Garion Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 It's pretty clear they don't want to deal with DH alliances... They stated that sentiment several times already. Why would you want to keep trading with them after that, it's beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1330283773' post='2928625'] I have a better idea. Tell your own !@#$@#$ members to not accept unsolicited aid from non-whitelisted parties. Tell them that if they do, it's on them to fulfill the tech deal. If they don't, pay the 100 tech for them and kick them out (or punish them however you see fit). Total cost to you in the worst case scenario is 100 tech. The way you're going about this now just makes you look like a terrible alliance that can't control its members. [/quote] Look at me agreeing with the likes of Penkala. I'm also enjoying the beautiful "you should only do things our way" moralist-style posturing from a lot of people in this thread. Edited February 27, 2012 by Zombie Glaucon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EgoFreaky Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1329921362' post='2925556'] You'd think this is the first time Doom House AAs have ever heard of alliances not guaranteeing tech deals. Old hat. [/quote] Damn.. we've had this exact policy for years.. If I had known it would piss of MK to this extend I would have announced it on the OWF [quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1330299589' post='2928850'] Or, you know, UE could use common sense. Which is the easier and better solution here? [/quote] Common sense? You make a deal with an alliance, the alliance ensures it's paid up. You try to avoid the hassle and make deals on your own, you have to get your tech yourself and the alliance does not guarantee delivery. Looks like common sense to me. Edited February 27, 2012 by EgoFreaky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Sure, but it's so much easier for the peanut gallery to poke fun at the Ponies. And predictable, to boot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Even bothering to reply to the likes of Penkala hints at a much bigger underlying issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) [quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1330302927' post='2928880'] Damn.. we've had this exact policy for years.. If I had known it would piss of MK to this extend I would have announced it on the OWF Common sense? You make a deal with an alliance, the alliance ensures it's paid up. You try to avoid the hassle and make deals on your own, you have to get your tech yourself and the alliance does not guarantee delivery. Looks like common sense to me. [/quote] The common-sense solution is to put the whole "white list" "black list" "official" "unofficial" "refundable" "nonrefundable" business on your own membership, which understands your alliance and its procedures, and to adhere to standard practices when it comes to foreign relations (taking action if your member runs away with somebody's money). As a tech seller, when you accept that aid, you agree to send tech in return. If you take that money, you're taking the responsibility that comes with it. If you don't follow through on that, your alliance should just send the tech for you and consider it an opportunity to: 1) Keep amicable relations with the alliance the buyer is from, which has just sent an aid offer that would have benefited your alliance 2) Identify and help educate some of your members who may not be very familiar with tech deals 3) Identify 'problem members' and 'aid thieves' at minimal cost to you All at a low cost of only 100 tech... OR, you can go this route, insinuate that your membership is too stupid to understand a tech deal, refuse to force accountability on your membership, create needless and unnecessary paperwork and applications, and essentially 'black list' people who would be sending your younger members money that they badly need. You end up getting ridiculed for it (and rightly so), and eventually somebody might test it and end up either exposing your lack of a spine or destroying you and your allies. All to save 100 tech... [quote]Even bothering to reply to the likes of Penkala hints at a much bigger underlying issue. [/quote] Good argument, man. Now who are you, again? And what have you ever accomplished? Edited February 27, 2012 by Penkala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamkeatley Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1330101388' post='2927540'] One of the worst pieces of e-lawyering I've read in a very long time. Of course if you have experienced people dropping $3 mill on you out of the clear blue sky so you can buy yourself 50 tech to keep, I stand corrected. On the other hand most people who have no clue why someone sent them $3 mill would probably send a message back asking what this is about, particularly new nations for whom $3 mill is the equivalent of someone handing you a briefcase of cash in the street. But hey, most of us are curious like that.[/quote] It was a response to someone trying to make a point about contracts... How else are you to respond, except for in a 'lawyer'-esque manner? Or should we all discuss contracts in clown suits? You are wrong. Most people who have no clue and get sent a shiny offer with 7 digits when they have been living off 4 figures for the last 2 days will accept without question. Then they will tend to send a message asking what tech is, let alone ask for what the offer was for. Most people are curious, but primarily most people in a play scenario tend to accept first and question later. That is their own fault, I have no sympathy. But it is understanding how the majority of inexperienced people work that has resulted in this policy, so I think it is pertinent. And again I ask, why would people want to Tech Deal with those types anyway? Why has dust been kicked up around a policy designed to encourage people away from having issues with inexperienced nations? GK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrash Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1330283938' post='2928628'] Like I said, it was an error of judgement on their part to make the order, but the order was given with the unstated expectation that they would only ghost nobodies and NOT members of the sphere. It was a failure of control, not malicious intent towards GRE. [/quote] They also ghosted TPF and were met with an immediate smackdown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 [quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1330313656' post='2929004'] Good argument, man. Now who are you, again? And what have you ever accomplished? [/quote] You guys both win at genetive fallacy. Good luck being idiots together! