Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:11:10 -0500

From:	"Fisher, Victor" <Victor-Fisher@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:41:20 -0400

From:	woneal@*******.NET
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:35:17 -0005

From:	"Fisher, Victor" <Victor-Fisher@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:11:51 -0400

Message no. 4 I have to echo someone's earlier comments about the 'Soldier of
Fortune's' Code, and that type of character. First thing I thought of
was Ed Harris's character in the Rock, like someone else also mentioned.
I've (unfortunately) rarely seen this type of professional played in a
game. And have no problem with it. Everyone shouldn't be in it to save
the world, or a 'for money only mercenary'. It takes all kinds. Also
like everyone else seems to be saying, you should just make that
character interesting and 3 dimensional, not a madern day Conan ripoff
(and even Conan had limits to what he would do, though I can't think of
any off hand :-).
When it comes to moral codes, what's baggage for some is bouys
others. All a matter of personal preference. I prefer to play characters
who answer violence with a corresponding level of violence. I rarely
escalate unless it seems necessary (exceptions to this are when twelve
guys pulls smgs on you, and I just pack a pistol in both hands and leap
in guns blazing!). If I can disarm someone, and get them out of my way
without killing them, I will. If I can't, and they're a danger to my
friends or charges, I do what I have to to protect the later. Killing
someone's the easiest and quickest way to deal with a problem. It's a
little more challenging (from a players POV) to figure out an
alternative.

"Killing never solves anything, but it keeps people out of your hair
while you decide what to do."
--Steven Brust, Jhereg

From:	TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 1997 15:56:58 -0500

Message no. 5 At 07:35 AM 6/26/97 -0005, Ashlocke wrote:
>On 26 Jun 97 at 0:11, TopCat wrote:
>> All runners are criminals whether they admit/like it or not. They go
>> against the law in everything they do and stand for. Sometimes it is
>> moral to do so, often it isn't (one man's evil is another man's good).
>> But there's another question in that statement, what's "moral"? Ask
ten
>> people, get ten different answers. *shrug*

>Are they criminals? Let me muddy the water a bit here. Corps have
>extraterritorality in SR, effectively making them governments. So Corp A
>hires Team B to pull some covert ops against Corp C, whom Corp A is at war
>with. The "crime" takes place on Corp C property, within their
"borders".
> So is it a crime, or an act of war? Are the runners criminals or
>soldiers for hire? Oh, and btw (and just to make this fun), Lone Star
>won't arrest you for something done on Corp C's property unless they have
>a contract with Corp C. Interesting neh?

Still criminals, they just committed crimes on someone else's property. Now
comes the part where I explain that even if you get off of Corp C's
territory, you're far from safe...

If you've got goodies from C or have even caused a significant degree of
harm to their happiness, you're in for a world of hurt. Not from Lone Star,
they're nothing to worry about (yet). What I'm talking about are the runner
teams and corp teams that are prepared to make your life a living hell.
Even in today's world, telltale clues are left all over a crime scene. With
the degree of forensic resources any megacorp will have (magical and
technological), a runner's identity isn't too hard to find out.

So now what? Maybe the corp has ID on one or two runners (sec cameras the
size of pencils, drones, and all those other goodies that runners can't
stand are in use by the megas so finding some bit of useful information
can't be too hard). What happens then? Then Corp C hires some
runners/mercenaries, one team to pay a visit to Corp A to play around with
them, the other team to wipe Team B from the face of the earth.

Now why would a corp do that? I mean, they only lost maybe a few million or
billion in research which'll translate into a serious loss in market share
(reason #1), some key personnel (reason #2), some stockholder happiness
(reason #3), and some on-site resources (reason #4) and now they've got to
replace all of that. Then there's my favorite reason (#5, of course): terror.

What runner would really want to run on a corp that has trespassers found
and killed afterward? The newbie ego-tripping runner with something to
prove and a need for nuyen. The type of runner that dies real easy-like.
Smart runners won't go near that corp.

It also makes it more expensive to hire runners to go against said corp
("You want me to run against them? Double the price and I'll think on it").
If it costs your market opposition more money to work against you, they'll
have think twice before ordering runs.

Your employees and stockholders are happier in the end because you've given
them proven security (after all, you don't get run on anymore). Which
translates into LOTS more money and productivity for the corp. Would you
want to work for or buy stock in a corp that lost billions of nuyen and the
lives of hundreds of personnel yearly from runs against them and seemed
powerless to stop it?

Basically, you wipe that team off the face of the earth and then watch while
the repercussions hit the shadow-community. "Yep, another team got through
on Corp C, but they were all dead a week later. That's 4 teams in the past
two months." "You coundn't pay me enough to try to crack that corp, they
come after you just on the principle of the thing." "Let's go get that evil
nasty corp! There's no payoff, but it's a moral cause! Who's with me?
*sound of crickets chirping*."

There's always more subtle methods like slowly removing their contacts.
Would you associate with runners who's contacts kept disappearing? If they
decide to get revenge then they're working for free and it becomes a battle
of resources between Corp C and Team B. That'll be quick and the press'll
be merciless on the newborn terrorists. Everyone will hate them.
"Terrorist bomb kills 180 at Shiawase..." hits the headlines and all the
runners ever really do is kill of those who have nothing to do with the
Corp's runner-killing policy. Not very moral for all of you
moral-runner-types. Remember, the runners made that particular career
choice and it's a dangerous one indeed.

And as for the Lone Star bit, nothing stops Corp C from putting out a bounty
on said runner's heads, making their faces public (ouch), and/or directly
contracting Knight Errant or Lone Star to bring in the criminals. Think of
how the media operates now, then imagine what it'll be like in 2057. These
runners would be absolutely plastered everywhere and nobody would want to be
near them. Sooner or later they get caught and a very public trial (run by
Corp C) sentences them to life in prison because they're a compassionate
corp and they don't want them dead despite the severity of their crimes.
Everyone likes Corp C and the runners get to sit in jail for the rest of
their natural lives.
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

From:	"Arno R. Lehmann" <arlehma@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:22:08 +0200

Message no. 6 On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:11:10 -0500, TopCat wrote:

>All runners are criminals whether they admit/like it or not. They go
>against the law in everything they do and stand for.

Perhaps all _your_ runners are, perhaps even all the runners people on
this list know are, but I'm sure that this is not necessarily so. I
assume there can be found enough reasons to do something that is not
illegal, and not even requires illegal actions to achive.
An example: rescueing someone who was kidnapped. People might find a
way doing this without braeking laws.
And then there is the fact that corps have their own laws, so it might
happen that doing something on a corp's territory isn't against the
law that would be criminal in the city or vice versa.
Again an example: A decker was hired by a corp to get some information
about something. He sits in one of the corp's offices with his deck
and sneaks in some other corp's matrix. I think that would not be
illegal, since the decker, who actually intrudes and thereby
possibly breaks the other corp's laws, stays with his body and mind
in the territory of the first corp, where the thing he does would be
(in my example) legal.
So I think it is a liitle too generalized saying all runners were
criminals.

<snip things about moral>

>They're all criminals ;)

no, they ain't ;)

>I love this thread... it took up a HUGE chunk of the Manifesto or at least I
>think it did... ohboyohboyohboy...

Will I now get to read that much feared manifesto?

--
Arno
*********************************************************************
Be careful when replying to this mail - check the address !!!
(And send me a note when you notice that
the reply-to-address points to the list!)
*********************************************************************

From:	Michael Broadwater <mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:21:11 -0500

Message no. 7 At 07:35 AM 6/26/97 -0005, woneal@*******.NET wrote:
>On 26 Jun 97 at 0:11, TopCat wrote:
>
>> All runners are criminals whether they admit/like it or not. They go
>> against the law in everything they do and stand for. Sometimes it is
>> moral to do so, often it isn't (one man's evil is another man's good).
>> But there's another question in that statement, what's "moral"? Ask
ten
>> people, get ten different answers. *shrug*
>>
>> They're all criminals ;)
>>
>> I love this thread... it took up a HUGE chunk of the Manifesto or at
>> least I think it did... ohboyohboyohboy...
>
> Are they criminals? Let me muddy the water a bit here. Corps have
>extraterritorality in SR,

Actually, you aren't being entirely accurate. Corps who can claim to be
multi-international, have a defined area and exist in a country that allows
extraterritorality (like the UCAS and CAS do, but Aztlan does not) can be
governments to themselves. But not _all_ countries allow extraterritorality.

> effectively making them governments. So Corp A
>hires Team B to pull some covert ops against Corp C, whom Corp A is at war
>with. The "crime" takes place on Corp C property, within their
"borders".
> So is it a crime, or an act of war? Are the runners criminals or
>soldiers for hire? Oh, and btw (and just to make this fun), Lone Star
>won't arrest you for something done on Corp C's property unless they have
>a contract with Corp C. Interesting neh?

And wrong. Lone Star might not arrest the runners for what they did on
corp property, but do you think they stopped shooting and dropped their
guns once they left corp ground? That's breaking UCAS law (and as we seem
to be sticking to just the UCAS and Seattle specifically) the Corp security
can follow the runners in hot pursuit, and Lone Star isn't going to stop
them. Most likely help them. Especially since the Corp can pay more.

Mike Broadwater
http://www.bcl.net/~rasputin
"An object at rest cannot be stopped."
- The Mad Midnight Bomber that Bombs at Midnight.

From:	Michael Broadwater <mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:26:20 -0500

Message no. 8 At 10:22 PM 6/26/97 +0200, Arno R. Lehmann wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:11:10 -0500, TopCat wrote:
>
>>All runners are criminals whether they admit/like it or not. They go
>>against the law in everything they do and stand for.
>

>Again an example: A decker was hired by a corp to get some information
>about something. He sits in one of the corp's offices with his deck
>and sneaks in some other corp's matrix. I think that would not be
>illegal, since the decker, who actually intrudes and thereby
>possibly breaks the other corp's laws, stays with his body and mind
>in the territory of the first corp, where the thing he does would be
>(in my example) legal.

Except he commits a crime in another corps system (illegal) and uses UCAS
phone lines to use it (also illegal). He isn't doing anything legal
because breaking into the matrix of a competitor is legal where he is. The
act is illegal in the jurisdiction it was commited, therefore, it's a
crime, therefore, the person is a criminal. QED.

>So I think it is a liitle too generalized saying all runners were
>criminals.

Um, no, it's not. Your only example was of a criminal. Try again.

Mike Broadwater
http://www.bcl.net/~rasputin
"An object at rest cannot be stopped."
- The Mad Midnight Bomber that Bombs at Midnight.

From:	Joshua T Brown <spamquat@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:24:52 -0500

Message no. 9 On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:22:08 +0200 "Arno R. Lehmann" <arlehma@***.net>
writes:
>On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:11:10 -0500, TopCat wrote:
>
>>All runners are criminals whether they admit/like it or not. They go
>>against the law in everything they do and stand for.

I tend to agree with TC... so I'll throw some more examples into this can
'o worms...

>So I think it is a liitle too generalized saying all runners were
>criminals.
>
I don't know....
Let's start with the definition of "Shadowrun" Black Book, page 12.
Shadowrun n. Any movement, action, or series of such made in carrying out
plans which are illegal or quasilegal.
-- WorldWide WordWatch 2050 update

The main loophole for saying "My guy's not a criminal" is the word
"quasilegal."
Ok, Let's make the logic leap that is required to believe that any
Shadowrunner sticks to "quasilegal" and the further leap that even by
doing so he does not violate social boundaries of what is "criminal."

I can turn major sections of my brain off in order to believe that, in
the interest of "playing along" . <smirk>Let's proceed.

The Major Archetypes.

The Mage - Is he registered with law enforcement agencies? If not, he's a
criminal. Does he have permits for his magical equipment?

The Decker - By definition, a decker is a criminal. If he possesses a
cyberdeck with a masking chip, he is breaking the law, unless he is
working exclusively for corporate security.

The Street Sam - One word. Cyberware. Most of the useful cyberware your
average muscle archetype possesses is heavily restricted, illegal unless
used with proper permits, and only then within the bounds of the law.

If the average SR character exists, SINless, therefore not a taxpayer,
and once again, breaking the law. Most of the non-standard character
archetypes do not perform the aforementioned illegal or quasilegal
activities, and are therefore, not really a "shadowrunner". It would be
difficult to find a character who fits all of the above qualities, all of
which earmark him as a criminal.

>>They're all criminals ;)
>
>no, they ain't ;)

Maybe not, just 99.9% of them. <smirk>

Just My Two Pence.
==============================================================
The Kumquat -- Josh Brown -- Kumquat@*****.com -- Spamquat@****.com --
Shadowrun Page Still Under Development -- Coming Soon!
"Support Whirled Peas" -- <smirk> -- "Whatever, Man" --
"Woo Hoo!" --
....Don't hate me Because I'm... ahh, screw it, hate me. <smirk>

From:	"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:53:44 +0100

Message no. 10 In message <199706262056.PAA07412@*******.fgi.net>, TopCat
<topcat@***.NET> writes
>Still criminals, they just committed crimes on someone else's property. Now
>comes the part where I explain that even if you get off of Corp C's
>territory, you're far from safe...

<snip>
>
>So now what? Maybe the corp has ID on one or two runners (sec cameras the
>size of pencils, drones, and all those other goodies that runners can't
>stand are in use by the megas so finding some bit of useful information
>can't be too hard). What happens then? Then Corp C hires some
>runners/mercenaries, one team to pay a visit to Corp A to play around with
>them, the other team to wipe Team B from the face of the earth.

So... what if, rather than take the foolish risks of raiding a
corporation, you merely specialise in hunting down those dumb enough to
do so?

By this argument, the corps are downright happy with you: Lone Star
don't mind too much (else the corporations would be more circumspect)
and that particular runner group is in clover.

"No, Mr GM, we ain't going into that facility, we turn down the job.
Then stake the place out and attack the idiots that _were_ hired to hit
it".

>Now why would a corp do that? I mean, they only lost maybe a few million or
>billion in research which'll translate into a serious loss in market share
>(reason #1), some key personnel (reason #2), some stockholder happiness
>(reason #3), and some on-site resources (reason #4) and now they've got to
>replace all of that. Then there's my favorite reason (#5, of course): terror.
>
>What runner would really want to run on a corp that has trespassers found
>and killed afterward? The newbie ego-tripping runner with something to
>prove and a need for nuyen. The type of runner that dies real easy-like.
>Smart runners won't go near that corp.

Right. So either you role-play idiots or you don't play Shadowrun :) Or
else there are other factors at play.

I mean, by this calculus, why would any rational person accept a mission
against a corporate target? And thanks, but I don't like playing fools.

>And as for the Lone Star bit, nothing stops Corp C from putting out a bounty
>on said runner's heads, making their faces public (ouch), and/or directly
>contracting Knight Errant or Lone Star to bring in the criminals. Think of
>how the media operates now, then imagine what it'll be like in 2057. These
>runners would be absolutely plastered everywhere and nobody would want to be
>near them. Sooner or later they get caught and a very public trial (run by
>Corp C) sentences them to life in prison because they're a compassionate
>corp and they don't want them dead despite the severity of their crimes.
>Everyone likes Corp C and the runners get to sit in jail for the rest of
>their natural lives.

This does assume that the corporation can (a) find the runners, (b) make
the case credible, (c) get a conviction.

It doesn't need many cases where the jury decide there's a reasonable
doubt, or the corporation is unable to find the perpetrators (perhaps
because they're dead, killed by bounty-hunters, but that's a little
embarrasing for a corporation 'commited to the justice process) to make
the corporation look either stupid, careless or ruthless.

This sort of approach doesn't work today when it's governments against
terrorists: and crime today shows no signs of abating. I don't see it
working in the future either.

>--
>Bob Ooton
>topcat@***.net

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

From:	"Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:55:16 -0500

Message no. 11 You wrote:
> So... what if, rather than take the foolish risks of raiding a
> corporation, you merely specialise in hunting down those dumb enough to
> do so?

> By this argument, the corps are downright happy with you: Lone Star
> don't mind too much (else the corporations would be more circumspect)
> and that particular runner group is in clover.

> "No, Mr GM, we ain't going into that facility, we turn down the job.
> Then stake the place out and attack the idiots that _were_ hired to hit
> it".
Yes, and then some group of runners, or a Fixer, or a Yakuza figure, puts a hit
on you because it's so much easier than hitting corp personnel and no one on
the legal side gives a frag.

> Right. So either you role-play idiots or you don't play Shadowrun :) Or
> else there are other factors at play.

> I mean, by this calculus, why would any rational person accept a mission
> against a corporate target? And thanks, but I don't like playing fools.

Because quite often the corp personnel are not in a position to retaliate/find
the PCs later. A face on camera or somesuch is not a strong ID, especially
with someone who is SINless.

> This does assume that the corporation can (a) find the runners, (b) make
> the case credible, (c) get a conviction.

> It doesn't need many cases where the jury decide there's a reasonable
> doubt, or the corporation is unable to find the perpetrators (perhaps
> because they're dead, killed by bounty-hunters, but that's a little
> embarrasing for a corporation 'commited to the justice process) to make
> the corporation look either stupid, careless or ruthless.

> This sort of approach doesn't work today when it's governments against
> terrorists: and crime today shows no signs of abating. I don't see it
> working in the future either.

Agreed.

losthalo

From:	TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:33:41 -0500

Message no. 12 At 10:22 PM 6/26/97 +0200, Arno wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:11:10 -0500, TopCat wrote:
>>All runners are criminals whether they admit/like it or not. They go
>>against the law in everything they do and stand for.

>Perhaps all _your_ runners are, perhaps even all the runners people on
>this list know are, but I'm sure that this is not necessarily so. I
>assume there can be found enough reasons to do something that is not
>illegal, and not even requires illegal actions to achive.

Do your runners have SINs? If they do, they aren't runners. Do they break
& enter? If so, they're criminals. Do they commit asault? If so, they're
criminals. Do they thieve or hack into restricted systems or carry weapons
without proper licenses? If so, they're criminals. Even if they do it to
rescue a kidnapped victim, they're doing it criminally unless they're
somehow approved through legal channels to do so.

>And then there is the fact that corps have their own laws, so it might
>happen that doing something on a corp's territory isn't against the
>law that would be criminal in the city or vice versa.

Yeah, but you still committed a criminal act while you were there. Despite
the fact that you went somewhere else afterward, you still committed an
illegal act on the ground you were on at the time. Crime is crime no matter
where you commit it.

>Again an example: A decker was hired by a corp to get some information
>about something. He sits in one of the corp's offices with his deck
>and sneaks in some other corp's matrix. I think that would not be
>illegal, since the decker, who actually intrudes and thereby
>possibly breaks the other corp's laws, stays with his body and mind
>in the territory of the first corp, where the thing he does would be
>(in my example) legal.

So he illegally enters a corporate building, illegally poses as an employee,
illegally hacks into their system then into another system, also illegally,
crossing international boundaries to commit said criminal act, and you're
telling me that nothing illegal happened here? It's *all* illegal.

>So I think it is a liitle too generalized saying all runners were
>criminals.

Still think so?

>>They're all criminals ;)

>no, they ain't ;)

Heh.

>>I love this thread... it took up a HUGE chunk of the Manifesto or at least I
>>think it did... ohboyohboyohboy...

>Will I now get to read that much feared manifesto?

I'm about a third of the way through one of the topics found within my
ultimate achievement... ;^D
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

From:	TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:33:43 -0500

Message no. 13 At 01:53 AM 6/27/97 +0100, Paul wrote:
>So... what if, rather than take the foolish risks of raiding a
>corporation, you merely specialise in hunting down those dumb enough to
>do so?

Great money in it, but like everything you'll make enemies somewhere. When
all's said and done though, I'd much rather have Billy Joe-Bob and his
runner team after me than Aztechnology...

>>What runner would really want to run on a corp that has trespassers found
>>and killed afterward? The newbie ego-tripping runner with something to
>>prove and a need for nuyen. The type of runner that dies real easy-like.
>>Smart runners won't go near that corp.

>Right. So either you role-play idiots or you don't play Shadowrun :) Or
>else there are other factors at play.
>I mean, by this calculus, why would any rational person accept a mission
>against a corporate target? And thanks, but I don't like playing fools.

Nope, you just don't run against the MegaCorps. Think of Gibson's novels...
the very best of the best ran against the big boys now and then (very
rarely) but those that did retired afterward, got killed (or worse), and the
tiniest of percentage of the very best of the best maybe kept going until
they ended up in one of the other two categories. They weren't fools, they
were very smart. They knew to stick to those targets that they could
realistically handle and to only hit the big boys when you had a serious edge.

Running against a corp that isn't Big 8 still has it's dangers, but tiny
corps don't have the resources of a mega. They might not be able to begin
the processes that a megacorp can and even if they can, they probably can't
afford to carry it out as efficiently and effectively as the megacorps can.

Also, rational people don't decide to become Shadowrunners. Rational people
wake up in the morning, get ready for their average wageslave job, make the
commute, do their job, get lunch, work through the afternoon, drive home,
watch TV, and go to bed early so they can get up and do it all again the
next day. Much safer than shadowrunning, might even pay more in the end... ;^)

>This does assume that the corporation can (a) find the runners, (b) make
>the case credible, (c) get a conviction.

Finding's no problem. Cases can be built out of nothing (runners aren't
even people officially). Convictions are often made before the case ever
hits trial. Ugly, but true enough even in today's society.

>It doesn't need many cases where the jury decide there's a reasonable
>doubt, or the corporation is unable to find the perpetrators (perhaps
>because they're dead, killed by bounty-hunters, but that's a little
>embarrasing for a corporation 'commited to the justice process) to make
>the corporation look either stupid, careless or ruthless.

What jury? They get sent to the corp and have to go through the corporate
law system (not nearly as guilty-friendly as the sieve-like US court
system). If they die, killed by bounty hunters, then you feed media just
that story. "The sociopathic shadowrunners died in an attempt to shoot
their way out of a building they'd been trapped in rather than go peacefully
to a trial." Either way, justice is served and Jeopardy comes on after the
news...

>This sort of approach doesn't work today when it's governments against
>terrorists: and crime today shows no signs of abating. I don't see it
>working in the future either.

Today our corporations can't go out and hire some guys off the street (who
are qualified enough to make military specialist teams seem woefully
inadequate at times) to go across town and erase 5 people who don't
officially exist. The number of SINless in SR is staggering in comparison
to the number of SSNless today in the US. Times have changed and so has the
setting.

When one gov't is halfway across the world from another, getting criminals
transferred is a problem. When they're literally just down the block from
one another, matters change.

I couldn't go into Iraq without a passport. I can go into Mexico without
one though. If I worked for Fuchi, I could walk out of the corporate
stronghold, onto UCAS ground, freely walk around and do whatever I like (as
long as it's within UCAS law) and go back to Fuchi when I feel like it.
What I couldn't do though is walk into the Aztechnology pyramid. Why? Some
territories are a little more tight-assed than others, there's no other way
to put it...
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

From:	"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:14:28 +0100

Message no. 14 In message <199706260511.AAA25157@*******.fgi.net>, TopCat
<topcat@***.NET> writes
>All runners are criminals whether they admit/like it or not. They go
>against the law in everything they do and stand for.

Whose law? :)

It's not impossible to be a shadowrunner while remaining within UCAS
law: yes, you're breaking lots of corporate laws, but the chances of
extradition are pretty slim, let alone the task of tying a shadowrun on
corporate territory in Detroit to a freelance writer resident in
Seattle...

>They're all criminals ;)

I resent that implication, and you will be hearing from my solicitor
shortly when he serves you with a writ for defamation };)

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

From:	Tim Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 1997 03:12:51 EDT

Message no. 15 On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:11:10 -0500 TopCat <topcat@***.NET> writes:
>All runners are criminals whether they admit/like it or not. They go
>against the law in everything they do and stand for. Sometimes it is
moral
>to do so, often it isn't (one man's evil is another man's good). But
>there's another question in that statement, what's "moral"? Ask ten
>people, get ten different answers. *shrug*

No, NO, NO!!
You've got it *ALL* WRONG!!!
.
.
.
.
(You'll get between 11 and 14 answers...)
:)
~Tim

From:	Tim Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 1997 03:12:51 EDT

Message no. 16 On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:41:20 -0400 "Fisher, Victor" writes:
>>All runners are criminals whether they admit/like it or not. They go
>>against the law in everything they do and stand for. Sometimes it is
moral
>>to do so, often it isn't (one man's evil is another man's good). But
>>there's another question in that statement, what's "moral"? Ask ten
people,
>>get ten different answers. *shrug*
>>
>>They're all criminals ;)
>>
[above is the original post]
[below is what you added]
>>So was the mythical Robin Hood. (SR characters are pretty much in the
same
>>catagory as fiction). I find that good company to be in.

Victor, any reason why you keep prefacing your lines with ">" when you
reply to someone's post? It looks like the whole post is just one long
quote.

~Tim (Just getting curious after the 4th or 5th one I've seen like
this..)

From:	Tim Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 1997 03:53:26 EDT

Message no. 17 On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:14:28 +0100 "Paul J. Adam" writes:
>In message <199706260511.AAA25157@*******.fgi.net>, TopCat writes

>>They're all criminals ;)
>
>I resent that implication, and you will be hearing from my solicitor
>shortly when he serves you with a writ for defamation };)

So I guess, TopCat will find several distinguished looking "gentlemen" in
dark suits with dark glasses and briefcases on his doorstep, after which
the neighbors will report several weeks later that the pile of newspapers
in front of his house is getting suspiciously large and he doesn't seem
answer the phone... right?

~Tim (one character in our group when he looked out his the peep-hole of
his apartment and saw 4 men in business suits, turned and, stopping only
to clip the rappelling rope to the frame, lept out the 4th story window
across the room. He barely escaped.)

From:	Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 1997 12:28:14 +0000

Message no. 18 >>>Shadowrunners are criminals!
>>No they're not!
>Sure they are, and stupid too!

Let's see if a little comparison can help us here... which
professions today is the most similar to that of shadowrunners?

Torpedoes, 'order' thieves, mercenaries, terrorists,
assassins. (PI's)

(A shadowrunner is often all these rolled into one.).

Torpedoes often face people that know they are coming; they take
risks in putting pressure on their target, and earns good cash. They
often take sessions in jail; they are usually known by the target,
and gives the target ways to contact them.

'order' thieves: Thieves stealing things they get paid to steal. They
get caught somewhat rarely, and the cash is good.

Mercenaries are either professional soldiers or officers that has
left a national force, or simply normal 'badasses' that wants cash in
new and exciting ways. THey either train forces with little training,
advise, or fight personally. The pay varies, but usually isn't
tremendous.. but enough to make a living.

Terrorists, or more properly, saboteurs, fight either for a cause or
money, but their targets are often infrastructure or civilians. Pay
is pretty low, or non - existent.

Assassins, or more properly, hired killers, takes cash to kill a
specific person. Pay varies a lot with who and where; in Colombia a
hit can cost as little as 100$. If it is very expensive in an area,
it is often easier, and smarter, to hire killers from another state
or country - they're cheaper, and at the same time harder to trace.

None of these professions is ethically or morally sound. Arguing
wether it's logical to take the risks shadowrunners do for money..
there is people today that do similar things all the time; why not
also in the future?

(They also have to be PI's, a profession which is more 'regular' and
doesn't necessarily involve hurting, killing or maiming people nor
blowing up or stealing stuff.).

As for being criminals.. if they are not criminals ("involved in
criminal activity") they are not shadowrunners. If the job could be
done legally, then there would usually excist other, cheaper people
to do it. PI's, police, whatever. (Paul, a criminal is a criminal
even if (s)he doesn't get caught... and a schizophrenic is
legally responsible for all his or her personalities. :). As for
rules about extraterritoriality.. if you or your astral/matrix
presence moves into a corp's territory, you're subject to their laws.
It would not make sense for a corp to make shadowrunning or most
activity associated with it legal; any of 'their' runners would
operate on 'enemy soil', only hostile ones operate on your soil.
Loopholes can exist, but they can also be fixed by backdating new
laws. (As long as it is obvious that the loophole *should* be
illegal, this is common practice.).

--
Rune Fostervoll

"But the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we no not of."

From:	Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:31:23 -0400

Message no. 19 On Friday, June 27, 1997 01:33, TopCat[SMTP:topcat@***.NET] wrote:
> At 01:53 AM 6/27/97 +0100, Paul wrote:
[snip]
> >Right. So either you role-play idiots or you don't play Shadowrun :) Or
> >else there are other factors at play.
> >I mean, by this calculus, why would any rational person accept a mission
> >against a corporate target? And thanks, but I don't like playing fools.
>
> Nope, you just don't run against the MegaCorps. Think of Gibson's
novels...
> the very best of the best ran against the big boys now and then (very
> rarely) but those that did retired afterward, got killed (or worse), and
the
> tiniest of percentage of the very best of the best maybe kept going until
> they ended up in one of the other two categories. They weren't fools,
they
> were very smart. They knew to stick to those targets that they could
> realistically handle and to only hit the big boys when you had a serious
> edge.

Gibson's world in NOT the mainstream SR world. Just wanted to say that.

>
> Running against a corp that isn't Big 8 still has it's dangers, but tiny
> corps don't have the resources of a mega. They might not be able to
begin
> the processes that a megacorp can and even if they can, they probably
can't
> afford to carry it out as efficiently and effectively as the megacorps
can.

The Megacorporations of the SR world tolerate shadowrunners. That is how
the "game" is played. If all the megacorporations ruthlessly hunted down
shadowrunners, there would be no runners who would run against
megacorporations. (With me? Good.)

But megacorporations find 'runners to be much too valuable a tool to be
without. After all, if no 'runner was willing to run against any of the big
8, they would have to use their own personnel against each other to conduct
"market intelligence operations." And plausible deniability goes to hell in
a handbasket. In fact, if the big 8 could not use shadowrunners, they would
be committing an act of corporate war against another corp every time they
sent their "research teams" in to extract a scientist/cyber design/matrix
program. They would be, after all, sending corporate assets against another
corporation's assets, with the intent to devalue the target's corp's
assets. That is the definition of corporate war. Bad idea.

So corporations hire plausibly deniable assets (shadowrunners,) assets
whose training was not paid for by the hiring corporation (not officially,
anyway,) whose equipment is not paid for by the hiring corp (ditto,) and
who don't get any kind of benefits from that corp. In essence, they are
subcontracting their penetration teams, because it is cheaper and safer
than doing it themselves. Furthermore, it is better for publicity. "No, we
don't hire people whose job description includes shooting at other
corporation's employees." (Not officially, anyway. But when the only reason
you keep covert-ops teams on hand is to do the jobs that ABSOLUTELY cannot
be done by outsiders, and to supplement regular security, you can hide them
better.)

A good (real-world) example of why shadowrunners exist and run against SR
megacorps with a degree of impunity: the Afghanistan War. Equate the US and
the USSR with megacorporations. The Muhajedin play the part of the
'runners. For political reasons, the US could not become directly involved.
However, they could commission and fund the Muhajedin to conduct operations
against the rival superpower. Had the US gotten directly involved, Bad
Things might have happened. (Read as Corp War.)

Now don't take this analogy too far, but it is similar to the reasons
shadowrunners exist in 205X.

Contrariwise, if the Corporate Court and/or it members ever decide
shadowrunners are no longer to be tolerated, no shadowrunners will ever
penetrate another corporate compound. Because no-one will hire them.

> >This does assume that the corporation can (a) find the runners, (b) make
> >the case credible, (c) get a conviction.
>
> Finding's no problem. Cases can be built out of nothing (runners aren't
> even people officially). Convictions are often made before the case ever
> hits trial. Ugly, but true enough even in today's society.
>

As for finding the runners afterward, I quote from _Never deal with a
Dragon_. "'How can they let us go when we have seen their faces and heard
their names?'

'Doesn't matter much,' Crenshaw shrugged. 'The names are just street names,
and faces can be changed easily enough. These runners have no records in
the databanks, so what's to trace?'..."

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers.
-Leonard Brandwein
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)

From:	"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 1997 19:16:46 +0100

Message no. 20 In message <199706270533.AAA10725@*******.fgi.net>, TopCat
<topcat@***.NET> writes
>At 01:53 AM 6/27/97 +0100, Paul wrote:
>>So... what if, rather than take the foolish risks of raiding a
>>corporation, you merely specialise in hunting down those dumb enough to
>>do so?
>
>Great money in it, but like everything you'll make enemies somewhere. When
>all's said and done though, I'd much rather have Billy Joe-Bob and his
>runner team after me than Aztechnology...

How are the survivors and their friends tracking you down? Bear in mind
that these people pulled off a successful shadowrun on a corporation
(else there'd be no percentage in hunting them), so have concerns other
than vengeance on their mind (like getting away alive: yes, they could
maybe find and kill you, so what? The corporation can keep hiring more
hunters until they're dead).
>
>>Right. So either you role-play idiots or you don't play Shadowrun :) Or
>>else there are other factors at play.
>>I mean, by this calculus, why would any rational person accept a mission
>>against a corporate target? And thanks, but I don't like playing fools.
>
>Nope, you just don't run against the MegaCorps. Think of Gibson's novels...
>the very best of the best ran against the big boys now and then (very
>rarely) but those that did retired afterward, got killed (or worse), and the
>tiniest of percentage of the very best of the best maybe kept going until
>they ended up in one of the other two categories. They weren't fools, they
>were very smart. They knew to stick to those targets that they could
>realistically handle and to only hit the big boys when you had a serious edge.

>Running against a corp that isn't Big 8 still has it's dangers, but tiny
>corps don't have the resources of a mega. They might not be able to begin
>the processes that a megacorp can and even if they can, they probably can't
>afford to carry it out as efficiently and effectively as the megacorps can.

>Also, rational people don't decide to become Shadowrunners. Rational people
>wake up in the morning, get ready for their average wageslave job, make the
>commute, do their job, get lunch, work through the afternoon, drive home,
>watch TV, and go to bed early so they can get up and do it all again the
>next day. Much safer than shadowrunning, might even pay more in the end... ;^)

What, rational people don't get downsized out of the military, framed
for crimes they didn't commit, fired from the big corporation for
mistakenly telling the truth, et cetera et cetera?

>>This does assume that the corporation can (a) find the runners, (b) make
>>the case credible, (c) get a conviction.
>
>Finding's no problem.

Wanna bet? You have someone with a solid SIN and a good alibi, but you
have "evidence" that suggests he's actually a shadowrunner responsible
for a hit on your site.

Runners, at least in my game, get good false IDs - some have real ones
(a private detective, for instance: not so much of a runner as an
information dealer) for many reasons. Not least is that Lone Star are
reluctant to seize citizens on a corporation's say-so. You need enough
evidence for an extradition hearing on a citizen.

Yes, if you're a SINless Barrens-dweller that doesn't apply, but then
neither does Lone Star, and finding a particular individual among
Redmond's half-million registered and unknown number of SINless doesn't
strike me as a simple task even for a megacorporation.

>Cases can be built out of nothing (runners aren't
>even people officially). Convictions are often made before the case ever
>hits trial. Ugly, but true enough even in today's society.

Problem is, a few mistaken identities and the corporation is in deep
shit.

"I'm sorry, there seems to have been a mistake. We arrested, tried and
executed your son Harry Buttle on terrorism and theft charges. In fact
there had been a silly little slip-up, we really wanted Harry _Tuttle_.
Please accept our apologies..."

