Backroom Extortion is Back

[Denial]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1289299051' post='2507857']
And of course, you have to continue employing your favourite tactic, that of completely ignoring what other people say in favour of repeating your own straw-men. It is really quite disgusting that you attempt to create a faux high ground by making up stuff from the depth of your imagination and then outright lying when attributing them to someone else. It is disturbing that you seem content to stick your fingers in your ears and parrot of your falsehoods one after the other. And it is vile than you use such a blatant political agenda to distort and misrepresent everything around you.

The world does not believe for a moment that this was a discussion with a benevolent MK where any contrary action whatsoever could not have resulted in war. You know it, and yet you seem intent on twisting it to its exact opposite. Keep on redefining reality, it isn't working.
[/quote]
Look, if you consider someone asking that you provide evidence to back up your claims a strawman, you have bigger issues to deal with than Mushroom Kingdom.

[Letum]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1289299687' post='2507864']
Look, if you consider someone asking that you provide evidence to back up your claims a strawman, you have bigger issues to deal with than Mushroom Kingdom.
[/quote]

What I consider a strawman is that you make up claims I have not made, falsely attribute them to me, and then request evidence for the very claims you just made up.

Or, to make my point simpler:

[quote]power disparities that inherently skew negotiations in favour of one party. [/quote]

Power does not inherently skew anything. Power only has an effect when the use of said power becomes a real possibility.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Letum

[Denial]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1289299804' post='2507867']
Power does not inherently skew anything. Power only has an effect when the use of said power becomes a real possibility.
[/quote]
That pretty much flies in the face of every academic theory regarding power and negotiation - and less importantly, contradicts both what Tygaland and I have said, and we're on opposite sides of this issue - but sure, okay!

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1289299591' post='2507862']
No, I got that. What I meant in my reply is that I don't think a party being 'reasonable' - considering how subjective this term is - is an all-embracing remedy for the power disparities that inherently skew negotiations in favour of one party. It really does not work that way.
[/quote]

It isn't going to change the power balance, it is going to put the weaker party at ease. If the other party is being reasonable in trying to resolve a situation then the weaker party is less likely to perceive the stronger party as a threat. If I'm at a pub and a large bouncer comes up to me in a manner that is aggressive and/or spiteful then I am going to perceive his size advantage as a threat. If the bouncer approaches me casually and speaks to me about any issue then I will not perceive his size advantage as a threat.

[quote]
If a nation running off with $3m after agreeing to a particular trade set-up is a daily occurrence for other alliances that they let slide, then I pity them. I realise that you are determined to go to any length necessary to excuse NSO and blame the Mushroom Kingdom - as per usual - but both parties are at fault here.
[/quote]

Daily basis across the Cyberverse, not for one individual alliance. I'm not trying to absolve NSO of anything, I just do not see them as having done anything wrong as MK's behaviour put them on the defensive primarily because, as you have acknowledged, it was completely unreasonable. MK were the ones who were demanding ridiculous reparations, not NSO. Incidents like this should not need "negotiations", it is not peace terms in a war and the solution was obvious for anyone to see. Other than MK who saw a chance to extort more than was reasonable, of course.

[quote]
I am not blaming NSO, I am stating that both parties are at fault, and questioning whether the chance to run a smear campaign was really worth paying $15m and 250 tech for.
[/quote]

You would be wrong then. NSO were quite willing to do what was reasonable which is more than I can say for MK. You keep overlooking it was your stupid demands that gave NSO an PR "advantage". MK were the ones in the wrong here, they could easily have resolved this situation like other alliances do all the time but they didn't want to. Being unreasonable and trying to extort more than you deserved for what happened was the catalyst for what happened here. But I'm sure you'll keep blaming everyone else for your alliances poor form. Archon did so I don't expect any better from the rest of you.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1289296210' post='2507832']
-snip-
[/quote]
I don't disagree with any of the substance you say there really, only that it still doesn't fit into the 'holding a gun to the head' metaphor very well~ [which was all I disagreed with in the first place].

Edited November 9, 2010 by Banksy

[Letum]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1289300191' post='2507872']
That pretty much flies in the face of every academic theory regarding power and negotiation - and less importantly, contradicts both what Tygaland and I have said, and we're on opposite sides of this issue - but sure, okay!


[/quote]

Whether you intend it or not, this works as another transparent attempt to discredit the argument by framing it as irrational (which is a bit strange, since there are "academic theories" covering every possible perspective) and contradictory to a third party position - which shouldn't really be relevant, unless you ascribe to a "black and white, only two sides to an idea" mentality.

