For all that we're often in violent disagreement about a point or two, we're generally in violent agreement about the majority of the vote and the general goals for SIMP.
-
Going forward, links to content from Twitter (now X) will no longer be embedded. Pre-existing links should not be affected.
Meguca Micro Empire Quest (PMMM)
- Thread starter inverted_helix
- Start date
First of all, Nagoya does not have vassals in Tokyo, and we would not be stealing their vassals.
Again, I feel that explicit agreement is not useful yet. There is a timing question on when to broach this question, and the best time to broach it is after we have cleared Tokyo, and after we have (both) started to expand in Tokyo. That is the proper time to broach boundary discussions.
What does any of that have to do with the fact that Nagoya violently attacks people without even talking to them first? All you are doing here is making excuses for Nagoya, and trying to claim that there is some moral equivalency between us and Nagoya. Well there isn't, but that's really besides the point.
We don't have to be a perfect moral angel to have room to criticize Nagoya's violent actions.
See... this is the thing. We weren't. This is not what actually happened.
We were being entirely safe. Which Nagoya could have found out, if they had just talked to us before attacking.
That's a pretty legitimate compliant there, with what is obviously Nagoya standard procedure.
To use your analogy, it was more like Nagoya decided to violently attack a nuclear power plant and kidnap the engineers, because they were afraid it was a nuclear bomb.
Because they never bothered to actually... you know... talk to people.
That is not trust. You just redefined trust to be a meaningless word no different from enlightened self-interest.
Trust means that other party will keep their word even when it is no longer advantageous to them to do so. So if Nagoya is the ultimate pragmatist, then they cannot be trustworthy. As they will simply break agreements that no longer benefit them.
The implication you are presenting here is that we can only maintain peace through strength. Since we have to continue to make it in Nagoya's self-interest to co-operate with us. Which... is my position.
Basically we seem to agree on all the essentials, but you insist on lauding Nagoya with emptied out moral concepts so as to declare them our moral equals. Which is pretty much making excuses for the abuser, and blaming the victim.
"Oh we deserved to get punched in the face, because we did that completely unconnected bad thing a year ago."
"He's not really violent. He only hits me when he has a good reason."
Can we... just stop with the Hitler comparisons?
Also, you don't trust Nagoya to do any such thing. By your own definition you expect Nagoya to pursue their self interest and that includes expanding into Tokyo.
What you expect is that Nagoya will not resort to violence in order to take Tokyo from us.
Which the whole thread, with the exception of one person, was arguing for. So why this need to lash out at everyone (and Hitler comparisons are pretty much lashing out) I do not get.
What? No there isn't. This is just our corporation making a long term rental of a getaway house for our members regular use. That's normal. There is no need to mindwipe anybody.
You're just creating a new cost to the Getaway house that that the GM has not presented because you don't like the option and want us to do something else.
Actually, usually getaway houses are cleaned by the renters, with maid service in between renters. If they offer us a maid service, we can easily say we've made our own arrangements.
Also, if we had construction crews in the village, Serena and Co would have to evacuate the village all the time.
You are borrowing trouble that isn't there.
This is not true. Companies often rent large buildings for long periods of time. Maybe they don't want to deal with the maintenance, maybe they don't want to deal with the taxes, maybe they don't want to be committed to the property. This is normal behavior. My company does this.
No. It's like someone who prefers a place in the boonies that is as well built and equipped as a house in the city, rather than renting a worn down old farmhouse that requires major renovation, and still doesn't have all the quality of city houses.
It's the difference between this:
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/15183768.jpg
(First result for Akiya house images)
And this:
http://www.garrellassociates.com/si...3018-front-elevation-mountain-house-plans.jpg
The Luxury Mountain Getaway
Actually, nice as Mami is, Mami is a pragmatic idealist.
She tries talking first (which is more than Nagoya does), but if conflict is unavoidable, then she will obviously choose her own girls of the others.