Remember, for a couple of successful runs you can buy a false ID that
will beat just about any check. Yes, a corporation may have a Rating 8
or 9 verification system, but is it _your_ fault most of your records
show you lived in Chicago until a few years ago? Sort of hard to cross-
check in those cases.

So, you have the front of an upright citizen, whose ID hasn't fallen
over in the face of a check. Is he a shadowrunner, or what he appears to
be? Perhaps some wicked decker has confused the trail, and it's only
when the person indicated by the computers is in custody that you
discover his fingerprints don't match his file and you've grabbed the
wrong person.

You've seized or killed these people secretly and nobody can trace it
was you? An excellent living for a shadowrunner with much less risk,
then: again, why go after corporations when this work is so available?

Or... you've been linked to it (Which _will_ happen, if you keep at it
long enough). Oops. "Mr Chairman, can I confirm that extrajudicial
kidnap and murder of UCAS citizens is in fact official Renraku policy?
How many of these executions have your company staged in the last year?
Are any of the victims still alive?" Media feeding frenzy, spurred on by
the luckless corporation's competitors.

>>It doesn't need many cases where the jury decide there's a reasonable
>>doubt, or the corporation is unable to find the perpetrators (perhaps
>>because they're dead, killed by bounty-hunters, but that's a little
>>embarrasing for a corporation 'commited to the justice process) to make
>>the corporation look either stupid, careless or ruthless.
>
>What jury? They get sent to the corp and have to go through the corporate
>law system (not nearly as guilty-friendly as the sieve-like US court
>system).

You need a warrant to arrest and extradite, and sufficient (and,
crucially, _admissible_) proof that Mr Henry J. Calder of Montrose
Avenue, Auburn, no criminal record and regular taxpayer, is in fact the
notorious shadowrunner "Harley Black" wanted for murder, credit fraud,
theft, and littering.

Wiretap surveillance by corporate agents? Not admissible. A lot of
(corporate-gathered) Matrix work? Again, inadmissible.

The modern example you're looking at would be a US citizen with an
apparently exemplary record, whose arrest and extradition is being
sought by the British Government. The evidence? Wiretaps on his phone,
we opened his mail, planted bugs in his house and raped all his credit
records. All without US warrants, of course.

Is any of this admissible? I'd suggest it would not be. Otherwise,
corporate deckers can roam anywhere, legally. Pentagon records?
"Checking a suspected shadowrunner's military service. I got lost." And
of course the doctrine of reciprocity comes into play: the FBI can roam
at will through corporate databases looking for evidence of crimes
committed in the UCAS.

So, the corporation have an uphill struggle to legally extradite this
person to face trial on their territory. There may be opposition to
extradition, if corporate justice is seen as being too harsh or too
skewed: political asylum, anyone? (Don't laugh, an experienced runner
could make a very useful witness to the law-enforcement agency
debriefing and protecting them).

That leaves illegal extradition, with all its risks and pitfalls: most
particularly, either you get caught in the act or you seize and kill the
wrong person. Both can be disastrous: yes, everyone knows corporations
do this, but nobody can prove it. Provide that proof and you're in a
hell of a lot of trouble.

>If they die, killed by bounty hunters, then you feed media just
>that story. "The sociopathic shadowrunners died in an attempt to shoot
>their way out of a building they'd been trapped in rather than go peacefully
>to a trial." Either way, justice is served and Jeopardy comes on after the
>news...

"Mr Calder was shot dead by a group of armed raiders. Police who
captured two of the killers, said that they had intended to capture him
and deliver him to Mitsuhama for purposes unknown. Mr Calder had no
criminal record. Mitsuhama described Mr Calder as a 'sociopathic
shadowrunner', to the bemusement of his neighbours... They then denied
any connection to the incident."

There's no one media line, especially when your competitors own some of
it.

>>This sort of approach doesn't work today when it's governments against
>>terrorists: and crime today shows no signs of abating. I don't see it
>>working in the future either.
>
>Today our corporations can't go out and hire some guys off the street (who
>are qualified enough to make military specialist teams seem woefully
>inadequate at times) to go across town and erase 5 people who don't
>officially exist.

You keep forgetting fake IDs. Yes, you can break a Rating-8 fake, but
not with anything a newspaper or a private citizen will get access to.
The corporation said that person was a SINless psycho: yeah, right,

>The number of SINless in SR is staggering in comparison
>to the number of SSNless today in the US. Times have changed and so has the
>setting.

Again, though, if you establish a good fake ID (not just buying the
stick, but taking the time to know your neighbours, shopping locally,
making sure you're a familiar face in the neighbourhood) then you become
a much harder target to "disappear" than a SINless nobody. The
neighbours are terrified by those men with machineguns who came and
killed you and they're co-operating _fully_ with the police.

It makes a difference to your chance of survival. And it greatly
increases the risks to the corporation going after you.

>When one gov't is halfway across the world from another, getting criminals
>transferred is a problem. When they're literally just down the block from
>one another, matters change.

But no government hands its citizens over to a justice system as
arbitrary as corporate law without a hell of an incentive. What would
the US need, for instance, to persuade it to hand an apparently law-
abiding citizen over to Iran to be tried for apostasy and blasphemy?

After all, I hardly get the impression that the UCAS and most
corporations are on amicable terms, and in other countries it's even
more pronounced. This citizen of Atlanta allegedly damaged Aztechnology
interests? And you have proof? Then we're not going to extradite him,
we're gonna DECORATE him! :)

>I couldn't go into Iraq without a passport. I can go into Mexico without
>one though. If I worked for Fuchi, I could walk out of the corporate
>stronghold, onto UCAS ground, freely walk around and do whatever I like (as
>long as it's within UCAS law) and go back to Fuchi when I feel like it.
>What I couldn't do though is walk into the Aztechnology pyramid. Why? Some
>territories are a little more tight-assed than others, there's no other way
>to put it...

But the Mexican government can't just send their cops out to grab you at
home, can they? Even without border controls, they have to go through US
channels to get you.

Again, none of this is to remotely imply that PCs can strut about
thumbing their noses at corporations, raiding the Renraku Arcology one
day and kidnapping Damien Knight the next, and giving their occupation
as "shadowrunner" on their credstick. But intelligent and careful
shadowrunners can reduce the risks they face.

Runners who damage corporate interests will become the subject of a
cost-benefit analysis. Is it worthwhile pursuing them? Not always. In
many ways, to try and fail is worse than not trying at all.

If it's not widely known that the runners had hit the corporation, then
why kill them? Risk and expense for no benefit. Yeah, they must have
annoyed someone: but only the team and their employers know who, and the
employers don't care. You want to trumpet to the world that your
security was so inadequate you had to hunt down and kill a few lowlifes
who beat it? Not good, but if you don't do that, where's the benefit? It
has to be known that they ran against you, for their subsequent deaths
to have any effect.

If the runners are competent (or prove unexpectedly competent) then
you're sending entirely the wrong message when not only can this group
pull off a successful hit against you, but they killed the hit team you
sent after them as revenge. What do you do then? Credibility down,
threat down, you're not so dangerous any more. And, by your own logic,
it's getting a damn sight more expensive to send the _next_ team out:
they have to be better than the last lot, and they have the example of
their prececessors with which to demand a substantial premium for risk.

If the runners have good false identities, going after them risks an
international incident. If they've done enough misdirection, you risk
attacking the wrong people. Again, not something that makes you feared.

But... if you are known to have made the score, and present a usable
target to the corporation and its assets, then you're on a fast track to
a pauper's funeral. The trick is preventing that from happening.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

From:	"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 1997 19:35:44 +0100

Message no. 21 In message <199706271031.MAA06831@***.uio.no>, Rune Fostervoll
<runefo@***.UIO.NO> writes
>>>>Shadowrunners are criminals!
>>>No they're not!
>>Sure they are, and stupid too!
>
>
>Let's see if a little comparison can help us here... which
>professions today is the most similar to that of shadowrunners?
>
>Torpedoes, 'order' thieves, mercenaries, terrorists,
>assassins. (PI's)

The PI is the category I had most in mind.

In what way is discovering and revealing a politician's BTL habit, or
preference for underage boys, or other distasteful vice? In fact, it's a
public service. It's merely gravy that you got paid for doing it,
because it was to Corporation X's advantage for some reason :)

>As for being criminals.. if they are not criminals ("involved in
>criminal activity") they are not shadowrunners. If the job could be
>done legally, then there would usually excist other, cheaper people
>to do it. PI's, police, whatever.

Point is, sometimes I play the PI :)

>As for
>rules about extraterritoriality.. if you or your astral/matrix
>presence moves into a corp's territory, you're subject to their laws.

While you're there. Once you're gone they have to find some way to
extradite you, legally or otherwise. Corporations generally don't allow
their people to be extradited to the UCAS, for instance, so I don't see
the UCAS being in a hurry to return the favour unless some advantage can
be gained.

That was more my point: crimes committed on corporate turf do not
automatically make you top of the Lone Star Most Wanted.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

From:	"Arno R. Lehmann" <arlehma@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Sat, 28 Jun 1997 00:07:56 +0200

Message no. 22 On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:24:52 -0500, Joshua T Brown wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:22:08 +0200 "Arno R. Lehmann" <arlehma@***.net>
>writes:
>>On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:11:10 -0500, TopCat wrote:
>>
>>>All runners are criminals whether they admit/like it or not. They go
>>>against the law in everything they do and stand for.
>
>I tend to agree with TC... so I'll throw some more examples into this can
>'o worms...
>
>>So I think it is a liitle too generalized saying all runners were
>>criminals.
>>
>I don't know....
<snip definition from the BBB which say shadowrunning is qusilegal or
illegal>
If you go by that definition thats surely ok.
But IMHO that is a restriction (not the definition - going by it, of
course) that I might not always want in my campaign.

<the archetypes are all packed with illegal equipment>
Here again I would not like being restricted to the archetypes.

>If the average SR character exists, SINless, therefore not a taxpayer,
>and once again, breaking the law. Most of the non-standard character
>archetypes do not perform the aforementioned illegal or quasilegal
>activities, and are therefore, not really a "shadowrunner".

That ties it to the above definition from the BBB, which is IMO not
that nice, since it would imply that I may not play the owner of some
shop with his totally legal SIN, a daytime-job etc, who only does some
things that are "quasilegal".

Well, with quasilegal in this context I mean he breaks the laws of an
extraterritorial corp, but not the laws of the country he lives in. If
- to the corp - he does something illegal that is not illegal in his
country that would be a setting that can arise these days, and AFAIK
these are cases where it is difficult to decide if you can be drawn to
court in the country you live in.
So I still am sure that you can be a shadowrunner without being a
criminal.

And, to let this thread die, I'd say that we interpret the things a
little different, so I won't continue this discussion. That is easy
since it will affect neither your nor my game, and I assume it also
won't affect anbody else's game.

>>>They're all criminals ;)
>>
>>no, they ain't ;)
>
>Maybe not, just 99.9% of them. <smirk>

But that's just my point: you should not say all shadowrunners are
criminals. But, of course, depending on how you read the BBB's
definition you might be forced to do so.
>
>Just My Two Pence.

Came in just when I was out of money. Thanks =;-)

May this discussion rest in peace :]

From:	"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Sat, 28 Jun 1997 01:14:36 +0100

Message no. 23 In message <01IKJREVDS008Y9G9O@******.acs.muohio.edu>, "Bruce H. Nagel"
<NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> writes
>You wrote:
>> "No, Mr GM, we ain't going into that facility, we turn down the job.
>> Then stake the place out and attack the idiots that _were_ hired to hit
>> it".

>Yes, and then some group of runners, or a Fixer, or a Yakuza figure, puts a hit
>on you because it's so much easier than hitting corp personnel and no one on
>the legal side gives a frag.

Where's the money in it, though?

The corporation will pay to get their stolen (data/personnel/prototype)
back, or at least for your killing the group that damaged their
interests. But where does that make it profitable for anyone to go after
you?

After all: if corporations hunt and kill anyone who runs against them,
pulling a shadowrun against a corporation implies you accepted the risk
and demanded appropriate compensation. That dead group took a risk and
it bit them in the ass. What's in it for their friends for going after
you? Revenge? That won't even pay for ammunution used and medical
expenses, let alone the rent.

>> I mean, by this calculus, why would any rational person accept a mission
>> against a corporate target? And thanks, but I don't like playing fools.
>
>Because quite often the corp personnel are not in a position to retaliate/find
>the PCs later. A face on camera or somesuch is not a strong ID, especially
>with someone who is SINless.

So, why is it economic to declare that the person whose face can be
fuzzily seen on a blurred security recording is now to be hunted to the
ends of the earth?

Either you kill _everyone_ who resembles that face (with allowance for
disguise et cetera) or you accept that the runner will probably get
away. In which case, why make yourself look foolish by having scores or
hundreds of "whoever this person is, we're going to find them or kill
them any day now for their atrocity of stealing a datafile back in 2037"
warrants outstanding.

Make it worth a corporation's time and it will come after you, foot
horse and marines. For that, you have reveal your identity while doing
enough damage to the corporation to make revenge worthwhile. An ideal
shadowrun is when your raid is only noticed three days later, when the
VP opens his safe and discovers that crucial set of chips is missing. If
they don't know who you are they can't come after you.

And revenge doesn't necessarily mean "dead". Alive, but with a couple of
interesting implants and some unusual hypnoconditioning (remember
Gibson's brainlocks in one of his short stories? How about "aiming a
weapon at a Ares guard causes instant vomiting, muscular spasms and
sudden incontinence" for a nasty lock?)

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

From:	"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Sat, 28 Jun 1997 01:00:10 +0100

Message no. 24 In message <01BC8306.CAB2F720@********.u96.stevens-tech.edu>, Jonathan
Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU> writes
>Contrariwise, if the Corporate Court and/or it members ever decide
>shadowrunners are no longer to be tolerated, no shadowrunners will ever
>penetrate another corporate compound. Because no-one will hire them.

There will still be non-corporate shadowruns. Government versus corp,
for instance, and rogue elements within corporations.

But in that situation we _are_ in TopCat's scenario, where you
realistically pull one single job that pays for an ironclad new ID
resident on another continent, with enough surplus to allow you to
retire in reasonable comfort: then you do just that and quit the
business.

Why? Because the corporation you hit can't use runners, on pain of
Corporate Court displeasure. So why let you walk around alive? The Court
might even be subsidising operations against shadowrunners to eliminate
the pool of those too foolish to find new professions.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

From:	Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Sat, 28 Jun 1997 03:43:42 +0000

Message no. 25 *SNIP*
> Runners who damage corporate interests will become the subject of a
> cost-benefit analysis. Is it worthwhile pursuing them? Not always. In
> many ways, to try and fail is worse than not trying at all.
>
> If it's not widely known that the runners had hit the corporation, then
> why kill them? Risk and expense for no benefit. Yeah, they must have
> annoyed someone: but only the team and their employers know who, and the
> employers don't care. You want to trumpet to the world that your
> security was so inadequate you had to hunt down and kill a few lowlifes
> who beat it? Not good, but if you don't do that, where's the benefit? It
> has to be known that they ran against you, for their subsequent deaths
> to have any effect.
*SNIP*
>
> If the runners have good false identities, going after them risks an
> international incident. If they've done enough misdirection, you risk
> attacking the wrong people. Again, not something that makes you feared.
>
> But... if you are known to have made the score, and present a usable
> target to the corporation and its assets, then you're on a fast track to
> a pauper's funeral. The trick is preventing that from happening.

Good points, but there's a little detail here and
there you skip. First of all, of course a corporation has little
interest in seeing the runners dead. They did a job, no more, no
less. Finding out who hired them is of far higher importance, finding
out either to reduce the damage of the runners' actions or send more
direct messages. Of course it doesn't hurt wasting them in more or
less unpleasant manners, as a hint to 'stay away', but it's about as
socially advanced, and very similar to, putting their heads on spikes
in front of the entrance.

Secondly, a corporation will not wave its flag and say, HI ALL! We're
tring to find MR. X who fucked us over! Anyone please tell us where
he is?. They will use deniable and expendable assets, preferrably
without their (sure) knowledge who hired them. The double logic is,
it takes one to catch one.

A corporation's best bet is to stop the runners during the run,
rather than when they've gotten away. I think we can agree on that
one easily enough...

--
Rune Fostervoll

"But the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we no not of."

From:	Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Sat, 28 Jun 1997 03:43:42 +0000

Message no. 26 > >>>>Shadowrunners are criminals!
> >>>No they're not!
> >>Sure they are, and stupid too!
> >
> >
> >Let's see if a little comparison can help us here... which
> >professions today is the most similar to that of shadowrunners?
> >
> >Torpedoes, 'order' thieves, mercenaries, terrorists,
> >assassins. (PI's)
>
> The PI is the category I had most in mind.
>
> In what way is discovering and revealing a politician's BTL habit, or
> preference for underage boys, or other distasteful vice? In fact, it's a
> public service. It's merely gravy that you got paid for doing it,
> because it was to Corporation X's advantage for some reason :)

I assume you forgot to add '.. or other distasteful vice A CRIME?'.

That way it makes more sense. But this is FUN! This is a real
interesting moral, ethical, and methodical dilemma.. how do you do
it? Recently a tabloid magazine paid a hooker to seduce a guy, take
him to a room and have sex with him. They filmed the whole thing, and
it made first page next day. The magazine claimed that it was his
actions they filmed, he had not been forced in any way, and, being a
celebrity, he has forfeited any right to privacy. They do a
public service, but is it legal? Another example.. vigilantes. They
fight crime, they do a public service. But the problem is glaringly
obvious. When they shoot someone, there is no justice, no rights. It
is simply murder. There is no trial, no chance for the defendant to
give evidence he didn't do it. Now the vigilante might be more or
less thorough in gathering evidence, but the bottom line is it
doesn't matter. Perhaps the justice system is a sieve; even then,
almost one in ten executed in the US has later been proved innocent.
What, then, of vigilantes who convict *everyone* ?

> >As for being criminals.. if they are not criminals ("involved in
> >criminal activity") they are not shadowrunners. If the job could be
> >done legally, then there would usually excist other, cheaper people
> >to do it. PI's, police, whatever.
>
> Point is, sometimes I play the PI :)

Point taken. My point: If you're a PI you are not a shadowrunner,
you're a PI. Wether his or her employer is a corp or Jane Doe is
immaterial; the nature of the jobs you take is far more important.
PI's basically do stuff the police can't be bothered with, but
nothing blatantly illegal. (PI's have extended rights of
investigation, but nowhere the same clout as a police badge.).
If you go way beyond those rights you are a runner, if not you're a
PI.

Nietche said ,' That a saying sounds good doesn't make it right.'.
I'll let someone else have a shot at explaining why, or why not,
a PI isn't the same as a shadowrunner.

> >As for
> >rules about extraterritoriality.. if you or your astral/matrix
> >presence moves into a corp's territory, you're subject to their laws.
>
> While you're there. Once you're gone they have to find some way to
> extradite you, legally or otherwise. Corporations generally don't allow
> their people to be extradited to the UCAS, for instance, so I don't see
> the UCAS being in a hurry to return the favour unless some advantage can
> be gained.
>
> That was more my point: crimes committed on corporate turf do not
> automatically make you top of the Lone Star Most Wanted.

Of course. But you are still effectively a criminal. And if the corp
wants you bad, it means that if Lone Star catches you, they can
exchange you for someone they want from the corporation badly.

(I assume you are not going to argue that being a lawbreaker
'somewhere else' doesn't mean that you aren't a lawbreaker, only
that you are somewhat safer from persecution.).

--
Rune Fostervoll

"But the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we no not of."

From:	Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Sat, 28 Jun 1997 04:02:34 +0000

Message no. 27 > "No, Mr GM, we ain't going into that facility, we turn down the job.
> Then stake the place out and attack the idiots that _were_ hired to hit
> it".

If it becomes known that a team of runners use job ' interviews' to
find out target sites and then interferes, it is doubtful wether they
will get any more job offers. Possibly the Johnson, who
apparently can get in touch with them, and can probably find
them, is a little miffed at someone fucking him over that badly as
well.

I do not think it is an approach to running I'd suggest; it wouldn't
pay too well, nor would it be a long career.
--
Rune Fostervoll

"But the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we no not of."

From:	Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:57:51 +1000

Message no. 28 > Do your runners have SINs? If they do, they aren't runners. Do they break

Ummm... exactly where does it says that "No runner shall have a SIN"?

Okay, so you're stupid if you use your OWN SIN (if you have one), but
there are rules for False IDs in the NAGRL for a reason, I'd assume.

Lady Jestyr

-----------------------------------------------
All stressed out and no-one to choke...
-----------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503/
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-----------------------------------------------
Now a Geocities Times Square Community Leader!
-----------------------------------------------

From:	Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Sat, 28 Jun 1997 15:27:47 +0100

Message no. 29 |If it becomes known that a team of runners use job ' interviews' to
|find out target sites and then interferes, it is doubtful wether they
|will get any more job offers. Possibly the Johnson, who
|apparently can get in touch with them, and can probably find
|them, is a little miffed at someone fucking him over that badly as
|well.

Slightly on this topic, in one of our games, we'd just made a few nasty
(very nasty) enemies in the Tir, and were hired to do what looked like a
VERRRRRY simple job.... And they were offering about 10 times the normal
pay....

Of course, we were suspicious, and greedy, so we took the job, along with
half the money up front......

Then we went out and hired a very green team of shadowrunners for a couple
of thousand Nuyen and hung around to watch the fireworks.....

(You can be nasty sometimes when the baddies aren't subtle enough with their
traps.... :) )
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Sat, 28 Jun 1997 18:07:50 -0400

Message no. 30 On Friday, June 27, 1997 20:00, Paul J.
Adam[SMTP:shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK] wrote:
> In message <01BC8306.CAB2F720@********.u96.stevens-tech.edu>, Jonathan
> Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU> writes
> >Contrariwise, if the Corporate Court and/or it members ever decide
> >shadowrunners are no longer to be tolerated, no shadowrunners will ever
> >penetrate another corporate compound. Because no-one will hire them.
>
> There will still be non-corporate shadowruns. Government versus corp,
> for instance, and rogue elements within corporations.
>
> But in that situation we _are_ in TopCat's scenario, where you
> realistically pull one single job that pays for an ironclad new ID
> resident on another continent, with enough surplus to allow you to
> retire in reasonable comfort: then you do just that and quit the
> business.
>
> Why? Because the corporation you hit can't use runners, on pain of
> Corporate Court displeasure. So why let you walk around alive? The Court
> might even be subsidising operations against shadowrunners to eliminate
> the pool of those too foolish to find new professions.

True. But that is not the world I play in. And, yes, if the ICC decides to
declare shadowrunning a business no-no, they probably will hunt down anyone
who commits one. With the resources of ALL the mega's, not just one. And
they might get the guy.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers.
-Leonard Brandwein
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)

From:	Joshua T Brown <spamquat@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Sun, 29 Jun 1997 10:25:35 -0500

Message no. 31 On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:57:51 +1000 Lady Jestyr
<jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU> writes:
>> Do your runners have SINs? If they do, they aren't runners. Do
>they break
>
>Ummm... exactly where does it says that "No runner shall have a SIN"?
>
>Okay, so you're stupid if you use your OWN SIN (if you have one), but
>there are rules for False IDs in the NAGRL for a reason, I'd assume.

The point being made was "are they criminals?" possessing a false SIN is,
by definition a crime. There's also the bit of tax evasion that comes
with not having a REAL SIN, and if you *do* have a real SIN, it becomes
easier for any law enforcement agency to connect you to a crime.

I think the problem here is some people see "Shadowrunner" as "a
character in the game of Shadowrun" instead of "one who commits
Shadowruns" with Shadowruns being defined early in the BBB as illegal or
quasilegal activities. No one is trying to say "You must play criminals."
The point is mainly semantics, saying Shadowrunners, in the strictest
sense of the definition, break the law in some form to earn their living,
and are therefore criminals. Whether they are Unregistered Magical
Character, Illegal Cyber or Weapons (sans permits) Physical Character,
Masking-Chip using Decker, or ANY archetype that doesn't have/use a SIN,
they are criminals.
And if you DO have the totally non-archetypal taxpaying, permit-carrying,
law abiding moral characters, more power to you, you're in the minority,
but that's the great thing about playing a challenging character, you're
seldom cliched.
However, in the strictest sense of the word, semantically, your character
is not a Shadowrunner, per se, but a Shadowrun character who fits in some
other social group of the SR world.

Enough of My babbling about this thread.
==============================================================
The Kumquat -- Josh Brown -- Kumquat@*****.com -- Spamquat@****.com --
Shadowrun Page Still Under Development -- Coming Soon!
"Support Whirled Peas" -- <smirk> -- "Whatever, Man" --
"Woo Hoo!" --
....Don't hate me Because I'm... ahh, screw it, hate me. <smirk>

From:	TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 14:59:54 -0500

Message no. 32 I remember coming to a similar part in this conversation some year(s?) ago
in which Paul was expressed the opinion that he is expressing now and I
expressed the one that I have been expressing. Clearly we have different
views of the corporations which have the resources to literally throw around
to hire these runners in the first place.

Paul views them as something completely apathetic to harm done to them,
incapable of doing anything on their own even if they do make the decision,
and often incompetent in the way they go about seeking help. Sort of a
"Keystone Cops" version of SR where the runners can do no wrong and the
corps are just there to make them look good. Once a runner escapes (which
would be a minor miracle given the level of security a megacorp has) in
Paul's game, he's gone for good and the corp wouldn't think of pursuing.
Awfully kind to the runners, but far from realistic.

I view the corporations as the financial monsters that they are. Few
countries in the world now (and in 205X) have anywhere near the resources
that a single megacorp has in SR. They've got security the likes of which
we can't imagine and they've got cash reserves that simply boggle the mind.
This is why they can afford to hire runners in the first place. Millions a
year disappear and it doesn't even show up as a percentage of their total
income. Anyone that can and will throw cash into runners can and will throw
cash into stopping runners.

Even if you only use the stuff from CorpSec, it's nearly impossible for a
runner could get in & out of a corp alive and unnoticed and that's just
supposed to be a catalog for corps that want to buy security equipment from
Ares. Now if that's what Ares is willing to sell, imagine the tech that
they'd have on their own sites. Now think about the real paranoids
(Saeder-Krupp and Aztechnology) and the absolutely silly levels of security
that they have (check out the section on corp magic in Awakenings for a tiny
glimpse).

You think that a corp that devotes that much effort to securing their sites
would think twice about erasing a runner team that hit them? Nope, they'd
just cut a check, write up a good media story (as funny as Paul's idea of a
runner's story getting published is, it wouldn't happen or it wouldn't be
believed... see The Lucifer Deck for an example thereof and remember that
the corp was awfully kind in handling that), and start the process of making
them go away.

Maybe they do it legally or maybe they don't. Either way with those kinds
of resources at hand, no runner could last long enough. One contact found,
then another... soon the runner's locked off from all his savings and none
of his friends will talk to him, he's stranded and has to rely on himself
while bounty hunters and runners from all over are out to claim his head.
No contacts, no resources, and no hope.

But that's my view of a megacorporation. Feel free to run against the
Keystone Cops and giggle while they fall over each other and shoot
themselves and crash their car into everything on the road while the runners
escape easily. Humorous, yes, but not realistic. I prefer an edge to my
Shadowrun, something that represents how life would be in such a world,
something that has the runners thinking before acting or taking a run,
something that is representative of the game as it was designed to be played.

But hey, everyone laughs when the Keystone Cops fall over each other.
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

From:	Mike Nelson <kuthuga@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 16:24:29 -0500

Message no. 33 (snip anti-paul propaganda)

> I view the corporations as the financial monsters that they are. Few
> countries in the world now (and in 205X) have anywhere near the resources
> that a single megacorp has in SR. They've got security the likes of which
> we can't imagine and they've got cash reserves that simply boggle the mind.
> This is why they can afford to hire runners in the first place. Millions a
> year disappear and it doesn't even show up as a percentage of their total
> income. Anyone that can and will throw cash into runners can and will throw
> cash into stopping runners.

I think we can all agree that Megacorporations have more than enough
resources and skill to destroy any runner team, (real or imagined),
with little to no noticible effort. Therefore the key to the
survivability of a shadow runner is the same as for a smaller
business; profit. A runner must be sure that he never crosses the
invisible line of acceptable losses when running against a
corporation. If it becomes more profitible for a corp to kill a
runner than to let his actions stand then the runner is dead; end of
story, thanks for playing our game. If, however, it would cost more
to kill the runner, either in nuyen or manpower, than it would to
replace what he stole/destroyed he will most likely be allowed to
live. The golden rule of economic morality does not change from our
world to the sixth world. Corporations will do what is profitable not
what is good or evil.

Allow me to illustrate this with an example:

Roland the headless fuchi decker is a solid runner who has done
several superlitive jobs for several of the megacorps. One day Roland
makes a run on Renraku for Mitsuhama and steals some of Renraku's
publicity plans for a new product release scheduled that year.
Renraku is very unlikely to spend the time and resources neccessary to
make Roland dissappear. The data he took was not irreplacable and to
do so would cost them not only money but Roland's unique services in
the future. Say however that whilst Roland was in the system he
decides to crash a server that has several new products on it and
represents thousands of man hours and millions of dollars. Now
Rolands life is in a lot more risky position. Not only has he caused
huge amounts of damage he has proven that he is not a professional and
therefore of negligible future use.

> But hey, everyone laughs when the Keystone Cops fall over each other.
> --
> Bob Ooton
> topcat@***.net
>

Always been a three stooges man myself.

Mike
mike@***.net

From:	"Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:05:26 -0500

Message no. 34 > I think we can all agree that Megacorporations have more than enough
> resources and skill to destroy any runner team, (real or imagined),
> with little to no noticible effort.

While I can agree somewhat of the cost-vs.-utility argument of why runners
aren't a priority for the corps to hunt down, I still figure that it's more a
matter of the runenrs not being particularly traceable that saves them. They
don't exist in official databases, have no SIN to link photo IDs, etc. to, have
no legal drivers' license, or other such baggage. Their residences are usually
temporary (our characters tended to change apts every few months, and wouldn't
hesitate to bail out if the heat seemed to be on). A photo ID doesn't mean
much compared to the population size of a place like Seattle, especially with
the size of the SINless population. Magical techniques for tracing are
unreliable at best, and a _very_ expensive, scarce resource. OTOH, doing a
ritual effect using minute samples of blood found on the site (if one of the
runners took a hit or three) would be _well_ within what they could do; watch
out for those first hours after the run, and maybe longer if they're willing to
keep the sample under a Preserve spell for a while). But if that fails, a
decker can't trace the group (no data to go on except appearance). So if the
runners get off-site and away without being traced, they are probably home free
because the corp cannot _find_ them. Think about the difficulty in finding a
criminal today if no ID was made of the criminal at the scene, and he makes an
intelligent escape and doesn't appear in public much. Plastering the vid with
his mug? Yeah, there're how many channels in Seattle, it'd cost the corp how
much in an effort likely to turn up nothing? And if you hit a big corp and
figure they got photo ID of you and are gunning for you, you go under the knife
for some elective surgery... All this is from brief descriptions of the Solo
class in CP 2020 and my own POV on how Seattle 205X works, YMMV. I'd just like
to know how corps track people down in your view. Sure they've got the
firepower when the time comes, I don't think anyone would argue with you there.

losthalo, rambling on

From:	Joshua T Brown <spamquat@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 17:32:07 -0500

Message no. 35 On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 14:59:54 -0500 TopCat <topcat@***.NET> writes:
>I remember coming to a similar part in this conversation some year(s?)
>ago in which Paul was expressed the opinion that he is expressing now
and
>I expressed the one that I have been expressing.
I remember the last time this came around, too... and I agree with you
now in the same manner I did then. ... Up to a point.

<snip stuff about how it's suicidal to run against a corp>

Ok, If the runners try to hit a Corp as if they were knocking over the
local Stuffer Shack, they will, and should be crushed like bugs. But, if
they are smart, like some bugs, the runners will take advantage of the
fact that they are incredibly tiny as compared to a corp, and thus, can
move much faster than the typical corporate bureaucracy. Their sting is
not worth the effort it might take to track them down, however small that
might be. There's no profit in revenge, and the corp will likely find a
scapegoat within their own ranks to blame for not dealing with the
runners, and allowing the hit to happen. This isn't to say that the corp
forgives them, and won't kill them if they are stupid enough to make a
habit of hurting the corp's profits, but the idea that the corp stops
whatever it's doing and stomps out every runner who breaks corp laws,
instead of blaming whoever failed to enforce those laws is just as
ludicrous as the other extreme you have chosen to rant against.

>But that's my view of a megacorporation. Feel free to run against the
>Keystone Cops and giggle while they fall over each other and shoot
>themselves and crash their car into everything on the road while the
>runners escape easily. Humorous, yes, but not realistic. I prefer an
edge to
>my Shadowrun, something that represents how life would be in such a
>world, something that has the runners thinking before acting or taking a
run,
>something that is representative of the game as it was designed to be
>played.
>
>But hey, everyone laughs when the Keystone Cops fall over each other.

Come on now, Bob, a little exaggeration to make your point is one thing,
but out-and-out ridiculing someone else's worldview doesn't support your
point, it just makes you sound arrogant. I agree that Shadowrunners who
don't excercise caution, stealth, and overall discretionary speed, will
be obliterated, but comparing someone elses game to slapstick is not too
far from the name calling which *you* pointed out is the last resort of
the person who has nothing intelligent to say. <smirk>

==============================================================
The Kumquat -- Josh Brown -- Kumquat@*****.com -- Spamquat@****.com --
Shadowrun Page Still Under Development -- Coming Soon!
"Support Whirled Peas" -- <smirk> -- "Whatever, Man" --
"Woo Hoo!" --
....Don't hate me Because I'm... ahh, screw it, hate me. <smirk>

From:	"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:23:11 +0100

Message no. 36 In message <199706301959.OAA08030@*******.fgi.net>, TopCat
<topcat@***.NET> writes
>I remember coming to a similar part in this conversation some year(s?) ago
>in which Paul was expressed the opinion that he is expressing now and I
>expressed the one that I have been expressing. Clearly we have different
>views of the corporations which have the resources to literally throw around
>to hire these runners in the first place.
>
>Paul views them as something completely apathetic to harm done to them,

Beg pardon?

>incapable of doing anything on their own even if they do make the decision,

Which Paul are you talking about?

>and often incompetent in the way they go about seeking help.

Okaaay.... I can see the way this is going to go already. You didn't
listen then, you're still deaf now.

> Sort of a
>"Keystone Cops" version of SR where the runners can do no wrong and the
>corps are just there to make them look good. Once a runner escapes (which
>would be a minor miracle given the level of security a megacorp has) in
>Paul's game, he's gone for good and the corp wouldn't think of pursuing.
>Awfully kind to the runners, but far from realistic.

TopCat, it would help if you actually read what I wrote.

If you want to rant, please don't make up crap and post it as "what I
said".

I stated that corporations would prevent intrusion and pursue anyone who
crossed them... for as long as it was cost-effective to do so. Profit is
the great god of all corporations.

Incompetent or careless runners die fast. But if it's impossible to
survive, I can't be bothered playing in a game which consists of
"Attempt a shadowrun, resolve how your PC is hunted down and killed
within hours, create a new PC.