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) If the course of the thread hasn't tipped you all off yet, it's rather unlikely that most alliances are going to be terribly tolerant of the donation thing. Just felt the need to state that without the attendant yelling and ~outrage~. Edited February 28, 2012 by Aurion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMuz Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1330406128' post='2929759'] If the course of the thread hasn't tipped you all off yet, it's rather unlikely that most alliances are going to be terribly tolerant of the donation thing. [/quote] Then don't buy tech from them. The policy is meant to discourage unsolicited tech purchase, understandable when tech is such a valuable resource. It's only an issue because tech deals are classically treated as a contract between the seller and buyer. In today's world, some alliances choose to treat it as a contract between the buyer, the seller, and the seller's alliance. You have two choices here: - Pay 'reps' on unpaid tech to unsolicited tech buyers -- or release an unauthorized tech seller to be ZIed/etc if they don't pay it off - Have a 'buy at your own risk' policy to unsolicited tech buyers -- or defend the unauthorized tech seller with force if they don't pay it off UE chose the second one. Most alliances don't have any formal policy at all about this. It doesn't mean that they won't do the first bit under certain circumstances, but by default policy the second choice is taken. When you make a tech deal with a UE nation, this is the terms that you are promised. If you have a problem with it, get on their white list. Or you could just flood their sellers with tech deals, hoping one of them gets confused, doesn't pay, and starts a war over the conflict of policy. That would be quite interesting too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefspari Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1330447295' post='2930037'] Then don't buy tech from them. The policy is meant to discourage unsolicited tech purchase, understandable when tech is such a valuable resource.[/quote] Yeah that's kind of the point. Anyone who does see this thread is saying "Wow, that's a terrible policy. I'm not into donating money, so I'm going to stay away." That works fine and good until someone who [i][b]hasn't[/b][/i] seen this thread gets their money stolen. Then someone's going to be pissed. And this will escalate. It's an oil drum waiting for the first spark to set it off. [img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aeris-_-L7.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EgoFreaky Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1330313656' post='2929004'] The common-sense solution is to put the whole "white list" "black list" "official" "unofficial" "refundable" "nonrefundable" business on your own membership, which understands your alliance and its procedures, and to adhere to standard practices when it comes to foreign relations (taking action if your member runs away with somebody's money). As a tech seller, when you accept that aid, you agree to send tech in return. If you take that money, you're taking the responsibility that comes with it. If you don't follow through on that, your alliance should just send the tech for you and consider it an opportunity to: 1) Keep amicable relations with the alliance the buyer is from, which has just sent an aid offer that would have benefited your alliance 2) Identify and help educate some of your members who may not be very familiar with tech deals 3) Identify 'problem members' and 'aid thieves' at minimal cost to you All at a low cost of only 100 tech... OR, you can go this route, insinuate that your membership is too stupid to understand a tech deal, refuse to force accountability on your membership, create needless and unnecessary paperwork and applications, and essentially 'black list' people who would be sending your younger members money that they badly need. You end up getting ridiculed for it (and rightly so), and eventually somebody might test it and end up either exposing your lack of a spine or destroying you and your allies. All to save 100 tech... [/quote] 100 tech.. don't really care to look at how many sellers UE has, but i know how many we have and when we're actively recruiting how many nubs we have.. it can add up. And tech is harder to pay then money seeing you have to send money to a reliable techseller and he has to send tech to the nation to refund. So it takes up 3 slot spaces of active reliable members for which you gain nothing. Now in our case we don't have so much black or whitelists as a simple we're allied or we like you and decide we wanna refund you as a gesture of goodwill. But the alliance does not automatically take responsibility for techdeals not sanctioned by the alliance. Now if you would decide to send tech to one of our nubs hoping he returns tech and he doesn't we would handle it like this: 1. the member in question will be messaged to pay up what he owes. 2. If he still doesn't pay, he's demasked and kicked out of the alliance and you can have someone attack him over it if you like. (in some cases we would offer to send 3M to a nation of choosing. A lot of the people that are in non allied alliances but are personally close to us try buying tech from our nubs knowing the risk. When they don't get their tech we in return send 3M to a nation of their choosing (this way their slot isn't wasted but the money will reach someone who can use it just like if they had donated it for aid to their own alliance). Now there's a very simple reason for doing it like this. Every alliance that recruits a lot of new nations knows a big percentage of them goes inactive somewhere in the first couple of months. It's a risk our own buyers are willing to take for the good of the alliance. But we would not offer them as sellers to another alliance without a big disclaimer/warning that theres a high possibility of deletion/inactivity. Now you can try to spin it as "But me buying tech from your sellers helps your alliance" but guess what, the only reason you would do it is because it helps your nations tech growth, that it would also help one of our nations is an (un)fortunate side effect. And even if you truly from the bottom of your heart believe that you're helping us.. guess what, we didn't ask for your help, so don't expect us to cover your loss if your "help" doesn't give you the benefit you expected. You all argue "those slots are open, we're helping you".. tech is in short supply in CN, so ever considered theres an actual reason why those slots are free? And the argument that the sellers should know better is a twisted one as well. Sure a nation 10 days old should know what to do and take responsibility for its actions.. but god forbid that a 2000 day old nation should ever think twice before acting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) [quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1330447295' post='2930037'] Then don't buy tech from them. The policy is meant to discourage unsolicited tech purchase, understandable when tech is such a valuable resource. It's only an issue because tech deals are classically treated as a contract between the seller and buyer. In today's world, some alliances choose to treat it as a contract between the buyer, the seller, and the seller's alliance. You have two choices here: - Pay 'reps' on unpaid tech to unsolicited tech buyers -- or release an unauthorized tech seller to be ZIed/etc if they don't pay it off - Have a 'buy at your own risk' policy to unsolicited tech buyers -- or defend the unauthorized tech seller with force if they don't pay it off UE chose the second one. Most alliances don't have any formal policy at all about this. It doesn't mean that they won't do the first bit under certain circumstances, but by default policy the second choice is taken. When you make a tech deal with a UE nation, this is the terms that you are promised. If you have a problem with it, get on their white list. Or you could just flood their sellers with tech deals, hoping one of them gets confused, doesn't pay, and starts a war over the conflict of policy. That would be quite interesting too. [/quote] beefspari pretty much nailed it down, honestly. The minute someone who doesn't know about this sends a deal to a UE nation...heh. Fun situation. It's a powder keg waiting for a spark. Edit: An actual spark, I mean. I'm amazed 1337 can type out posts with hands that heavy. Edited February 29, 2012 by Aurion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.