Official United Equestria Policy Annoucement

[ktarthan]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329942868' post='2925681']
How we handle things is up to the discretion of us. The refund policy is as it is to prevent malicious abuse; If we offered to redirect funds, the lot of you would flood to us just to lock our aid slots up as needless middlemen (Bear in mind that two of UE's aid slots are also wasted in this action). Honest incidents can be addressed, at our discretion, in a more friendly and helpful manner. Malicious attempts to abuse this and lock up our aid slots will not be entertained.
[/quote]
What I'm saying is that if there is a nation who legitimately didn't know of your policy and has a valid claim for a "refund", they have no reason to want to do so. They have all the economic incentive to just let UE keep the money. If they go through the refund process it will use up [i]at least[/i] 10 days of a slot which is equal to ~33 tech, or ~$1M. This is on top of the 10 days that the initial aid takes to expire, which totals ~67 tech (~$2M) in losses that are a direct result of this policy and of no fault of the buying nation. If they don't do the refund (which is their best option), they're then out ~33 tech (~$1M) plus the initial ~$3M.

[b][i]This policy has the potential to cause unnecessary economic harm to completely innocent nations.[/b][/i]

Edited February 22, 2012 by ktarthan

[Seerow]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1329943690' post='2925691']
What I'm saying is that if there is a nation who legitimately didn't know of your policy and has a valid claim for a "refund", they have no reason to want to do so. They have all the economic incentive to just let UE keep the money. If they go through the refund process it will use up [i]at least[/i] 10 days of a slot which is equal to ~33 tech, or ~$1M. This is on top of the 10 days that the initial aid takes to expire, which totals ~67 tech (~$2M) in losses that are a direct result of this policy and of no fault of the buying nation. If they don't do the refund (which is their best option), they're then out ~33 tech (~$1M) plus the initial ~$3M.

[b][i]This policy has the potential to cause unnecessary economic harm to completely innocent nations.[/b][/i]
[/quote]

Seriously, the only way to make any 'refund' policy remotely fair would be to send tech to the person equivalent to what they paid for... in which case why bother with this policy at all instead of just completing the tech deal?

This policy is robbery dressed up pretty, nothing more.

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1329943108' post='2925687']encourage everypony
[/quote]

How far you have fallen JA.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Hydian Way' timestamp='1329943136' post='2925688']
It seems things would have gone better if you announced any coordinated attempts to bomb your slots would result in the offers being treated as donations or converted in to 3/50. Follow this up with mention that if any alliance wishes to do mass deals must be on the white list and refund policy for innocent mistakes.

As it stands your current announcement carries a tone that can be seen as punitive against innocent mistakes. Better phrasing and direct addressing of rumors of planned tech bombing would have prevented this problem.
[/quote]
I acknowledge a personal flaw here: I am extraordinarily obsessed with making the language as precise as possible; What would be the definition of "coordinated" here? We could get fifty offers from an alliance and the gov could claim them as individual acts. I would rather not make assertions in an endless cycle of "no u" debates.

There was a punitive attitude in the writing of it, as it was done in response to an impending assault on our aid slots. Many of the parties know full well the context, and are feigning outrage for PR gains. Techbombing is a coordinated assault on unknowing newbies, with the intention of tripping up tech deals so that threats and extortion can be carried out. An experienced nation knows better than to accept aid of this nature. A newbie sees a $3m offer in his inbox and &*&^es himself, clicking accept without a second thought.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1329943690' post='2925691']
What I'm saying is that if there is a nation who legitimately didn't know of your policy and has a valid claim for a "refund", they have no reason to want to do so. They have all the economic incentive to just let UE keep the money. If they go through the refund process it will use up [i]at least[/i] 10 days of a slot which is equal to ~33 tech, or ~$1M. This is on top of the 10 days that the initial aid takes to expire, which totals ~67 tech (~$2M) in losses that are a direct result of this policy and of no fault of the buying nation. If they don't do the refund (which is their best option), they're then out ~33 tech (~$1M) plus the initial ~$3M.