"Attempt a shadowrun, resolve how your PC is hunted down and killed
within hours, create a new PC.

"Attempt a shadowrun, resolve how your PC is hunted down and killed
within hours, create a new PC."

With no chance of survival, this is what you face.

>I view the corporations as the financial monsters that they are. Few
>countries in the world now (and in 205X) have anywhere near the resources
>that a single megacorp has in SR.

Actually, this is demonstrably false. Check Corporate Shadowfiles: the
best reference to a corporation's scale is that Nestle S.A. in the first
decade of the 21st century was larger than any 2050s megacorp.

Nestle at the moment is capitalised at something over 50 billion Swiss
francs, twenty billion pounds, or thirty-five billion dollars. Let's
assume it doubles between now and 2007 (cue rejoicing among all Nestle's
shareholders).

Wow! The biggest megacorp has a total market capitalisation equal to
one-third of the yearly US defence budget (261 billion dollars
appropriated in 1994).

This does not support your position. Corporations are powerful and
dangerous, but Gods they are not.

>This is why they can afford to hire runners in the first place. Millions a
>year disappear and it doesn't even show up as a percentage of their total
>income. Anyone that can and will throw cash into runners can and will throw
>cash into stopping runners.

How much? Doesn't take much money spent in the wrong place to make a big
hole in accounts, directly and indirectly. And, if they have so much
power and influence, why do they need shadowrunners at all?

No business is going to leave their payroll and their top staff
unguarded in the car park overnight, but neither is every single
corporate site going to be a fortified zero-zone. You can spend too much
as well as too little on security: ask anyone who works in retail.

>Even if you only use the stuff from CorpSec, it's nearly impossible for a
>runner could get in & out of a corp alive and unnoticed and that's just
>supposed to be a catalog for corps that want to buy security equipment from
>Ares. Now if that's what Ares is willing to sell, imagine the tech that
>they'd have on their own sites. Now think about the real paranoids
>(Saeder-Krupp and Aztechnology) and the absolutely silly levels of security
>that they have (check out the section on corp magic in Awakenings for a tiny
>glimpse).

So, shadowrunning is impossible and the only reason to play is to see
how the GM decides to kill your character this session?

Or, just possibly, the stuff in Corporate Security is what you see in
any sales brochure: the top-of-the-line hardware available to those with
the deepest pockets, and most sites _dream_ of having this sort of
equipment made available.

What you spend on security, either before or after the fact, is money
not spent earning a return or handed out to investors. And these big
corporations are _competing_, Bob, the unsuccessful are absorbed or
gutted and discarded.

>You think that a corp that devotes that much effort to securing their sites

You assume they all do. That is one _hell_ of a lot of money spent on
security, instead of earning a return, to make every site impregnable.

Do you _actually_ need all that security? The shareholders want a twenty
per cent return on investment and if you can't provide it, they'll go
for someone who can. Yes, inadequate security is a risk: but so is
spending all your profit on guards, wire, IC et al instead of handing it
out as dividend.

No dividend, no earnings growth, no investors. Oops.

>Nope, they'd
>just cut a check, write up a good media story (as funny as Paul's idea of a
>runner's story getting published is, it wouldn't happen or it wouldn't be
>believed... see The Lucifer Deck for an example thereof and remember that
>the corp was awfully kind in handling that), and start the process of making
>them go away.

You assume, of course, that nobody has an interest in discreetly and
untraceably assisting a rival's opponents. After all, if Corp A is
spending money on a manhunt and sending its security assets after a team
of runners, it's leaving other areas less defended and it's using up
cash flow it could be investing elsewhere. The longer those runners
live, the better for Corp B, C, D and E who are in direct competition.

So, perhaps, we muddy the waters a little, throw out a few false leads,
and generally keep Corporation A's assets busy. And while they throw
money into the hunt for a few ghosts in the Barrens, Corp A's
competitors are investing in something that earns a tangible return and
actually shows up in this year's annual report.

Corp A suffers and its competitors benefit, for a relatively small
price.

Oh, I forgot. As well as all corporations being all-powerful, they're
also united in friendship and amity, co-operating and sharing data
without question.

Or can't you play competitors against each other in your game?

>Maybe they do it legally or maybe they don't. Either way with those kinds
>of resources at hand, no runner could last long enough.

Let's see: against the resources of the US military, the rag-tag
guerillas of the Viet Cong and their North Vietnamese military backers
don't have a hope.

It's quite impossible for a terrorist movement to defy the will of the
British Government and wage a twenty-five year long campaign of violence
in Ulster and the British mainland.

There is not a chance that ragged Pathans armed with ancient Lee-
Enfields could defy the might of the Red Army.

Need I go on?

You consistently forget the Barrens, among other things. Why would any
citizen, particularly a SINless one, of the Barrens owe any allegiance
or friendship to a corporation? Disappear into there and you're _gone_
as far as a corporation is concerned.

What are you going to do, hand out reward money for sightings? Better
get set to sift a _lot_ of sightings and hand out a lot of money: and
you'd better be sure to pay up, because otherwise next time nobody will
talk to a welshing corporate suit snooping around and asking questions,
they may just sell him to a chop shop as spare parts.

>One contact found,
>then another... soon the runner's locked off from all his savings and none
>of his friends will talk to him, he's stranded and has to rely on himself
>while bounty hunters and runners from all over are out to claim his head.
>No contacts, no resources, and no hope.

Two possibilities here, Bob.

One, it might take long enough for a runner to be solidly identified (by
which I don't just mean determining a street name, I mean finding
whatever false identities they are using, finding fingerprints, retinal
patterns, genetic ID, locating their contacts, notifying the police with
adequate grounds for an extradition, et cetera) that the runner can
reach an airport, rail station, bus station, border checkpoint, or port
and be through before you have a name or list of names.

Can't make the ID in time? Now you're searching a continent, not just a
city.

Can't get an ID within twelve hours? Good luck, that runner is - if they
have any brains and the pursuit is this effective - somewhere in the
world where that corporation has limited influence. CAS for Aztlan, UK
for Ares, et cetera, just off the top of my head. Now it's getting
_expensive_ to go after the runner.

Never see THX-1138? A relentless, unceasing pursuit: until its cost -
continuously computed - passed a calculated limit. Suddenly the robot
cops turn back to their other duties, it's no longer worthwhile to
pursue this particular quarry and other problems are happening
elsewhere.

Plus, we're talking the Barrens here: these are the places nobody really
cares about. Your contacts will sell you out? Not impossible, but the
price of buying a fixer we always figured as over ten million: enough
for a solid new identity and a permanent Luxury lifestyle, because that
fixer is then retired.

Why? Because they surely won't have only one runner or group of runners
working for them. And if you discover your fixer sold one runner out,
wouldn't you be a tiny little bit concerned that you'd be next? I know I
would be, but perhaps I missed the part of the Shadowrun rules that said
all characters must be suicidally insane, no exceptions permitted.

Oh, yeah, I said all this last time too. Maybe if I keep saying it
you'll read what I write instead of what you _think_ I'm writing.

Or the other possibility: that you're absolutely right and undertaking a
shadowrun against a corporation means a lifelong manhunt as your
contacts are killed, your identities unmasked, and you are pursued by
relentless and totally superior forces until you die.

Thanks, Bob, but - all questions of realism aside - could you explain to
me why the hell I would want to play this game? Because, remember, this
is a game, not Real Life(TM), It draws on real life, but the idea is to
play and enjoy, not for some GM to sit and describe how the characters
die without hope or chance after each and every run.

I want a PC to live long enough to develop some depth and become more
than some statistics and a background story, not to be a pile of
smouldering ash at the end of his first game session because he dared to
cross a corporation. Yet from what you say, to undertake a shadowrun is
to guarantee a rapid death because you can neither run nor hide from the
wrath of a megacorporation no matter what you do.

Shadowrun's published modules frequently have player characters opposing
the will of Big Eight megacorporations or their subsidiaries. Does this
mean that undertaking one of FASA's modules means certain death for the
characters? Or is it possible that you are mistake, that it's possible
to survive provided you don't break the surface tension?

>I prefer an edge to my
>Shadowrun, something that represents how life would be in such a world,
>something that has the runners thinking before acting or taking a run,
>something that is representative of the game as it was designed to be played.

I like characters to have some chance of survival, provided they use
their brains: play rivals off against each other, use misdirection and
confusion, frame rival runners...

What I bitterly object to is the notion that - as you keep stating - the
corporations are an invincible front of united power, willing to spend
billions to hunt down and kill petty criminals and co-operating fully in
the name of destroying glorified burglars. I see nothing that states
that certain death is the inevitable consequence of undertaking a
shadowrun: in fact, I see a lot that describes how it's possible to
survive for quite some time, with care and skill.

Yes, if you're stupid you die fast, but you never listen to that part,
do you, Bob?

It's possible, believe it or not, to have "an edge" to the game without
killing the entire party every session. From what you write, any
shadowrun risks death, because that Tiny Little Business Inc. is
actually an Aztechnology front, and Aztechnology will then set their
hounds on you until you are dead.

I like a slightly less arbitrary setting, where you _can_ survive
provided you are smart and careful and lucky. Why you persist in
insisting this requires corporate incompetence, I have no idea. It
requires corporate rationality, not weakness, to determine how ardent
each particular pursuit should be: from "trivial" in the case of a
paint-bomb attack on an exec's car, to "all-out manhunt" if the CEO is
assassinated or (worse) something has a noticeable impact on share
prices or this year's dividend.

Either you cannot comprehend what I write, or you are so utterly set in
your thoughts that you will not listen to what I keep saying.

To hell with it, you aren't listening to this either are you?

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

From:	"Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:57:16 -0500

Message no. 37 > To hell with it, you aren't listening to this either are you?
Um, if this is what this thread is turning into, perhaps it belongs in private
email rather than this list.

losthalo

From:	Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:15:47 -0700

Message no. 38 ---Joshua T Brown wrote:
>
> Come on now, Bob, a little exaggeration to make your point is one
thing,
> but out-and-out ridiculing someone else's worldview doesn't support
your
> point, it just makes you sound arrogant. I agree that Shadowrunners
who
> don't excercise caution, stealth, and overall discretionary speed,
will
> be obliterated, but comparing someone elses game to slapstick is not
too
> far from the name calling which *you* pointed out is the last resort
of
> the person who has nothing intelligent to say. <smirk>

Two flame fests on two different threads ignited by TopCat in a week's
time. That's gotta say something...

<sigh>

===

@>--,--'--- Loki <gamemstr@********.com>

Poisoned Elves: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

If in your adventures you happen across the skull of a dragon, turn
and leave that place quickly. Whatever killed the dragon may still be
around.
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:11:36 -0600

Message no. 39 TopCat wrote:
|
| I view the corporations as the financial monsters that they are. Few
| countries in the world now (and in 205X) have anywhere near the resources
| that a single megacorp has in SR. They've got security the likes of which
| we can't imagine and they've got cash reserves that simply boggle the mind.
| This is why they can afford to hire runners in the first place. Millions a
| year disappear and it doesn't even show up as a percentage of their total
| income. Anyone that can and will throw cash into runners can and will throw
| cash into stopping runners.

I might meander here so bear with me :)

Megacorporations are indeed financial monsters. But I believe that
it's there very size that lets runners stay alive. Each megacorp has
got to have a couple hundred million employees, a hundred million or
so departments, 10s of millions of subdivisions, millions of
divisions, 100s of thousands of subcorporations, 10s of thousands of
major corporations, thousands of major divisions...all leading up to
the major shareholder(s).

I won't argue the point that if a shadowrunner's actions affect a
megacorp on anything higher than the division level, they're either
good or dead. Which raises another point, that if they're good
enough they can avoid the repercusions of taking on the upper levels
of a megacorp (think Missions Impossible).

However, those lower echelons, while powerful, have their own
problems. They're trying to keep their profit margin and their
jobs. They're being sold, traded, or merged every 1-3 years to
provide escro for upper echelons. While they may have good managers,
they don't have the genius bastards that travel in the big circles.
The one thing they're very good at is denying responsibility. "Sure
I was in charge of the lab, but Wilson was in charge of security."
"The key word is "was". He was fired this morning. Now I'm firing
you." Also, those lowere eschelons do not have the funds to throw at
revenge that the big boys do. And unless a runner does something
exceptionally stupid (like blowing up the lab for fun afterwards),
he's never going to be noticed by the other eschelons.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

| But hey, everyone laughs when the Keystone Cops fall over each other.

It's funny when they do that because they represent a group of people
that have to work together to get the job done. It's funny when
corps do it because that's how they really work. If you get a chance
read "The Dilbert Principle".

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
Yoink! - The sound of a crescent roll being stolen.

From:	TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:06:06 -0500

Message no. 40 At 05:32 PM 6/30/97 -0500, Joshua wrote:
>I remember the last time this came around, too... and I agree with you
>now in the same manner I did then. ... Up to a point.

Okay... let's find that point and stretch it out a bit :)

><snip stuff about how it's suicidal to run against a corp>

Not just any corp, megacorps...

>Ok, If the runners try to hit a Corp as if they were knocking over the
>local Stuffer Shack, they will, and should be crushed like bugs. But, if
>they are smart, like some bugs, the runners will take advantage of the
>fact that they are incredibly tiny as compared to a corp, and thus, can
>move much faster than the typical corporate bureaucracy. Their sting is
>not worth the effort it might take to track them down, however small that
>might be. There's no profit in revenge, and the corp will likely find a
>scapegoat within their own ranks to blame for not dealing with the
>runners, and allowing the hit to happen. This isn't to say that the corp
>forgives them, and won't kill them if they are stupid enough to make a
>habit of hurting the corp's profits, but the idea that the corp stops
>whatever it's doing and stomps out every runner who breaks corp laws,
>instead of blaming whoever failed to enforce those laws is just as
>ludicrous as the other extreme you have chosen to rant against.

I've already gone through my reasons why I feel it is very much worth it to
a megacorp to track down runners who hit them, so check back on those
previous postings for the particulars...

Also, you're wrong in thinking that I've said that a corp would drop
everything it's doing to eradicate the runners. What I propose requires
such minimal effort & resources as to be almost nothing to a megacorp.

>>But hey, everyone laughs when the Keystone Cops fall over each other.

>Come on now, Bob, a little exaggeration to make your point is one thing,
>but out-and-out ridiculing someone else's worldview doesn't support your
>point, it just makes you sound arrogant. I agree that Shadowrunners who
>don't excercise caution, stealth, and overall discretionary speed, will
>be obliterated, but comparing someone elses game to slapstick is not too
>far from the name calling which *you* pointed out is the last resort of
>the person who has nothing intelligent to say. <smirk>

Now here's where you missed... I specifically stated that swearing is the
last resort of the person who has no way to express himself. <smirk>
Anyways, what I did was link Paul's attitude toward megacorps to something
that most of us would know. The bumbling, incompetent, unconnected
megacorps he portrays remind me very much of the Keystone Cops.

Of course, this is all merely my opinion. Others may find it quite
realistic to be able to wear some black, sneak about for a while, slap a
maglock passkey on the lab door, steal whatever it is you're after, and
leave unnoticed as the security resources of the megacorp are none the wiser
until the next day when "oops!" they realize something happened and it
must've been those darned shadowrunenrs who get through us every time and
escape. Oh well, the guards go grab a fresh cup of coffee and the workers
get happily back to work, except for those workers and guards who were
killed/traumatized by the runners (and never set off a full alert, darn they
were too slow) they get a few months of therapy and hospital time or just
get cremated. Wascally runners always get their way... just as long as they
wear black and sneak. Bleh!

I am an arrogant kind of guy (just ask Mikes Broadwater & Nelson or Jason
Rodhouse... they know me) but it's only arrogance if I'm not right just like
it's only overconfidence if I fail (heh). :)

Anyways, with the technologies that are available to megas no runner (except
an EI alumni or someone equally freakish in their powers) is going to to be
able to get in, get the job done, and get out without getting seriously
challenged in the process. Realistically, runners (if they somehow managed
to get off of corp territory) would have teams following them the whole way.
Yellowjackets, ground teams, magical teams following astrally, spirits,
everything you can name would be out there to prevent whatever the runners
grabbed from becoming the knowledge of whatever group hired said runners in
the first place.

Having your workers terrorized, resources attacked, research stolen, and
security breached is one thing. Letting that information get to the
opposition is another. Megas can easily shut runners down by tracking them
once they leave corp boundaries (Paul's magical runners disappear once they
leave corp territory, not at all unlike how the Duke boys evade Sheriff
Roscoe P. Coltrain by crossing the county line on Dukes of Hazzard, I find
both equally humorous and unlikely) and doing what they want when they want to.

My rant to Paul's amazingly large reply (he's starting to creep into the
20K+ range previously occupied only by the likes of myself...) is coming
soon. Don't miss it :)
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

From:	TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:06:10 -0500

Message no. 41 At 11:23 PM 6/30/97 +0100, Paul wrote:
>In message <199706301959.OAA08030@*******.fgi.net>, TopCat
><topcat@***.NET> writes
>>I remember coming to a similar part in this conversation some year(s?) ago
>>in which Paul was expressed the opinion that he is expressing now and I
>>expressed the one that I have been expressing. Clearly we have different
>>views of the corporations which have the resources to literally throw around
>>to hire these runners in the first place.

>>Paul views them as something completely apathetic to harm done to them,

>Beg pardon?

You see, when corps say things like "Darn, the runners got outside the
fence, guess we can just forget about them and a few million nuyen worth of
research and resources, huh?" I consider that pretty apathetic. Don't you?

>>incapable of doing anything on their own even if they do make the decision,

>Which Paul are you talking about?

>>and often incompetent in the way they go about seeking help.

>Okaaay.... I can see the way this is going to go already. You didn't
>listen then, you're still deaf now.

Nope, you still claim that any corp will let the runners slide. They won't,
it's silly to let them get away. Conducive to the happiness of the runners,
yes, but not realistic. Silly. Especially in the case of megacorps which
is what I've been talking about...

>I stated that corporations would prevent intrusion and pursue anyone who
>crossed them... for as long as it was cost-effective to do so. Profit is
>the great god of all corporations.

Yeah, but you seem to be missing exactly how much it is often worth to kill
the runners immediately if not sooner. After they deliver whatever it was
they had, they're still a huge danger to the corp. Somehow they got in,
they can tell other people that as long as they live. There'll be a serious
decline in morale at the megacorp as a whole, not the least of which will
resort in nasty backlash from investors. The runners can also run on them
again and/or help the group which hired them again. If they're dead, you
may be erasing someone's favorite asset. They then have to search for
equally impressive runners to do their work for them, which'll take time and
nuyen. This again figures into the CBA. Consider that it'll be more
expensive for anyone to hire runners to go against you and figure that into
the CBA. In the end, you can spend a lot of money before it isn't worth it...

>Incompetent or careless runners die fast. But if it's impossible to
>survive, I can't be bothered playing in a game which consists of
>"Attempt a shadowrun, resolve how your PC is hunted down and killed
>within hours, create a new PC.

Even if you wear all the black you can find, make all your stealth rolls
with obscene successes, have outstanding magical and matrix backup, have
street samurais on loan from hell, and a pizza with all the toppings; you're
still sending a handful of people into a severely secure extraterritorial
site which has no particular care for such acts and will respond to them
brutally. You make 16 successes on a stealth roll, but the only way down a
hall will be seen by a camera. You get seen in my campaign.

Note, for the books this time, that I've never said Shadowruns were
impossible. I just said they were damn near so if you went against a Megacorp.

>>I view the corporations as the financial monsters that they are. Few
>>countries in the world now (and in 205X) have anywhere near the resources
>>that a single megacorp has in SR.

>Actually, this is demonstrably false. Check Corporate Shadowfiles: the
>best reference to a corporation's scale is that Nestle S.A. in the first
>decade of the 21st century was larger than any 2050s megacorp.
>Nestle at the moment is capitalised at something over 50 billion Swiss
>francs, twenty billion pounds, or thirty-five billion dollars. Let's
>assume it doubles between now and 2007 (cue rejoicing among all Nestle's
>shareholders). Wow! The biggest megacorp has a total market capitalisation
>equal to one-third of the yearly US defence budget (261 billion dollars
>appropriated in 1994).

I find it simply hilarious that you get your numbers by "guessing". Come
now, expecting me to believe and agree with your imagined statistics? I
also thought that our defense budget was considerably higher, though I could
well be wrong there. Though one-third the US defense budget is also much
more money than some countries pull in. So I guess I did okay there, huh?

>This does not support your position. Corporations are powerful and
>dangerous, but Gods they are not.

Some are very close, they say dance and people worldwide find a partner.
They're also far superior to some SINless piece of street trash that's been
around for a few years and maybe even had a military background.

>>This is why they can afford to hire runners in the first place. Millions a
>>year disappear and it doesn't even show up as a percentage of their total
>>income. Anyone that can and will throw cash into runners can and will throw
>>cash into stopping runners.

>How much? Doesn't take much money spent in the wrong place to make a big
>hole in accounts, directly and indirectly. And, if they have so much
>power and influence, why do they need shadowrunners at all?

Deniable assets. Come on now, even you knew that...

>No business is going to leave their payroll and their top staff
>unguarded in the car park overnight, but neither is every single
>corporate site going to be a fortified zero-zone. You can spend too much
>as well as too little on security: ask anyone who works in retail.

Correct! But you've forgot what I'd said... too bad. I said, once again
for the books, that MEGACORPS would be nearly impossible to run on. Uncle
Billy's Pub 'n Grub could most likely be hit by a kid with a knife and a
mean smile.

You're using retail as an example of corporate-level security? Bit of a
stretch don't you think? Of course, I've been reading your argument for a
while now and you may well believe that they're equal. Some kid thieving a
candy bar from the local drugstore isn't doing anything worth being shot
over. If someone runs into Boeing and steals the designs on a new military
fighter proposal, they'll be shot at, tracked down, and otherwise dogged
until they give up or die. Their resources for doing such a thing?
Military, of course. Just like the megas have their own little militaries.
Megas also can hire "deniable assets" at will a lot easier than can Joe
Shadowrunner.

>>Even if you only use the stuff from CorpSec, it's nearly impossible for a
>>runner could get in & out of a corp alive and unnoticed and that's just
>>supposed to be a catalog for corps that want to buy security equipment from
>>Ares. Now if that's what Ares is willing to sell, imagine the tech that
>>they'd have on their own sites. Now think about the real paranoids
>>(Saeder-Krupp and Aztechnology) and the absolutely silly levels of security
>>that they have (check out the section on corp magic in Awakenings for a tiny
>>glimpse).

>So, shadowrunning is impossible and the only reason to play is to see
>how the GM decides to kill your character this session?

Nope, shadowrunning on megas is near impossible and will more than likely
get a runner killed. Read the words, then reply...

>Or, just possibly, the stuff in Corporate Security is what you see in
>any sales brochure: the top-of-the-line hardware available to those with
>the deepest pockets, and most sites _dream_ of having this sort of
>equipment made available.

I've never known any business to do this. Usually they'll demo "concept
models" of things for just such a purpose, but those clearly aren't concept
models. Also, they are priced quite reasonably.

>What you spend on security, either before or after the fact, is money
>not spent earning a return or handed out to investors. And these big
>corporations are _competing_, Bob, the unsuccessful are absorbed or
>gutted and discarded.

Once again, stop thinking retail. Yes, they are competing and having the
best security puts you above the other guy. It makes it more expensive for
him to work industrial espionage against you. It makes your workers
happier, it makes your stockholders happier, it makes management happier.
Security is one of the most important things in Shadowrun. Remember now,
megacorps are extraterritorial. Acts against them are acts against another
country. How well is the US poised to defend against attacks? We're so
insanely overpowered right now we have to defend other countries to justify
the amount of troops we have. What else are we? Secure. I can honestly
say that I feel very secure. I will never in my lifetime see an Iraqi
fighter jet strafing downtown Springfield. I know that bombs won't start
dropping here at any time. I'm happy to live here because of it. Lots of
people envy that (ask any Bosnian). Lots of people have faith in the US
because of that. Lots of people invest in the US because we are as secure
as we are.

Just like lots of people would envy, believe in, and invest in any
megacorporation that could provide the same. I know I'd rather work for
them than some outfit that couldn't offer me equal security.

>Do you _actually_ need all that security? The shareholders want a twenty
>per cent return on investment and if you can't provide it, they'll go
>for someone who can. Yes, inadequate security is a risk: but so is
>spending all your profit on guards, wire, IC et al instead of handing it
>out as dividend.

Yes, you need that level of security and sure you can justify it. If a
runner team comes in to steal research that would set you back in the
marketplace, they would cost you millions in one single swoop. Possibly
billions. You lose market share, you lose stock value, you lose LOTS of
cash all because you skimped on security. Now if my security stops even 2
attempts a year, it's made it's 20% return with interest. How many runs do
you honestly think take place against a given megacorp every year? My
realistic level of security would stop pretty much all of them. Skimped
security to a degree below the CorpSec level would stop a couple, maybe.
Lose billions each year or spend a couple more millions each year to keep
that from happening? Cost-benefit analysis is a favorite of yours... what's
your take here?

>No dividend, no earnings growth, no investors. Oops.

Maybe for the undersecured corp.

>You assume, of course, that nobody has an interest in discreetly and
>untraceably assisting a rival's opponents. After all, if Corp A is
>spending money on a manhunt and sending its security assets after a team
>of runners, it's leaving other areas less defended and it's using up
>cash flow it could be investing elsewhere. The longer those runners
>live, the better for Corp B, C, D and E who are in direct competition.

No megacorp is going to be impeded by sending out even forty security
personnel to get the runners. Now include with those 40 some deniable
assets and life gets much harder on the runners in question.

>So, perhaps, we muddy the waters a little, throw out a few false leads,
>and generally keep Corporation A's assets busy. And while they throw
>money into the hunt for a few ghosts in the Barrens, Corp A's
>competitors are investing in something that earns a tangible return and
>actually shows up in this year's annual report.
>Corp A suffers and its competitors benefit, for a relatively small
>price.

So some corp is going to spend millions diverting the attention of a
megacorp for a week (maybe) all to save some street trash? Even good street
trash isn't worth that much. Cost-benefit analysis again. S'why they use
runners in the first place, they're cheap and easy to come by.

>Oh, I forgot. As well as all corporations being all-powerful, they're
>also united in friendship and amity, co-operating and sharing data
>without question.
>Or can't you play competitors against each other in your game?

Sure you can. That's why there are shadowruns. But realistically a runner
can always be replaced. Why spend millions to keep him alive unless he lets
you implant a cortex bomb in his head and he'll agree to be your toady for
the rest of his (un)natural life. Even then is it really worth that kind of
nuyen? Doubtful. If I'm the group that originally contracted the run out,
I let the runners die, they're no longer any concern of mine. Cost-benefit
analysis.

>>Maybe they do it legally or maybe they don't. Either way with those kinds
>>of resources at hand, no runner could last long enough.

>Let's see: against the resources of the US military, the rag-tag
>guerillas of the Viet Cong and their North Vietnamese military backers
>don't have a hope.

Nice try, but way off. Think of it this way: The British military vs. a
couple of guys hiding in a London slum. Sooner or later they'll find them
and even if those guys are armed to the teeth and trained to the hilt, the
two will die. The amount of manpower it'll take to get to those two guys is
inconsequential compared to the full might of the British military, so
there's no overall loss to the military side at any time. Resources-wise?
Again, inconsequential.

>It's quite impossible for a terrorist movement to defy the will of the
>British Government and wage a twenty-five year long campaign of violence
>in Ulster and the British mainland.

Yup, sure is, but that's a terrorist movement with political roots that go
back generations and are aided far and wide by supporters around the globe.
We're talking about a couple of shadowrunners here. *Big* difference.

>Need I go on?

Please do :)

>You consistently forget the Barrens, among other things. Why would any
>citizen, particularly a SINless one, of the Barrens owe any allegiance
>or friendship to a corporation? Disappear into there and you're _gone_
>as far as a corporation is concerned.

Nuyen. That's why. You want out of that hellhole? Here's a shiny
credstick with 10,000 nuyen on it. We'll even set you up with a SIN and a
job for the info. You like that? Any gutterscum would jump at a chance
like that.

>What are you going to do, hand out reward money for sightings? Better
>get set to sift a _lot_ of sightings and hand out a lot of money: and
>you'd better be sure to pay up, because otherwise next time nobody will
>talk to a welshing corporate suit snooping around and asking questions,
>they may just sell him to a chop shop as spare parts.

No, hand out proper rewards not for sightings but for links. Find out the
guy's fixer (there are only so many fixers in a given area and any given
megacorp will know someone that knows them) and inform him that you'll pay
handsomely for the right info. Who're his friends? Where's he like to hang
out? Who supplies his ID's? Money can open almost any door and in a slum
like the Barrens, it'll open every door very quickly. Why's it so hard to
pay up? A few tiny kickbacks and a few righteous threats will get you a
long way.

I also find it funny that you might think some ganger could take down a suit
w/bodyguards. Some gutterpunk putting down trained corporate personnel. I
guess it's your worldview though.

>>One contact found,
>>then another... soon the runner's locked off from all his savings and none
>>of his friends will talk to him, he's stranded and has to rely on himself
>>while bounty hunters and runners from all over are out to claim his head.
>>No contacts, no resources, and no hope.

>Two possibilities here, Bob.

>One, it might take long enough for a runner to be solidly identified (by
>which I don't just mean determining a street name, I mean finding
>whatever false identities they are using, finding fingerprints, retinal
>patterns, genetic ID, locating their contacts, notifying the police with
>adequate grounds for an extradition, et cetera) that the runner can
>reach an airport, rail station, bus station, border checkpoint, or port
>and be through before you have a name or list of names.

A while? Pay a solid decker or fixer and it's done in minutes. Even if you
throw them a million nuyen bone, it'll save you more in the long run
(there's your CBA again). Runners aren't the only ones with contacts and
the corporate contact web is far deeper and lined with lots more nuyen.
Think your chummer won't sell you out for a nice safe life? If he's got
people after him, he'll cut any deal they want ("people" can always be
found). Crimelords also find themselves inexorably entangled with corporate
life. You hit Fuchi? Got some nasty Yakuza guys who want to have a word
with you. You hit Ares? Got some Mafia and UCAS Military people who're
interested in finding you now. That's all just gravy on top of the corp
resources that are after you.

Shadowrunners may be born on the streets, but the streets dance to the beat
of the megacorporate pulse. Any shadow-type knows that.

>Can't get an ID within twelve hours? Good luck, that runner is - if they
>have any brains and the pursuit is this effective - somewhere in the
>world where that corporation has limited influence. CAS for Aztlan, UK
>for Ares, et cetera, just off the top of my head. Now it's getting
>_expensive_ to go after the runner.

Like I said, what's more expensive: millions/billions in market share or
thousands to maybe a million paid out quickly? CBA...

>Never see THX-1138? A relentless, unceasing pursuit: until its cost -
>continuously computed - passed a calculated limit. Suddenly the robot
>cops turn back to their other duties, it's no longer worthwhile to
>pursue this particular quarry and other problems are happening
>elsewhere.

Sure, but it wasn't costing a whole lot losing that guy for a short time.
It can and will cost a TON to let a runner get away in many circumstances.
Those robots followed him for quite a while and he essentially hadn't done a
lot compared to what runners do to a corp. Take the wide view, not the
"Well, the runners copied a datafile, but we still have a copy so
everything's okay." limited view. The financial repercussions of stolen
research rack up quick in reality.

>Plus, we're talking the Barrens here: these are the places nobody really
>cares about. Your contacts will sell you out? Not impossible, but the
>price of buying a fixer we always figured as over ten million: enough
>for a solid new identity and a permanent Luxury lifestyle, because that
>fixer is then retired.

You think it'd cost ten million to buy out some guy who throws work your
way? Who do you think pays him anyways? Corps. Who do you think could
shut him down, giving him no work to skim off of? Corps. Now when dealing
with megacorps, we're talking a considerable amount of pull. The corps pull
the fixers' strings. If he gets bought off, he made a (good) business
decision. Maybe save the life of some guy I could care less about while
making my sugar-daddy mad or take a bunch of nuyen and forget I ever knew
him. I'd make that choice in a heartbeat.

>Why? Because they surely won't have only one runner or group of runners
>working for them. And if you discover your fixer sold one runner out,
>wouldn't you be a tiny little bit concerned that you'd be next? I know I
>would be, but perhaps I missed the part of the Shadowrun rules that said
>all characters must be suicidally insane, no exceptions permitted.

When do you discover that your fixer sold someone out? If a guy dies, a guy
dies. He ran on the wrong people and that's the way business goes. If a
fixer can stay in the biz and do his work well, do you really think anyone
will find out that he said "check these ID's, they're headed for Denver"?
Keep a paper/electron trail and yeah they might. Do it properly and no
runner will ever know.

>Oh, yeah, I said all this last time too. Maybe if I keep saying it
>you'll read what I write instead of what you _think_ I'm writing.

You said it years ago too, it was wrong then. :)

>Or the other possibility: that you're absolutely right and undertaking a
>shadowrun against a corporation means a lifelong manhunt as your
>contacts are killed, your identities unmasked, and you are pursued by
>relentless and totally superior forces until you die.

Megacorporation. Man, you missed that part of the thread every time so far.
Guess I shouldn't expect much, you did it before too.

>Thanks, Bob, but - all questions of realism aside - could you explain to
>me why the hell I would want to play this game? Because, remember, this
>is a game, not Real Life(TM), It draws on real life, but the idea is to
>play and enjoy, not for some GM to sit and describe how the characters
>die without hope or chance after each and every run.
>I want a PC to live long enough to develop some depth and become more
>than some statistics and a background story, not to be a pile of
>smouldering ash at the end of his first game session because he dared to
>cross a corporation. Yet from what you say, to undertake a shadowrun is
>to guarantee a rapid death because you can neither run nor hide from the
>wrath of a megacorporation no matter what you do.

Because my game doesn't involve runs on megacorps. If you want to run on
them, you can. The job opportunities are there. You'll probably die, but
lots of others have died too. There is a considerable amount of the
shadowrun world left unexplored when you limit your games to runs on
megacorps. I prefer to have a grand scope of possibilities with a
street-level campaign (at least when it starts).

PC's do indeed live long in my campaigns because they're intelligent. I
can't honestly say that I've killed one off yet (a tribute to my
compatriots). They don't run on megacorps and they live. They understand
that there are consequences to each and every action. Sometimes the
consequences don't matter, other times they can be devastating. You weigh
your options, make a choice, and go from there hoping you made the right
one. Throw a pebble in a pond and it makes ripples.

Maybe you kill some ganger. No big deal, he tried to mug you and deserved
to die for it, right? Then his gang comes after you...

If I were a runner and I stole data from a corp and no move was made to come
after me, I'd be really scared or I'd feel like I grabbed worthless data.

>Shadowrun's published modules frequently have player characters opposing
>the will of Big Eight megacorporations or their subsidiaries. Does this
>mean that undertaking one of FASA's modules means certain death for the
>characters? Or is it possible that you are mistake, that it's possible
>to survive provided you don't break the surface tension?