Aranfan
Team Plasma Grunt
Nowhere near as bad as PMAS tho'.
Avalanche
Atypical Netizen
- Location
- Australia
Why would you snip the next and concluding line of my argument then feign confusion about my point? That Nagoya's rash actions can be justified is exactly my point.Now this is a 'bad wrong' loaded analogy if I've ever heard one, equivalating us to engineers and Nagoya to terrorists. Unremarkably, that is also not what happened. This is one group of nuclear engineers seeing another stack uranium towards prompt-critical and deciding, "Well, we better put a stop to that right quick.". This also happens to be occurring in a world where nuclear engineers steal each other's uranium and go after each other with dirty bombs if they get caught in the act.
Whew lad. You've really stretched my argument in strange directions there. I'll be succinct.
Diplomacy requires trust. Still true.
I trust Nagoya to act rational. Still true.
I argued anywhere for or against gaining more Puella Magi. False.
I am practicing victim blaming. Lol, more on this below.
False.
True.
True.
Considering how difficult I found it to follow this last post of yours, there is clearly some miscommunication going on. Let me take it from the top to be actually constructive here.
I had two initial premise and then a conclusion.
1: Nagoya are pragmatic and rational. They value stability and eliminate unstable factors.
2: SIMP is a stabilising influence.
Conclusion: Therefore, Nagoya will not attack SIMP, creating instability.
You then made a rebuttal, which I interpreted as two counter points.
1: Nagoya attacked without prior warning, therefore they cannot be trusted.
2: Nagoya will not hold to any agreements unless actively threatened into doing so.
I then made the third post with two points.
1: Nagoya attacked another group for good reason based on previous experience.
1.1: SIMP has previously attacked another group for good reason.
1.2: We expect people to trust SIMP based on practices and not singular actions.
1.3: We should extend the same trust to Nagoya.
2. Reiteration of my first post, expanded.
Then things get confusing for me in your last post. Best guesses;
1: Nagoya attacked without good reason.
2: Something, I really dunno.
3: A elaboration of how you understood my argument I think?
What points did I misunderstand here?
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Oh dear, and the arguments return.
I will say that my current perspective on this is the same as PowerOfMind, that we can trust Nagoya to a degree if only because we share the goal of not letting it descend into a hellscape again.
I also think that, just as we are confident that our morale advanages will let us win the peace, they believe that ther greater scale will allow them to do the same, especially since they aren't fully aware of our morale advantages (beyond, of course, the fanatical strength that we draw from our faith in the Holy Serena, Goddess of Twisted Hope
). Thus, I think that they will be very amenable to diplomacy, and by the time we no longer need each other one of us will be proven right and the other will be a vassal. Preferably them but if it is us, then the world isn't exactly over.
Also, on the attack thing, I would consider the better analogy to be a drone strike wounding civilians due to bad intel gathering. Certainly something to throw at their feet, and very much an indication of where their priorities lie, but not an indicator of the complete amorality of their nation (though still quite a lot of amorality). The nuclear power plan analogy kinda falls apart when you consider that Nagoya did not know that such "nuclear power plants"(crop rotation) were possible, and knew of radioactivity only from firsthand experience with having their city nuked.
I will say that my current perspective on this is the same as PowerOfMind, that we can trust Nagoya to a degree if only because we share the goal of not letting it descend into a hellscape again.
I also think that, just as we are confident that our morale advanages will let us win the peace, they believe that ther greater scale will allow them to do the same, especially since they aren't fully aware of our morale advantages (beyond, of course, the fanatical strength that we draw from our faith in the Holy Serena, Goddess of Twisted Hope
). Thus, I think that they will be very amenable to diplomacy, and by the time we no longer need each other one of us will be proven right and the other will be a vassal. Preferably them but if it is us, then the world isn't exactly over.Also, on the attack thing, I would consider the better analogy to be a drone strike wounding civilians due to bad intel gathering. Certainly something to throw at their feet, and very much an indication of where their priorities lie, but not an indicator of the complete amorality of their nation (though still quite a lot of amorality). The nuclear power plan analogy kinda falls apart when you consider that Nagoya did not know that such "nuclear power plants"(crop rotation) were possible, and knew of radioactivity only from firsthand experience with having their city nuked.
