both to be commended for their personal conversations with me. They epitomize the way diplomacy SHOULD go. Thank you to you both.

None of which addresses StealingPanda's statement that he believed Rush, nor his statement that FAR would send Rush the tech if Great1 refused to.

So which is it? Does StealingPanda have no authority to speak for your alliance, or is your government going back on its word?

Read previous posts and you would know...

Pandas didn't get an answer. I'm sure if Pandas would have gotten the same answer I got from Great1 saying that he had paid the tech then Pandas would have wanted better info from Rush and questioned him more especially if he got Rush when Rush wanted to get clearance to attack.

The authority in FAR is not the subject here. But I will say that yes, I do have final say.

My final say is I support Great1 because he did answer my message. My word is to support my fellow alliance members and to support our allies.

As regent haven't StealingPanda right to negotiate things like that?

Also why do you think that Great1 ignored StealingPanda message?

Do you think is normal when you are innocent don't say it just keep quiet and ignore the question?

This is beautiful, I never expected Fernando to actually come in here and try to defend himself.

Dunno why I didn't expect it in retrospect.