I never use FASA's modules. I find that they're underpowered for most of
the players in my campaigns and often pander to the EI or other munchkinous
filth. Also, other people read them and consequently can know the
information within. I prefer to think up my own campaigns and I haven't had
any problems yet.

>>I prefer an edge to my
>>Shadowrun, something that represents how life would be in such a world,
>>something that has the runners thinking before acting or taking a run,
>>something that is representative of the game as it was designed to be played.

>I like characters to have some chance of survival, provided they use
>their brains: play rivals off against each other, use misdirection and
>confusion, frame rival runners...

And the opposition always falls for it... wascally wunners twicked me again
huh-huh-huh-huh-huh.

>What I bitterly object to is the notion that - as you keep stating - the
>corporations are an invincible front of united power, willing to spend
>billions to hunt down and kill petty criminals and co-operating fully in
>the name of destroying glorified burglars. I see nothing that states
>that certain death is the inevitable consequence of undertaking a
>shadowrun: in fact, I see a lot that describes how it's possible to
>survive for quite some time, with care and skill.

Megacorps, you never have gotten that right. And they're far from unified,
they just could care less about runners because they're no more than pawns.
Billions to hunt down one group of criminals may seem weird, but when you
consider that it may well cost billions if you don't, there really isn't a
choice. CBA, once again.

As for the "it's possible to survive for quite some time, with care and
skill" bit: your level of care and skill required is significantly below
that which I would consider necessary to hit a megacorp. Significantly
below. Like I said before, wear all black, make some stealth rolls, etc...

>Yes, if you're stupid you die fast, but you never listen to that part,
>do you, Bob?

I always listen to that part, but you're far kinder with the stupidity
threshold for runners than I am. I also make corps intelligent with little
to no chance of stupidity.

>It's possible, believe it or not, to have "an edge" to the game without
>killing the entire party every session. From what you write, any
>shadowrun risks death, because that Tiny Little Business Inc. is
>actually an Aztechnology front, and Aztechnology will then set their
>hounds on you until you are dead.

I've never killed any PC and I consider my games to have a rather impressive
degree of edge. Also, I wholeheartedly believe that any shadowrun risks
death. Even muggings risk death and a shadowrun is a bit more severe than a
mugging...

>I like a slightly less arbitrary setting, where you _can_ survive
>provided you are smart and careful and lucky. Why you persist in
>insisting this requires corporate incompetence, I have no idea. It
>requires corporate rationality, not weakness, to determine how ardent
>each particular pursuit should be: from "trivial" in the case of a
>paint-bomb attack on an exec's car, to "all-out manhunt" if the CEO is
>assassinated or (worse) something has a noticeable impact on share
>prices or this year's dividend.

I think it would be amazingly easy to survive in your campaign. All I have
to do is touch base (anywhere in the Barrens) and the corp can't tag me.
Also, you seem to agree with me at the end there when you say "...(worse)
something has a noticeable impact on share prices or this year's dividend".
That's what I've been talking about all this time and I agree that a corp
would retaliate more fervently to such an act than to the death of a CEO.

>Either you cannot comprehend what I write, or you are so utterly set in
>your thoughts that you will not listen to what I keep saying.
>To hell with it, you aren't listening to this either are you?

Read it all and you kept forgetting the prefix "mega" before corp and
thinking that SR is only running against Megas and thinking that data gained
from a run would be worth less than the effort to erase a single runner
team. I've listened all throughout and I find your view of the SR world
severely skewed which is why I keep writing these replies.

If I could find something in the least bit realistic and inline with the SR
world in your argument, then I'd have left this thread alone a long time
ago. I think you see corporations far too much from a Wal-Mart perspective
and not from an extraterritorial entity perspective. Corps create and
manipulate the shadows, not the other way around.

So where's this thread going? I'll continue to disprove and attack any
example you throw out and I expect you'll keep throwing them out for all
eternity. I won't agree that you're right and I doubt you'll accept my
views either, regardless of what I do to disprove them...

Feel free to reply to this, I'll allow you the last words on it. I'll read
your reply, should you choose to make one, and my view will remain
unchanged. However, someone else on this list may well have his view swayed
by your words so I do encourage you to reply. Regardless of what happens, I
will stop posting on this thread. Seeya in the next one ;^D
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

From:	TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:12:33 -0500

Message no. 42 At 08:57 PM 6/30/97 -0500, Bruce wrote:
>> To hell with it, you aren't listening to this either are you?

>Um, if this is what this thread is turning into, perhaps it
>belongs in private email rather than this list.

Far from, Paul's just a tad bit aggravated. He'll get over it. I'm still
quite in control, thank you...

As for Loki's comment in his post... My, what exactly do you mean?
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 21:19:26 -0600

Message no. 43 TopCat wrote:
|
| At 08:57 PM 6/30/97 -0500, Bruce wrote:
| >> To hell with it, you aren't listening to this either are you?
|
| >Um, if this is what this thread is turning into, perhaps it
| >belongs in private email rather than this list.
|
| Far from, Paul's just a tad bit aggravated. He'll get over it. I'm still
| quite in control, thank you...

Bob, how do you do it? After reading your last post I realized that my
post on the subject, in which I thought I was argueing with you, was in
agreement with you. And I think you did the same thing to Paul.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
Yoink! - The sound of a crescent roll being stolen.

From:	TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:35:05 -0500

Message no. 44 At 09:19 PM 6/30/97 -0600, David wrote:
>Bob, how do you do it? After reading your last post I realized that my
>post on the subject, in which I thought I was argueing with you, was in
>agreement with you. And I think you did the same thing to Paul.

Hmm, I doubt Paul agrees with me or that he ever will or that he'd admit
that he did if he did. Regardless, I think it's just the fact that people
like to argue with me. Not that I do anything to detract from that, mind
you, but I'm pretty sure that's it. Even I admit that my style can be...
abrasive.

I guess that I'm the listmember that people love to hate, the Dennis Rodman
of ShadowRN... ;^D

But I'm done with this topic now, I've said my 30K (LOL! 30K?!) and I feel
I've represented my argument well. My fingers are too tired to mess with
this more anyways... heh :)
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

From:	"Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Tue, 1 Jul 1997 00:29:45 -0500

Message no. 45 You wrote:
> At 08:57 PM 6/30/97 -0500, Bruce wrote:
> >> To hell with it, you aren't listening to this either are you?

> >Um, if this is what this thread is turning into, perhaps it
> >belongs in private email rather than this list.

> Far from, Paul's just a tad bit aggravated. He'll get over it. I'm still
> quite in control, thank you...
Thank you for reminding me how cool you are.

I think this argument between you two is an enormous waste of time, and you are
really being childish for insisting on keeping it in a public forum. If the
two of you insist on continuing, and no one else really cares about it, why not
leave us (and our email addresses) out of it?

losthalo

From:	shergold <shergold@***********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Tue, 1 Jul 1997 00:03:46 -0400

Message no. 46 Gawd, I hope this particular thread has wound its way to its final,
torturous end.
While both have good points worth considering, the 20k+ messages were
definately unamusing. I don't know about anyone else, but if the two of you
want (I believe the main opponents are Paul and TopCat) keep duking it out,
Please, Please take it to private e-mail, this childishness is driving me
BUGGY!

Forgive the poor grammer it's late and I just deleted about thirty pages of
crap from my account.

SilverFire

"I merely chewed in self-defense."

-Draco the Dragon
"Dragonheart"

From:	"... ..." <Brother-1@*****.NET>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:12:52 -1000

Message no. 47 >no one else really cares.
Some of us do care. I would like to see them continue.

From:	Marcin Serkies <yasiu@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Tue, 1 Jul 1997 11:25:40 +0200

Message no. 48 At 18:05 30.06.97 -0500, you wrote:

>While I can agree somewhat of the cost-vs.-utility argument of why runners
>aren't a priority for the corps to hunt down, I still figure that it's more a
>matter of the runenrs not being particularly traceable that saves them. They
>don't exist in official databases, have no SIN to link photo IDs, etc. to, have
>no legal drivers' license, or other such baggage. Their residences are usually
>temporary (our characters tended to change apts every few months, and wouldn't
>hesitate to bail out if the heat seemed to be on). A photo ID doesn't mean
>much compared to the population size of a place like Seattle, especially with
>the size of the SINless population. Magical techniques for tracing are
>unreliable at best, and a _very_ expensive, scarce resource. OTOH, doing a
>ritual effect using minute samples of blood found on the site (if one of the
>runners took a hit or three) would be _well_ within what they could do; watch
>out for those first hours after the run, and maybe longer if they're willing to
>keep the sample under a Preserve spell for a while). But if that fails, a
>decker can't trace the group (no data to go on except appearance). So if the
>runners get off-site and away without being traced, they are probably home free
>because the corp cannot _find_ them. Think about the difficulty in finding a
>criminal today if no ID was made of the criminal at the scene, and he makes an
>intelligent escape and doesn't appear in public much. Plastering the vid with
>his mug? Yeah, there're how many channels in Seattle, it'd cost the corp how
>much in an effort likely to turn up nothing? And if you hit a big corp and
>figure they got photo ID of you and are gunning for you, you go under the knife
>for some elective surgery... All this is from brief descriptions of the Solo
>class in CP 2020 and my own POV on how Seattle 205X works, YMMV. I'd just like
>to know how corps track people down in your view. Sure they've got the
>firepower when the time comes, I don't think anyone would argue with you there.

Yep - corporation cannot find runners in direct way But there may be someone
who dislike runners and will make call. Or corpotations can use their own
ppl in shadows to trace runners. I think that there is more ways to find
them... And if they`ll do that... runners have to RUN fast :))

c-ya

Yasiu
c-yA - yASIU - cULtIST oF eXtASY iN rEAL lIfE - aND iF wE aRE tAlKING aBOUt
rEAl lIfE - mY rEAL nAME iS mARCiN sERkIES

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Tue, 1 Jul 1997 06:57:30 -0600

Message no. 49 TopCat wrote:
|
| At 09:19 PM 6/30/97 -0600, David wrote:
| >Bob, how do you do it? After reading your last post I realized that my
| >post on the subject, in which I thought I was argueing with you, was in
| >agreement with you. And I think you did the same thing to Paul.
|
| Hmm, I doubt Paul agrees with me or that he ever will or that he'd admit
| that he did if he did. Regardless, I think it's just the fact that people
| like to argue with me. Not that I do anything to detract from that, mind
| you, but I'm pretty sure that's it. Even I admit that my style can be...
| abrasive.

I think you were both argueing two points of view that never
conflicted with eachother.

IMO, You believe that if runners take on the first, or even second,
tier of a Megacorp, that if they don't get wacked in the attempt that
the Megacorp will seek retribution.

IMO, Paul believes that the lower tiers of a Megacorp have defense
that can be bypassed (though it will take a little work) and that
said Corp won't seek retribution unless they have a good reason (the
runners geeked the CEO's daughter during the run (don't you hate
stray rounds?)).

It's like arguing that a Dragon is a Dragon and the Orcs are Orcs (no
offense Bull).

| I guess that I'm the listmember that people love to hate, the Dennis Rodman
| of ShadowRN... ;^D

LOL

Hey, just before you left last time we were just getting into the art
of writing a good mystery and placing clues. Have you learned
anything new since then?

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
Yoink! - The sound of a crescent roll being stolen.

From:	Glenn Munro <eazy@*****.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Runner's Attitudes
Date:	Tue, 1 Jul 1997 23:39:19 +1000

Message no. 50 >megacorps are extraterritorial. Acts against them are acts against another
>country. How well is the US poised to defend against attacks? We're so
>insanely overpowered right now we have to defend other countries to justify
>the amount of troops we have. What else are we? Secure. I can honestly
>say that I feel very secure. I will never in my lifetime see an Iraqi
>fighter jet strafing downtown Springfield. I know that bombs won't start
>dropping here at any time. I'm happy to live here because of it. Lots of
>people envy that (ask any Bosnian). Lots of people have faith in the US
>because of that. Lots of people invest in the US because we are as secure
>as we are.
>
Yes...but one of the major reasons for US security compared to Bosnia is a
lack of neighbouring countries (esp ones that are not friendly) and its
size. How do you get a heap of troops into present day US? Sea? through the
choke point of Mexico or through their friendly northern neighbour Canada?
And even if you did get a sizable quantity of troops in how much territory
can they hold before they stretch their resources too far and consolidate
Americas?

In SR USA has been split into a number of smaller countries (although still
quite large). Corps (and even Megacorps) take up a smaller portion of these
countries still...surrounded by the enemy (or opposition). Doesn't sound
too safe to me.

Quickfix

Message no. 51 On 1 Jul 97 at 0:29, Bruce H. Nagel wrote:

> I think this argument between you two is an enormous waste of time, and you are
> really being childish for insisting on keeping it in a public forum. If the
> two of you insist on continuing, and no one else really cares about it, why not
> leave us (and our email addresses) out of it?

Bruce, why do you want the only interesting debate on this list in
ages to go away? I guess you like your mail boring. Your statement
above is false. I do care about it. You can't use the words "no one
else" anymore.

--

=DREKHEAD========================================================
drekhead@***.net --- http://users.aol.com/drekhead/home.html ---
=================================================================
=================================================================
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot
stomping on a human face...forever. -George Orwell

Message no. 52 |
|>no one else really cares.
|Some of us do care. I would like to see them continue.
|

Yep. If there's an argument that you don't want to see, and that argument is
between more than two people, there's very little that can be done TO take
it private.

You should just set your filters to delete the thing as it comes in, so you
won't have to see it.....
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message no. 53 At 12:29 AM 7/1/97 -0500, Bruce wrote:
>TopCat wrote:
>> At 08:57 PM 6/30/97 -0500, Bruce wrote:
>>>> To hell with it, you aren't listening to this either are you?

>>>Um, if this is what this thread is turning into, perhaps it
>>>belongs in private email rather than this list.

>>Far from, Paul's just a tad bit aggravated. He'll get over it. I'm still
>>quite in control, thank you...

>Thank you for reminding me how cool you are.

My pleasure :)

>I think this argument between you two is an enormous waste of time, and you are
>really being childish for insisting on keeping it in a public forum. If the
>two of you insist on continuing, and no one else really cares about it, why not
>leave us (and our email addresses) out of it?

Obviously a few others enjoy it, but as I said before I'm done with this
thread or at least the meat of it. Paul won't agree with me no matter what
and I won't agree with him. Both points have been stated and restated and
it's all simply a (huge) difference in worldview. I suggest that you create
a killfile for this thread if it does bother you so much. If you're
incapable of doing such, there's a delete key for a reason...
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

Message no. 54 There is one thing in this debate about corporatins tracking down
runners...

I imagine the runner community to be somewhat small - there isn't
that many shadowrunners around. A runner can stay low, but when he is
looking for business he will have to stay 'in the open' - if noone
can find him, how can he be contacted for work?

(Newspaper ads or similar, of course, but who would trust those?)

--
Rune Fostervoll

"But the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we no not of."

Message no. 55 In message <199707010306.WAA06738@*******.fgi.net>, TopCat
<topcat@***.NET> writes
>At 11:23 PM 6/30/97 +0100, Paul wrote:
>>In message <199706301959.OAA08030@*******.fgi.net>, TopCat
>><topcat@***.NET> writes
>>>Paul views them as something completely apathetic to harm done to them,
>
>>Beg pardon?
>
>You see, when corps say things like "Darn, the runners got outside the
>fence, guess we can just forget about them and a few million nuyen worth of
>research and resources, huh?" I consider that pretty apathetic. Don't you?

If I'd seen anyone suggesting that, I'd agree it was pretty apathetic.
Interestingly, I've never claimed it, so why you persist in attributing
it to me is a mystery.

I don't subscribe to the notion that, in the extreme, a corporation will
spend multiple millions of nuyen in hunting down and destroying a few
petty criminals. Most shadowruns don't involve that sort of cost to the
target, why throw good money after bad?

If you have cost the corporation ten or twenty million (and that's a
_big_ run), then you can expect a pretty savage hunt. If your run simply
planted some evidence that meant John Doe got knocked out of the running
for a certain promotion, and Richard Roe got the post instead; why is
the corporation even going to get involved? Why is it even going to know
there was a problem?

Runners _will_ be pursued if there is a case to do so. Sometimes that
will simply be "log it, file it, if we see them again we do something
about it: they didn't do enough damage to be worth wasting resource on."
Other times it will be an all-out manhunt and damn the cost, because the
corporation cannot afford to show weakness on this issue.

It puzzles me that Bob has so much trouble understanding this
distinction.

>>Okaaay.... I can see the way this is going to go already. You didn't
>>listen then, you're still deaf now.
>

Please remind me when I said that.

>They won't,
>it's silly to let them get away.

It's also silly to go bankrupt hunting petty criminals.

The response will be in proportion to the damage done, Bob. How many
different ways do I have to say this?

>>Either you cannot comprehend what I write, or you are so utterly set in
>>your thoughts that you will not listen to what I keep saying.
>>To hell with it, you aren't listening to this either are you?
>
>Read it all and you kept forgetting the prefix "mega" before corp and
>thinking that SR is only running against Megas and thinking that data gained
>from a run would be worth less than the effort to erase a single runner
>team.

I've snipped all your post, because I find your attitude bemusing and
your inability to comprehend what I write inexplicable: and while I
tried to come up with a response, I found your writing so bizarre on
occasion that it was virtually impossible to reply to.

The mere fact that a target is a megacorporation doesn't change the
financial cost of a given run against it, and your fixation that every
run against any megacorp involves a cost of billions is the crux of the
problem here. If the cost is small, the benefit of pursuit is similarly
small.

Many runs have no apparent cost: planting evidence to skew a promotion
board or influence a corporate disciplinary hearing, for instance. Done
properly they will never be detected, let alone pursued. You seem unable
to consider anything beyong The Big Datasteal as employment for
shadowrunners.

>If I could find something in the least bit realistic and inline with the SR
>world in your argument, then I'd have left this thread alone a long time
>ago.

One wonders whether that says more about you or me.

> I think you see corporations far too much from a Wal-Mart perspective
>and not from an extraterritorial entity perspective. Corps create and
>manipulate the shadows, not the other way around.

Corporations exist for one single solitary purpose: to make profit.

The shadows are there as a tool to that end. Not as an end in
themselves.

>So where's this thread going? I'll continue to disprove and attack any
>example you throw out

Thank you so much for demonstrating your open mind. No matter what I
say, you will try to attack and disprove it?

I said from the start that it appeared you were unable to listen to
anything said on this subject, and you appear determined to prove me
right.

>I won't agree that you're right and I doubt you'll accept my
>views either, regardless of what I do to disprove them...

I've given up trying to communicate with you. Why bother trying to
explain my views when, no matter what I say, you hear only

>Nope, you still claim that any corp will let the runners slide.

If you genuinely believe that's all I've said, then I'd suggest you
killfile me; because I don't want to waste words on someone determined
to misinterpret them.

>Feel free to reply to this, I'll allow you the last words on it.

Why bother? I could post that "Anyone spitting on the sidewalk outside a
Stuffer Shack will be vapourised by orbital lasers" and you would claim
I was implying corporations were casual about littering. You're
determined not to listen to any dissenting opinion.

>I'll read
>your reply,

How generous of you.

>should you choose to make one, and my view will remain
>unchanged.

If you were determined at the outset that you would not, could not, be
persuaded to even slightly alter your view, why bother posting your
views at all? This group is for _discussion_.

I don't particularly mind the fixity of your views: what I find
extremely offensive is the way you misrepresent my position and then
post lengthy and largely irrelevant diatribes on that misrepresentation.
Believe what you like: but try to allow others the same privilege.

>Regardless of what happens, I
>will stop posting on this thread. Seeya in the next one ;^D

No, thank you. I post to this list for the discussion. You are not
interested in discussion.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Message no. 56 There's a continent, Africa. It is still one of the world's wilder
areas, where there is a lot of both predators and prey. In
particular, among hunting cats, there is Lions and Leopards.As a
matter of detail, groups of lions are called 'A pride of lions'.. in
the same way that a gathering of crows is called, 'A murder of
crows'. Interesting names, isn't it?

Anyway, to continue this particular story, Leopards are fast, and
adept at taking down prey. Lions are slower, but they are also
ferocious and brutal - they are the kings of the jungle. When a
leopard has taken down an Ox, it is not unusual for a lion to go and
take the food. The leopard almost invariably first hisses, to show
it's not happy about it, and leave. Why?

It knows that if it stays, the lion will attack, and if it gets to a
fight, even though there is a remote chance it might win, it won't
survive in a good enough shape to hunt again before it starves to
death. Because the lions are the Kings of the Jungle - they are mean
badasses and everyone knows it.

In some cases, particularly when the lion is well stuffed allready
and not hungry, the lion might be persuaded by the leopard's hissing
to leave it alone.

If there's any point to this story? Besides the fact that Leopards
have learnt to eat pretty darn fast? You tell me.. :)
--
Fade

"It's better to burn out, than to fade away!"

Message no. 57 I've been personally attacked in this, so now I have to reply. My apologies
in advance for continuing the thread after I said I would let it die...

At 11:24 PM 7/1/97 +0100, Paul wrote:
>>You see, when corps say things like "Darn, the runners got outside the
>>fence, guess we can just forget about them and a few million nuyen worth of
>>research and resources, huh?" I consider that pretty apathetic. Don't you?

>If I'd seen anyone suggesting that, I'd agree it was pretty apathetic.
>Interestingly, I've never claimed it, so why you persist in attributing
>it to me is a mystery.

Then why would a corp let a runner slide when any given shadowrun will cost
a given corporation millions of nuyen in the big picture?

>I don't subscribe to the notion that, in the extreme, a corporation will
>spend multiple millions of nuyen in hunting down and destroying a few
>petty criminals. Most shadowruns don't involve that sort of cost to the
>target, why throw good money after bad?

Here's where you're wrong again. As I've explained before, market share and
confidence play a huge part in stock value. If your research is stolen and
a competitor can now take a chunk out of your market share, it'll cost you
millions easy. Then the fact that it was stolen and nothing could/would be
done about it would lower shareholder confidence and your stock would
plummet. That's the way the world works now and it'll be worse in SR.

As to a shadowrun not being worth that much, if it isn't worth that much, it
isn't worth it for a corp to go through the effort to get runners to go
after it. Unless of course a given corp really wants that office clerk's
shopping list or the janitor's favorite plunger for personal reasons. If
someone wants something bad enough that they'll hire runners, that given
thing will be worth HUGE nuyen.

>If you have cost the corporation ten or twenty million (and that's a
>_big_ run), then you can expect a pretty savage hunt. If your run simply
>planted some evidence that meant John Doe got knocked out of the running
>for a certain promotion, and Richard Roe got the post instead; why is
>the corporation even going to get involved? Why is it even going to know
>there was a problem?

Because runners broke in and tampered with official files. Of course, in my
worldview the runners couldn't get that done without being seen somehow
unless it was a truly *pitiful* corp. Think of how your particular employer
might react if someone came in, changed some records, and left. Would they
be noticed? Would the systems show that file "x" was changed/planted at a
time when nobody should have been in the office and the backup looks far
different from what's there now? I know at any job I've been at they would
and that's right now, not in the ultra-paranoid 2050's.

>Runners _will_ be pursued if there is a case to do so. Sometimes that
>will simply be "log it, file it, if we see them again we do something
>about it: they didn't do enough damage to be worth wasting resource on."
>Other times it will be an all-out manhunt and damn the cost, because the
>corporation cannot afford to show weakness on this issue.

If runners don't do anything then it was a waste to hire them in the first
place.

>It puzzles me that Bob has so much trouble understanding this
>distinction.

I can understand where you're coming from, it's just wrong in many if not
all cases. Said exceptions being found in the runner-friendly bumbling-corp
worldview.

>>They won't, it's silly to let them get away.

>It's also silly to go bankrupt hunting petty criminals.

You still have no concept of the amount of cash that goes through a given
megacorp. Microsoft is nowhere near the level of a megacorp (I think that's
in CorpShad) now and look at the absolutely staggering amount of cash they have.

>The response will be in proportion to the damage done, Bob. How many
>different ways do I have to say this?

If the run would do no damage, the run would not be contracted in the first
place. People don't just hire runners for fun, they hire them for
industrial espionage. Damage will be done in myriad ways and severe amounts
from any run and backlash should go into the very high 6-digit range easily.
Seven-digit would be more common and much higher being very possible. See
the overall picture and it becomes quite clear.

How many ways should I say this?

>>>Either you cannot comprehend what I write, or you are so utterly set in
>>>your thoughts that you will not listen to what I keep saying.
>>>To hell with it, you aren't listening to this either are you?

>>Read it all and you kept forgetting the prefix "mega" before corp and
>>thinking that SR is only running against Megas and thinking that data gained
>>from a run would be worth less than the effort to erase a single runner
>>team.

>I've snipped all your post, because I find your attitude bemusing and
>your inability to comprehend what I write inexplicable: and while I
>tried to come up with a response, I found your writing so bizarre on
>occasion that it was virtually impossible to reply to.

I've seen what you write and your claims and I find your worldview to be far
too light even by today's standards let alone the world of 205X. I've
repeated this often while refuting your points and still you wonder what I'm
trying to say? Come now, it is English that you speak, correct? Also,
until you manage to come up with replies to what I've written, I'll simply
(and righteously) believe that you could not refute my words. You have yet
to do so, and without precendent I can safely assume that you can't.

>The mere fact that a target is a megacorporation doesn't change the
>financial cost of a given run against it, and your fixation that every
>run against any megacorp involves a cost of billions is the crux of the
>problem here. If the cost is small, the benefit of pursuit is similarly
>small.

Millions, Paul. If it wasn't worth that to the group that contracted the
run, then it wouldn't ever have been done. Industrial espionage isn't done
for a smile and a handful of nuyen...

>Many runs have no apparent cost: planting evidence to skew a promotion
>board or influence a corporate disciplinary hearing, for instance. Done
>properly they will never be detected, let alone pursued. You seem unable
>to consider anything beyong The Big Datasteal as employment for
>shadowrunners.

Oh, I indeed do consider things beyond datasteals as runs, I don't think
I've ever run a datasteal in fact. I get to smiling when you say "Done
properly they will never be detected, let alone pursued". I find this
laughable. Security done even at mediocre levels will detect and therefore
will lead to pursuit.

Try breaking into a local corporation's office building sometime. The corps
here use everything from cameras to pressure sensors to keypad/keycard locks
to guards to animals to motion sensors and I'm sure some things that I,
myself, have not had the privilege to see as of yet. Those places are
secure and at a rather minimal cost. There's no way that I or anyone could
walk in there unnoticed, change a computer file or plant evidence, and get
out without being noticed and pursued. That's 199X technology and 199X
degree of paranoia and 199X degree of corporate resources devoted to
security. Now expand this to 205X...

>>If I could find something in the least bit realistic and inline with the SR
>>world in your argument, then I'd have left this thread alone a long time
>>ago.

>One wonders whether that says more about you or me.

It says a lot about both. I'm grounded in the reality of the situation and
you... are not. Even if my view runs a bit darker and maybe isn't as kind
to the runners, it should be dark and life isn't kind on runners which is
why most of the population of the Shadowrun world except an infinitessimal
speck of a percentage are not shadowrunners. It's dangerous, the life
expectancy is just north of a fruit fly's, and all that shady living and
paranoia can really get to a person.

>> I think you see corporations far too much from a Wal-Mart perspective
>>and not from an extraterritorial entity perspective. Corps create and
>>manipulate the shadows, not the other way around.

>Corporations exist for one single solitary purpose: to make profit.
>The shadows are there as a tool to that end. Not as an end in
>themselves.

If the corps didn't want the shadows, they'd be gone. If the corps need
something from the shadows, it's at their fingertips in seconds. Profit is
the biggest driving goal (both on the streets and in the boardrooms) and
through industrial espionage, more profit can be gained. If it couldn't
bring profit, it wouldn't happen. If it isn't worth millions to a corp, it
isn't worth bothering with.

Even if all that happens is one guy gets the new position while another guy
is passed up, it has to be worth millions overall or it'd never happen. The
pay raise is only the tiniest fraction of it. The real power gained by said
promotion will be found in the greater amount of resources controlled than
before. It becomes worth a considerable amount when you bring this aspect
into view, which is what I've been asking you to do throughout this thread
and steadfastly you refuse to do just that, looking only at the immediate
situation. Rather shortsighted, don't you think?

>>So where's this thread going? I'll continue to disprove and attack any
>>example you throw out

>Thank you so much for demonstrating your open mind. No matter what I
>say, you will try to attack and disprove it?

Not try, I will as I have here. I have an open mind to many things which is
why I can see the logical progression of the aftermath of any given shadowrun.

>I said from the start that it appeared you were unable to listen to
>anything said on this subject, and you appear determined to prove me
>right.

I've listened to it all, but that doesn't make what you say correct. If I
listen to someone scream that the sun is blue with lime polka dots for fifty
hours, they'll still be wrong. If they do it til the day they die, they'll
still be wrong. Posting and reposting an incorrect view doesn't make it
right, it just makes the poster look bad.

>>I won't agree that you're right and I doubt you'll accept my
>>views either, regardless of what I do to disprove them...

>I've given up trying to communicate with you. Why bother trying to
>explain my views when, no matter what I say, you hear only

Only what? You probably shouldn't try to explain your views, they're far
too shortsighted on the subject and shortsighted views are often easily
countered by the long view.

>>Nope, you still claim that any corp will let the runners slide.

>If you genuinely believe that's all I've said, then I'd suggest you
>killfile me; because I don't want to waste words on someone determined
>to misinterpret them.

You claim they will let them slide if it isn't worth it for them to pursue
the runners, correct? I know this is correct because I have indeed been
reading this. Anyways, you then follow this up with "runs aren't worth
enough to merit pursuit anyway" statements and "if done right, no can
defend" thoughts on running which are shortsighted in the extreme and
positively hilarious, respectively. Then there's the "once I get to the
Barrens, I'm safe" and "I'll take my story to the media too" and "they
won't
sell me out" statements. Those are like the icing in the comedy cake for me...

>>Feel free to reply to this, I'll allow you the last words on it.

>Why bother? I could post that "Anyone spitting on the sidewalk outside a
>Stuffer Shack will be vapourised by orbital lasers" and you would claim
>I was implying corporations were casual about littering. You're
>determined not to listen to any dissenting opinion.

I always listen to dissenting opinions. I've been wrong before and I've
changed my mind before, but I'm not wrong here and my mind is rather set.
Your example here is almost as humorous as your views on this thread have
been...

>If you were determined at the outset that you would not, could not, be
>persuaded to even slightly alter your view, why bother posting your
>views at all? This group is for _discussion_.

Because you've done just the same and so has anyone else posting here in
this thread. We've all posted our views and we all feel we are in the
right. You've never discussed anything throughout this thread. You've
stated and restated a shortsighted view of the economic impact any given run
will have as well as a shortsighted view of the societal interactions which
make Shadowrun the great game it is. I've refuted it and offered new
evidence, you simply restate. I refute and offer, you restate. Who is
truly discussing here, Paul?

>I don't particularly mind the fixity of your views: what I find
>extremely offensive is the way you misrepresent my position and then
>post lengthy and largely irrelevant diatribes on that misrepresentation.
>Believe what you like: but try to allow others the same privilege.

Come now Paul, if you read and understand my postings you'll know that you
can't refute them due to the scope of which I've taken this particular
situation. I know your position quite well on the subject, but it's still
shortsighted. No matter how much you state a shortsighted opinion, it'll
always be shortsighted. Expand your line of thinking to include the
consequences that any given run could have and I think you may well agree
with me. Or don't and continue your shortsighted unrealistic babble.

Also, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me or posting their own
views. By all means, they can do so at will and I wouldn't dare to tell
them that they can't. If I find a thread interesting, I'll reply to it and
add my own views, refuting someone else's, agreeing with someone else's.
Just as anyone else here does and as I have done here.

>No, thank you. I post to this list for the discussion. You are not
>interested in discussion.

Quite the contrary, I do so enjoy discussion on certain topics. This
happens to be one of them. I do not, however, accept incorrect and
shortsighted viewpoints. I try to explain to the person who would hold such
a viewpoint that they need to think on a grander scale. You obviously will
not do just that or you'd have agreed with me days ago as many others have.

Cost-Benefit Analysis... What's the *real* cost of a shadowrun in the end?
What benefit can be gained from said shadowrun? What losses can be avoided
if said shadowrun never gets completed? What benefits can be gained if said
shadowrun is foiled? What benefits can be gained if the run is pulled off,
but the runners are "taken care" of before they can meet their contractors?
What benefits can be gained by "taking care of" the runners if the runners
manage to get all the way through the run (meet their contractor and get the
pay)?

I've answered these questions, Paul. I've provided evidence that supports
my answers that is within the Shadowrun genre. I've done what I could to
help you see the long view, but you refuse to do so. Mostly due to the fact
that it's me posting it, no doubt, but still you refuse.

Why not take the long view, Paul?
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

Message no. 58 At 00:30 2.07.97 +0000, you wrote:

>There is one thing in this debate about corporatins tracking down

>runners...

>

>I imagine the runner community to be somewhat small - there isn't

>that many shadowrunners around. A runner can stay low, but when he is

>looking for business he will have to stay 'in the open' - if noone

>can find him, how can he be contacted for work?

>

>(Newspaper ads or similar, of course, but who would trust those?)

He still have his contacts.. of course they have to be sure... but how he can be sure of
his sure contact ??? :) Of course it`s hard to get job when you`re hiding but not
impossible.

<center>]-[ yASiU ]-[ aKa mARCiN sERkIES ]-[ e-MAiL - yasiu@******.com
]-[ </center>

Message no. 59 > Yep - corporation cannot find runners in direct way But there may be
someone
> who dislike runners and will make call. Or corpotations can use their own
> ppl in shadows to trace runners. I think that there is more ways to find
> them... And if they`ll do that... runners have to RUN fast :))

Not to mention that most corps would prefer various runs against them to
be unknown to the general public, in any corp there are always those minor
leaks that are difficult to plug.

--Odd--

-The only reason that time exists is because the mind cannot comprehend
infinity-

Message no. 60 While I've enjoyed the differing points of views posted in this thread I've
finally concluded the POVs are just different methods of accountancy
something akin to Bulls and Bears on the stockmarket. Both arguements on
whether it's cost effective to chase a group of runners or not depend on
long term projections of what will happen in given scenarios.

Actually I think you could base a game on this...can u build the biggest
megacorp or will you lose your market position? Contract deniable assets to
help pull down your opposition. Keep similar assets from doing this to you.
How much will you spend on R&D, security, promotions. How many staff will
you have at each step up the ladder? how wide their sphere of influence?
and how many steps to the top? Will your tactics work in the long term or
the short?

MEGACORPs of the 2050's

well its an idea...

QuickFix

Message no. 61 On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:12:33 -0500 TopCat <topcat@***.NET> writes:
>At 08:57 PM 6/30/97 -0500, Bruce wrote:
>>> To hell with it, you aren't listening to this either are you?
>
>>Um, if this is what this thread is turning into, perhaps it
>>belongs in private email rather than this list.
>
>Far from, Paul's just a tad bit aggravated. He'll get over it. I'm
still
>quite in control, thank you...

[ rolls eyes ]

~Tim (someone's got a healty ego...)