Last edited:
Except I didn't. I specifically quoted your concluding line and pointed out that it is objectively false. I merely broke it into it's own quote so I could emphasize how wrong it is.
Expect this still ignores the key aspect here: Nagoya did not talk to us. They choose violence over diplomacy.
This is fact. And you ignore as unimportant.
You continually twist your analogy into a way so that you can ignore the fact that the whole conflict could have been avoided if the Nagoya group had just asked us what we were doing instead of attacking us.
No. Diplomacy requires self-interest and rationality. Which you are then calling trust, when that is the wrong word. My objection is that you are using the loaded word "trust" to apply some kind of morality to Nagoya. That is what I am objecting to.
I also expect Nagoya to be rational, which is why I said we agree.
Apparently you think it's impossible to exercise diplomacy with Nagoya without also accepting them as good and moral. I am arguing that is irrelevant.
At no point did I accuse you of arguing against gaining more Puella Magi. Where are you even getting this?
I'm accusing you of victim blaming and moral equivalency that is false in nature, and asking you to knock it off because it's irritating and because it's misleading to say we can trust Nagoya, when we clearly can't. You can't trust the ultimate pragmatist, because if it becomes pragmatic to betray us then they will. Thus we must base our relationship with Nagoya not on trust but on maintaining sufficient power to avoid it ever being pragmatic for them to betray us.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Yes.... and I said I agreed with all that.
No. My arguments are:
1: Nagoya attacked without prior warning, therefore they do not use diplomacy before resorting to violence.
2: We must be cautious in our relationship with Nagoya not to give them sufficient incentives that make violence attractive, because we will receive no warning before being attacked.
1: Nagoya values pragmatism far above other moral values, thus they cannot be trusted.
2: Nagoya will not hold to any agreements unless it is in their best interest to continue into doing so.
3: Us maintaining a sufficient size to make violence against their best interest is essential
This is where we disagree. I would put it this way:
1: Nagoya attacked us without provocation based on their previous experience with others instead of the facts.
1.1: SIMP has previously attacked another group for good reason, because they attacked us without provocation.
1.2: We expect people to trust SIMP not to attack people without provocation.
1.3: We should not extend the same trust to Nagoya, because they don't deserve it, because we know that they attack people without provocation.
Nagoya makes their decisions on violence based on what is pragmatic, not based on notions of provocation or codes of conduct.
Everything, since apparently you can't understand that I favor diplomatic relations with Nagoya. In fact, I was the one that persuaded people to enter into trade relations with Nagoya right after they attacked us. Because it was the rational thing to do.
I just don't trust them. And I don't like them.
Why you think those are mutually exclusive positions I do not understand.
Last edited:
Anyway...
My thoughts on Nagoya are that we should still trade the cubes for money, but that we should also trade them our Duration Research and our Tandem Casting research.
This is unfortunate, because it means we will not be able to maintain the combat edge that Tandem Casting gives us, nor will we be able to make tandem charms an item we can exclusively make.
However, we will not be able to conceal tandem casting with what we are doing in Tokyo, thus it behooves us to trade it now, and gain additional wealth and more favorable view prior to it being exposed anyway.
Hopefully we will discover new research that allows us to do interesting tech things.
We should express our vague plan to begin clearing out Tokyo next month, which is why we are making all these purchases (Kevlar, etc). I don't think we should completely explain everything about Serena, just that there are side effects (like being drunk?) that Nagoya does not have training to handle. Thus we unfortunately cannot include them in our main attack. (Leave out the fact that we aren't trained either.)
We ask for their help in preventing demons from escaping Tokyo. Particularly on the west side.