Of course, you are welcome to debate academic theories and illustrate how power distorts relationships when it is not possible for that power to be used.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Letum

[Vanilla Napalm]

I must admit, this is some rather boring extortion - Extortion from the Orders was far more hair-raising, and came with a good deal more smug self-justification.

[Denial]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1289300568' post='2507875']
It isn't going to change the power balance, it is going to put the weaker party at ease. If the other party is being reasonable in trying to resolve a situation then the weaker party is less likely to perceive the stronger party as a threat. If I'm at a pub and a large bouncer comes up to me in a manner that is aggressive and/or spiteful then I am going to perceive his size advantage as a threat. If the bouncer approaches me casually and speaks to me about any issue then I will not perceive his size advantage as a threat.[/quote]
There are far more variables in a negotiation than that, and reducing a discussion regarding the influence of power on the negotiation process to an analogy regarding a bouncer really does not capture the depth that is required. However, to delve into your analogy, the bouncer's size advantage could still be deemed as a threat or power imbalance in the negotiation due to a range of factors, ranging from a difference in what the two parties consider 'reasonable' to the intentions and goals that each party possesses going into the negotiation.

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1289300568' post='2507875']
Daily basis across the Cyberverse, not for one individual alliance. [b]I'm not trying to absolve NSO of anything, I just do not see them as having done anything wrong[/b] as MK's behaviour put them on the defensive primarily because, as you have acknowledged, it was completely unreasonable. MK were the ones who were demanding ridiculous reparations, not NSO. Incidents like this should not need "negotiations", it is not peace terms in a war and the solution was obvious for anyone to see. Other than MK who saw a chance to extort more than was reasonable, of course.[/quote]
Well, if that is the case, I think we should put a halt to our discussion here. We will have to agree to disagree.

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1289300568' post='2507875']
But I'm sure you'll keep blaming everyone else for your alliances poor form. Archon did so I don't expect any better from the rest of you.
[/quote]
You might have a point if I hadn't acknowledged we were at fault. A number of times. Which you just acknowledged a few posts ago.

[Denial]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1289300646' post='2507877']
Whether you intend it or not, this works as another transparent attempt to discredit the argument by framing it as irrational (which is a bit strange, since there are "academic theories" covering every possible perspective) and contradictory to a third party position - which shouldn't really be relevant, unless you ascribe to a "black and white, only two sides to an idea" mentality.

Of course, you are welcome to debate academic theories and illustrate how power distorts relationships when it is not possible for that power to be used.
[/quote]
What you claimed was: "Power only has an effect when the use of said power becomes a real possibility."

This is false (and no, this is not a contentious notion; what I am explaining to you is widely-accepted and rather elementary). All it takes is one party [i]perceiving[/i] that there is a power imbalance and [i]believing[/i] that the exertion of said power is a possibility. Whether it is a 'real' possibility or not is immaterial.

In other news, I'm still waiting for you to back up your ludicrous claims with some actual evidence!


[OOC: And with that, I'm off to do something a little more worthwhile than debating on an internet forum for a while. Bye!]

Edited November 9, 2010 by Denial

[Letum]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1289301496' post='2507885']
What you claimed was: "Power only has an effect when the use of said power becomes a real possibility."

This is false (and no, this is not a contentious notion; what I am explaining to you is widely-accepted and rather elementary). All it takes is one party [i]perceiving[/i] that there is a power imbalance and [i]believing[/i] that the exertion of said power is a possibility. Whether it is a 'real' possibility or not is immaterial.
[/quote]

But for this to hold true in our context you would have to introduce a third element, that NSO was an irrational actor and perceived an exertion of power was a possibility where no such possibility existed. If you wish to raise the chance of NSO being far too paranoid, then you are opening a completely different discussion, and you are welcome to provide evidence for this alleged paranoia.

In the absence of that, we are working under the constraint of two fairly rational actors, who can recognize where possibilities exist. And everything, from past relationships, to the words being used in negotiations and in these threads (especially the aggressive posturing in the latter) and even to the obscene levels of the demands themselves, points to the usage of power being a very real possibility. Hell, even Archon has admitted that it is "not [a] necessarily unreasonable" assumption that refusal might result in military consequence.

The spectre of force existed over a simple matter, where it shouldn't have existed. The end result is intimidation. That is a fairly simple chain of events, which you cannot obstruficate.

Or are you going to continue to imply that benevolent MK never had military action as a card on its table, no matter what NSO did?


[quote]
In other news, I'm still waiting for you to back up your ludicrous claims with some actual evidence!
[/quote]

What claims?