[b][i]This policy has the potential to cause unnecessary economic harm to completely innocent nations.[/b][/i]
[/quote]
What I'm saying is that in honest mistakes, we [i]may[/i] forward the refund elsewhere, we are simply under no obligation to do so. Obligating ourselves invites abuse.

[Legend McAwesome]

Hey, I just got my drivers license and i was wondering if i could ride some of your ponies sometime.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329944455' post='2925700']
Many of the parties know full well the context, and are feigning outrage for PR gains.
[/quote]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329944455' post='2925700']
[b]Techbombing[/b] is a [b]coordinated assault[/b] on unknowing newbies, with the intention of tripping up tech deals so that [b]threats and extortion[/b] can be carried out.
[/quote]

You're right, we're the ones making up !@#$ for PR right now

[Jake Liebenow]

I love this policy. Definitely makes for a nice anti-tech-farm approach to handling an alliance's economy.

The bullies speaking right now also can't hit your nations. Remember that, hah.

Also, Leet, I've seen techbombing occur on several occasions. Just because it's unsavory doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's nice that this group of typically non-CNers is out to protect themselves.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Jake Liebenow

[Hydian Way]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329944455' post='2925700']
I acknowledge a personal flaw here: I am extraordinarily obsessed with making the language as precise as possible; What would be the definition of "coordinated" here? We could get fifty offers from an alliance and the gov could claim them as individual acts. I would rather not make assertions in an endless cycle of "no u" debates.

There was a punitive attitude in the writing of it, as it was done in response to an impending assault on our aid slots. Many of the parties know full well the context, and are feigning outrage for PR gains. Techbombing is a coordinated assault on unknowing newbies, with the intention of tripping up tech deals so that threats and extortion can be carried out. An experienced nation knows better than to accept aid of this nature. A newbie sees a $3m offer in his inbox and &*&^es himself, clicking accept without a second thought.
[/quote]

In your haste to avoid "no u" arguments as you call them and a love of "precise" language, you ended up posting an announcement that can rather easily be portrayed as thievery and having potential to harm the innocent semi active large nation who just flails around randomly for tech sources. For all your claims of precise, you're kind of imprecise about the refund policy and how innocent mistakes might be cleaned up in that announcement. Note how some other leaders completely missed some key points or didn't grasp them.

These enemies of yours didn't even have to tech bomb you or anything to hit you with some negative PR. They got you to post this and expose yourself to negative PR without having to offer a single packet of aid.

Do what you will, but I'd suggest the one tool you have to cut the rope off your neck now that you've started to hang yourself is the fact you were threatened with tech bombing. Set a cut point if you want, that X unsolicited offers from a nation or bloc will be considered tech bombing and your response will be to keep the money or transact the deals at 3/50. Or just leave it vague. We all know how tech bombing/ aid slot denial works and we know it when we see it it (OOC: Take screenshots). A nice followup statement or clarification of policy from the Princess Regent could do wonders in my humble view. Other excellent policies might be to announce that your applicant AA is closed for all foreign deals. Then ensure the newbies know to refuse deals before they exit the applicant phase. Insure yourself through training. It's your alliance though, best of luck.

[Seerow]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329944455' post='2925700']
I acknowledge a personal flaw here: I am extraordinarily obsessed with making the language as precise as possible; What would be the definition of "coordinated" here? We could get fifty offers from an alliance and the gov could claim them as individual acts. I would rather not make assertions in an endless cycle of "no u" debates.

There was a punitive attitude in the writing of it, as it was done in response to an impending assault on our aid slots. Many of the parties know full well the context, and are feigning outrage for PR gains. Techbombing is a coordinated assault on unknowing newbies, with the intention of tripping up tech deals so that threats and extortion can be carried out. An experienced nation knows better than to accept aid of this nature. A newbie sees a $3m offer in his inbox and &*&^es himself, clicking accept without a second thought.
[/quote]

Whatever your reasoning for this is, your response makes it worse, not better. This statement won't stop whatever people have planned, they'll still do it, and when you don't pay tech, yes they will still be upset with you.