We ask for more information on the eyeball. As well as suggestions on how to kill it or lure it into an ambush. Mention that this is our first priority, and that once we kill the eyeball we expect the rest of Tokyo will be relatively easy for us to clean up.
See if our offer to trade them Tandem Casting can convince them to let us have some of their combat tech - "to make the fight in Tokyo easier."
My thoughts on Nagoya are that we should still trade the cubes for money, but that we should also trade them our Duration Research and our Tandem Casting research.
This is unfortunate, because it means we will not be able to maintain the combat edge that Tandem Casting gives us, nor will we be able to make tandem charms an item we can exclusively make.
However, we will not be able to conceal tandem casting with what we are doing in Tokyo, thus it behooves us to trade it now, and gain additional wealth and more favorable view prior to it being exposed anyway.
Hopefully we will discover new research that allows us to do interesting tech things.
We should express our vague plan to begin clearing out Tokyo next month, which is why we are making all these purchases (Kevlar, etc). I don't think we should completely explain everything about Serena, just that there are side effects (like being drunk?) that Nagoya does not have training to handle. Thus we unfortunately cannot include them in our main attack. (Leave out the fact that we aren't trained either.)
We ask for their help in preventing demons from escaping Tokyo. Particularly on the west side.
We ask for more information on the eyeball. As well as suggestions on how to kill it or lure it into an ambush. Mention that this is our first priority, and that once we kill the eyeball we expect the rest of Tokyo will be relatively easy for us to clean up.
See if our offer to trade them Tandem Casting can convince them to let us have some of their combat tech - "to make the fight in Tokyo easier."
I disagree with your definition of 'trust'. For example, "keeping their word" means "adhering to the agreement". If it's no longer advantageous for them to do so, then the expectation is that they will try to renegotiate the agreement, or, if that's not feasible, to break the agreement. That is completely within the bounds of trust, but you're saying such an action means that trust is not possible.
If I were to try to define trust in the diplomatic sense, I would say that it means that you believe the other party is arguing in good faith — that the demands and agreements are largely legitimate (though potentially exaggerated), and are not explicitly and deliberately to cause harm to you, or to cover up intent to cause you harm.
There's also a secondary aspect, that you believe the other party will act consistently over time, and not change on random whimsy.
"Enlightened self-interest" does not describe either of the above scenarios. Both intent to cause harm, and random changes in behavior can be acts of enlightened self-interest, but don't have to be. They could be purely acts of revenge, or the leader could be bug-nuts crazy. In neither case would you describe them as something you'd trust, regardless of the reasons behind them.
On the other hand, enlightened self-interest can lead to agreements that one side absolutely does not want, but cannot refuse. For example, Germany annexing Czechoslovakia before WW2. Calling that diplomacy is a bit of a whitewash, though. It's only diplomacy in the sense that guns were not pulled out.
Overall, enlightened self-interest is what you appeal to as a negotiating tactic, but is not in and of itself a necessity for diplomacy to occur. You can appeal to egos, or faith, or fear, or various other tactics. Trust, however, is something necessary in order for a voluntary agreement to take place. Involuntary agreement does not require trust (though even then, trust is somewhat of a factor, though probably more using a different definition of the word), but instead uses leverage (eg: blackmail), intimidation, or force.
'Begging' is a misrepresentation of my proposition. It's negotiating for funding, not begging. Begging implies we have no options if it fails; negotiations still allow for trade even if a direct grant request (in exchange for the value of our actions) fails.
Last edited:
Aranfan
Team Plasma Grunt
Maybe so. But asking for a grant puts you in an inferior position status-wise, which will definitely hurt our diplomatic position.
Nolrai
weak to fangs
- Location
- Porltand
Isn't that what he is talking about?
Nolrai
weak to fangs
- Location
- Porltand
Not nessarily, organizations ask for help from colleagues all the time.