Message no. 62 I think there's one thing some have missed with this small debate over
Megacorps and runners, is that megacorps sometimes use runners for things
they'd rather not use their standard resources for. If it became known that
certain Corps hunted runners they wouldn't be able to hire any, because hey
if they're hunting other runners what's to prevent them from hunting the
people who have done work for them?

Hopefully I'm understandable, can't seem to get hands and brain working
together today.

SilverFire

"I merely chewed in self-defense."

-Draco the Dragon
"Dragonheart"

Message no. 63 You wrote:
> There is one thing in this debate about corporatins tracking down
> runners...

> I imagine the runner community to be somewhat small - there isn't
> that many shadowrunners around. A runner can stay low, but when he is
> looking for business he will have to stay 'in the open' - if noone
> can find him, how can he be contacted for work?

That's what contacts are for, and presumably the char has 'safer' ways of
contacting them (cf. Dirk's methods in the SR novels). Theoretically runners
should plan for this sort of thing.

losthalo

Message no. 64 On 28 Jun 97 at 3:43, Rune Fostervoll wrote:

> > That was more my point: crimes committed on corporate turf do not
> > automatically make you top of the Lone Star Most Wanted.
>
> Of course. But you are still effectively a criminal. And if the corp
> wants you bad, it means that if Lone Star catches you, they can exchange
> you for someone they want from the corporation badly.

Except the since you didn't break any law (so far as LS is aware) in an
area where LS has a contract, then LS has *no* reason to arrest you. Corp
property is extraterritorial, LS has no jurisdiction and frankly doesn't
give a frag what you do there. Remember LS officers are not police
officers they are corporate security personnel contracted by a city or
government to enforce the laws within a specified area. LS will happily
watch the fireworks outside their jurisdiction and never lift one finger
to intervene because they aren't being *paid* to do so.

>
> (I assume you are not going to argue that being a lawbreaker
> 'somewhere else' doesn't mean that you aren't a lawbreaker, only
> that you are somewhat safer from persecution.).

I will argue it. Most shadowrunners work for either Corporations or
Governments. That's the largest source of employment. In either case you
are almost always hired to pull black ops in *another* corps territory.
This situation is akin to rl special forces (such as US Rangers or British
SAS or Israeli Mussad) performing similar acts in foriegn countries. They
are breaking the laws of those countries, often violently so, does that
mean they are criminals? Of course not, they're soldiers carrying out the
wishes of their governments. How then is it different when a shadowrunner
in the employ of a MegaCorp (which have effectively become governments
unto themselves) carries out the wishes of that Corp against another Corp?
Is this criminal activity, or just the Corp equivalent of a "cold war"?
I'm not talking about "shadowrunners" who commit random acts of violence,
who gleefully and *deliberately* gun down innocent bystanders, who steal
whenever it suits them, who live by no code of ethics or standards at all.
What I'm dealing with are professionals who are hired to do specific jobs
under specific circumstances and the rest of the time live pretty normal
lives.
>
> --
> Rune Fostervoll
>
> "But the dread of something after death,
> The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
> No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
> And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
> Than fly to others that we no not of."
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 65 On 2 Jul 97 at 0:30, Fade wrote:

> There is one thing in this debate about corporatins tracking down
> runners...
>
> I imagine the runner community to be somewhat small - there isn't
> that many shadowrunners around. A runner can stay low, but when he is
> looking for business he will have to stay 'in the open' - if noone can
> find him, how can he be contacted for work?
>
> (Newspaper ads or similar, of course, but who would trust those?)

Now take that one step further Rune. If Corps are so aggressively
hunting down those runners... who are they going to hire? Contrary to
what some have implied, I don't think the unique blend of skills that
produces a good shadowrunner are "easy to come by".
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 66 On 1 Jul 97 at 20:50, TopCat wrote:

> I've been personally attacked in this, so now I have to reply. My
> apologies in advance for continuing the thread after I said I would let
> it die...
>

IIRC you fired the first shots. And if I also RC you were so "generous"
as to say that Paul could have the last word. Not Paul's fault if you
didn't like those last words. What's the matter, you can dish it out but
you can't take it? What happened to that smug arrogant "I'm calm and in
control"? Do the world a favor, pull your bottom lip up over your face
and swallow. You've criticized everything Paul had to say from the
start, and been none to polite in how you went about it. You've proudly
announced you would attack any opinion or POV he offered, regardless.
You've misquoted him, called him a liar, and refused to concede any point
at all. When he offered factual information, you claimed it to be
"immaginary". You're egotistical blatherings have labelled you a foolish,
immature, narrow-minded, bigoted, slandering idiot! And now you want to
whine because somebody finally got fed up with your constant attacks and
stood up to you. Don't expect anybody who's followed this thread to for
even the slightest instant believe you to be the innocent party here. You
picked a fight, you got your nose bloodied, and now your crying about it.
Try posting something useful, after you've grown up.
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 67 On 28 Jun 97 at 3:43, Rune Fostervoll wrote:

>
> A corporation's best bet is to stop the runners during the run,
> rather than when they've gotten away. I think we can agree on that
> one easily enough...
>
Very much so. As I see it, Corps face the same problems in 205x that
retail stores here in the US face today. If said retail store can catch a
shop lifter IN the store, they've got them dead to rights. Go directly to
jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $200. On the other hand, if said
shoplifter can make it out the door without being stopped, there is very
little chance of the store being able to do anything about it. (Unless
said shoplifter is stupid enough to hang around bragging about what they
just did... something runners should think about.)
Corp Sec has no authority off Corp property and if the come after you,
guns blazing, wearing milspec armor and toting milspec weapons, then LS is
going to come down on them hard! They're breaking the law big time! Mind
you, if the runners are engaging them in a running firefight, using heavy
ordinace themselves, LS is going to come after them as well.
The way I would see this situation, is that Corp Sec would have strict
orders not to persue or fire upon "fugatives" that have made it off Corp
property. Instead, Corp Sec would notify LS themselves, go through
channels and present enough evidence to get warrants for the runners.
Then let LS worry about catching them and extraditing them back to Corp
territory. If the runners really annoyed the Corp, they might also hire
deniable assets to "locate and terminate" the runners.
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 68 On 1 Jul 97 at 20:50, TopCat wrote:

>
> Then why would a corp let a runner slide when any given shadowrun will
> cost a given corporation millions of nuyen in the big picture?

I don't recall Paul ever saying that the corp would. Only that the corp
would not spend millions on a massive manhunt to kill a few runners
*after* the damage had already been done.

>
> >I don't subscribe to the notion that, in the extreme, a corporation will
> >spend multiple millions of nuyen in hunting down and destroying a few
> >petty criminals. Most shadowruns don't involve that sort of cost to the
> >target, why throw good money after bad?
>
> Here's where you're wrong again. As I've explained before, market share
> and confidence play a huge part in stock value. If your research is
> stolen and a competitor can now take a chunk out of your market share,
> it'll cost you millions easy. Then the fact that it was stolen and
> nothing could/would be done about it would lower shareholder confidence
> and your stock would plummet. That's the way the world works now and
> it'll be worse in SR.

Oh...and spending millions on hunting down the runners and killing them
will fix that problem? You seem to forget that in most cases runners are
hired by another corp to steal something. If said item has already been
delivered I see little percentage in spending so much cash just to kill
the runners in a fit of petty vengeance. Here's a much better trick, hire
those very same runners to steal the item back. Much more cost effective,
plus it keeps the number of people who know about the theft to a minimum.
And if you really want to be nasty about it, once they get the item back,
then kill them. Much much more cost effective than some of the things
you've proposed, which IIRC included calling in military assets! Your
approach seems to be to hunt mosquitos with and elephant gun.

>
> Because runners broke in and tampered with official files. Of course, in
> my worldview the runners couldn't get that done without being seen
> somehow unless it was a truly *pitiful* corp. Think of how your
> particular employer might react if someone came in, changed some records,
> and left. Would they be noticed? Would the systems show that file "x"
> was changed/planted at a time when nobody should have been in the office
> and the backup looks far different from what's there now? I know at any
> job I've been at they would and that's right now, not in the
> ultra-paranoid 2050's.

That's a sore estimation of runners. Maybe the wouldn't be noticed,
afterall it is their job to avoid that. If your going to be noticed
anyway, why not just hire cheeper thugs to do it? As for backups, backups
can be changed and time stamps can be altered easily enough. You want to
fake a backup log, complete with time stamp.. change the system clock,
save the file, then change the system clock back. Simple, easy and any
decker ought to know that basic trick.

>
> >Runners _will_ be pursued if there is a case to do so. Sometimes that
> >will simply be "log it, file it, if we see them again we do something
> >about it: they didn't do enough damage to be worth wasting resource on."
> >Other times it will be an all-out manhunt and damn the cost, because the
> >corporation cannot afford to show weakness on this issue.
>
> If runners don't do anything then it was a waste to hire them in the
> first place.

Paul never said they didn't do anything, he said the didn't do *enough*
for that manhunt to be cost effective.

>
> I've seen what you write and your claims and I find your worldview to be
> far too light even by today's standards let alone the world of 205X.
> I've repeated this often while refuting your points and still you wonder
> what I'm trying to say? Come now, it is English that you speak, correct?

And you want to whine about personal attacks while making taking cheep
jabs like that?

> Also, until you manage to come up with replies to what I've written,
> I'll simply (and righteously) believe that you could not refute my words.

Oh, you've got self righteousness down to an art form.

> You have yet to do so, and without precendent I can safely assume that
> you can't.

Safely neh? For someone with such a love affair with massive security,
one would think you'd know that it's never save to assume.
>
> Try breaking into a local corporation's office building sometime. The
> corps here use everything from cameras to pressure sensors to
> keypad/keycard locks to guards to animals to motion sensors and I'm sure
> some things that I, myself, have not had the privilege to see as of yet.
> Those places are secure and at a rather minimal cost. There's no way
> that I or anyone could walk in there unnoticed, change a computer file or
> plant evidence, and get out without being noticed and pursued. That's
> 199X technology and 199X degree of paranoia and 199X degree of corporate
> resources devoted to security. Now expand this to 205X...

You'd be amazed at just how much corporate espionage occurs in the real
world today. How easily those security measures are breached. How often
the breaches occur because of incompetence on the part of corporate
personnel. How often it doesn't even get reported because the head of
secuirty doesn't want to explain why it happened in the first place. How
often it's done by employees, or with the aid of employees, of the target
corp. And as for minimal cost, guess again. Security is expensive
business that lives off the paranoia and fear of people and they play all
the hype for every cent it's worth.

> It says a lot about both. I'm grounded in the reality of the situation
> and you... are not. Even if my view runs a bit darker and maybe isn't as

Oh pullleeeeaaaazzzzz. You've got about as firm a grasp of the reality
of industrial espionage and mercenary work as 4th grader does of quatum
physics!

Corps are in competition with other Corps (mega or otherwise), not with
individual runners. If a runner has something they want, they'll take it.
However, if said runner is simply functioning as a tool of another Corp
then killing the runner is pointless. The competing Corp will just hire
more of those "easy to come by" runners. There is absolutely *nothing*
cost effective about that. Once the runners have completed their
assignment they will most likely have a realative degree of safety, simply
because they no long possess anything of value to the persuing corp. If
it's in the persuing Corps best interest to hire those same runners to
steal the item back, they will. If not, they'll find another way. What a
corp will not do is spend millions of nuyen sending troops out into the
Barrens or wherever to hunt down a few runners "just because" Especially
since all those armed troops involved in that manhunt have *no* legal
jurisdiction outside of corporate territory and would shortly be in a
*direct* confrontation with Lone Star.

You're so busy attacking Paul you don't see the gaping holes in your own
logic. As for your claims that you are "discussing" the issue, you
aren't. You have, from the first post you made, attacked Paul's posts.
That's not a discussion, that's a flaming.
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 69 On 30 Jun 97 at 16:24, Mike Nelson wrote:

>
> Allow me to illustrate this with an example:
>
> Roland the headless fuchi decker is a solid runner who has done
> several superlitive jobs for several of the megacorps. One day Roland
> makes a run on Renraku for Mitsuhama and steals some of Renraku's
> publicity plans for a new product release scheduled that year. Renraku is
> very unlikely to spend the time and resources neccessary to make Roland
> dissappear. The data he took was not irreplacable and to do so would
> cost them not only money but Roland's unique services in the future. Say
> however that whilst Roland was in the system he decides to crash a server
> that has several new products on it and represents thousands of man hours
> and millions of dollars. Now Rolands life is in a lot more risky
> position. Not only has he caused huge amounts of damage he has proven
> that he is not a professional and therefore of negligible future use.
>
>
Ah, the magic word "professionalism". That, to my mind, is a key
difference. The professional runner, is likely to be viewed by a corp as
a tool. The "punker" is a menace to society. I can easily see a corp
eliminating the "punker" on principle alone, after all, who knows what
kind of damage the punker my cause next, and for no particular reason.
The professional however is different. The professional is merely doing a
job, it's the employer that is the real problem.
This isn't to say that professionalism gives you a shield of
invulnerability. The target Corp will still do everything within it's
power to stop you. And even after you get away, if you haven't completed
your assignment, your still at risk. It's only *after* the professional
completes their assignment they gain that measure of safety. The point of
cost analysis being the primary reason for this.
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 70 On 1 Jul 97 at 23:24, Paul J. Adam wrote:

>
> The mere fact that a target is a megacorporation doesn't change the
> financial cost of a given run against it, and your fixation that every
> run against any megacorp involves a cost of billions is the crux of the
> problem here. If the cost is small, the benefit of pursuit is similarly
> small.

That's half the crux. I get the distinct impression that Bob thinks all
runners are pond scum, low-lives, street trash and rank amatuers. He
seems to think that there are no professionals in the shadow business,
that they are all lying, thieving criminals. That a very limit view of a
very diverse group. Obviously *some* runners fit into that category, but
there are plenty who don't.
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 71 At 03:25 PM 7/2/97 -0005, woneal@*******.NET wrote:
<snip a flame>

I suggest that you, as I am about to do, take this to private e-mail. I'd
also suggest this to anyone else who feels like posting useless crap
similiar to this post. I've learned that. Very painful lesson at times.

>Ashlocke
>(woneal@*******.net)

Rasputin-the-trying-to-get-into-an-Sr-book-magekin
http://www.bcl.net/~rasputin

"An object at rest cannot be stopped" - The Mad Midnight Bomber Who Bombs
at Midnight

But his boss calls him: Mike Broadwater

Message no. 72 At 03:25 PM 7/2/97 -0005, woneal@*******.NET wrote:

> Oh...and spending millions on hunting down the runners and killing
them
>will fix that problem? You seem to forget that in most cases runners are
>hired by another corp to steal something. If said item has already been
>delivered I see little percentage in spending so much cash just to kill
>the runners in a fit of petty vengeance. Here's a much better trick, hire
>those very same runners to steal the item back. Much more cost effective,
>plus it keeps the number of people who know about the theft to a minimum.
>And if you really want to be nasty about it, once they get the item back,
>then kill them. Much much more cost effective than some of the things
>you've proposed, which IIRC included calling in military assets! Your
>approach seems to be to hunt mosquitos with and elephant gun.
>
Hold it. In the long run, killing the shadowrunners that attacked and
stole whatever and cost you all that nuyen can be cost effective. Here's
why and why not, and maybe, this'll put things in a clearer light:

Problem: Runner's have cost you millions in nuyen because they broke into
your compound, stole something, and left.

Current Situation: Well, the items gone. Whoever hired them has it, and
has used it for their neferious purposes.

What do you do?

Well, you can let it slide, which would show that you're weak, and other
runners will be hired by other corps to steal more stuff. Of course,
you'll do the same to them.

Well, you don't want to look weak, so how do you solve that? Well, you up
your security, sure that'll help. But what else?

Lets look at this as if the corp in question was one of the big 8, since
that's what Bob has been mentioning, and occasionally, had ignored.
Admittedly, this situation works best with that kind of corp, and won't
work as well with a lower tier corp (but then, that makes it smarter to run
against them)

So, the Big 8 corp needs to fix it's problem. What does it do? Well, it
dumps money into security, like I said. Try to stop the problem before it
becomes one. Well, what else does it do?

First of all, if possible, you try to recover your lost money. Steal back
the item. Unfortunately, this could be difficult, and while you may regain
whatever was stolen, it may have become a moot point (if the US ever got a
new, say, Russian MiG, they'd return it. Of course, they may take a good
long look at it while it's here.)

So, the corp has new, improved security. That's great. But it's reactive,
and that still allows for runners to come in and break security and get out
and cause problems. Not as many will get through, and that's good, but
it'll still happen. Next option? Become proactive.

That's right, take the fight to the runners that tried to screw you. OK,
yeah, they're small, but they were good enough to cost you millions. So,
drop some more cash (yeah, that's another loss, but just spend enough to
kill them and let people know that it was you that did it).

Now what? Well, it goes around that the last people who ran across that
Big 8 got geeked, and so did the 4 teams before them. Sure 2 died inside,
and 3 got out, but once they were out, it wasn't over.

So now people don't want to run against you. Sure, they'll still work for
you, if you treat them right. But run against? Hell no.

What this all depends on, and what so many people writing on this thread
seem to miss, is that a corp will do this if it's cost effective and if
they have the resources to do it. It's what Paul would see Bob is saying
if Paul wasn't so pissed with him. And it's what Bob would see Paul is
saying if he'd stop being so sarcastic and trying to shoot down anyone who
minorly disagrees with him. I know Bob, I can see past the bullshit
because of that.

Out of curiousity, I'd like to conduct a poll. Just send the results to
me. if you agree with everything up to that last paragraph, tell me. I'm
curious to see if people agree with each other and just don't know/won't
admit to it.

Rasputin-the-trying-to-get-into-an-Sr-book-magekin
http://www.bcl.net/~rasputin

"An object at rest cannot be stopped" - The Mad Midnight Bomber Who Bombs
at Midnight

But his boss calls him: Mike Broadwater

Message no. 73 At 03:25 PM 7/2/97 -0005, woneal@*******.NET wrote:
>On 1 Jul 97 at 23:24, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>
>>
>> The mere fact that a target is a megacorporation doesn't change the
>> financial cost of a given run against it, and your fixation that every
>> run against any megacorp involves a cost of billions is the crux of the
>> problem here. If the cost is small, the benefit of pursuit is similarly
>> small.
>
> That's half the crux. I get the distinct impression that Bob
thinks all
>runners are pond scum, low-lives, street trash and rank amatuers. He
>seems to think that there are no professionals in the shadow business,
>that they are all lying, thieving criminals. That a very limit view of a
>very diverse group. Obviously *some* runners fit into that category, but
>there are plenty who don't.

Yeah, they're are all those heroe's out there that are clean cut, wonderful
people with no problems with society, and that's why they run the shadows
rather than use their skills to a productive end. I mean, they learned all
that great stuff at the corp and left because the corps are bad mean
people. Or they learned it in the military because gov't's are all bad
mean people. And now they run against corps and the gov't for other corps
and gov't's and don't worry about killing because, of course, if you work
for a corp, you aren't trying to feed your family and be a good member of
society, you're one of the bad mean people who's bringing down the world
with your crimes. You know, you kill people. Oh, and shadowrunners who do
are different. They're heroes of the common man. You know, that ones that
work at corps and try to be a productive member of society. But not ones
you encounter. Those are all bad mean people, and shadowrunners are heroes
and great guys. Yeah!

Sure.

Rasputin-the-trying-to-get-into-an-Sr-book-magekin
http://www.bcl.net/~rasputin

"An object at rest cannot be stopped" - The Mad Midnight Bomber Who Bombs
at Midnight

But his boss calls him: Mike Broadwater

Message no. 74 I just realized that I used "proactive" in one of my posts, but wasn't to
clear how I meant it. It's reactive to hunt down runners who've hit your
corp, but it's proactive in the fact that you are sending a message to the
rest of you shadowrunner community to forstall any attempts by other runners.

Rasputin-the-trying-to-get-into-an-Sr-book-magekin
http://www.bcl.net/~rasputin

"An object at rest cannot be stopped" - The Mad Midnight Bomber Who Bombs
at Midnight

But his boss calls him: Mike Broadwater

Message no. 75 On 2 Jul 97 at 15:04, Michael Broadwater wrote:

<snip previous comments and cutting to the chase>

> So now people don't want to run against you. Sure, they'll still work
> for you, if you treat them right. But run against? Hell no.

Sure they'll run againt said corp, greed all to often wins out over
common sense. And your right, this is the heart of the matter. Basically
put, "is it possible to put enough fear into runners to prevent them from
running against you?" I'd say no. In any case a proactive defense won't
work for another important reason. Corps create runners, and so long as
there are Corps there will be runners. It's an endless cycle and the
Corps know this.
Think of it this way, it's like a disease, of which Runners are merely a
symptom. You can make the symptom go away, for awhile, but until you get
to the root cause, it'll keep coming back. If a Corp wants to stop
getting hit by runners, they'd have to find a way to prevent the other
Corps from hiring runners to go against them. It's not the resources of
the runners that really count here, but that of the Corps themselves.
Just as Corp A will spend millions on security, Corp B will spend millions
hiring runners to hit Corp A. And the reverse is also true. So long as
both those Corps are paying out large sums of nuyen to people willing to
take the risk, there will be plenty of people desperate enough, crazy
enough or just plain greedy enough to give it a try. And while it is also
true that a large percentage of these fools will die trying... there's
that group that doesn't. Some because they are lucky, some because they
have some sort of edge (skills, contacts, whatever). Of those survivors
some will live long enough to become true professionals, which is really
what SR is about IMPO.
And what happens if you geek all those runners.... next week there'll be
a new batch of young guns waiting to take their chance at bat. And it
goes on and on and on... because the Corps keep on creating runners.
What this ultimately leads to is a situation of "better the devil you
know than the devil you don't." That is, which would you rather deal with
a runner whom you have a file on, and a chance of perhaps blackmailing or
otherwise forcing to turncoat; or a complete unknown whom you have no info
on? This is especially true in the case of those runners who have
reputations for professionalism. Why kill a guy you know full well you
could hire next week to steal back what some Corp paid him to steal from
you this week. You don't even need to know who hired him, he does, just
offer him a tempting fee and wait for the results (I'm over simplifying
here for brevity's sake).
As has been pointed out elsewhere, and I reiterate here. If Corps made a
habbit of the sort of proactive security that you and Bob have described,
it is likely that there wouldn't be any runners left to hired. (True,
greed will spawn more sooner or later, but will they be skilled runners
or just desperate maniacs? I full well believe that the various
Corporations could indeed eliminate runners if they all, or most, decided
to do so.) In this case, the Corps ultimately kill the goose the lays the
golden egg. I don't see it happening because it's ultimately counter
productive. Simply put, if you want to be able to hire deniable assets to
hit another corp, then you're going to have to accept that those same
assets may well be used against you. Something else I also see happening,
Corps attempting to put runners "on retainer" as a means of gaining a
limited degree of control, enough to ensure those runners don't take jobs
against them.
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 76 On 2 Jul 97 at 15:09, Michael Broadwater wrote:

> At 03:25 PM 7/2/97 -0005, woneal@*******.NET wrote:
> >On 1 Jul 97 at 23:24, Paul J. Adam wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The mere fact that a target is a megacorporation doesn't change the
> >> financial cost of a given run against it, and your fixation that every
> >> run against any megacorp involves a cost of billions is the crux of the
> >> problem here. If the cost is small, the benefit of pursuit is similarly
> >> small.
> >
> > That's half the crux. I get the distinct impression that Bob
> thinks all
> >runners are pond scum, low-lives, street trash and rank amatuers. He
> >seems to think that there are no professionals in the shadow business,
> >that they are all lying, thieving criminals. That a very limit view of a
> >very diverse group. Obviously *some* runners fit into that category, but
> >there are plenty who don't.
>
> Yeah, they're are all those heroe's out there that are clean cut,
> wonderful people with no problems with society, and that's why they run
> the shadows rather than use their skills to a productive end. I mean,
> they learned all that great stuff at the corp and left because the corps
> are bad mean people. Or they learned it in the military because gov't's
> are all bad mean people. And now they run against corps and the gov't
> for other corps and gov't's and don't worry about killing because, of
> course, if you work for a corp, you aren't trying to feed your family and
> be a good member of society, you're one of the bad mean people who's
> bringing down the world with your crimes. You know, you kill people.
> Oh, and shadowrunners who do are different. They're heroes of the common
> man. You know, that ones that work at corps and try to be a productive
> member of society. But not ones you encounter. Those are all bad mean
> people, and shadowrunners are heroes and great guys. Yeah!
>

My we are feeling sarcastic aren't we. Borrowed Bob's blinders did you?
No, they aren't heroes of the common man, and no where did I say or imply
that. What I did say is that not all of them are street punks. Why go to
extremes here? It's not a case of either/or, there is more to it than
either you are a low life piece of gutter trash OR a hero of the people.
There's all those thousand shades of grey in between. How about the guy
in the middle who's lived through a few runs, trys not to kill people
unless he has too, has enough skill to make him reasonably good at what he
does and avoids screwing people over. Why does he run? Maybe he's just a
social misfit, not a bad person, just never fit in. Maybe he's on the run
from something (the law, and ex wife, pick a reason). The point is, there
are lots of things to play beside some violent scum of the earth type and
the "hero of the common man" you described.
Course if you want to play scum of the earth, be my guest. In which case
I think you probably can expect one of Bob's manhunts. There is a huge
difference between a runner with some restraint and professionalism and
some punk who gets his thrills from random violence. But I've said that
before as well.
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 77 > > I imagine the runner community to be somewhat small - there isn't
> > that many shadowrunners around. A runner can stay low, but when he is
> > looking for business he will have to stay 'in the open' - if noone can
> > find him, how can he be contacted for work?
> >
> > (Newspaper ads or similar, of course, but who would trust those?)
>
> Now take that one step further Rune. If Corps are so aggressively
> hunting down those runners... who are they going to hire? Contrary to
> what some have implied, I don't think the unique blend of skills that
> produces a good shadowrunner are "easy to come by".

I think we can agree Corps doesn't hunt down runners just for
kicks... :)

That is, they must have a GOOD reason to - and if they have a good
reason, then the possible depletion of runner pool is a very
secondary consideration.

*chuckle* Of course, if the corporations did hunt runners just for
farting on the gounds, then if you *were* a runner you had to be
pretty damn good. (Or have a spihncter like a vice.:).

--
Fade

"It's better to burn out, than to fade away!"

Message no. 78 This is a pretty long post in reply to Ashlocke. I paste in my
conclusion, or a short version of the post, at the top.

Disclaimer: Of course it is possible to do runs without breaking any
laws anywhere. But a runner doing *only* such jobs is usually not
called a shadowrunner; he might be a SR CHARACTER but that is
something entirely different.

Finishing comment: (Short version)
Your assertion is that shadowrunners = legal, since shadowrunner =
black ops, and black ops = legal. While logically correct, it is
wrong. Shadowrunners do not work under the domestic protection of
'protecting national interests', so they are not = black ops.
Secondly, in the county in which the operation is done, the operation
is by nature illegal. The area of doubt, if any, is wether it is
legal in the originating country. If whoever hired the team can take
public responsibility for sending it, it is then legal (or will not
carry significant repercussions) , but if that is the case, they send
their own forces, not shadowrunners. The runners' prime advantage is
their deniability, but this advantage usually makes all runs they do
illegal.

(My assertion: shadowrunner=illegal by proof of contradiction.
If shadowrunner=legal then it follows that shadowrunner=official.
(No need to be deniable.). But Shadowrunner=/= official, so
shadowrunner=/=legal. ).

Ashlocke wrote:
> On 28 Jun 97 at 3:43, Rune Fostervoll wrote:
>
> > > That was more my point: crimes committed on corporate turf do not
> > > automatically make you top of the Lone Star Most Wanted.
> >
> > Of course. But you are still effectively a criminal. And if the corp
> > wants you bad, it means that if Lone Star catches you, they can exchange
> > you for someone they want from the corporation badly.
>
> Except the since you didn't break any law (so far as LS is aware) in an
> area where LS has a contract, then LS has *no* reason to arrest you. Corp
> property is extraterritorial, LS has no jurisdiction and frankly doesn't
> give a frag what you do there. Remember LS officers are not police
> officers they are corporate security personnel contracted by a city or
> government to enforce the laws within a specified area. LS will happily
> watch the fireworks outside their jurisdiction and never lift one finger
> to intervene because they aren't being *paid* to do so.

First of all, Lone Star is contracted to BE POLICE. That is their
job. Policing. Now that means they get paid for doing police work, so
they are paid to arrest criminals or wanted people in their
jurisdiction. If someone does something in a corporate area and
leaves, they become wanted when a corporation requests them
extradited. As long as requested extradited, they can also be hunted
by bounty hunters legally. But they would still have to go through a
rather complex extradition trial. (Which is greased considerably by a
prisoner exchange.).

It states in Corporate Shadowfiles that corporations has
extradition treatments with LS and each other. Wether they honor them
is uncertain. If Ares asks LS to extradite Mr. Jonathan Smith for
bombing Ares Central Stadion and 10000 people, LS will do so as
quickly as possible. Why? They cannot let something like that slide,
and it's a good PR boost if they catch the bastard. Now if it's Joe
Schmoe, LS doesn't have that incentive, but if Ares wants him bad
enough, they offer someone LS has wanted extradited from Ares in
return - and then it's in LS's interest.

> > (I assume you are not going to argue that being a lawbreaker
> > 'somewhere else' doesn't mean that you aren't a lawbreaker, only
> > that you are somewhat safer from persecution.).
>
> I will argue it.

Excellent!

> Most shadowrunners work for either Corporations or
> Governments, hired to pull black ops in *another* corps territory.

> This situation is akin to rl special forces performing similar acts in foriegn
> countries. They are breaking the laws of those countries, often violently so,
> does that mean they are criminals? Of course not, they're soldiers carrying
> out the wishes of their governments.

Interesting. Do you consider an Iranian terrorist a criminal? I
assume you do not, since you do not view terrorist or hostile actions
undertaken by persons in the employment of governments criminals.

The problem is that your choice of black op organizations
'(such as US Rangers or British SAS or Israeli Mussad)' is 'good'.
The SAS, for instance, is an anti-terrorist force; they are not the
only kind. Terrorist groups, assassins, saboteurs all is similar,
only less palatable, and their actions and MO is more in line with
those of shadowrunners. In any case I assume you by 'black op' means
operations which is legally carried out by the government
instigating it.

>*snip* shadowrunners = black ops team/spies.
> Is this criminal activity, or just the Corp equivalent of a "cold war"?

As for black ops, remember that all black ops are sent anonymously.
They are intended as DENIABLE ASSETS - a word associated with
shadowrunners... and for the same reason. Governments cannot take
official responsibility for sending a black ops team into another
nation, simply because it is illegal to do so - domestically
and internationally - unless this action can in some way be directly
protecting the nation's interests. (Rescuing hostages, for
instance.).

A detail about how legality works internationally.. when an American
black operation kidnapped Manuel Noriega, he was taken to USA for a
trial there. Calling it a legal nightmare is an understatement, but
on the whole it was not that big a problem, since they managed to
prove the operation was directly protecting the nation's interests.

The cold war actions are domestically protected by the constitution
and 'due to national security'. Corporations has no such clause. It
wouldn't look good in a Corporate Charter, since they are not a
nation and not under military threat, and has no agencies to handle
this.

If corporations did get to the level of government symbiosis they
would have 'national security' clauses then they would no longer be
corporations, but communist governments.
(Whaaaaa? Figure it out. :)

The Shiawase judgement giving corporations the right to protect
themselves and their personell is not enough for a 'national
security' clause to allow them to assassinate, steal or kidnap
something from another corporation.

> I'm not talking about "shadowrunners" who commit random acts of violence,
> who gleefully and *deliberately* gun down innocent bystanders, who steal
> whenever it suits them, who live by no code of ethics or standards at all.
> What I'm dealing with are professionals who are hired to do specific jobs
> under specific circumstances and the rest of the time live pretty normal
> lives.

I do not see the distinction. Wether you put a bullet in a man
because you're paid to, or because you just felt like it, doesn't
matter in the eyes of Lady Justice.

Finishing comment: (Short version)
Your assertion is that shadowrunners = legal, since shadowrunner =
black ops, and black ops = legal. While logically correct, it is
wrong. Shadowrunners do not work under the domestic protection of
'protecting national interests', so they are not = black ops.
Secondly, in the county in which the operation is done, the operation
is by nature illegal. The area of doubt, if any, is wether it is
legal in the originating country. If whoever hired the team can take
public responsibility for sending it, it is then legal (or will not
carry significant repercussions) , but if that is the case, they send
their own forces, not shadowrunners. The runners' prime advantage is
their deniability, but this advantage usually makes all runs they do
illegal.

(My assertion: shadowrunner=illegal by proof of contradiction.
If shadowrunner=legal then it follows that shadowrunner=official.
(No need to be deniable.). But Shadowrunner=/= official, so
shadowrunner=/=legal. ).

Disclaimer: Of course it is possible to do runs without breaking any
laws anywhere. But a runner doing *only* such jobs is not called a
shadowrunner; he might be a SR CHARACTER but that is something
entirely different.
--
Fade

"It's better to burn out, than to fade away!"

Message no. 79 (*snip* deterrent effect of killing runners)
> Out of curiousity, I'd like to conduct a poll. Just send the results to
> me. if you agree with everything up to that last paragraph, tell me.

Interesting way to put it. I'll send it to the list, though, since I
want to add a point...

Most nations has signed a treaty where they agree to not tolerate
terrorism in any way. This means, no negotiation except for the
goal of "Give up and come on out!".

It appears to work, on the whole, as a deterrent. While the
parallell isn't clear, it sends the same message.
(Same as cops' attitude to copkillers, too.).

--
Fade

"It's better to burn out, than to fade away!"

Message no. 80 I've been following this thread off and on, and I'd just like to bring up
some points that I believe no one has mentioned. If I'm repeating someone
else's post, sorry for wasting your time.

Topcat, I believe, was arguing how a MEGAcorporation would use its
extensive assets to pursue runners if they had done something that would
affect the bottom line. The argument was that if the option is lose
billions in the market or spend perhaps a few measly millions to catch
them, cost benefit analysis would instantly demand that the runners be
tracked down. On its surface this seems a compelling argument, and in a
vacuum this would work. There are in the sixth world, however,
complications. Just a couple of things to consider before determining that
any run against important MEGAcorp assets would mean suicide EVEN IF the
actual penetration and escape were successful. First, the runners aren't
stealing this data/formula/chip/whatever for the fun of it, they are doing
it because someone payed them, or they hope to sell it to someone, and that
someone is more than likely a representative for another MEGAcorp. So, if
the runners get away (and I would agree that should not be easy, but
instead require extensive planning and very lucky circumstances) by the
time MEGAcorp 1 tracks them down, MEGAcorp 2 already has the gadget, and
killing the runners is an exercise in futility. Even if they discover
(through quite painful torture, I'm sure) the name of the person the
runners gave the gadget to, since that person is in MEGAcorp 2, nothing can
be done short of MEGAcorporate war. Secondly, if perchance the runners are
holding on to the gadget, MEGAcorp 1's extensive expenditure of funds on
the street won't go unnoticed. Sure, this may turn the runners up right
quick, but whoever stole the gadget in the first place is no slouch, so
they are holed up but good. This means that during the time it takes to
track down the runners, every MEGAcorp and Lowfyr's mother are going to be
wondering what the hell MEGAcorp 1 is up to, and they will soon discover
what MEGAcorp 1 lost -- and chances are any of these others will find the
runners first to purchase the item because there are more people looking,
and these are exactly the people that the runners want to be found by.
Again MEGAcorp 1 is up a smelly creek without a paddle, and hunting the
runners did no good. BTW, I also applaud the early post on internal
politics within the MEGAcorps, and believe that they also makeup an
important part of the reality that allows runners to succeed.