Edited November 9, 2010 by Letum

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1289301137' post='2507882']
There are far more variables in a negotiation than that, and reducing a discussion regarding the influence of power on the negotiation process to an analogy regarding a bouncer really does not capture the depth that is required. However, to delve into your analogy, the bouncer's size advantage could still be deemed as a threat or power imbalance in the negotiation due to a range of factors, ranging from a difference in what the two parties consider 'reasonable' to the intentions and goals that each party possesses going into the negotiation.
[/quote]

I don't think being reasonable in the Cyberverse is that vague, especially in non-issues like this. The bigger and more convoluted the situation the vaguer it gets but this issue is not big or convoluted at all. The bottom line being if you go into a negotiation or, as was more appropriate in this case, a discussion in good faith then you don't go in with ridiculous demands like MK did. It is unreasonable to demand 5 times the amount you are out of pocket. It was that unreasonable behaviour that made NSO wary and what caused the cascade that followed.

[quote]
Well, if that is the case, I think we should put a halt to our discussion here. We will have to agree to disagree.
[/quote]

I cannot be trying to absolve NSO of wrongdoing when I perceive none in the first place. The point being, again, MK went into a negotiation (why this was needed I'm still not sure) being unreasonable and definitely not in good faith. That is the crux of the problem. Not RV going public, not NSO agreeing to pay the inflated reparations as these are all results of MK's wrongdoing. You may think those actions were wrong and you are entitled to your opinion, but to say those actions make NSO equally to blame for the fiasco this became is just nonsense.

[quote]
You might have a point if I hadn't acknowledged we were at fault. A number of times. Which you just acknowledged a few posts ago.
[/quote]

Yes, but you are more intent on putting blame on the NSO when it was your alliance's behaviour that caused the cascade of events in the first place. The primary fault remains with MK and I don't blame NSO for reacting as they did.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1289275374' post='2507197']
How about NSO just doesn't pay and we see what happens?
[/quote]
You shouldn't pay because MKers have already said [size="1"](lied)[/size] about that they have no intention of rolling the NSO.

Here, let's use MKer logic:

They asked for an extortiating amount. They say it's silly to refuse the funds if NSO agreed to pay it.

Now...

MK says they will not and have no intention of rolling NSO. Using their own argument, if NSO is not to be rolled then it would be silly for NSO to go ahead and pay this extortiating amount.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1289302788' post='2507892']
You shouldn't pay because MKers have already said [size="1"](lied)[/size] about that they have no intention of rolling the NSO.

Here, let's use MKer logic:

They asked for an extortiating amount. They say it's silly to refuse the funds if NSO agreed to pay it.

Now...

MK says they will not and have no intention of rolling NSO. Using their own argument, if NSO is not to be rolled then it would be silly for NSO to go ahead and pay this extortiating amount.
[/quote]
You are right, it would be silly.

I hate it when people do silly things.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='delendum' timestamp='1289282834' post='2507397']
Admittedly that was a pretty big fail on our part, however, you've spent an hour decrying the unfairness of the whole thing, while all of this could've been avoided by simply asking "why this much?"
[/quote]

actually all this could have been avoided by MK's gov not being as screwed up as it was. I mean "some confusion" caused the amount to skyrocket to 15m/50t and this harping on whether he was or was not a member by MK's gov? please. any other alliance in MK's position first off would have asked solely for 3m. then when NSO says you can have at the scammer, i would argue the vast majority of alliances would have attacked the scammer.

instead, we have MK who comes in with a blatantly high sum, you have to be utterly stupid to even think that sum is anywhere close to an acceptable amount. Then you continuously harp about how this member was a member of NSO and that NSO HAS to pay for the mistakes of their member and blah blah blah blah blah. When the member is offered up to you, you ignore this and continue to have to say that NSO HAS TO PAY FOR THE MISTAKE OF THEIR MEMBER!!!!11111

now we have Archon reduced to having to cry about how his little alliance made a booboo but because NSO hurt ya'lls wittle feelings so the deal stands regardless of how wrong it is.

who cares if NSO did not negotiate? who cares if the scammer was or was not a member? who cares if this PR battle was lost by MK? MK screwed up from the beginning. had they gone in like any other reasonable alliance and done what any other reasonable alliance would have done, this would not have occurred. To put the blame on NSO is again a failure on the part of MK. this whole mess is solely the fault of MK and your egos. get the $%&@ over yourself.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Mathias' timestamp='1289283466' post='2507417']
Hail our King and his glorious vision!
[/quote]

glorious vision? you mean basically towing the line accept ya'll finally admitting it is not a perfectly reasonable number, yet you will still force NSO to pay it.

tis nice to see Archon state that he is more than willing to admit to allowing members of MK's gov to knowingly commit extortion, but because the extortion already occurred, the other alliance still has to pay up or blow up.

awesome. Archon clearly has not fallen greatly. clearly the "Voice of Karma" is no more and instead is merely another petty bully willing to allow extortion instead of stand up for it anymore.