Also. .we are lower status, by being smaller and newer. While pretending to status you don't have is common in American business I am not sure it will come off as well here.
I think my definition is more traditional one. As if you break an agreement because it is no longer advantageous to you, that's called "breaking trust."
Which implies that such actions are indeed, a signal of untrustworthiness.
But this is mainly semantics. As long as it is understood that we only count of Nagoya as far as their self interest aligns with us, and that we an negotiate based on that prediction, then I suppose the words we use to describe that are not essential to agree on.
Though I do think referring to it as "trusting" Nagoya is a bit imprecise.
No, we are not lower status. We are actually older than Nagoya. We are smaller, but we have other advantages.
Also, we are talking about the way our actions will change our status. Not what status we are now. Asking for subsidy lowers our status. While handling the problem without asking for direct subsidy will raise our status.
Since we can do the latter, I say let's do it and raise our status.
Nolrai
weak to fangs
- Location
- Porltand
Wait. .why world we ask for help we don't need? That's ..I mean agreeing to trades we don't need can be useful for normalizing relations, but asking for a grant we don't need is very iffy. It basicly means we are either their client, or their boss. And neither position is one we want.
Well... it's @Kinematics idea, so you'll have to ask him what he was thinking.
My impression was that he thought this would eliminate any constraints on our finances (which are rather tight even with the trade), and that the crisis allowed for a more... soft relationship of cooperation without quid pro quo. (Hopefully Kinematics will come and correct my understanding if I didn't get what he was thinking).
I think that is an over optimistic assessment, but not impossible. I just don't see the benefits as out weighing the risks.
Actually, they did ask us what we were doing — but only once they were in a position to use the soul gem interrogation in order to be sure that we couldn't lie to them.
Basically, if they came over and asked, "What the hell are you doing?", and we told them, "Oh, don't worry, it's fine. We've got it under control.", do you think they would feel they could trust that? With absolutely no history with us, they could not possibly trust that we'd give them truthful answers (particularly given what they've learned of the groups in Tokyo), so no matter what answer we gave, they'd still have to consider the option of attack in order to shut things down.
It's like... oh, Iraq's nuclear program. Even if Iraq said they weren't building nukes, the paranoid administration wasn't going to believe them until they could go in and look for themselves. And if Iraq wasn't going to allow that inspection, they'd be invaded to "make sure". (Ignore all the other political complexities of the situation; this is just a simplified analogy.)
So basically, Nagoya cut through all the bits that they weren't going to trust anyway and just got the answers directly.
If you want to continue to compare it to Iwata, we never negotiated for the release of Kaori; Taura got her location directly from the kidnappers' minds, and we just went and took care of it.
So I'd say Nagoya's actions in Iwata were very analogous to our own actions in Iwata.
Your assertion that Nagoya 'should' have talked to us is only valid from our own perspective. They knew exactly one thing about us: That we were overhunting territory to dangerous levels. Their history does not allow for any degree of active trust of the unknown. A dozen groups fought and squabbled in their city to the point of causing a class 3 problem, and they were one of the handful of survivors after probably hundreds of deaths.
It is absolutely no surprise that they adopt a policy of putting a stop to any hint of it resurfacing as fast as reasonably possible. Taking a month off to chat with the neighbors when you can't necessarily trust them to tell the truth is just waiting for a class 3 to pop up right on the border of one of their vassals — the ones they've promised to protect.
From their perspective, you: 1) ensure things are safe; 2) get the truth; 3) then start talking. Quite similar to how we handled the kidnapping event, actually, except Nagoya didn't kick us out of our territory, as we hadn't actually done anything wrong. If we'd actually managed to get diplomatic contact with areas 13 and 14 a little sooner, I suspect there wouldn't have been any problems at all.
Overall conclusion: Nagoya are definitely hardliners, but they're also someone we can trust, now that we've gotten past the rocky start. And by trust, I mean I believe that, regardless of their own attempts to benefit their self-interests, or hinder what we consider our self-interests (eg: the natural competition over who gets what in Tokyo), they will not actively work to harm us.
