WARNING: This may well be the longest post ever written for this web site!
I will now try to give a complete description of what you BiB have said regarding the question how the TA is bugged. This means I will also present some posts merely discussing whether it is an exploit but these two questions now and then gets mixed up so to be able to judge exactly what you have said, or may have said, I have included everything I believe may be of relevance.
THREAD 1
We start with the thread Endless Trade agreements, as I remember this was the first time we encountered each other on the TA topic.
In that thread you wrote:
“Which seems quite exploitative to me. Like u really needed another way to bash up on the ai even more.”
“I know people who can in their eyes justify perfectly editing the save to give themselves 100K ducats so I don't really expect anymore that cheaters are big enough to admit to their cheating. Some people can go reallty far in vindicating their actions. IF u fail to understand that there is sommink not right with what u do, then, well, ... So I just point it out now, the rest tends to be wasted breath, so I don't bother anymore and go straight to the scolding”
“Somehow it doesn't get thru that something can actually fail to work as planned and abusing that is just majorly taking advantage of the game and basically exploiting it. TAs don't work as they should, u can abuse them enormously, doing so is exploiting the game. No one said anything about a few strategical TA agreements. The issue is u can endless TAs with everyone that never get broken and those are bugged to work enormously in ur favour while the ai can't. This isn't just the "rule". It's taking advantage. IF u want to do that, then at least admit to it instead of trying to make up excuses.”
My comment: This post is especially interesting since here you yourself make a clear distinction between the exploit to mass TA (“The issue is u can endless TAs with everyone that never get broken”) and that there also exists a bug (“and those are bugged”).
But of course, as always you refrain from telling us what that may be. One conclusion you can make is that it hardly can be what you precisely described in the sentence before, i.e. the possibility to make massive TA, then you would have written “and this means they are bugged” instead of “and those are bugged”. This post in itself I believe is a proof that you make a mistake when you in the current thread suddenly claim that: oh, that is not the bug I have been thinking of, the bug I believe is relevant is the fact you can make TA with everyone.
THREAD 2
In another thread
Phantom trade agreements
we had the following conversation where you made a posting at the end
KwangTIger: Man, accepting mass-TA's and putting your mercs in perma-monopolies is kinda abusing the AI. I mean, it's stupid. The only people I ever had a TA with are the French, Portugese, and Ottmans.
Me: Why is it an abuse?
Why is it stupid?
Oleg: If you can´t figure that one out for yourself, I´m not going to tell you
Me: And I ain't going to tell you why it isn't
The difference in our approaches is only that I initially took a humble attitude asking you why you held your belief. I am probably as sure as you are, only I was interested in hearing why you didn't agree, however unprobable I might have missed something
On him that claims something exists lies the burden of proof!
And then your contribution BiB
"The thing is u will chose to ignore that anyway so why bother?"
THREAD 3
Then we have another thread
Best basic newbie strategy for trading?
BiB: “Obviously abusing TAs like that is a glaring exploit”
I responded: Does your post refer to the one just above (about first asking Portugal and then Spain) or to us recommending massive TA's.
Regardless of which: How about explaining how you come to the conclusion that it is a "glaring exploit", instead of just stating your view that it is.
BiB: I'm not gonna explain it over and over again just because u chose to ignore it every time.
To which I made a reply post that was deleted.
THREAD 4
Then we have this current thread were you have said
“The TA system is bugged.”
“It also works in ur favour and u can avoid it.”
“Everything u should need is in this thread already so I will just refer u to it, not to mention earlier threads I stated my case, quite well IMO. It wasn't that hard once u provided that definition, so thanx for that If u really want to think TAs aren't bugged, be my guest but I don't think many will agree, esp considering there are various outstanding bugs concerning them”
My comment: the statement “I stated my case, quite well IMO” is especially noteworthy.
“Inderdeed, the bug u reason on is another matter altogether ...”
My comment: this is the first hint we get that there may be something else on your mind. This post of yours was made in a very confusing environment. You made your post in response to Castellon who in turn responded to another poster who very reasonably responded to Castellon he didn’t understand what Castellon referred to by using the concept “second case”. However, this post does not say that massive TA is a bug. It may say that “what we are discussing is massive TA, not the fact you can send merchants although you have TA with everyone”. If that is the case it is not true since the thread started with the latter case and you and me are discussing whether mine definition of “exploit” fits the current TA situation with regard to the buginess of it and perhaps there were even more topics..
We continue with what you have written in this thread:
“On top of that TAs that can be obtained and retained in virtual every situation, no matter how silly, to the detriment of the ai not the player, ...”
“I already explained quite a bit about this in previous threads concerning this and u know I did. Still, I'll try again, this time focusing on the matters presented in this thread
"1. It is an exploit if you intentionally use a current bug which works in your favour and which you conveniently could avoid" - Daniel A
For starters, it is currently bugged. It isn't working as designed and it needs fixing. Now the fact u can't help telling about this great way to use TAs to great effect means it's quite working in ur favour, I would think. On top of that, it can easily be avoided by the player.