yes, such a glorious vision. Archon did a complete 180 from the time prior to Karma where he was the little guy. now that he is the big guy, he is acting like nothing more than a petty thug and bully. so basically Archon turned into the trash he once fought against.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1289318290' post='2508076']
glorious vision? you mean basically towing the line accept ya'll finally admitting it is not a perfectly reasonable number, yet you will still force NSO to pay it.

tis nice to see Archon state that he is more than willing to admit to allowing members of MK's gov to knowingly commit extortion, but because the extortion already occurred, the other alliance still has to pay up or blow up.

awesome. Archon clearly has not fallen greatly. clearly the "Voice of Karma" is no more and instead is merely another petty bully willing to allow extortion instead of stand up for it anymore.

yes, such a glorious vision. Archon did a complete 180 from the time prior to Karma where he was the little guy. now that he is the big guy, he is acting like nothing more than a petty thug and bully. so basically Archon turned into the trash he once fought against.
[/quote]

Extortion is the new Socialism.

Would you like some tea, sir?

Edited November 9, 2010 by tamerlane

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1289319288' post='2508101']
Extortion is the new Socialism.

Would you like some tea, sir?
[/quote]

darn you, now i want some orange tea and we ran out.

[Mathias]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1289318290' post='2508076']
glorious vision? you mean basically towing the line accept ya'll finally admitting it is not a perfectly reasonable number, yet you will still force NSO to pay it.

tis nice to see Archon state that he is more than willing to admit to allowing members of MK's gov to knowingly commit extortion, but because the extortion already occurred, the other alliance still has to pay up or blow up.

awesome. Archon clearly has not fallen greatly. clearly the "Voice of Karma" is no more and instead is merely another petty bully willing to allow extortion instead of stand up for it anymore.

yes, such a glorious vision. Archon did a complete 180 from the time prior to Karma where he was the little guy. now that he is the big guy, he is acting like nothing more than a petty thug and bully. so basically Archon turned into the trash he once fought against.
[/quote]

Doch, only you could take a statement clearly said in jest and !@#$%^&* about it for four paragraphs.

[mythicknight]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1289239308' post='2506269']
This is blatant extortion. MK knows that it's blatant extortion. And you know, if this had been done to some decent alliance, I would be disappointed in MK a lot right now. But it wasn't done to a decent alliance. It was done to NSO. NSO, this is the price you pay for your own attempts at extortion and various other diplomatic malfeasances over the time you have been alive. This is the price you pay for blowing smoke at someone with a lot of nukes and an itchy trigger finger. This is the price you pay for trying to play Machiavelli and showing no long-term loyalty whatsoever to your allies. It does eventually catch up with you.
[/quote]

Mirrors my views on the matter.

Have fun blowing up each other or something.

[Duncan King]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1289270749' post='2507041']
Seriously, if anyone had posted negotiations with NPO back in 2008 in an attempt to make them look bad, a whole bunch of alliance leaders would forbid anyone not in high government to post, and the thread certainly wouldn't reach 30 pages. Then NPO would roll them and impose a Viceroy. The fact that everyone here is unafraid to voice their opinions on this stuff is just an indication of how free these boards really are, and a reflection of the different world which Karma created. Thus, the comparisons between NPO and MK are just ludicrous.
[/quote]
NPO never would have demanded reps for a canceled trade.

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1289271371' post='2507063']
Maybe if you guys would have taken a second and done some research you would have found out that extorting an alliance for a trade circle gone bad is not only frowned upon but has never happened; tough I know.
[/quote]
This.

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1289271670' post='2507073']
On the flip side, not even NPO 2008 would have forced reps for a dropped trade. They would have probably just asked for 3 million.
[/quote]
Agreed.

[Tautology]

Why does this type of drama always involve NSO? They must be born victims, poor things.

[Krunk the Great]

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1289328829' post='2508319']
Why does this type of drama always involve NSO? They must be born victims, poor things.
[/quote]

Because other alliances feel the need to push it upon them instead of, oh I don't know, normal diplomatic channels.

[Griff]

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1289328829' post='2508319']
Why does this type of drama always involve NSO? They must be born victims, poor things.
[/quote]
That's funny, I don't recall ever seeing anyone else trying to extort money for a trade circle

[Arcades057]

[quote name='Duncan King' timestamp='1289325257' post='2508228']
NPO never would have demanded reps for a canceled trade.


[/quote]


I can personally vouch that this is the case. Nor would they have demanded reps at all after the member was booted from the alliance.

[Tautology]

[quote name='Griff' timestamp='1289337012' post='2508461']
That's funny, I don't recall ever seeing anyone else trying to extort money for a trade circle
[/quote]
Nice try.