It is not complete trust, as I would not be surprised at attempts to undermine us somewhat, such as in trying to convince people to join their side instead of ours (such is the nature of competition), but I do not believe it would be done maliciously.
Now, more specific points:
Note: renumbered the last three, to avoid confusion over the numbers.
1 - The conclusion is overly broad. The only thing we can strictly conclude is that Nagoya does not use diplomacy with an unknown entity during a high risk/active threat situation, but instead uses violence to gather what they believe is more reliable information than a diplomatic reply. We do not know how they would react to a known entity in the same situation. Presumably they will not resort to violence without a pending threat, but that's also unknown. And the unreliability of information is predicated on the fact that it's an unknown entity; whether they would resort to violence first with a known entity, known to be unreliable, is unknown, but likely.
2 - True, but implies an overly broad interpretation of "sufficient incentives". Basically, we don't know the entirety of what such incentives might be, so you phrased it in such a way as to invoke fear over what 'might' trigger them. The only actual known value, however, is activity that threatens to create class 3 demons. Anything beyond that is speculative, and potential fearmongering.
3 - Conclusion does not hold, based on my prior definition of 'trust'. Will review your counterargument about that later.
4 - Conclusion implies a binary nature of "best interests", which is not necessarily true. There is no reason to break an agreement which is neither harmful nor helpful, and any group should be expected to resist continued holding to an agreement which is actively harmful to their best interests. None of those imply that an agreement will necessarily be broken; neither do they imply that a new agreement can't be reached which all parties consider 'better'. Thus the assertion that they will not hold to agreements (ie: they will break, abandon, or fail to adhere to such agreements, without attempting to change them) is not a valid conclusion.
5 - Only holds based on the prior faulty premises. Since the premises are faulty, the validity of the conclusion is 'unknown' (ie: it might be a valid statement, but it's not a valid conclusion).
"Without provocation" is a misrepresentation of Nagoya's action and perspective. From their view, there was provocation. With that, there is no difference in the assertions regarding Nagoya and SIMP.
Last edited:
If we do not go with the grant approach, I'll probably agree.
If we do use the grant approach, we'd ruffle less feathers in the aftermath (where we're likely to share all this tech with lots of people in Tokyo for little to nothing) by including terms for relatively easy sharing of research, as that would make the sharing with Tokyo groups much more reasonable, while also gaining us more ready access to Nagoya's research without excessive personal costs.
Agreed on all points.
Would hold back on agreeing to this until we see what sort of combat tech they have (ie: the rest of the Kyouko narrative).
Look, I don't want to get into this, because we aren't going to agree. I'll just say that I strongly disagree with your assessment of the relative morality of us dealing with Itawa and Nagoya.
And I do believe that you are all engaged in rationalizing the actions of the attacker, and blaming the victim.
In Itawa, we were the victim. Naru was the aggressor. The relative power levels are irrelevant.
With Nagoya, again we were the victim, and they were the aggressor.
And if they had talked to us, we could have easily proven to them that they could trust us, since we'd just show that that the DS in our territory decreases back to 0 DS every month. That's not a secret, and it would have prevented the whole conflict. If they can see the DS fluctuates between 10 DS and 0 DS, then they would know there was nothing to fight about.
My point is that Nagoya didn't consider talking an option. That is a legitimate complaint about their actions.
And I do believe that you are all engaged in rationalizing the actions of the attacker, and blaming the victim.
In Itawa, we were the victim. Naru was the aggressor. The relative power levels are irrelevant.
With Nagoya, again we were the victim, and they were the aggressor.
And if they had talked to us, we could have easily proven to them that they could trust us, since we'd just show that that the DS in our territory decreases back to 0 DS every month. That's not a secret, and it would have prevented the whole conflict. If they can see the DS fluctuates between 10 DS and 0 DS, then they would know there was nothing to fight about.