So, u do know it is bugged, u intentionally use the bug to ur favour and chose to not take advantage of the conveniency with which it can be avoided. According to ur own definition that makes it an exploit.”
“Everything u should need is in this thread already so I will just refer u to it, not to mention earlier threads I stated my case, quite well IMO. It wasn't that hard once u provided that definition, so thanx for that If u really want to think TAs aren't bugged, be my guest but I don't think many will agree, esp considering there are various outstanding bugs concerning them.”
“Inderdeed, the bug u reason on is another matter altogether ...”
And again.
If someone cares to reread. Please do that and try to count the number of cases where BiB really gives an in-depth explanation of why he believes something is an exploit (more than just: it doesn’t work as it was intended) or why it is bugged.
Then comes the BIG NEWS. You write
“Endless TAs are an exploit just like the manufactory holiday was. People found a way to abuse sommink in the game and make it work unlike it was supposed to, to their great advantage. Some people chose to actively abuse that bug to their advantage and thus were exploiting the game. I don't agree with ur historicity reasoning but the thing is that it shouldn't even enter this discussion. Endless TAs are sommink in the game that isn't working as designed and needs fixing (aka a bug), abusing it works to ur advantage (been dubbed superior tactics) and u can quite easily not do it. That makes doing it exploiting the game. Nothing more, nothing less. Then again, even after it got fixed there were still people who claimed the manufactory holiday wasn't an exploit ... ”
You suddenly state that what you intended all the way was that the massive TA initself was the bug you were referring to in this thread discussion between you and me!
Then you continue:
“Well, that's just wrong.
U keep arguing against a point that isn't mine but that u suppose to be mine. I know that's considerably easier but, well, it misses the point.
All I've been arguing is that the endless TAs tactic is an exploit. Well, thanx to the definition of what constitutes an exploit given by u that has been remarkably easy to accomplish.
Now, I can understand Owen could have misunderstood our discussion here as being about the first post in this thread (to be fair the thread was hijacked along the way), but u? We've had this discussion about whether endless TAs are an exploit or not dozens of times before and seeing u refer to old threads (actually called "Endless Trade Agreements") and points over and over again in this thread I figured it was fair to assume we were again. I wouldn't have posted in this thread if it were all about the initial post. I posted because it became the old endless TA debate again. Which has been my point all along and I thought urs too, well, untill this thread seemingly as ur on about sommink else entirely now.”
Well, for example, in the thread u linked to earlier "endless trade agreements" u explained how to put the endless Ta techique to use and I replied saying it was exploitative. And I have done so clearly in other posts again and again (btw why shouldn't I say that when that is the case?) Now, I can't help it u can't get my point from that. Others did quite easily. It is funny that up till now u somehow have not been able to get this. Still, it's not my fault u didn't understand it.
With regards to the rest of ur post, I already answered that in my previous post.
----------
NOW: THE CURRENT DEBATE
Your position in the specific debate between the two of us in this thread is that TA is bugged and because of this it becomes an exploit to use them, i.e. you can use the “formula” I presented early on in this thread to prove it is an exploit to use TA.
Well, the first thing you must prove is that a bug indeed exists. I have asked you which one. You have never until the BIG NEWS POST (BNP) post explained how you believe it is bugged.
Since you never told me I assumed, as every sane person would, that you believed it was bugged because of the very well known bug that does exist (that you send merchants although you have a TA with everyone).
Now it turns out that you claim it is something entirely different that constitutes the bug and you say you cannot understand how I could misunderstand you?
Well, now everyone will understand why I have inserted all this mass of text above. Read it! Point at that precise place, before the BNP, where you state that the TA system is bugged because you are able to make endless TA.
Point to it or take back what you just said about misunderstanding.
Helpful note: you have said that it is an exploit to use TA because you can make endless TA, but you did never claim it was a bug because of this, until the BNP.
IS MASSIVE TA AN EXPLOIT?
Then concerning the next question: is the fact that you may make massive TA a bug or not? I tried to demonstrate that it was indeed not a bug, merely something that perhaps needed attention and to be developed in the game. You answer: “With regards to the rest of ur post, I already answered that in my previous post.”
Well, you did not. You did not comment about the three different situations I tried to describe. You have not put forward anything that proves the actual situation belongs to either of these three cases and you say nothing about whether you agree or not upon my claim that it is not a bug in the third case (perhaps not even in the second).
For those of you who had the mental strength of reading all of this I say thank you. In this you will find a clear exposure of the technique used by BiB when discussing.
A FINAL WORD
It would greatly benefit the gross national product of Sweden, Flanders and England (Owen) if we did not have to spend a lot of time making these post but instead do some honest work.
The best way to achieve this is to try and be specific when you argue, and if you were not, then definitely be that when someone asks you to explain what you mean.
And finally to be honest enough and accept when you are defeated in a debate.