Finally, more along the lines of how I personally feel the Shadowrun world
works, after re-reading the intro in the BBB (BTW, I suggest you all do
that, it was interesting how much I had forgotten, being overwhelmed by all
the new man portable laser power armor gadgets that are out), I think the
point is that the runners exist in the cracks of society. They thrive in
the dark places between the various MEGAcorps, and frankly the MEGAcorps
exert little power in the shadows. No one who lives there trusts a suit,
and few would even give a suit the time of day, let alone a chance to offer
money in exchange for names. And besides, any runner who is with it enough
to piss off MEGAcorp A that much and live to tell about it is likely not
going to look kindly on informants among the sinless. The runners live in
the shadows with the dregs of society, and while they don't all get along,
they know it's the man keeping them down, and they know that life is harsh,
and that it'll end quickly if you suddenly develop the rep of a snitch.
People in the shadows live by their reps, no fixer lasts long if he is
known to sell out his runners blatantly, because no matter how much the
corps love him, he'll never get good talent to work for him, just stupid
newbies who don't know squat. When I introduced a new fixer in my game,
the first thing I was asked was whether he was known on the street to deal
straight or not. I think that is how the world works, so that the
MEGAcorps muscle and money just doesn't help much once you stop off their
land. Of course, that is a personal viewpoint, but I feel that that is the
essence of the Shadowrun game, it is the environment that allows runners to
exist and even prosper.

--DT

Message no. 81 On 3 Jul 97 at 2:51, Fade wrote:

>
> I think we can agree Corps doesn't hunt down runners just for
> kicks... :)
>
> That is, they must have a GOOD reason to - and if they have a good
> reason, then the possible depletion of runner pool is a very
> secondary consideration.
>
> *chuckle* Of course, if the corporations did hunt runners just for
> farting on the gounds, then if you *were* a runner you had to be
> pretty damn good. (Or have a spihncter like a vice.:).

LOL... I think if I had that many people shooting guns at me mine would
either be VERY tight or running like water!
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 82 > >Um, if this is what this thread is turning into, perhaps it
> >belongs in private email rather than this list.

This thread hasn't even come close to a flame fest. It's been a
thoughtful discussion. <g> Albeit one full of cinders...

> Far from, Paul's just a tad bit aggravated. He'll get over it. I'm
> still
> quite in control, thank you...

Ah TopCat, how I did miss your debating. Always did point out something
new for me to ponder during your ranting.

So if we have a group/team of runners who run against a Corp, (not
Megacorp) and by some miracle, they plan well, and get away, (*gasp*)
we're gonna have a few things happen, neh?

The runners have no idea that Mr Hurtubise got fired because someone
found a hole in his nightly patrol... stock drops a bit because of the
lost data... (well, maybe a runner might notice, if he plays the stock
game) uzw... (I just got home from work, intrigue is a bit hard for me
at the moment.)

Maybe the corp type pays an amount to LoneStar and has a few extra
charges brought against them. (Runners aren't the only ones with friends
either. A favour owed here and there can be very useful... All of a
sudden, the unexplained deaths of two LoneStar officers a few months
back during a riot are being pinned on the runners...

And the MegaCorps are a whole different story. A MegaCorp has access to
divisions and personnel that most corps don't, they have the nuyen and
often, the time. A MegaCorp might not think twice about sending twenty
man assault team after the five who broke into (or tried) their R&D
department, or assigning a few of their deckers to compile a dossier on
the runners, but a smaller corp, with maybe 100 employees? (and I'd bet
the MegaCorps would be able to twist the LoneStar/Media into doing
precisely what they want. (Being as LoneStar and the Media are different
types of corps, who want to stay alive in the world of corporation
politics...)

For all the runners know, the drek that's been dogging them now is due
to something that they did a year ago to some tiny corp, the result of
which drove the corp under. People who want revenge will find some way
of it, either legally, illegally, or otherwise... A good villain in the
making... (kinda like the ex wife. She gets nastier the more time she's
had away from you. ;) )

--

Dvixen Code-word : Weevil-chuck. dvixen@********.com
"And I thought First Ones were rare." - Ivanova - Babylon 5
This tagline brought to you by Windows: Have you crashed yours today?

Message no. 83 On 3 Jul 97 at 2:51, Fade wrote:

> This is a pretty long post in reply to Ashlocke. I paste in my
> conclusion, or a short version of the post, at the top.

<snip some stuff, I'll try to brief, honest : )>
>
> First of all, Lone Star is contracted to BE POLICE. That is their
> job. Policing. Now that means they get paid for doing police work, so
> they are paid to arrest criminals or wanted people in their jurisdiction.
> If someone does something in a corporate area and leaves, they become
> wanted when a corporation requests them extradited. As long as requested
> extradited, they can also be hunted by bounty hunters legally. But they
> would still have to go through a rather complex extradition trial. (Which
> is greased considerably by a prisoner exchange.).

For the most part I agree with you. I will point out a few things. I
would say there is a large difference between a police/peace officer and
someone hired to police an area. The main difference being the attitude
of the individual about both the job and the people they police. Most
cops I know, inspite of the hard time I tend to give them, actually care
about their job and their community. Their heart is in what they do.
However, most security guards I know don't care anywhere near as much.
Perhaps a better example would be US forces in Vietnam, technically a
policing action. Yet we were nearly at war with the South Vietnamese we
were supposed to be protecting. As I said, the difference is attitude.
My point being that LS officers are less likely on the whole to care about
communities they are assigned to, than would real police officers. IIRC
FASA alluded to this some in the person of "SPD" who dislikes LS because
of that very problem.

>
> It states in Corporate Shadowfiles that corporations has
> extradition treatments with LS and each other. Wether they honor them is
> uncertain. If Ares asks LS to extradite Mr. Jonathan Smith for bombing
> Ares Central Stadion and 10000 people, LS will do so as quickly as
> possible. Why? They cannot let something like that slide, and it's a good
> PR boost if they catch the bastard. Now if it's Joe Schmoe, LS doesn't
> have that incentive, but if Ares wants him bad enough, they offer someone
> LS has wanted extradited from Ares in return - and then it's in LS's
> interest.

Here also I pretty much agree with you. Extradition would be a likely
route, and probalby a very cost effective one, for Corps who wanted to
catch runners who'd made it off Corp property. Why put your own security
assets at risk when LS is bound by contract to take care of it for you?
Not to mention the Corp get's out of having to pay overtime and combat
pay. The problem being as I mentioned above, that LS is likely to be less
"enthusiastic" than perhaps a Corp would want.

>
> > Most shadowrunners work for either Corporations or
> > Governments, hired to pull black ops in *another* corps territory.
>
> > This situation is akin to rl special forces performing similar acts in foriegn
> > countries. They are breaking the laws of those countries, often violently so,
> > does that mean they are criminals? Of course not, they're soldiers carrying
> > out the wishes of their governments.
>
> Interesting. Do you consider an Iranian terrorist a criminal? I
> assume you do not, since you do not view terrorist or hostile actions
> undertaken by persons in the employment of governments criminals.

To be frank, if I were an Iranian, no I wouldn't view them as criminals.
As a US citizen I would. Which is kind of my point. Runners often are
criminals, but they are more than that too. It's one of those questions
that doesn't have a simple answer. And btw, when was the last time you
heard of Iran extraditing such a terrorist to the US or anywhere else for
trial. It's very rare to hear of (it does happen actually, and you can
bet there were a lot of backroom deals to make it happen), because in Iran
those terrorist aren't terrorist, they're national heroes.

>
> The problem is that your choice of black op organizations
> '(such as US Rangers or British SAS or Israeli Mussad)' is 'good'.
> The SAS, for instance, is an anti-terrorist force; they are not the
> only kind. Terrorist groups, assassins, saboteurs all is similar,
> only less palatable, and their actions and MO is more in line with
> those of shadowrunners. In any case I assume you by 'black op' means
> operations which is legally carried out by the government instigating it.

There's nothing legal about black ops. Most US citizens would be very
surprised to learn the extent of the CIA's dealings with mercenaries and
just how many "dirty deeds" the CIA has financed. But that's not the
point, neither is the fact that these mercenaries were in the employ of a
government. What they did was VERY illegal in the country they targeted,
yet was sanctioned by that bastion of democracy, the US. Kind of a
paradox isn't it. What is the point is that these mercenaries broke no
laws within the US, so by US laws were not criminals. However, in the
countries in which they acted they were. So you could say they both were
and were not criminals. And that's my point. Shadowrunning, or real
life mercenary work (the two run in a lot of parallels) is a very grey
area. Criminal is a legal term, and so whether you are criminal
or not depends largely on where you are standing at the moment and who's
laws you have, or haven't broken.

>
>
> >*snip* shadowrunners = black ops team/spies.
> > Is this criminal activity, or just the Corp equivalent of a "cold
war"?
>
> As for black ops, remember that all black ops are sent anonymously.
Of course, that's why they're "black" No ID, no shoulder patches, etc.

> They are intended as DENIABLE ASSETS - a word associated with
> shadowrunners... and for the same reason. Governments cannot take
> official responsibility for sending a black ops team into another
> nation, simply because it is illegal to do so - domestically
> and internationally - unless this action can in some way be directly
> protecting the nation's interests. (Rescuing hostages, for instance.).

All true. And all important info about shadowrunners, who they are, what
they do and why they are hired to do it.

>
> A detail about how legality works internationally.. when an American
> black operation kidnapped Manuel Noriega, he was taken to USA for a trial
> there. Calling it a legal nightmare is an understatement, but on the
> whole it was not that big a problem, since they managed to prove the
> operation was directly protecting the nation's interests.

That was a strange case. Only the US would actually kidnap someone and
then worry about legally and morally justifying what they did. The French
certainly didn't bother with justification when the sank the Rainbow
Warrior, SAS doesn't bother about it when they assassinate IRA cells, and
the Mussad has never worried about much of anything so far as I know
(those are some cold individuals who have my respect if not my fear). You
are right in that at lease the guise of protecting national interests is
often an excuse. But in reality it is often just that, an excuse, a means
to an end. (I mean really, justifying the sinking of a civilian vessel on
grounds of protecting national whaling interests is pretty thin.)

>
> The cold war actions are domestically protected by the constitution
> and 'due to national security'. Corporations has no such clause. It
> wouldn't look good in a Corporate Charter, since they are not a
> nation and not under military threat, and has no agencies to handle
> this.

Now there's something else I've wondered about, at least where the
megacorps are concerned. If they are large enough and powerful enough to
get, and in some cases force, extraterroritality, exactly who do they file
said charter with, and how does it get enforced? Lord knows today, in rl,
company charters often get "bent". And as for enforcement, the tobacco
"trials" have been fun to watch (I live in the tobacco state, so that
issue is close to home, literally).

>
> If corporations did get to the level of government symbiosis they
> would have 'national security' clauses then they would no longer be
> corporations, but communist governments.
> (Whaaaaa? Figure it out. :)
I get the impression the Big 8 are getting close to that now.
Aztechnology is a special case, because it literally is the government of
a country.

>
> The Shiawase judgement giving corporations the right to protect
> themselves and their personell is not enough for a 'national
> security' clause to allow them to assassinate, steal or kidnap
> something from another corporation.
True, but that hasn't stopped them from doing so anyway. But this isn't
really my point. My point was only that just because you have broken laws
in say MCT corporate territory does not mean you have broken laws in UCAS
territory.

>
> > I'm not talking about "shadowrunners" who commit random acts of
violence,
> > who gleefully and *deliberately* gun down innocent bystanders, who steal
> > whenever it suits them, who live by no code of ethics or standards at all.
> > What I'm dealing with are professionals who are hired to do specific jobs
> > under specific circumstances and the rest of the time live pretty normal
> > lives.
>
> I do not see the distinction. Wether you put a bullet in a man
> because you're paid to, or because you just felt like it, doesn't
> matter in the eyes of Lady Justice.

Ah... but who's justice? And lets not confuse morality with legality.
Something can be morally wrong and still be legal, or be illegal but not
immoral. I'm not saying you were, just didn't want things to stray in
that direction.
As for the distinction, it would be this. In one case the individual
shot someone for pleasure, in the other they shot someone because it was
necessary. One is a job the other is just plain sick.

Did that clarify what I was saying?
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 84 > Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 00:30:57 +0000
> From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
> Subject: Re: Runner's Attitudes

> There is one thing in this debate about corporatins tracking down
> runners...
>
> I imagine the runner community to be somewhat small - there isn't
> that many shadowrunners around. A runner can stay low, but when he is
> looking for business he will have to stay 'in the open' - if noone
> can find him, how can he be contacted for work?
>
> (Newspaper ads or similar, of course, but who would trust those?)
>
As a matter of fact coded Newspaper adds can be effective. So is the
SR equivilant of E-Mail., it is extreemly difficult to figure out
where I am accessing my account from. With a laptop, modem and enough
change I can access my account from any phone in the world.

Safety at the face to face meet, can be hard. But then why do you need the
face to face to set up a run? You need a means to safely exchange the
spoils for the money and to collect your advance if any.

David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

====================================================
Those who are too intelligent to engage in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato

Message no. 85 > Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 20:50:06 -0500
> From: TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
> Subject: Re: Runner's Attitudes

Having followed this thread for some time, and at the risk of
inflaming things even more. I feel the urge to add my two cents
worth. The nature of this post is such that I have lost track of
which comments are made by whom (it is late, or is it early) so I am
making comments where I feel the need.
[SNIP]

> At 11:24 PM 7/1/97 +0100, Paul wrote:
> >>You see, when corps say things like "Darn, the runners got outside the
> >>fence, guess we can just forget about them and a few million nuyen worth of
> >>research and resources, huh?" I consider that pretty apathetic. Don't
you?

> >If I'd seen anyone suggesting that, I'd agree it was pretty apathetic.
> >Interestingly, I've never claimed it, so why you persist in attributing
> >it to me is a mystery.
>
> Then why would a corp let a runner slide when any given shadowrun will cost
> a given corporation millions of nuyen in the big picture?

Because you don't dump good money after bad. Not if you want to
continue making the big profits. You do analize the run and patch your
security breaches. Once it is clear that the runners have passed
their boody to their employer, there is no profit in killing them.
There is little deterant value, because to claim credit for getting
the team that ripped the corp off the corp has to admit that it was
ripped off. From the point of view some runners this proves that the
corp is an easy target (because the runners 'know' they are better
then that other team).

> >I don't subscribe to the notion that, in the extreme, a corporation will
> >spend multiple millions of nuyen in hunting down and destroying a few
> >petty criminals. Most shadowruns don't involve that sort of cost to the
> >target, why throw good money after bad?
>
> Here's where you're wrong again. As I've explained before, market share and
> confidence play a huge part in stock value. If your research is stolen and
> a competitor can now take a chunk out of your market share, it'll cost you
> millions easy. Then the fact that it was stolen and nothing could/would be
> done about it would lower shareholder confidence and your stock would
> plummet. That's the way the world works now and it'll be worse in SR.

The best way to protect market share is to stonewall, admit nothing,
deny everything. As to your compeditor, you target him with a run of
your own. To hunt down a team requires that word be put out on the
street that you want them, that admission that you were hit will hurt
you more then doing nothing about the run.

> As to a shadowrun not being worth that much, if it isn't worth that much, it
> isn't worth it for a corp to go through the effort to get runners to go
> after it. Unless of course a given corp really wants that office clerk's
> shopping list or the janitor's favorite plunger for personal reasons. If
> someone wants something bad enough that they'll hire runners, that given
> thing will be worth HUGE nuyen.
>
> >If you have cost the corporation ten or twenty million (and that's a
> >_big_ run), then you can expect a pretty savage hunt. If your run simply
> >planted some evidence that meant John Doe got knocked out of the running
> >for a certain promotion, and Richard Roe got the post instead; why is
> >the corporation even going to get involved? Why is it even going to know
> >there was a problem?
>
> Because runners broke in and tampered with official files. Of course, in my
> worldview the runners couldn't get that done without being seen somehow
> unless it was a truly *pitiful* corp. Think of how your particular employer
> might react if someone came in, changed some records, and left. Would they
> be noticed? Would the systems show that file "x" was changed/planted at a
> time when nobody should have been in the office and the backup looks far
> different from what's there now? I know at any job I've been at they would
> and that's right now, not in the ultra-paranoid 2050's.

In real life (among other things) I am a college educated security
professional. After the break in a carefull examination of all
records, paper, electronic and video would be made. The first task
being to identify if it is an inside or outside job and how it was
done. The second part is to fix the security problem that permited it
in the first place. The first part to determine the direction of the
investgation.

If it looks like an inside job the the goal is
identifing the "who". As you want to prevent him from doing it again,
and to identify what else he has done. If he has stolen valuble
stuff,(not information) the goal is to get it back. If it was
information that was taken (i.e. copied), where it went. Currently in
the United States industrial espanoge and the data gained from same
is illegal and creates a tort (the lawyer's favorate) so identifing
the company that got the info is important, possibly more important
then punishing the thief.

Outside jobs are handeled differently as the assistance of the
police (who generally do thier own investgating) is required. Most
internal efforts are devoted to pluging the hole.

> >Runners _will_ be pursued if there is a case to do so. Sometimes that
> >will simply be "log it, file it, if we see them again we do something
> >about it: they didn't do enough damage to be worth wasting resource on."
> >Other times it will be an all-out manhunt and damn the cost, because the
> >corporation cannot afford to show weakness on this issue.
>
> If runners don't do anything then it was a waste to hire them in the first
> place.

That is not always the case. Consider the cost, and disruption from
an internal investgation that attempts to identify what the runners
"took" or were trying to take. Add the distrust it breeds when the
suspected target is something so secret that no one outside the corp
knows of it.

[SNIP]
>
> >>They won't, it's silly to let them get away.

This is partly correct, there is much positive benifit from causing
the runners to disapear during the run. No bodies, no public reports,
just nothing No one knows anything, they left on a run and never
came back. And if you caught one alive you interigate before the
disapearance. (currently is not an option as the legal risk is too
high, but with SR's corprate extraterritoraliy it is another matter).
If some get away the benefits of this tactic are greatly diminished.
As to hunting them down after they have passed on the spoils, for the
reasons I discussed above, it is more often then not better to let
them go.

>
> >It's also silly to go bankrupt hunting petty criminals.

Most definatly.

> You still have no concept of the amount of cash that goes through a given
> megacorp. Microsoft is nowhere near the level of a megacorp (I think that's
> in CorpShad) now and look at the absolutely staggering amount of cash they have.

Megacorps are large because they do not waste thier money.

> >The response will be in proportion to the damage done,...[SNIP]

Except where the human target (i.e, security chief, department head)
takes such personal offense at the runners action, that he becomes
obsessed with 'getting' the runners. Then al bets are off, until his
boss figures out how much money is being wasted on this hunt. At this
point the hunt will stop and he may or maynot be seeking new
employment.

> If the run would do no damage, the run would not be contracted in the first
> place. People don't just hire runners for fun, they hire them for
> industrial espionage. Damage will be done in myriad ways and severe amounts
> from any run and backlash should go into the very high 6-digit range easily.
> Seven-digit would be more common and much higher being very possible. See
> the overall picture and it becomes quite clear.

People hire runners to do things that they think would benefit
themselves or their company. Tasks like theft, assaisnation,
sabotage, as well as industrial espionage. And which it would be best that that
they not be identified with. Part of what they are buying is
plausible deniability. To them runners are just a tool. The target of
a run should be more intrested in the employer, rather then the tool.

[SNIP]

>
> Try breaking into a local corporation's office building sometime. The corps
> here use everything from cameras to pressure sensors to keypad/keycard locks
> to guards to animals to motion sensors and I'm sure some things that I,
> myself, have not had the privilege to see as of yet. Those places are
> secure and at a rather minimal cost. There's no way that I or anyone could
> walk in there unnoticed, change a computer file or plant evidence, and get
> out without being noticed and pursued. That's 199X technology and 199X
> degree of paranoia and 199X degree of corporate resources devoted to
> security. Now expand this to 205X...

First, no security system is perfect. There are always holes. This is
not to say that identifying and exploiting them is easy because it is
not. Security is not cheap and good security is down right expensive.
And money spent on security equipment is an expense that does not
demostratively effect the bottom line. Statisticly perfect security
and no security are identical, no data. The question being is there no data
regarding break-ins because no one tried or you didn't catch them?
Further it has three different sets of costs.

The first is the capital cost of the system (not cheap because of the
limited market for the equipment), the second is the on
going costs (good people cost serious money, and 168 hour a week
operations run it up fast) and the last(and possibly the most
important) is the loss of operational effecency with in
the plant. Security managers are in a constant struggle with
production managers over security procedures. And in the struggle the
production manager has the advantage unless the security manager can
prove the need. Even then a cost benefit analysis is made. Further
even if you win the struggle. The result may not be increased
security. Locking a file in a large vault, that takes 15 minutes to
open, may actually reduce the security of that file. As the people
that use the file would quickly grow tired with the delay in getting
it. They would then find a way make the process easier (i.e. not
locking the vault, making a copy, hiding it during the work day) all
of which would reduce the security. And as the people do not work
for the securtiy department, the security manage often can not get
them disiplined, that task goes to their boss. Who will consider
other factors (the individual's value to the department) before
taking displinary action if any.

I think that there will be three main changes in 205x. Equipment and
good reliable people will cost more money. Because of increased
paranoia the securty manager will get his way more often, not all the
time or even most of the time, just more often. And the caliber of
skill needed to penitrate the security system.

[SNIP]

> >> I think you see corporations far too much from a Wal-Mart perspective
> >>and not from an extraterritorial entity perspective. Corps create and
> >>manipulate the shadows, not the other way around.

No the shadows exist because the Corps, as a general rule do not care about that segment
of
the population which, by their standards, is niether productive or
consumers. With in this segment a second economy exists, an economy
that includes criminal activity as a major componant. Runners exist
because there is a market for their skills.

> >Corporations exist for one single solitary purpose: to make profit.
> >The shadows are there as a tool to that end. Not as an end in
> >themselves.

You are right about the purpose of a corporation. The shadows are not
a tool but rather the result of this one track search for profit at
all costs. Runners are tools.

> If the corps didn't want the shadows, they'd be gone. If the corps need
> something from the shadows, it's at their fingertips in seconds. Profit is
> the biggest driving goal (both on the streets and in the boardrooms) and
> through industrial espionage, more profit can be gained. If it couldn't
> bring profit, it wouldn't happen. If it isn't worth millions to a corp, it
> isn't worth bothering with.

By 2057 the Shadows have become so established that it would be
extremly difficult eliminate. Not to say very costly. And this factor
limits the efectiveness of a corp in the shadows. Money as the means
of getting things is only effective if the reciptant belives he will
live to spend it.

[SNIP]

David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

====================================================
Those who are too intelligent to engage in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato

Message no. 86 woneal@*******.NET said on 15:25/ 2 Jul 97...

> This situation is akin to rl special forces (such as US Rangers or British
> SAS or Israeli Mussad) performing similar acts in foriegn countries. They
> are breaking the laws of those countries, often violently so, does that
> mean they are criminals? Of course not, they're soldiers carrying out the
> wishes of their governments.

That depends on whether you are the one who got hit by the soldiers, or if
you are who sent them. In the latter case, you call them a military strike
team, in the former you call them criminals (whose actions may provoke a
war).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Without lies, there'd be 100% divorce rate, a lot of discontented
children, and no advertising industry.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 87 woneal@*******.NET said on 15:25/ 2 Jul 97...

> Now take that one step further Rune. If Corps are so aggressively
> hunting down those runners... who are they going to hire?

It's mentioned somewhere in an SR book that the corps are the ones
allowing shadowrunners to exist, because they need their skills. From
that, it wouldn't make sense for "the corps" to hunt down and kill
shadowrunners.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Without lies, there'd be 100% divorce rate, a lot of discontented
children, and no advertising industry.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 88 > Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 15:04:13 -0500
> From: Michael Broadwater <mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM>
> Subject: Re: Runner's Attitudes

[SNIP]

> Hold it. In the long run, killing the shadowrunners that attacked and
> stole whatever and cost you all that nuyen can be cost effective. Here's
> why and why not, and maybe, this'll put things in a clearer light:
>
> Problem: Runner's have cost you millions in nuyen because they broke into
> your compound, stole something, and left.
>
> Current Situation: Well, the items gone. Whoever hired them has it, and
> has used it for their neferious purposes.
>
> What do you do?
>
> Well, you can let it slide, which would show that you're weak, and other
> runners will be hired by other corps to steal more stuff. Of course,
> you'll do the same to them.

Letting it slide does not necessarly demonstrate weakness. First of
all there are only three groups that really know what happened, the
target corp, the runners and the Johnson. And the Johnson only knows
what the runners were to do, and that they succeeded, he doesn't know
how or what they really did. And it is in none of these peoples
intrest to talk. The target gains nothing by advertising its
weakness. Anonymity is one othe keys to long life as a runner, so why
would they want to talk. And the Johnson has a lot to loose if the
target idenifies his corp. That leaves street rumors from second and
third hand sources of questionable reliablity.

> Well, you don't want to look weak, so how do you solve that? Well, you up
> your security, sure that'll help. But what else?
>
By not looking weak. The company line is that nothing happened, there
is no truth to the rumors. There never was a run. We don't know what
you are talking about. In fact you may not immedatly up grade
security, or fire the responsible security officials as that would
imply a break-down of the corps security. And if this is a division
of a larger corp then there is another insentive to keep it quiet,
internal company politics. After all you do not want you rival to
have something to take to the big boss and reduce your status/power.

> Lets look at this as if the corp in question was one of the big 8, since
> that's what Bob has been mentioning, and occasionally, had ignored.
> Admittedly, this situation works best with that kind of corp, and won't
> work as well with a lower tier corp (but then, that makes it smarter to run
> against them)
>
> So, the Big 8 corp needs to fix it's problem. What does it do? Well, it
> dumps money into security, like I said. Try to stop the problem before it
> becomes one. Well, what else does it do?
>
> First of all, if possible, you try to recover your lost money. Steal back
> the item. Unfortunately, this could be difficult, and while you may regain
> whatever was stolen, it may have become a moot point (if the US ever got a
> new, say, Russian MiG, they'd return it. Of course, they may take a good
> long look at it while it's here.)
>
> So, the corp has new, improved security. That's great. But it's reactive,
> and that still allows for runners to come in and break security and get out
> and cause problems. Not as many will get through, and that's good, but
> it'll still happen. Next option? Become proactive.
>
> That's right, take the fight to the runners that tried to screw you. OK,
> yeah, they're small, but they were good enough to cost you millions. So,
> drop some more cash (yeah, that's another loss, but just spend enough to
> kill them and let people know that it was you that did it).
>
> Now what? Well, it goes around that the last people who ran across that
> Big 8 got geeked, and so did the 4 teams before them. Sure 2 died inside,
> and 3 got out, but once they were out, it wasn't over.

This assumes that they can identify the team, locate them and
arrange an effective hit. This is not a simple task, good runners do
not leave calling cards. If the team is half way competent all the
corp has, is some poor quality photos of a group of individuals in
dark jump suits, balclava, and equipment vest. Gloves take care of
the finger print problem. Any euipment left behind is 'clean' and
untracable. This not a lot to start an investgation on. And who does
the corp haveto do this investgation? Four groups, the police,
legitament professionals (bounty hunters, P.I.s and the like),
corprate assets and other runners. with the exeption of the runners
the rest will have problems working the shadows effectively, after
all the residents of the shadows have little love of THE MAN and his
lackies. Money can be effective if you know who you are looking for
other wise it is a waste that attracts attention. This is not to say
that the flashy, high profile runners will not be eventualy
discovered but it will be a long, hard and expensive task. And in the
end the corp will not be able to be really sure they got the right
people.

> So now people don't want to run against you. Sure, they'll still work for
> you, if you treat them right. But run against? Hell no.

If the money is good, and the runners confident enough, a Johnson can
find a runner team willing to tackle any target. How good they are is
another question. In some respects it is like a mountain, no matter
how many are kill trying to climb it, there is always someone else
who is willing to attempt it.

David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

====================================================
Those who are too intelligent to engage in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato

Message no. 89 > Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 11:55:40 -0400
> From: shergold <shergold@***********.net>
> Subject: Re: Runner's Attitudes

> I think there's one thing some have missed with this small debate over
> Megacorps and runners, is that megacorps sometimes use runners for things
> they'd rather not use their standard resources for. If it became known that
> certain Corps hunted runners they wouldn't be able to hire any, because hey
> if they're hunting other runners what's to prevent them from hunting the
> people who have done work for them?
>
Trust is too valuable to waste, for momentary revenge.

David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

====================================================
Those who are too intelligent to engage in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato

Message no. 90 > For the most part I agree with you. I will point out a few things. I
> would say there is a large difference between a police/peace officer and
> someone hired to police an area. The main difference being the attitude
> of the individual about both the job and the people they police.

I agree 110%. The LS police is only interested in 'protecting' rich
folks, because that's where the money is. There, they might play
nice - just because that's where the money is. That's where they get
paid to work. Perhaps a few, on an individual basis, care about the
community, but the point is that it's 'just a job'. Now, perhaps the
attitude should be different logically, but this is shadowrun. It's
not a pretty place.

I snip most of your post because you sum it up nicely in the end..

> > A detail about how legality works internationally.. when an American
> > black operation kidnapped Manuel Noriega, he was taken to USA for a trial
> > there. Calling it a legal nightmare is an understatement, but on the
> > whole it was not that big a problem, since they managed to prove the
> > operation was directly protecting the nation's interests.
>
> That was a strange case. Only the US would actually kidnap someone and
> then worry about legally and morally justifying what they did.

No kidding.. :)

In Europe the situation is somewhat different. For instance, Watson
sunk a norwegian vessel, then fled the country. In absentia he was
sentenced to 120 days in prison. Norwegian authorities informed
Interpol, which apprehended him in Holland. Norwegian
authorities requested him extradited; the paperwork took about 90
days, at which point both Dutch and Norwegian authorities agreed the
point was mote; he had served out his sentence anyway.

The difference in handling the situation was pretty obvious.. but so
was the crime(s). But still, the interesting difference is not the
crime, but where the crime(s) were done. In Europe there is strong
treaties and cooperative agreements for dealing with extranational
criminals. In Nicaragua... well... no. (Esp. since it was the
president! Which is a situation I doubt would arise in Europe..
and, despite appearences, USA.).

Which system is closest to the one between the corporations, do you
think? I would guess it's somewhere in between, a lot more random,
but then that might depend upon the corp. Big A is definitely
Nicaragua; I imagine Ares is a lot more cleanhanded. In the Corp
Shadowfiles, using the 'Reputation' classification might be an ok
guideline.

> But this isn't
> really my point. My point was only that just because you have broken laws
> in say MCT corporate territory does not mean you have broken laws in UCAS
> territory.

I understood this. My point is that UCAS has then broken its own
laws, but doesn't care. (If UCAS sent them).The distinction is pretty
important; it means you are a criminal if it becomes a political
embarassment. (You get discovered). It also means you are still 95%
safe from prosecution. (Unless they want to skimp pay, that is.).

We started out arguing semantics, after all.. :)

But the more I think about the arguments, what strikes me is how
extremely important it is for corporations that the shadowrunners are
*NOT* discovered, and DEFINTELY does not know who hired them.

> > I do not see the distinction. Wether you put a bullet in a man
> > because you're paid to, or because you just felt like it, doesn't
> > matter in the eyes of Lady Justice.
>
> As for the distinction, it would be this. In one case the individual
> shot someone for pleasure, in the other they shot someone because it was
> necessary. One is a job the other is just plain sick.

Heh. And shooting people as a job isn't sick? :)
Usually the sicko would get off a lot easier (pleading insanity) than
the contract killer, simply because he by nature of the situation
cannot claim insanity.

> Did that clarify what I was saying?
Yep. Looks better all the time. :)
--
Fade

"It's better to burn out, than to fade away!"

Message no. 91 > > Well, you don't want to look weak, so how do you solve that? Well, you up
> > your security, sure that'll help. But what else?
> >
> By not looking weak. The company line is that nothing happened, there
> is no truth to the rumors. There never was a run. We don't know what
> you are talking about. In fact you may not immedatly up grade
> security, or fire the responsible security officials as that would
> imply a break-down of the corps security. And if this is a division
> of a larger corp then there is another insentive to keep it quiet,
> internal company politics. After all you do not want you rival to
> have something to take to the big boss and reduce your status/power.

What I imagine happens in a corp if there is a run against a
division in a competent corporation:

1: They send in a damage control team. If information is stolen, they
find out what, analyze how this information could be used, and start
countermeasures. There isn't that many such teams, and they are
presumably quite competent, at least in the AAA's. If a prototype is
stolen they make damn sure they have all the patents in order.
They also analyze who probably sent the team, and decides what to
watch out for as indications to who hred them.
(A prototype stolen? Look for 'breakthroughs' in that area in a
competing corporation in 3-6 months.).

This team is the one that decides wether *your* heads shall roll.

2: They send in a Investigation team, working in conjunction with the
damage control team. This team finds out how the runners got in, who
sold out, and so on. Also analyzes the security, finding if it did
its job as well as could be expected, and if it is capable of
handling the threats it is dimensioned to handle. These are the grim
hatchetmen, the guys the corp employees get to worry about.

The ones who makes the corp's heads roll.

> > That's right, take the fight to the runners that tried to screw you. OK,
> > yeah, they're small, but they were good enough to cost you millions. So,
> > drop some more cash (yeah, that's another loss, but just spend enough to
> > kill them and let people know that it was you that did it).

Another option - cultivate shadow contacts. Just have them drop you a
hint if they hear something about a run against you. Nothing more,
not asking them to sell out friends or anything, just keep your ears
open, ok?

I believe this is the single greatest threat to shadowrunner security
outside the run itself. These are the people that you often contact
for legwork, preparations to a run.

Of course, if a corporation has advance warning a run is coming, what
is the best way to react? Beef up security so much that it's
invulnerable?. No. It's tampering with the mission objective. If it
is information, plant disinformation. If it's a prototype, alter it
slightly, or make it prone to disastrous failure, or plant a tracking
device, or whatever. If it is a person, exchange that person with a
security doppleganger, or also plant a tracking device.

Often, the runners won't ever know what's wrong, sometimes not even
those hiring them.. and if the Johnson find out, they'll probably
deal with the runners who must've sold'em out.
--
Fade

"It's better to burn out, than to fade away!"