My point is that Nagoya didn't consider talking an option. That is a legitimate complaint about their actions.
Could you elaborate on this, as I don't really follow how the grant approach would result in this outcome.
I think you might be slightly misreading his implications. We need help either way; the only question is whether we ask for the grant based on the future value of our actions, or if we do direct trade based on present assets.
I am absolutely not arguing morality in this particular debate. I'm only dealing with logic and perspective. Your arguments are logically flawed, and perspective-biased, thus your conclusions don't hold the weight you want them to.
True.
Negotiation over the grant is a political thing, and trades on reputation, expectations, and general favor, rather than hard goods and assets. It's a trade for concrete value now based on expected value later.
The primary 'later' value we are offering is a cleaned up Tokyo, but that doesn't have to be the only such value. In the event that they give us a lot of money, there would be the implication of future favors, or negotiation preference. And, in the case of research, a favorable distribution of research materials.
We can leverage that to go both ways, such that both sides can become less guarded about the research they trade, and pass it around for minimal cost. That may reduce the value of the current grant, but it's something we can only negotiate when going the grant route; it wouldn't be a reasonable item to bring up in the asset trade, particularly where part of that trade is explicitly trying to sell them research.
Now, once that's in place, it drastically reduces the cliff between us sharing research with Tokyo groups freely, vs having squeezed as much money as we could out of Nagoya for exactly the same tech. If they pay us a tidy sum for the tech, and then we go giving it away for free to everyone else, they would be a mite displeased, I would guess. It would certainly sour relations, and make further trades far less likely and profitable.
However if we go the grant route, we're significantly reducing the implied price we're charging them for research, because we're explicitly telling them we want it to be more freely sharable. That means that when we start sharing with Tokyo, it's not that big a discrepancy, and doesn't ruffle as many feathers on Nagoya's side, letting us keep our relations with them in fairly high order.
Basically, it's another "future value for present value" trade, though in the other direction. We're trading (potentially) lower grant value today for better relations with them in the future, because we feel that sharing that research with Tokyo has even more value, and it will have greater value still if we don't develop antagonistic relations with their side (who will also be controlling a large segment of Tokyo, based on how things currently look to play out).
While I'm trying not to weigh in too much in these debates, it's interesting to me how much you guys are interested in disseminating research rather than holding it close as state/trade secrets. Spreading information out significantly reduces how much you could profit from it compared to if you kept it secret. I mean you've thought before about how your compositions make your research environment better than for other groups, but if you give that away you're giving away your advantage.
Also something I'd like to point out in regards to the past research trade. Them paying you for the rotating tactics research was pretty much intended as an olive branch which people didn't seem to realize. You've been spreading around that tech to everyone you meet for free. They would have been able to get it for free once they started investigating about you during the negotiations. They paid you for it because they made a mistake. It was an underhanded reparations payment that wouldn't be a loss of face compared to just paying reparations right out.
From their perspective the way you offered a trade was a gesture as well, to allow them to normalize relations.
Also something I'd like to point out in regards to the past research trade. Them paying you for the rotating tactics research was pretty much intended as an olive branch which people didn't seem to realize. You've been spreading around that tech to everyone you meet for free. They would have been able to get it for free once they started investigating about you during the negotiations. They paid you for it because they made a mistake. It was an underhanded reparations payment that wouldn't be a loss of face compared to just paying reparations right out.
From their perspective the way you offered a trade was a gesture as well, to allow them to normalize relations.
Last edited:
Nolrai
weak to fangs
- Location
- Porltand
I am not sure you are arguing what you think you are. I mean I am honestly confused over what this argument is about.
I mean if we set aside morality..I can't figure out what makes these comparisons between our actions and N.'s actions relevant.
To be clear I think I might agree with you, I feel like there is something Heartman is saying that you object to, that I haven't noticed/understood. Not the your objection, I think I must have missed a whole topic.