Posting a general statement like this isn't going to get you out of paying for money accepted. And as has already been pointed out, your refund policy makes things worse for buyers who get screwed, not better.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1329944012' post='2925693']
Seriously, the only way to make any 'refund' policy remotely fair would be to send tech to the person equivalent to what they paid for... in which case why bother with this policy at all instead of just completing the tech deal?

This policy is robbery dressed up pretty, nothing more.
[/quote]
Nopony is forcing you to send us aid.

My issue is in the act of wiring money over to UE nations with an attached [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract"]shrinkwrap contract[/url]. If you wish to negotiate a transaction, [i]do so before wiring money.[/i] Do not wire money over to UE and then just expect we magically agree to your contract.

A contract can be had by:
1) A UE nation actively soliciting tech deals, by going to MK/Umb/NG/VE/whoever and asking if anyone wants to buy tech;
2) Your government coming to our government and getting put on the white list; or
3) A nation holds a PM exchange with one of ours, during which a tech selling contract is negotiated BEFORE any money is wired over. (We recommend that your nation maintain screen shots of such exchanges)

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='SoADarthCyfe6' timestamp='1329937987' post='2925643']
Of course it will (note why I added my OWF comment in the previous post you quoted) because people will always try to exploit the worst case scenario.



Which should happen. Any and all new policies generally go across road bumps/loopholes which will need fixing. Also note the bolded section, considering UE is a new alliance, 'some' slack for these loopholes should be warranted.


Regardless, I see a lot of promise with the 'general concept' with this policy and what it could bring. Fix the loopholes and it should be solid.
[/quote]

I would agree with you if their "white list" was getting them 70..80% slot usage. Simple fact is, they are not. They are literally saying its better that they leave them empty, than use them on someone who didnt suck up to them. Its a poor poor policy all the way around.

[Seerow]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329945313' post='2925717']
Nopony is forcing you to send us aid.

My issue is in the act of wiring money over to UE nations with an attached [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract"]shrinkwrap contract[/url]. If you wish to negotiate a transaction, [i]do so before wiring money.[/i] Do not wire money over to UE and then just expect we magically agree to your contract.

A contract can be had by:
1) A UE nation actively soliciting tech deals, by going to MK/Umb/NG/VE/whoever and asking if anyone wants to buy tech;
2) Your government coming to our government and getting put on the white list; or
3) A nation holds a PM exchange with one of ours, during which a tech selling contract is negotiated BEFORE any money is wired over. (We recommend that your nation maintain screen shots of such exchanges)
[/quote]

So now it's our responsibility to maintain screenshots of all contact with your members, or else they can jack our money, and the only form of recompense is causing us to lose more tech?

In what way do you believe this is a good policy?

[ktarthan]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329944620' post='2925702']
What I'm saying is that in honest mistakes, we [i]may[/i] forward the refund elsewhere, we are simply under no obligation to do so. Obligating ourselves invites abuse.
[/quote]
1) This is not made clear anywhere in the policy or in the application process. In fact the application form explicitly states that refunds will [i]only[/i] be sent, in cash, to the nation who send the aid.
2) If this is added to the policy, it's still not enough. You [i]might[/i] not intentionally cause economic harm to innocent tech buyers who were unaware of your policy?

Edit: And even if you forward the refund elsewhere, the fact still remains that you wasted 10 days of the buyer's slot.