Message no. 92 'Do you think this is who I am? I am a professional thief. I don't don't
run around killing people I don't have to.'
--Seth Gecko, From Dusk to Dawn

Message no. 93 On Wednesday, July 02, 1997 11:30, woneal@*******.NET wrote:
> On 1 Jul 97 at 23:24, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>
> >
> > The mere fact that a target is a megacorporation doesn't change the
> > financial cost of a given run against it, and your fixation that every
> > run against any megacorp involves a cost of billions is the crux of the
> > problem here. If the cost is small, the benefit of pursuit is similarly
> > small.
>
> That's half the crux. I get the distinct impression that Bob
thinks all
> runners are pond scum, low-lives, street trash and rank amatuers. He
> seems to think that there are no professionals in the shadow business,
> that they are all lying, thieving criminals. That a very limit view of a
> very diverse group. Obviously *some* runners fit into that category, but
> there are plenty who don't.

Exactly. Read the first section of Fields of Fire. TopCat apparently
believes that *all* runners fit into the mold that Matador puts them in.
Even Hatchetman (who is apparently a runner, and should know better, agrees
with him.)

But not all runners are like that. My players aren't. They do not wander
over the wire and aimlessly search the compound. They have a plan. They use
their brains. Most importantly, they use stealth, magic, and technology to
defeat security systems. (Motto: Any system can be beaten. Some are just
harder than others. Remember, security *cannot* be impenetrable. Otherwise,
whatever it guards *cannot* be accessible.)

Now, I will admit that I don't run sessions where they have to penetrate a
corporate high-security facility very often. It isn't the kind of mission
the PC's enjoy, and they don't have the personnel to be effective. (No
full-time decker, for example.) But they can and have done it.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers.
-Leonard Brandwein
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)

Message no. 94 Just to make a point about how you get 'professional' runners as opposed to
gutterpunks, I'm going to give an exemple of how a PC could be such a
thing, drawn from my PCs

Team leader: Ex-military, left because his team got the knobby purple shaft
and were set up to die. Wanted for being AWOL and stealing Govt Property (a
tactical computer.) Mercing would involve too much exposure. Hence, he
disappears into the shadows.

Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers.
-Leonard Brandwein
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)

Message no. 95 At 11:55 AM 7/2/97 -0400, Shergold wrote:
>I think there's one thing some have missed with this small debate over
>Megacorps and runners, is that megacorps sometimes use runners for things
>they'd rather not use their standard resources for. If it became known that
>certain Corps hunted runners they wouldn't be able to hire any, because hey
>if they're hunting other runners what's to prevent them from hunting the
>people who have done work for them?

I've never said "hunted all runners" and this hasn't been missed in the
debate. I've said "hunted those who ran against them". There's no reason
to hunt anyone else, no gain to be had.
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

Message no. 96 At 02:46 PM 7/3/97 -0400, Johnathan wrote:
>On Wednesday, July 02, 1997 11:30, woneal@*******.NET wrote:
>> On 1 Jul 97 at 23:24, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>>> The mere fact that a target is a megacorporation doesn't change the
>>> financial cost of a given run against it, and your fixation that every
>>> run against any megacorp involves a cost of billions is the crux of the
>>> problem here. If the cost is small, the benefit of pursuit is similarly
>>> small.

>>That's half the crux. I get the distinct impression that Bob thinks all
>>runners are pond scum, low-lives, street trash and rank amatuers. He
>>seems to think that there are no professionals in the shadow business,
>>that they are all lying, thieving criminals. That a very limit view of a
>>very diverse group. Obviously *some* runners fit into that category, but
>>there are plenty who don't.

I've no thoughts along the lines that runners are all "pond scum, low-lives,
street trash and rank amatuers". There are professional runners. However,
all runners *are* lying criminals (many thieves) from the lowliest ganger to
the uber-runner living in a penthouse apartment. They're of no use if they
aren't criminal in some way or another (preferably many) and if they don't
lie they could find themselves in deep trouble really fast in the shadows.

To corporations runners are tools: no more, no less. Even if said tool
wears black and a mask and makes a lot of stealth successes and plans things
out, if he walks into a place that has every square inch under a security
camera, he'll be seen. That's just cameras, include all the other security
goodies and even a "professional" runner with the right attitude and a plan
is noticed and security on his tail from the beginning to the end.

Johnathan later posted this...

>Just to make a point about how you get 'professional' runners as
>opposed to gutterpunks, I'm going to give an exemple of how a PC
>could be such a thing, drawn from my PCs
>Team leader: Ex-military, left because his team got the knobby
>purple shaft and were set up to die. Wanted for being AWOL and
>stealing Govt Property (a tactical computer.) Mercing would
>involve too much exposure. Hence, he disappears into the shadows.

So that's a character history. Let me guess, the guy plans things, wears
black, makes a lot of stealth successes and would still be seen if he walked
by a camera? Professional in attitude won't keep you from being seen.
Wearing day-glo wetlook leathers and running around screaming like an idiot
just makes it easier (I wouldn't consider such a person a shadowrunner, I'd
consider them dead). Wearing black still doesn't prevent you from being
noticed. So once again, your point would be?

>Exactly. Read the first section of Fields of Fire. TopCat apparently
>believes that *all* runners fit into the mold that Matador puts them in.
>Even Hatchetman (who is apparently a runner, and should know better, agrees
>with him.)

Far from, but you've deluded yourself to the point where you truly believe
that I do and I don't think you're likely to come back from said delusion.

>But not all runners are like that. My players aren't. They do not wander
>over the wire and aimlessly search the compound. They have a plan. They use
>their brains. Most importantly, they use stealth, magic, and technology to
>defeat security systems. (Motto: Any system can be beaten. Some are just
>harder than others. Remember, security *cannot* be impenetrable. Otherwise,
>whatever it guards *cannot* be accessible.)

Stealth, magic, and tech and a plan can only get you so far when the degree
of stealth, magic, and tech that the megacorps have is so far beyond your
runners abilities as to make them laughable. Can any system be beaten?
Perhaps one part of it, but single-layer security is foolish. You combine
cameras with pressure sensors, motion sensors, physical security, magical
security, matrix security, building layout, fences, walls, locks, doors,
drones, and whatever else to create a security web which no-one can get
through without being detected. So what if a scientist is detected, there's
no reason to shoot him. But if nobody is supposed to be in Room 412 after
7pm and someone's there, then security takes effect. Most security
techniques now essentially become inpenetrable when layered. In 205X
there's so much more to play with...

A good plan and a professional attitude is going to get you by that?

>Now, I will admit that I don't run sessions where they have to penetrate a
>corporate high-security facility very often. It isn't the kind of mission
>the PC's enjoy, and they don't have the personnel to be effective. (No
>full-time decker, for example.) But they can and have done it.

Then you invoked divine intervention of the unrealistic sort in order to get
them through it. Of course, I don't believe in divine intervention...
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

Message no. 97 At 06:57 AM 7/1/97 -0600, David wrote:
>TopCat wrote:
>| At 09:19 PM 6/30/97 -0600, David wrote:
>| >Bob, how do you do it? After reading your last post I realized that my
>| >post on the subject, in which I thought I was argueing with you, was in
>| >agreement with you. And I think you did the same thing to Paul.

>| Hmm, I doubt Paul agrees with me or that he ever will or that he'd admit
>| that he did if he did. Regardless, I think it's just the fact that people
>| like to argue with me. Not that I do anything to detract from that, mind
>| you, but I'm pretty sure that's it. Even I admit that my style can be...
>| abrasive.

>I think you were both argueing two points of view that never
>conflicted with eachother.

Yes and no...

>IMO, You believe that if runners take on the first, or even second,
>tier of a Megacorp, that if they don't get wacked in the attempt that
>the Megacorp will seek retribution.

I also believe that in the attempting they most likely won't survive.
Should they make it, they'll be in trouble shortly thereafter.

>IMO, Paul believes that the lower tiers of a Megacorp have defense
>that can be bypassed (though it will take a little work) and that
>said Corp won't seek retribution unless they have a good reason (the
>runners geeked the CEO's daughter during the run (don't you hate
>stray rounds?)).

Paul also believes that the higher tiers as well can be penetrated without
problem whereas I do not. Herein lies the gist of the argument.

>Hey, just before you left last time we were just getting into the art
>of writing a good mystery and placing clues. Have you learned
>anything new since then?

Ummm... I'm not sure, LOL.

I've been playing more Shadowrun (and a lot of WoD stuff) than I've been
running over the past year (though that appears to be changing). I'm still
in the middle of a one-on-one amnesiac campaign that has been extremely
interesting. Last time I was running it was a detective level campaign, but
since I started running again I don't know if I'm too keen on releasing my
trade secrets to my new players...

If I get some time after this "Runners Attitudes" thread is over, I may get
that thread going again... :)
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

Message no. 98 On Thursday, July 03, 1997 18:39, TopCat[SMTP:topcat@***.NET] wrote:

> >Just to make a point about how you get 'professional' runners as
> >opposed to gutterpunks, I'm going to give an exemple of how a PC
> >could be such a thing, drawn from my PCs
> >Team leader: Ex-military, left because his team got the knobby
> >purple shaft and were set up to die. Wanted for being AWOL and
> >stealing Govt Property (a tactical computer.) Mercing would
> >involve too much exposure. Hence, he disappears into the shadows.
>
> So that's a character history. Let me guess, the guy plans things, wears
> black, makes a lot of stealth successes and would still be seen if he
walked
> by a camera? Professional in attitude won't keep you from being seen.
> Wearing day-glo wetlook leathers and running around screaming like an
idiot
> just makes it easier (I wouldn't consider such a person a shadowrunner,
I'd
> consider them dead). Wearing black still doesn't prevent you from being
> noticed. So once again, your point would be?

Nope. He doesn't walk in front of the camera in the first place. Not unless
he *knows* that it has been neutralized. A camera is actually fairly easy
to fool/spoof. Other sensors (motion/heat in particular) are much harder to
beat. So he (and the rest of the team) doesn't. They go after the slag who
is manning the sensor if they absolutely cannot go around it (or otherwise
suppress whatever the sensor is reporting to.

> >Exactly. Read the first section of Fields of Fire. TopCat apparently
> >believes that *all* runners fit into the mold that Matador puts them in.
> >Even Hatchetman (who is apparently a runner, and should know better,
agrees
> >with him.)
>
> Far from, but you've deluded yourself to the point where you truly
believe
> that I do and I don't think you're likely to come back from said
delusion.

I apologize. My take on your comments (and everyone else's re-comments)
made me think this.

> >But not all runners are like that. My players aren't. They do not wander
> >over the wire and aimlessly search the compound. They have a plan. They
use
> >their brains. Most importantly, they use stealth, magic, and technology
to
> >defeat security systems. (Motto: Any system can be beaten. Some are just
> >harder than others. Remember, security *cannot* be impenetrable.
Otherwise,
> >whatever it guards *cannot* be accessible.)
>
> Stealth, magic, and tech and a plan can only get you so far when the
degree
> of stealth, magic, and tech that the megacorps have is so far beyond your
> runners abilities as to make them laughable. Can any system be beaten?
> Perhaps one part of it, but single-layer security is foolish. You
combine
> cameras with pressure sensors, motion sensors, physical security, magical
> security, matrix security, building layout, fences, walls, locks, doors,
> drones, and whatever else to create a security web which no-one can get
> through without being detected. So what if a scientist is detected,
there's
> no reason to shoot him. But if nobody is supposed to be in Room 412
after
> 7pm and someone's there, then security takes effect. Most security
> techniques now essentially become impenetrable when layered. In 205X
> there's so much more to play with...

So don't be in the room in a black-out period. Have a legitimate reason to
be there. You are apparently thinking that the runners are going to beat
their head against the brick wall of security. Why should they? I tell you
three time: The human element is the most vulnerable element of a security
system, and any security system MUST have it. If security is hair-trigger
enough that any spoofing attempt will be detected, tickle it. Degrade the
responses of who/whatever is responding to the security alert. (Calling up
the ready-alert squad three nights running for a false alarm is going to
tick them off.)

I said it before, I'll say it again: No security is impenetrable. It is too
bloody expensive, too bloody difficult, and too bloody annoying to the
people who have to work around it.

> A good plan and a professional attitude is going to get you by that?

Yep. And if a plan cannot be found in a reasonable time, I've had the team
return their front money to the employer.

> >Now, I will admit that I don't run sessions where they have to penetrate
a
> >corporate high-security facility very often. It isn't the kind of
mission
> >the PC's enjoy, and they don't have the personnel to be effective. (No
> >full-time decker, for example.) But they can and have done it.
>
> Then you invoked divine intervention of the unrealistic sort in order to
get
> them through it. Of course, I don't believe in divine intervention...

I resent that. I guess you would consider a voluntary extractee giving them
inside aid "divine intervention," then. Or intra-corporation politics
preventing effective response to a threat? As someone else pointed out, a
corporation is not a group mind (certain parts of Aztechnology
probationarily excluded...) and does not always act as such. Classic
examples of this in the SR world would be a run where one part of Fuchi
(Nakatomi) commissions a run against another (Villiers) - a situation where
the security officers' loyalties will most certainly be strained.

Now all the ideas in this post are just me bouncing ideas off my keyboard.
Some may work, some may not.

> --
> Bob Ooton
> topcat@***.net

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers.
-Leonard Brandwein
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)

Message no. 99 At 03:25 PM 7/2/97 -0005, you wrote:
>On 1 Jul 97 at 20:50, TopCat wrote:
>> I've been personally attacked in this, so now I have to reply. My
>> apologies in advance for continuing the thread after I said I would let
>> it die...

>IIRC you fired the first shots. And if I also RC you were so "generous"
>as to say that Paul could have the last word. Not Paul's fault if you
>didn't like those last words.

I fired shots? I merely tore down his argument and if successful opposition
to an argument is firing shots then I guess I am, indeed, guilty. Is it? I
was being generous, but Paul took my moment of generosity as a good
opportunity to rant and scream and flame a little and I took exception to
that. Just as I take exception to your little tantrum here.

>What's the matter, you can dish it out but you can't take it?

I haven't dished out anything. I haven't taken anything either, as I firmly
believe in my views and stress the realism behind them over some heated
little whinings as you seem to prefer. The only thing I plan to dish out is
more evidence that your view is wrong. Maybe there'll be a bit of sarcasm
within, but as I've mentioned in another post, it's only because I like to
keep my wit sharp. If all it takes is some mild sarcasm to get you so riled
up, you should have a breakdown after a couple months on the list with me :)

>What happened to that smug arrogant "I'm calm and in control"?

I'm still calm and in control. Remember, it's only arrogance if you aren't
beneath me. By this little tantrum of yours I'm sure we can all see that
you're down somewhere in the cracks of my sneaker soles.

>Do the world a favor, pull your bottom lip up over your face
>and swallow.

Aww, now that's just mean. Next thing you know you'll be swearing at me.
Remember my comment about the apes...

>You've criticized everything Paul had to say from the
>start, and been none to polite in how you went about it.

I may've not been polite, but I've been correct and quite clear. Paul and
yourself have been none of the three.

>You've proudly announced you would attack any opinion or POV he offered,
>regardless.

On this topic and if he continued with his shortsighted views, yes. I
would. I'd also be right in doing so.

>You've misquoted him, called him a liar, and refused to concede any point
>at all. When he offered factual information, you claimed it to be
>"immaginary".

I already went over this in another post. Quite funny really how you are
THAT far off. Is he related to you or something?

> You're egotistical blatherings have labelled you a foolish,
>immature, narrow-minded, bigoted, slandering idiot!

Foolish? Far from the fool am I. Immature? At times, yes, though not in
debate. Narrow-minded? I've opened my mind to thoughts few ever have and
ever will. That's why I can support my opinions with rational and logical
evidence rather than resorting to flames. Bigoted? Sometimes, but not
here. Slandering? I haven't reduced anyone's character from where it
already is, and certainly not to criminal levels if I did. Idiot? A 180
I.Q. and test scores of rather amazing levels prove me far above that.
Genius is the word commonly used.

Perhaps you should learn the language before you attempt to use it. Or
maybe think of who you try to use it upon? Or maybe think at all?

>And now you want to whine because somebody finally got fed up
>with your constant attacks and stood up to you.

Whine? Whining is what you've been doing throughout this tantrum. I merely
stated points and shot down Paul's mad ravings in my return post to the
thread. Just as I'm doing here, with you. I've made no attacks, merely
stated points in an often satirical, witty, and/or sarcastic manner. If you
can't handle this, perhaps you should refrain from reading my posts. You'll
lead a happier life for it.

>Don't expect anybody who's followed this thread to for
>even the slightest instant believe you to be the innocent party here. You
>picked a fight, you got your nose bloodied, and now your crying about it.

But they do, and in sending your little tantrum to the list they all get to
see exactly how weak you and your argument really are. I picked no fight
nor has one been directed at me, my nose is not bloodied, and I've yet to
cry and I can't see where, even figuratively speaking, this could have
occured. I've stated points, offered evidence, refuted the evidence
supported against my argument, and proved my argument. I've also proven
myself a better man for not resorting to such tantrums as you appear prone
to. Evolution does indeed backtrack now and then, I guess...

>Try posting something useful, after you've grown up.

I've posted many useful things here and I'll post many more. Whether or not
they're of use to you is, like you, inconsequential to me. Others here
certainly agree with me, though you and your chosen liege do not (at least
here). I'm quite "grown up" and it's rather funny to me how someone could
speak of such things in a tantrum such as this.

On to your next post, Ashlocke... TTFN ;^D
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

Message no. 100 In message <199707020150.UAA16969@*******.fgi.net>, TopCat
<topcat@***.NET> writes
>I've been personally attacked in this, so now I have to reply.

Oh, dear, someone insult your approach to playing Shadowrun or
misrepresent your opinions? Yeah, that gets annoying, doesn't it?

>>If I'd seen anyone suggesting that, I'd agree it was pretty apathetic.
>>Interestingly, I've never claimed it, so why you persist in attributing
>>it to me is a mystery.
>
>Then why would a corp let a runner slide when any given shadowrun will cost
>a given corporation millions of nuyen in the big picture?

"Millions in the big picture"?

Interesting Widgets Inc. of Seattle (down in the small print it says "A
Mitsuhama Company - Making Tomorrow Brighter!") get raided, misses a
contractual delivery date, and loses half a million or so in follow-on
orders as a result.

Yup, that's going to shake the financial capitals of the world to the
core. I can see the screens flashing red, traders screaming "Sell all
the MCT you can get!", Mitsuhama's CEO leaping out of a high window...

Most people would have to dig through the annual report to even know
that Interesting Widgets wera a MCT subsidiary.

And you forget follow-on and linkups. Someone hits Miles Roystone and
shuts down their production line for a few weeks while they clear
rubble. Miles Roystone are small and independent, so the runners are
safe from their wrath. Right?

Except M-R make a special-to-type connector that Yamaetsu need for this
season's Hot Seller(TM) product, and now Yamaetsu have lost a quarter's
sales on a marvellous high-margin item while they either second-source
it or wait for Miles Roystone to reassemble their factory. Guess what?
You _did_ cost Yamaetsu big money and you never went near them.

This is the fundamental reason why "megas savagely hunt anyone who
crosses them, no matter what" is a foolish idea: because just about
anything a shadowrunner does ends up affecting a megacorporation, and
more often adversely than favourably.

>>I don't subscribe to the notion that, in the extreme, a corporation will
>>spend multiple millions of nuyen in hunting down and destroying a few
>>petty criminals. Most shadowruns don't involve that sort of cost to the
>>target, why throw good money after bad?
>
>Here's where you're wrong again. As I've explained before, market share and
>confidence play a huge part in stock value. If your research is stolen and
>a competitor can now take a chunk out of your market share, it'll cost you
>millions easy.

There are occasionally shadowruns that do _not_ involve stealing SOTA
research. Many such, in fact. Anything from internal faction fights, to
insurance frauds, to a site's security officer justifying a budget
increase or discrediting a superior. Most don't involve anything like
this level of cost.

And today's British stock market doesn't respond to every burglary and
break-in at a GEC or British Aerospace site. They don't even notice. Nor
do major companies comment on incidents like that unless forced to.

Markets can only respond to what they know (or think they know).

> Then the fact that it was stolen and nothing could/would be
>done about it would lower shareholder confidence and your stock would
>plummet. That's the way the world works now and it'll be worse in SR.

You persist in the assumption of total disclosure. Might it not be in
the corporate interest to keep this sorry affair quiet?

Of course, if you're already in all-out pursuit of the runner team, they
lose nothing by fully publicising their exploits. If you merely have
feelers out in case they make themselves obvious and have them on your
shit list for any future opportunity, they have incentive to keep quiet
and avoid embarrasing disclosures: once they blab, they _have_ done the
damage you describe and hunting them becomes much more sensible.

Large corporations in 2058 are extraterritorial: think what that means
to reporting. A UCAS investigative journalist researching a story can be
tried and convicted of espionage if necessary.

>As to a shadowrun not being worth that much, if it isn't worth that much, it
>isn't worth it for a corp to go through the effort to get runners to go
>after it.

If the benefit to the hirer outweighs the cost, it's worthwhile.

What's it cost to hire a typical runner team? Five runners, 20K each, a
hundred thousand nuyen.

>Unless of course a given corp really wants that office clerk's
>shopping list or the janitor's favorite plunger for personal reasons. If
>someone wants something bad enough that they'll hire runners, that given
>thing will be worth HUGE nuyen.

"That chosen something" might be an exec's promotion to Site Manager.
Worth every penny of a hundred thousand to _him_ to have his boss
discredited.

>>If you have cost the corporation ten or twenty million (and that's a
>>_big_ run), then you can expect a pretty savage hunt. If your run simply
>>planted some evidence that meant John Doe got knocked out of the running
>>for a certain promotion, and Richard Roe got the post instead; why is
>>the corporation even going to get involved? Why is it even going to know
>>there was a problem?
>
>Because runners broke in and tampered with official files.

You assume you're breaking into corporate HQ to do this? Much easier to
go for the guy's residence.

>>It puzzles me that Bob has so much trouble understanding this
>>distinction.
>
>I can understand where you're coming from, it's just wrong in many if not
>all cases. Said exceptions being found in the runner-friendly bumbling-corp
>worldview.

ECHO.... Echo... echo....

Nope. Still not a sign of comprehension. I type, the words appear, Bob
ignores them yet again.

>>It's also silly to go bankrupt hunting petty criminals.
>
>You still have no concept of the amount of cash that goes through a given
>megacorp.

You might be surprised.

Divide that across the globe. Across tens of thousands of sites, from
arcologies to retail outlets. Remember that just because you have huge
cash flow doesn't promise _anything_ about your profitability; you have
to earn a return to cover overheads like security.

In many ways small corporations are _more_ dangerous. They have a much
smaller area to cover, and much more to lose, and will fight
correspondingly harder for their survival.

> Microsoft is nowhere near the level of a megacorp (I think that's
>in CorpShad) now and look at the absolutely staggering amount of cash they have.

Corporate Shadowfiles states that no 2050s megacorporation exceeds the
size of Nestle in the first decade of the 21st century. Nestle is
currently capitalised at about 50 billion Swiss francs, or roughly 35
billion dollars.

You want to know about cash mountains, Bob? I'm an employee of, and
shareholder in, the General Electric Company (UK plc). Capitalised at
about five billion US dollars, yearly turnover seventeen billion
dollars, currently sitting on about two billion dollars in cash (down
from a 1993 peak of about four billion).

I know about being an employee of a large corporation. I know, for
instance, that I don't hear damn all about the day-to-day woes of units
outside GEC-Marconi Radar and Defence Systems, Underwater Weapons
Division. We get the odd rumour from the Broad Oak sites because they're
only a few miles away, and that's it. Donibristle I have some contact
with because we subcontract ATE manufacture to them, ditto Hill End for
PCBs, but I know a lot more about problems at Lucas Aerospace (not even
slightly related to us in corporate terms) than I do at other GEC sites.

>>The response will be in proportion to the damage done, Bob. How many
>>different ways do I have to say this?
>
>If the run would do no damage, the run would not be contracted in the first
>place. People don't just hire runners for fun, they hire them for
>industrial espionage.

Or to eliminate rivals, embarrass rival factions, as provocations to
corporate conflict, or for a hell of a lot of reasons. There are only so
many ultra-secret prototypes to steal in a year.

>Damage will be done in myriad ways and severe amounts
>from any run and backlash should go into the very high 6-digit range easily.

Six figures? Under a million. What's the benefit of spending as much
again on a manhunt for the perpetrators? Not much.

>Seven-digit would be more common and much higher being very possible. See
>the overall picture and it becomes quite clear.

It seems we radically disagree on "the overall picture", then. Runs of
that scale _are_ major events: they're enough to erase most smaller
corporations altogether. If you insist _every_ run against _every_ facet
of _every_ AAA corporation is of such scale, then while the risks are
high the rewards will match: one success and the survivors are
financially set for a long and happy retirement.

>How many ways should I say this?

Stop speaking and start listening.

>>I've snipped all your post, because I find your attitude bemusing and
>>your inability to comprehend what I write inexplicable: and while I
>>tried to come up with a response, I found your writing so bizarre on
>>occasion that it was virtually impossible to reply to.
>
>I've seen what you write and your claims and I find your worldview to be far
>too light even by today's standards let alone the world of 205X.

Just a small question, Bob: who do you work for? I'm employed by one of
the biggest engineering businesses in Britain. I have some experience of
corporate life, business culture, et cetera. I'm really curious as to
where you draw your conclusions, since they are so much at variance with
my own experiences.

>I've
>repeated this often while refuting your points and still you wonder what I'm
>trying to say? Come now, it is English that you speak, correct? Also,
>until you manage to come up with replies to what I've written, I'll simply
>(and righteously) believe that you could not refute my words.

Whatever you say, Bob. When I write "corporations will vary the vigour
of their hunt for those who have opposed them" and you quote me as "Paul
believes all megacorps are lax, lazy and stupid, and will pursue runners
in the style of the Keystone Cops", tell me again why you're worth
debating with?

I snipped your post because you started with either a misunderstanding
or a deliberate misstatement of my position, and proceeded to attack it.
Fine: but don't expect me to reply when you're not talking to me. You
want to debate, read what I write.

>>The mere fact that a target is a megacorporation doesn't change the
>>financial cost of a given run against it, and your fixation that every
>>run against any megacorp involves a cost of billions is the crux of the
>>problem here. If the cost is small, the benefit of pursuit is similarly
>>small.
>
>Millions, Paul. If it wasn't worth that to the group that contracted the
>run, then it wouldn't ever have been done. Industrial espionage isn't done
>for a smile and a handful of nuyen...

Not all shadowruns, even against megacorporations, are done for big
bucks. You think the Seattle branch of the West Coast division of the
UCAS arm of a megacorp isn't riddled with internal politics, feuds,
rivalry? Then you've never been in business.

If you're a relatively small business supplying epoxy adhesive, it might
be economic to attack a Fedederated-Boeing supply shipment or disable
their usual supply, since you'll be well-placed to make good the
deficit. Cost to Fed-Boeing, low. Benefit to the small corporation,
enormous. What's F-B going to spend hunting those runners down, Bob?

>>Many runs have no apparent cost: planting evidence to skew a promotion
>>board or influence a corporate disciplinary hearing, for instance. Done
>>properly they will never be detected, let alone pursued. You seem unable
>>to consider anything beyong The Big Datasteal as employment for
>>shadowrunners.
>
>Oh, I indeed do consider things beyond datasteals as runs, I don't think
>I've ever run a datasteal in fact. I get to smiling when you say "Done
>properly they will never be detected, let alone pursued". I find this
>laughable. Security done even at mediocre levels will detect and therefore
>will lead to pursuit.

Of course it will. Just as anyone committing a crime today will
invariably be pursued, arrested and convicted.

Oh, the national justice system today can't guarantee that? Then how is
a corporation operating in a foreign country going to do so?

>Try breaking into a local corporation's office building sometime.

Don't need to, I work in one.

>The corps
>here use everything from cameras to pressure sensors to keypad/keycard locks
>to guards to animals to motion sensors and I'm sure some things that I,
>myself, have not had the privilege to see as of yet.

So do we. In some areas. In others, we use a lot less.

Some sites are virtually open. Mine is well secured. It varies a lot,
amazingly enough. Guess what? Huge megacorporations are rather diverse.

>Those places are
>secure and at a rather minimal cost. There's no way that I or anyone could
>walk in there unnoticed, change a computer file or plant evidence, and get
>out without being noticed and pursued.That's 199X technology and 199X
>degree of paranoia and 199X degree of corporate resources devoted to
>security. Now expand this to 205X...

So, there are no shadowruns in your future, Bob?

Or your runners dream of they day when they are sufficiently capable to
heist the local Mexican restaurant's tortilla shipment, because any
larger target means certain detection and certain death?

You've yet to explain how your runners unerringly avoid any target that
might give offence to a megacorp, while still finding worthwhile
employment.

You're also assuming that runners walk up to security cameras saying
"Hi, my streetname is Diamond, I live at 235A North Drive in Renton, and
I'm going to take my gloves off and leave a full set of prints on this
glass-topped coffee table here so your security can find me more
easily".

Your security cameras might get you clothing and weapons. If your
runners give you faces or fingerprints (notwithstanding the difficulty
of getting prints off the inside of a busy corporate building) then you
still have the problem that SINless people don't appear in databases.
You have, in fact, a group of four dark-clad and masked people: one
unarmed, two with HK227s and one with a AK-97. They used the names
"Foxtrot", "Uniform", "Charlie" and "Kilo" among
themselves, though one
apparently slipped and referred to a colleague as "Bob".

There are three million registered and an uncertain number of SINless
citizens in Seattle. Assuming these people were from Seattle, their
accents place them from the MidWest, the East Coast, northern England
and perhaps South Africa respectively: but the computer gives a 78%
chance of voice masking being used by all four.

Explain how you get a clear enough identification for assassination out
of that little lot. I had to patch up a burglary where the perpetrators
were recorded by security camera: still didn't help find them, though.

>>One wonders whether that says more about you or me.
>
>It says a lot about both. I'm grounded in the reality of the situation and
>you... are not.

Whatever you say, Bob.

>Even if my view runs a bit darker and maybe isn't as kind
>to the runners,

Amazing how you insist mine is. Oh, I forgot, this is _your view_ of my
runs, not how I actually play.

>>Corporations exist for one single solitary purpose: to make profit.
>>The shadows are there as a tool to that end. Not as an end in
>>themselves.
>
>If the corps didn't want the shadows, they'd be gone. If the corps need
>something from the shadows, it's at their fingertips in seconds. Profit is
>the biggest driving goal (both on the streets and in the boardrooms) and
>through industrial espionage, more profit can be gained. If it couldn't
>bring profit, it wouldn't happen. If it isn't worth millions to a corp, it
>isn't worth bothering with.

So what, in the scheme of things, are half-a-dozen anonymous corpses
worth, if they were shadowrunners who pulled off a successful but
discreet raid against you?

Only you, they and their employer's chosen intermediary knew what they
did. So, you're not noticeably suppressing publicity: you're in more
danger of internal leaks throughout.

Their being dead doesn't noticeably reduce the cost of what they did,
and you had to divert assets from other employment to find and kill
them: possibly lost a couple in the process. More costs, still no
benefit.

Their being dead doesn't act as a deterrent, since effectively nobody
knows they carried out a successful run against you: and advertising
that you killed them because they crossed you publicises the hitherto-
unknown fact that they successfully defeated your security and got away.

There's also the technicality of having your hit squads operating in a
foreign country. It would be embarrasing, to say the least, to be
interrupted in an ambush of a group of runners by a Lone Star SWAT team
summoned by someone who noticed your strike force preparing to attack.

In fact, there still isn't a benefit in sight.

Now, if these runners are letting it be known that they "just pulled a
score on Shiawase" then they change that equation, and hunting and
killing them suddenly becomes much more profitable (just the act of
bragging would be enough to drive away most of their more intelligent
acquaintences, not to mention the more mercenary contacts who might make
a quiet call to Shiawase security).

Darwin would suggest, then, that successful runners are discreet
runners.

>Even if all that happens is one guy gets the new position while another guy
>is passed up, it has to be worth millions overall or it'd never happen.
>The
>pay raise is only the tiniest fraction of it. The real power gained by said
>promotion will be found in the greater amount of resources controlled than
>before. It becomes worth a considerable amount when you bring this aspect
>into view, which is what I've been asking you to do throughout this thread
>and steadfastly you refuse to do just that, looking only at the immediate
>situation. Rather shortsighted, don't you think?

And where does the corporation as a whole even become aware of this? The
moment they do, our newly-promoted exec can count his career as over. He
has as much interest in silence as the runners.

You can only respond to what you know about, be you an investor playing
the markets or a corporate CEO.

>>Thank you so much for demonstrating your open mind. No matter what I
>>say, you will try to attack and disprove it?
>
>Not try, I will as I have here.

Bob, if I say "TopCat claims that the moon is made of green cheese", I
can "prove you wrong" very easily indeed. So what?

You have to do something about my _actual_ opinions, not this bizarre
construct you persist in attributing to me.

>>If you genuinely believe that's all I've said, then I'd suggest you
>>killfile me; because I don't want to waste words on someone determined
>>to misinterpret them.
>
>You claim they will let them slide if it isn't worth it for them to pursue
>the runners, correct? I know this is correct because I have indeed been
>reading this.

Comprehension dawns upon Mr Ooton at last.

>Anyways, you then follow this up with "runs aren't worth
>enough to merit pursuit anyway" statements and "if done right, no can
>defend" thoughts on running which are shortsighted in the extreme and
>positively hilarious, respectively.

Oh, dear. The promising beginning peters out into satire once again.

Bob, I have - repeatedly - tried to explain to you that perhaps not
every shadowrun is a matter for the personal attention of a megacorp's
CEO. That there exists, in fact, a scale of shadowrunning, ranging from
little more than burglary of less-secure sites (low benefit, hence low
pay and low pursuit) to the theft of the 2050s equivalent of the first
F-22 Raptor prototype, which is a retirement job in anyone's terms
(probably demanding permanent asylum in the corporation the mission was
undertaken for as part of the payment).

Try to understand the concept of "flexibility".

>Then there's the "once I get to the
>Barrens, I'm safe" and "I'll take my story to the media too" and
"they won't
>sell me out" statements. Those are like the icing in the comedy cake for me...

In some cases they are true, too. In others they are not. Not everyone
plays for the highest stakes, Bob.

>>If you were determined at the outset that you would not, could not, be
>>persuaded to even slightly alter your view, why bother posting your
>>views at all? This group is for _discussion_.
>
>Because you've done just the same and so has anyone else posting here in
>this thread. We've all posted our views and we all feel we are in the
>right. You've never discussed anything throughout this thread.

I'm not the one who suggests that _any_ interference with a
megacorporation, no matter how low-profile or minor, will result in a
totality of pursuit matched only by the Mossad going after the Black
September terrorists. (Not a bad analogy for what will happen when you
annoy a megacorporation enough, by the way).

> You've
>stated and restated a shortsighted view of the economic impact any given run
>will have as well as a shortsighted view of the societal interactions which
>make Shadowrun the great game it is. I've refuted it and offered new
>evidence, you simply restate. I refute and offer, you restate. Who is
>truly discussing here, Paul?

Well, I'm trying to answer what you write, at least when can be
considered even a tenuous reply to a statement of mine. But I'm not the
one claiming to speak for FASA and "how the game is meant to be played"
and never have been. Nor have I ridiculed either you or your playing
style: I've merely attempted to explain why I disagree with your
position.