Edited February 22, 2012 by ktarthan

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' timestamp='1329944136' post='2925695']
How far you have fallen JA.
[/quote]

I am simply talking in a way which they can understand.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329944620' post='2925702']
What I'm saying is that in honest mistakes, we [i]may[/i] forward the refund elsewhere, we are simply under no obligation to do so. Obligating ourselves invites abuse.
[/quote]

If a nation accepts a deal that is marked 3mil/100 tech, they have already "obligated" themselves, and no policy you set forth will change that. You literally sit right now with ~30% slot usage, and you are saying to your nations, with a straight face, that it is in their best interest to leave them empty? If your "white list" COULD fill the slots, they would be filled, and no such external offers could be made. Have you explained to your members (serious question) that this policy may hamper their growth?

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1329945581' post='2925720']
1) This is not made clear anywhere in the policy or in the application process. In fact the application form explicitly states that refunds will [i]only[/i] be sent, in cash, to the nation who send the aid.
2) If this is added to the policy, it's still not enough. You [i]might[/i] not intentionally cause economic harm to innocent tech buyers who were unaware of your policy?
[/quote]
We will attempt to rectify the flaws and errors present in a timely manner.

[quote]Edit: And even if you forward the refund elsewhere, the fact still remains that you wasted 10 days of the buyer's slot. [/quote] Not if it gets forwarded to a proper seller.

Edited February 22, 2012 by HeroofTime55

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329945852' post='2925725']
We will attempt to rectify the flaws and errors present in a timely manner.
[/quote]

Is it really worth having to do that that though?

[MrChaos]

Interesting announcement. I personally like it!

[ktarthan]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329945852' post='2925725']
We will attempt to rectify the flaws and errors present in a timely manner.
[/quote]
The entire policy is a flaw. Scrap it. Teach your small nations not to accept aid unless they're supposed to. [i]Everyone is happier.[/i]

[MCRABT]

What happens if [i]your member[/i] approaches a member of an alliance not on that list and agrees to a tech deal, do you still feel they have the right to renege on any agreement made? In this instance the agreement would not be unsolicited but the party in question may not have been approved by your government.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1329947105' post='2925735']
What happens if [i]your member[/i] approaches a member of an alliance not on that list and agrees to a tech deal, do you still feel they have the right to renege on any agreement made? In this instance the agreement would not be unsolicited but the party in question may not have been approved by your government.
[/quote]
This has been covered in the thread; this policy only applies to unsolicited deals, period. As much of a problem as I have with it on the whole, they at least had that much foresight.

[Seerow]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1329947296' post='2925738']
This has been covered in the thread; this policy only applies to unsolicited deals, period. As much of a problem as I have with it on the whole, they at least had that much foresight.
[/quote]

They've also however said that it is the buyer's responsibility to keep screenshots of any contact with UE sellers to prove that they accepted the deal. If you don't screenshot it, it's your word vs theirs, and their government will obviously side with their member.

This puts UE members in a great position to prey upon unwitting buyers who aren't aware of this policy and keep solid records of every exchange they have with a seller.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1329947507' post='2925739']
They've also however said that it is the buyer's responsibility to keep screenshots of any contact with UE sellers to prove that they accepted the deal. If you don't screenshot it, it's your word vs theirs, and their government will obviously side with their member.

This puts UE members in a great position to prey upon unwitting buyers who aren't aware of this policy and keep solid records of every exchange they have with a seller.
[/quote]
This is not the nature of Bronies and we will mercilessly expel and level anyone in our ranks who thinks that running a scam operation of this nature is a good idea. This just isn't who we are. We are honest and upstanding ponyfolk.

[Seerow]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1329947898' post='2925744']
This is not the nature of Bronies and we will mercilessly expel and level anyone in our ranks who thinks that running a scam operation of this nature is a good idea. This just isn't who we are. We are honest and upstanding ponyfolk.
[/quote]

Only if it can be proven. The case is based on the idea there is no proof because the seller didn't save his exchange with the UE member.

You can say nobody will take advantage of it, that doesn't mean nobody will. And if you're not going to trust your members saying it was unsolicited when no proof indicates otherwise, it raises again the question of what is this policy for?