>>I don't particularly mind the fixity of your views: what I find
>>extremely offensive is the way you misrepresent my position and then
>>post lengthy and largely irrelevant diatribes on that misrepresentation.
>>Believe what you like: but try to allow others the same privilege.
>
>Come now Paul, if you read and understand my postings you'll know that you
>can't refute them due to the scope of which I've taken this particular
>situation.

My, my, aren't we modest?

If you are so convinced that your worldview of the 2050s is infallible,
when can we expect you to replace FASAMike as line developer?

And if you are so convinced of the rightness of your opinions, why can't
you honestly represent mine in the debate?

>>No, thank you. I post to this list for the discussion. You are not
>>interested in discussion.
>
>Quite the contrary, I do so enjoy discussion on certain topics. This
>happens to be one of them.

Then discuss it, Bob. That does, unfortunately, entail a measure of
understanding of the opposing point of view, even a degree of
flexibility. It also requires treating contending views with respect.
While any dissent from your position is dismissed as "babble" then
there's little point.

>I do not, however, accept incorrect and
>shortsighted viewpoints. I try to explain to the person who would hold such
>a viewpoint that they need to think on a grander scale. You obviously will
>not do just that or you'd have agreed with me days ago as many others have.

On the contrary: I don't accept your monotheistic view of corporations
unhindered either by internal politics or external rivalry, aware of
every pinprick, possessing infinite resources with which to crush the
handful of SINless individuals who cross their paths.

Even megacorporations make mistakes, whether at Board level or whether
in the person of a single site's head of security. A megacorporation is
not a discrete, homogenous entity: it's a collection of millions of
individuals.

>Why not take the long view, Paul?

The long view, Bob, is that in my personal experience (nine years with a
major multinational) your thesis is fundamentally flawed. That means I
can consider your views carefully, then disagree with them. That means I
can play a Shadowrun game where it's possible to run against a
megacorporation and live. Funnily enough, FASA seem to agree with me:
play "Ivy and Chrome" and you take on an Aztechnology strike force. That
strikes me as "opposing the corporation", yet this is a module where
survival appears possible. Aztechnology want the whole incident
forgotten; and if the runners remain silent they are relatively safe.

Not my opinion, Bob. Ivy and Chrome, page 57.

You are entirely welcome to your opinions. But where they directly
contradict both my personal experience and FASA's published material, ,
I am totally entitled to disregard them. What I resent is your
insistence that you and only you are right; and the way you are unable
to tackle the questions raised by others, relying on distortion of their
arguments instead.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Message no. 101 In message <199707032248.RAA05055@*******.fgi.net>, TopCat
<topcat@***.NET> writes
>>IMO, Paul believes that the lower tiers of a Megacorp have defense
>>that can be bypassed (though it will take a little work)

>Paul also believes that the higher tiers as well can be penetrated without
>problem whereas I do not. Herein lies the gist of the argument.

Now, here we go again...

One wonders if Bob subscribes to the list. I _know_ what I believe, I
know what I have repeatedly told Bob, and it is most surely not the
above.

You claim to have archived all the posts. Please state where I said
anything like that... I'm interested to know what slip of the keyboard
planted this pernicious weed in your mind to the exclusion of all else.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Message no. 102 Ahh hell with it. take it to the curb.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

YES and my followers will be legion! The world will be mine
"SO SWEARS THE LEADER!"
All will bow before my might and bask in my radience. Kneel before you lord
and master. Kiss the ruby ring of power and cower before me.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Message no. 103 In article <199707010306.WAA06738@*******.fgi.net>, TopCat
<topcat@***.NET> rambled on endlessly about Runner's Attitudes

Excuse me interjecting here old chap, but I have a small question for
you.

Totally ignoring the fascinating conversation that is once again
expanding between yourself and Paul, you use the word "Megacorp" as if
it is some magical mantra that will explain everything.
Could you possibly explain to me what your definition of "Megacorp" is.
As I see it, and I could be wrong, you appear to view them as a single
entity, something like Weyland Yutani (Alien) Tyrrel (Bladerunner), OCP
(Robocop) - or do you follow the more realistic vision of a Megacorp as
a multitudinous conglomeration of corporations, which is, as far as I
know more accurate.

The reason I ask, is that your answer depends very much on how seriously
I take anything else you have to say on the subject. It's just a little
clarification, and I'm sure you won't mind explaining it to someone who
may have missed your earlier definition.

The main reason I ask, is that as far as I know Paul views megacorps as
multiple entities formed into a single named unit by a Board of
Governors, much like the corporations around today, for example the
giant Kingfisher group, which holds a wide variety of companies under
it's wings. You appear to treat them as single uniits, wielding vast
power. If that's the case, then it is safe to assume that you and Paul
are never going to agree. Which makes your arguments pointless, albeit
interesting. :)

--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Web page at: http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk

Message no. 104 At 12:56 AM 7/4/97 +0100, Paul wrote:
>In message <199707032248.RAA05055@*******.fgi.net>, TopCat
><topcat@***.NET> writes
>>>IMO, Paul believes that the lower tiers of a Megacorp have defense
>>>that can be bypassed (though it will take a little work)

>>Paul also believes that the higher tiers as well can be penetrated without
>>problem whereas I do not. Herein lies the gist of the argument.

>Now, here we go again...

>One wonders if Bob subscribes to the list. I _know_ what I believe, I
>know what I have repeatedly told Bob, and it is most surely not the
>above.

Yep, still here. Guess that "one" doesn't have to wonder anymore. And it
is exactly what you've been telling me throughout your argument. The posts
are out there now (in archive form whenever those things get done).

>You claim to have archived all the posts. Please state where I said
>anything like that... I'm interested to know what slip of the keyboard
>planted this pernicious weed in your mind to the exclusion of all else.

As you should know by now, I've deleted them in an effort to kill the
tantrums born by yourself and your supporters. If you truly wish to see
them, grab the archives for the day and you'll see exactly how often you
explained that higher tiers can indeed be penetrated and even remain
unnoticed. For it was the higher tiers all along which I've been speaking
of (and quite clearly so) and you've been replying to what I was posting,
correct? If not, then I can see easily where your problem is...

If you truly believe that upper tier corps can't be penetrated, by all means
please state that now in no uncertain terms and I'll be happy regardless of
anything you've said in the past.
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

Message no. 105 At 07:19 PM 7/3/97 -0400, Jonathan wrote:
>On Thursday, July 03, 1997 18:39, TopCat[SMTP:topcat@***.NET] wrote:
>> >Just to make a point about how you get 'professional' runners as
>> >opposed to gutterpunks, I'm going to give an exemple of how a PC
>> >could be such a thing, drawn from my PCs
>> >Team leader: Ex-military, left because his team got the knobby
>> >purple shaft and were set up to die. Wanted for being AWOL and
>> >stealing Govt Property (a tactical computer.) Mercing would
>> >involve too much exposure. Hence, he disappears into the shadows.

>> So that's a character history. Let me guess, the guy plans things, wears
>> black, makes a lot of stealth successes and would still be seen if he
>> walked by a camera? Professional in attitude won't keep you from being seen.
>> Wearing day-glo wetlook leathers and running around screaming like an
>> idiot just makes it easier (I wouldn't consider such a person a shadowrunner,
>> I'd consider them dead). Wearing black still doesn't prevent you from being
>> noticed. So once again, your point would be?

>Nope. He doesn't walk in front of the camera in the first place. Not unless
>he *knows* that it has been neutralized. A camera is actually fairly easy
>to fool/spoof. Other sensors (motion/heat in particular) are much harder to
>beat. So he (and the rest of the team) doesn't. They go after the slag who
>is manning the sensor if they absolutely cannot go around it (or otherwise
>suppress whatever the sensor is reporting to.

Have you seen the camera? Do you know that there aren't others? Do you
know that there are no further security measures present? Is there only one
camera? Tough questions to have to answer on the fly, pray that you don't
get noticed while answering them...

Also, getting to the security center has to be perhaps the single most
difficult run imaginable to me. You have to get through everything from the
perimeter outside to the security center without setting off anything in
between. Impossible in my game, possible in some others...

>>>Exactly. Read the first section of Fields of Fire. TopCat apparently
>>>believes that *all* runners fit into the mold that Matador puts them in.
>>>Even Hatchetman (who is apparently a runner, and should know better,
>>>agrees with him.)

>> [I, of course, don't...]

>I apologize. My take on your comments (and everyone else's re-comments)
>made me think this.

Accepted if you accept mine for this later bit. You were merely agreeing
with someone who didn't know what he was talking about before I could
interject to clear the muddied waters and I got a bit defensive as a result.

>> Stealth, magic, and tech and a plan can only get you so far when the
>> degree of stealth, magic, and tech that the megacorps have is so far
beyond >> your runners abilities as to make them laughable. Can any system
be beaten?
>> Perhaps one part of it, but single-layer security is foolish. You
>> combine cameras with pressure sensors, motion sensors, physical security,
>> magical security, matrix security, building layout, fences, walls, locks,
>> doors, drones, and whatever else to create a security web which no-one can
>> get through without being detected. So what if a scientist is detected,
>> there's no reason to shoot him. But if nobody is supposed to be in Room 412
>> after 7pm and someone's there, then security takes effect. Most security
>> techniques now essentially become impenetrable when layered. In 205X
>> there's so much more to play with...

>So don't be in the room in a black-out period. Have a legitimate reason to
>be there. You are apparently thinking that the runners are going to beat
>their head against the brick wall of security. Why should they? I tell you
>three time: The human element is the most vulnerable element of a security
>system, and any security system MUST have it. If security is hair-trigger
>enough that any spoofing attempt will be detected, tickle it. Degrade the
>responses of who/whatever is responding to the security alert. (Calling up
>the ready-alert squad three nights running for a false alarm is going to
>tick them off.)

Security personnel know they have a job to do and they'll do it. If they
don't, that great corporate wallet they've been living off of for the past
however many years will suddenly shut on them and they'll be fired. Being
fired to most people isn't a good thing, but to literally be thrown out in
the street (lose your house and such) when you get fired is another. Also,
in some cases (Renraku, Mitsuhama, Fuchi, Shiawase, and other corps of that
sort) this means loss of face for one's self and one's family. Bad news all
around if you don't take your job seriously.

Corporate installation security isn't akin to retail security simply because
of how it's handled and viewed by the corporation or gov't that installed
it. Woneal has had many problems with this concept so far, and I dont think
he will get around to udnerstanding this. I'm pretty sure you've got it
down, at least it seems like you do, but I wanted to throw that in because
it seemed like a good place to do so.

Also, detection doesn't necessarily mean alarm. Security should *always*
detect, then it should act if there's something wrong. When I walk through
the hallways of a given corp or gov't facility, I'm noticed. If I'm
supposed to be there (visiting and with a worker or working there myself)
then nothing happens. If I'm not supposed to be there, then problems can
and have occured. If I was really trying to sneak in and deactivate
security, I (an anyone else) would have a hell of a time getting on the corp
grounds let alone doing anything after that. CorpSec goes into this in
great detail and does it better than I could here in a few long posts.

>I said it before, I'll say it again: No security is impenetrable. It is too
>bloody expensive, too bloody difficult, and too bloody annoying to the
>people who have to work around it.

It's a lot cheaper and easier, as well as less noticeable, than I ever
would've thought. Read through CorpSec and then think to yourself "how the
hell does anyone get through all this to the goodies?". I know that's what
I thought...

>> A good plan and a professional attitude is going to get you by that?

>Yep. And if a plan cannot be found in a reasonable time, I've had the team
>return their front money to the employer.

Now there's something that makes a great deal of sense. Every once in a
while I throw a suicide run at players just to see if they'll accept it or
if they'll look for something else or even stop the run if it gets too hot
for them. Mike, Mike, and Jason... you guys get that? ;)

>I resent that. I guess you would consider a voluntary extractee giving them
>inside aid "divine intervention," then. Or intra-corporation politics
>preventing effective response to a threat?

It all depends on how you view security. If you view security of a given
installation as being the only security force for the installation, then
intra-corporate politics and voluntary extractees won't help a whole lot as
they'll be their own entity within the installation. If you view every
division represented in the installation as having their own security, then
there could well be problems, though I can't think of a situation where that
might be the case.

Security will be totally separate (and in many ways, above) all other
departments of a given installation. It is their job to keep corporate
resources safe and make sure that things run smooth and sure around the
clock so the wishes of someone in another division will have to conform in
some ways to the practices of security. In simpler words, an inside guy
helps, but not a whole lot if there's security around.

> As someone else pointed out, a
>corporation is not a group mind (certain parts of Aztechnology
>probationarily excluded...) and does not always act as such. Classic
>examples of this in the SR world would be a run where one part of Fuchi
>(Nakatomi) commissions a run against another (Villiers) - a situation where
>the security officers' loyalties will most certainly be strained.

An interesting situation and something that could often be found no doubt.
However, security officer's loyalties will rarely, if ever, find themselves
strained. Most of this is due to paranoia: any Villers site will have
Villiers security and any Nakatomi site will have Nakatomi security. They
wouldn't even think of letting one of their rivals place troops at their
door. In the big, happy megacoporate picture, they all wear the same Fuchi
uniform.
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

Message no. 106 You wrote:
> Have you seen the camera? Do you know that there aren't others? Do you
> know that there are no further security measures present? Is there only one
> camera? Tough questions to have to answer on the fly, pray that you don't
> get noticed while answering them...
Detect <device>. Physical Invisiblity (modified to also cover Thermo, jsut for
kicks). Distractions (fires, explosives, a hostage situation elsewhere that
the corp has interest in). Power outages, matrix intrusion, harassment, and
other 'not fair' tactics. Tracking employees home and getting info from them
with Mind Probe, or using them as a way in with Control thoughts or Influence.
There are ways. There are ways to get things done. And there are ways to help
insure an escape should things hose up royally. Bomb threats.

> Also, getting to the security center has to be perhaps the single most
> difficult run imaginable to me. You have to get through everything from the
> perimeter outside to the security center without setting off anything in
> between. Impossible in my game, possible in some others...
I reall yhate the word 'impossible'. It basically means the GM is saying
'don't do that'. Is every site so secure? I *need* to get into doing corp
security...

losthalo

Message no. 107 On Friday, July 04, 1997 03:14, TopCat[SMTP:topcat@***.NET] wrote:
> At 07:19 PM 7/3/97 -0400, Jonathan wrote:
> >On Thursday, July 03, 1997 18:39, TopCat[SMTP:topcat@***.NET] wrote:
> Have you seen the camera? Do you know that there aren't others? Do you
> know that there are no further security measures present? Is there only
one
> camera? Tough questions to have to answer on the fly, pray that you
don't
> get noticed while answering them...

No kidding. But these objections apply to *any* penetration of *any*
security perimeter. Mega-corps have a little (not a lot) more money to
spend on security than their smaller competitors (cash flow, as Paul
pointed out, is one thing; profits are another(but see the next of the
paragraph)) and they would tend to spend the "extra" money to make their
"zero-zones" even harder to get into, rather than spending a few thousand
nuyen on each and every corporate site. Yes, the corporations have sites
that are impenetrable by runners. Even second-tier corporations do. Not
every second-tier corp, but all the big 8. Most of them are archive sites.
(It's easy to secure a site if the only thing coming in is a data packet,
and your outside "line" only has to be up for a short, unpredictable (to
everyone else but you) time.) Some of them are not. The CEO's office might
be another. (I doubt it, though. CEO's *hate* things that get in their way,
and heavy security is intrusive. I have done technical support for VP's and
CEO's, and the security breaches these guys commit are incredible. {Plus,
they *have* to see people.)) But most megacorporate sites? No better
secured than an independent second-tier corp. You know why? It cuts into
the dividends that the corporation pays to its stockholders. One of the
reasons that people invest in the Big 8 is because they take their larger
profitability (Yes, megacorps have a larger profitability than the smaller
ones) and send it out in dividends.

Besides, expensive security cuts into funding for "pet projects" and other
stuff. Security is a business expense, not a profit-generator. (Unless you
are selling it.) Furthermore, after a certain point, security effectiveness
goes up incrementally while cost rises exponentially.

>
> Also, getting to the security center has to be perhaps the single most
> difficult run imaginable to me. You have to get through everything from
the
> perimeter outside to the security center without setting off anything in
> between. Impossible in my game, possible in some others...

I'm not saying that (any, but especially Mega-)corporate security is a
piece of cake. And, yes, the security center is one of the more highly
secured areas on any compound. But, why penetrate all that security if you
can get to a security officer at his home?

[snip, on the grounds that I couldn't think of anything directly relevant
to the snipped material]

> >I said it before, I'll say it again: No security is impenetrable. It is
too
> >bloody expensive, too bloody difficult, and too bloody annoying to the
> >people who have to work around it.
>
> It's a lot cheaper and easier, as well as less noticeable, than I ever
> would've thought. Read through Corsica and then think to yourself "how
the
> hell does anyone get through all this to the goodies?". I know that's
what
> I thought...

Great book. Live it, learn it, be it. (Just kidding.) But other than the
closed-circuit simsense, there not a lot of gadgetry in there. Security
philosophy, yes. Enough ideas to really put a damper on shadowrunners
plans, yes. But it is defeatable. The question the runners have to ask
themselves, is it defeatable for what they are being paid?

> >> A good plan and a professional attitude is going to get you by that?
>
> >Yep. And if a plan cannot be found in a reasonable time, I've had the
team
> >return their front money to the employer.
>
> Now there's something that makes a great deal of sense. Every once in a
> while I throw a suicide run at players just to see if they'll accept it
or
> if they'll look for something else or even stop the run if it gets too
hot
> for them. Mike, Mike, and Jason... you guys get that? ;)
>
> >I resent that. I guess you would consider a voluntary extractee giving
them
> >inside aid "divine intervention," then. Or intra-corporation politics
> >preventing effective response to a threat?
>
> It all depends on how you view security. If you view security of a given
> installation as being the only security force for the installation, then
> intra-corporate politics and voluntary extractees won't help a whole lot
as
> they'll be their own entity within the installation. If you view every
> division represented in the installation as having their own security,
then
> there could well be problems, though I can't think of a situation where
that
> might be the case.

A voluntary extractee will be able to tell you a whole lot about security.
Not everything, I know, but a lot. As for politics, if security is hired,
that gives a fair amount of politics. Funding also generates a certain
amount of friction, especially if a proposed increase in security means
that someone's project isn't funded to the level it "needs" to be. Hell,
that applies even if security is "corporate."

> Security will be totally separate (and in many ways, above) all other
> departments of a given installation. It is their job to keep corporate
> resources safe and make sure that things run smooth and sure around the
> clock so the wishes of someone in another division will have to conform
in
> some ways to the practices of security. In simpler words, an inside guy
> helps, but not a whole lot if there's security around.

No. Security is one of the most hated groups in every corporation I've
worked for (given that I've worked for a few pharmaceutical corps, who have
strong security) because they interfere with everybody else's job. In many
cases, security will have to conform to the rest of the site's business.
Security does not run the corp. It doesn't even make money for them. Why
should they be given plenipotentiary powers?

> > As someone else pointed out, a
> >corporation is not a group mind (certain parts of Aztechnology
> >probationarily excluded...) and does not always act as such. Classic
> >examples of this in the SR world would be a run where one part of Fuchi
> >(Nakatomi) commissions a run against another (Villiers) - a situation
where
> >the security officers' loyalties will most certainly be strained.
>
> An interesting situation and something that could often be found no
doubt.
> However, security officer's loyalties will rarely, if ever, find
themselves
> strained. Most of this is due to paranoia: any Villers site will have
> Villiers security and any Nakatomi site will have Nakatomi security.
They
> wouldn't even think of letting one of their rivals place troops at their
> door. In the big, happy megacorporate picture, they all wear the same
Fuchi
> uniform.

Be careful of generalizations. As others have pointed out, the big, happy,
megacorporate picture is almost never the case. Corporate politics are
vicious. (See corporate shadowfiles.) Corporate activities are not always
instigated for the good of a corp as a whole, because a corp is made up of
people.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)

Message no. 108 TopCat wrote:
>
> At 03:25 PM 7/2/97 -0005, you wrote:
> >On 1 Jul 97 at 20:50, TopCat wrote:
>
> >You've criticized everything Paul had to say from the
> >start, and been none to polite in how you went about it.
>
> I may've not been polite, but I've been correct and quite clear. Paul and yourself
have been none of the three.
>

At the beginning I thought this thread was very cool. It included valid
and well thought out arguments from both sides and got me thinking about
how I might handle this in my game. To me this is the ideal I look for
in a mailing list, especially this one.

But now it has turned into a mean-spirited, arrogance-filled, wanker
waving, pissing contest that has virtually nothing to do with the
subject heading. How can one argue about a FICTIONAL future where
megacorporations rule a world filled with magic, orks, trolls, dragons
etc?

My long-winded point is that everybody has a style of GMing and if that
style includes hunting down the team and killing them after a run on a
megacorp, (not my cup of tea)cool. If not, just as cool. But remember
it's YOUR game. I get a little insensed when people try to tell me
"that's the way it is." It's my world I'll do exactly what I want with
it, end of story (though the players may not like it :)

Pretty-please take the flames to private mail.

Now ring the bell and get back to your corners before someone loses an
ear ;)

The Formerly Silent Jim (who-can't-believe-he-posted-this)

Message no. 109 In article <199707040714.CAA01459@*******.fgi.net>, TopCat
<topcat@***.NET> rambled on endlessly about Runner's Attitudes

<big snip - because it's this bit in particular that I wish to answer>
>Have you seen the camera? Do you know that there aren't others? Do you
>know that there are no further security measures present? Is there only one
>camera?

OK, before a debate on cameras ensues, I would suggest that anyone
considering such a reply should watch some extremely informative
programs on CCTV (closed circuit television). These cameras exist
everywhere, shopping malls, street corners, highways (monitoring traffic
flow) and a miriad of other places. In cases where garages are being
broken into, and car spares stolen it is possible to place a camera that
is no larger than a match book, the lens is about the size of a UK
penny, or US cent. Utilising current technoloy, the lens on the camera
gives a clear - very clear, still or motion picture view of the area,
this area can cover several hundred square metres. The camera is, to
all intents and purposes "invisible". Stuck in the rafters of the
garage/warehouse, it is incredibly difficult to spot, unless you know
precisely where the thing is. These units alone are available to the
common user for about 800 Uk pounds - say 1,000 US. Now that's just one
example of the kind of preventative measures available today.

An informative series of programs was aired on the Discovery channel
recently (for those who get it) covering exactly this type of
technology. It's a serious and extensive situation that has some highly
organised opposition to it, on the grounds that CCTV is a direct breach
of privacy - however, as of yet, US, UK and European governments don't
agree with that, they view it as a means of crime prevention.. and under
that tag - anything is plausible.

Corporations in California are installing CCTV to monitor staff and
their loyalty to the company, in offices, lavatories, washrooms,
corridors and other areas - this is without informaing the staff. When
questioned about the installation of the cameras, it is covered by the
simple expedient of "security", at which point the units are ignored and
forgotten by the majority of staff. A court case a couple of years back
brought the situation to the public view, with an incident that resulted
in the sacking of several members of staff for "unpleasant verbal
opinions" of the company they worked for. These workers sued the
corporation unsuccessfully, opening a precedent for other companies and
corporations in the US, and probably other countries to install CCTV
without informing the staff in a effort to combat espionage and spiteful
sabotage by disgruntled employees. Basically the Court allowed that the
corporation was not only allowed to install these monitoring devices,
but was correct in doing so.

So, TopCats view on undectable cameras, isn't unfortunately incorrect.

Extrapolating this nasty little concept into 205*, and you have a high
tech situation where pretty much anything is possible. In my games CCTV
is used extensively to monitor the heavy traffic experienced in the
metroplexes, to assist and complement Law Enforcment patrols, (in much
the same way as it is used in city centres and trouble spots in the UK),
it's not 100% foolproof, and can be spoofed by electronic counter
measures, not something generally available to the public. :) Although
I don't agree with Bob's severe and brutal thoughts on corporate power,
I do agree that they are tough mothers, and certain areas of corporate
facilities, and certain installations are going to possses intensive, if
not state of the art security systems.

Certain situations don't require heavy duty equipment to protect things,
so the main concentration of security is going to be in intensive areas.
I use that concept as a warning to my players that they are stepping
into the realms of "serious" when they are inside a company building.
The rest of the coverage is likely to be down to locked doors - always a
favourite way of "discouraging" casual crime, monocolour video feeds to
a recording centre which is monitored by one or two permanent guards.
In certain offices pressure pads and motion detectors. Large companies
will have a permanent security on hand, for a reference on how that
security is likely to be set up, watch the beginning of Die Hard.
Although not representative, it's a useful pointer.

The camera however, is always a favourite, in fact, in a recent game, my
players used a patch into traffic monitoring cameras, to find something
out, so they can be friendly as well as the worst kind of enemy for a
Shadowrunner.

Top level areas are going to be covered by all sorts of exotic items,
but this doesn't mean they are impregnable, US military bases aren't
impregnable, and lose materials or items from time to time, as do other
places throughout the world, so even with todays paranoia, it's possible
to get in and out, relatively undetected, certainly unidentified. But,
it takes a great deal of planning, expense, thought and skill.
Blundering in through the main doors and indulging in a running gun
battle with security isn't exactly sensible and certainly not effective
penetration of secure areas.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that up to a point TopCat is right
about security levels, I just feel that he's a tad over the top in
brutality when it comes to reaction and reprisals. Myself, I encourage
players to use thought, care and very careful planning if they are going
to infiltrate something that is considered "secure" - even light
security. I don't however, follow the "they broke in and stole
something - kill 'em" attitude. Yes, certain levels of loss would
require certain levels of reprisal, however, even the mega corp has to
consider it's public image, and cost effectiveness of a manhunt, not to
mention the possible international incidents that may arise from a -
shall we say - "mistake".

--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Web page at: http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk

Message no. 110 In article <01IKTPSM0QCM9I4AZC@******.acs.muohio.edu>, "Bruce H. Nagel"
<NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> rambled on endlessly about Runner's
Attitudes
>You wrote:
>> Have you seen the camera? Do you know that there aren't others? Do you
>> know that there are no further security measures present? Is there only one
>> camera? Tough questions to have to answer on the fly, pray that you don't
>> get noticed while answering them...
>Detect <device>.

Plausible, but not necessarily successful on all devices, the spell
isn't the end answer for a situation, merely the beginning of a series
of clues. Magic is not all powerful.

>Physical Invisiblity (modified to also cover Thermo, jsut for
>kicks).

Maintaining the spell over several people for any period of time is
going to cause drain on the character of horrendous proportions,
individually, it's pointless as someone else will give the situation
away, also, again, it's not perfect. Covering invisibility for optical
detection does not mean you are undetectable, just that you can't be
seen. Again, not a perfect solution, merely a means to a possible end.

> Distractions (fires, explosives, a hostage situation elsewhere that
>the corp has interest in).

Too noisy, starts to involve Federal and other branches of law
enforcement. Extraterritoriality does not mean the corporation covers
the hostage situation, it's highly likely that the FBI would be involved
in this, after all those hostages may well be UCAS (whatever) citizens.
For isntance, the hostage situations that occur in embassies around the
world, they aren't ignored because the land belongs to another country,
they are countered with all possible forces. So, you've just made a
hell of a lot of noise, and achieved very little.

>Power outages,

Instantly attracts the attention of the relevant utility supplier, any
evidence of tampering or sabotage and you again have federal law
enforcement investigating, if the sabotage looks like common vandalism,
then local law enforcement is going to be alert and watching for other
incidents.

>matrix intrusion,

too noisy. Matrix intrusion is designed to be subtle, if you want to
make it noisy to attract attention, then alarm bells are going to start
ringing elsewhere in the complex and you have alert security again.

>harassment, and
>other 'not fair' tactics.

Don't understand this one. Sorry.

>Tracking employees home and getting info from them
>with Mind Probe,

Again magic... Sad that so many people have this mistaken belief that
magic is the answer to everything. It's a powerful tool, nothing more.

>or using them as a way in with Control thoughts or Influence.

Not a guaranteed success, and can result in totla failure, or only
partial success.

>There are ways. There are ways to get things done. And there are ways to help
>insure an escape should things hose up royally. Bomb threats.

Bomb threats again create vast amounts of noise, media coverage,
involvement of large quantities of law enforcement, bomb squad and
federal involvement, and any company worth it's salt in the hostile
situation of 205* is going to run a security scan to make sure it's not
also a potential target. Again - alert security and too much noise.

Shadowrunning is intended to be what it suggests - "Shadow" running, not
full media and federal bureau involvement.

>> Also, getting to the security center has to be perhaps the single most
>> difficult run imaginable to me. You have to get through everything from the
>> perimeter outside to the security center without setting off anything in
>> between. Impossible in my game, possible in some others...
>I reall yhate the word 'impossible'. It basically means the GM is saying
>'don't do that'. Is every site so secure? I *need* to get into doing corp
>security...

As has been said by people far better educated and more intelligent than
I - "nothing is impossible to a person who is determined" - Just bloody
difficult. :)

--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Web page at: http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk

Message no. 111 You wrote:
> In article <01IKTPSM0QCM9I4AZC@******.acs.muohio.edu>, "Bruce H.
Nagel"
> <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> rambled on endlessly about Runner's
> Attitudes
*ahem* Not as endlessly as some feel the need to.
> Plausible, but not necessarily successful on all devices, the spell
> isn't the end answer for a situation, merely the beginning of a series
> of clues. Magic is not all powerful.
Never said it was. It's a part of the operation, it solves some of the
problems. Stealth skills, technical skills to defeat individual security
items, and other factors (bribes, inside info, ad infinitum) can come into
play, and solve other problems.

> Maintaining the spell over several people for any period of time is
> going to cause drain on the character of horrendous proportions,
> individually, it's pointless as someone else will give the situation
> away, also, again, it's not perfect. Covering invisibility for optical
> detection does not mean you are undetectable, just that you can't be
> seen. Again, not a perfect solution, merely a means to a possible end.
As I said, stealth skills help. Casing the place helps. KNowing something
about the site you're entering helps. Et cetera. I do not recall saying that
magic does everything.

And as for maintaining spells, the Nature Spirit powers also come in handy, no
add'l drain beyond summoning, no sustaining. Or have an Elemental hold the
spell for you. _Design_ an Area-effect version so you don't have to cast and
sustain multiple spells (done that the hard way, 'tis very tricky).
> > Distractions (fires, explosives, a hostage situation elsewhere that
> >the corp has interest in).

> Too noisy, starts to involve Federal and other branches of law
> enforcement. Extraterritoriality does not mean the corporation covers
> the hostage situation, it's highly likely that the FBI would be involved
> in this, after all those hostages may well be UCAS (whatever) citizens.
> For isntance, the hostage situations that occur in embassies around the
> world, they aren't ignored because the land belongs to another country,
> they are countered with all possible forces. So, you've just made a
> hell of a lot of noise, and achieved very little.
And I didn't _say_ it was going to do the job by itself. Having a planned
distraction to draw attention when things do hose up can help a lot (precious
moments needed). This can be a *part* of the plan, I didn't say it *was* the
plan or that it had to be used, it might be a contingency...

> >Power outages,

> Instantly attracts the attention of the relevant utility supplier, any
> evidence of tampering or sabotage and you again have federal law
> enforcement investigating, if the sabotage looks like common vandalism,
> then local law enforcement is going to be alert and watching for other
> incidents.
Yeah, but by the time that happens, my run is over. Maybe I can't use this
trick next time, but it may work right now. Or have a decker jack in and do it
via the building's systems, or...

> >matrix intrusion,

> too noisy. Matrix intrusion is designed to be subtle, if you want to
> make it noisy to attract attention, then alarm bells are going to start
> ringing elsewhere in the complex and you have alert security again.
I was thinking more of using quiet intrusion to divert security and/or find
relevant info about the site.

> >harassment, and
> >other 'not fair' tactics.

> Don't understand this one. Sorry.
Someone elsewhere mentioned 'tickling' the security for some time prior, to
deaden responses to what looks like fairly innocent activity. Basically,
anything that can be done to divert their attention, give them a bad day ahead
of time, make them uncomfortable or afraid, it comes down to opportunity and
creativity.

> >Tracking employees home and getting info from them
> >with Mind Probe,

> Again magic... Sad that so many people have this mistaken belief that
> magic is the answer to everything. It's a powerful tool, nothing more.
I don't, but it has _SOME_USES_. Combined with sammies, stealthy types, and
folks with security-defeating skills, it makes a nice tool, as you say. Does
that mean that since you can't do it all with magic that magic's useless? Why
do you keep talking about this?

> >or using them as a way in with Control thoughts or Influence.

> Not a guaranteed success, and can result in totla failure, or only
> partial success.
Never said it was guaranteed.

> >There are ways. There are ways to get things done. And there are ways to help
> >insure an escape should things hose up royally. Bomb threats.

> Bomb threats again create vast amounts of noise, media coverage,
> involvement of large quantities of law enforcement, bomb squad and
> federal involvement, and any company worth it's salt in the hostile
> situation of 205* is going to run a security scan to make sure it's not
> also a potential target. Again - alert security and too much noise.

> Shadowrunning is intended to be what it suggests - "Shadow" running, not
> full media and federal bureau involvement.
Yeah, but it all depends on what you need to do to get a given job done.
_I've_ never used an explosion or bomb threats or hostage-taking to get a job
done. I was merely laying out some possible methods to oversome what someone
else seems to think are *impregnable* defenses...

And let's not talk about what shadowrunning is 'intended' to be, eh?

> As has been said by people far better educated and more intelligent than
> I - "nothing is impossible to a person who is determined" - Just bloody
> difficult. :)
Exactly. You seemed to be writing this post to show how every thing I
mentioned wasn't enough by itself to do the job, or to point out the downsides.
I'm already well aware of the downsides, and don't need you to point out to me,
for instance, that magic can't do the job by itself, or that 'terrorist'-style
methods have big drawbacks. Doesn't mean I wouldn't do some major property
damage to help cover an escape, though...

I knew I was going to regret posting to this thread again, but this part seemed
fairly innocent. Guess some things are just born evil.

losthalo

Message no. 112 > all intents and purposes "invisible". Stuck in the rafters of the
> garage/warehouse, it is incredibly difficult to spot, unless you know
> precisely where the thing is. These units alone are available to the
> common user for about 800 Uk pounds - say 1,000 US. Now that's just one
> example of the kind of preventative measures available today.

As another example, a company in Australia (Oatley Electronics, for
anyone who knows or cares) sells kits for teeny-weeny li'l cameras.
Remember the camera that was concealed in Vanessa Williams' brooch in
Eraser? It's that camera. It's sold in kit form to everyday Australians
for $130 AUS (about $100 US). For about the same price you can buy a kit
transceiver, and the two together will fit into a cigarette softpack.
The lens of the camera itself is less than 1cm in diameter. You can
then tune your VCR or television to the transceiver signal and record
and/or watch what the camera sees. Presto. :)

Lady Jestyr

-----------------------------------------------
All stressed out and no-one to choke...
-----------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503/
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-----------------------------------------------
Now a Geocities Times Square Community Leader!
-----------------------------------------------

Message no. 113 Uhm, er, pardon me dear Lady...but I think the Admin EOD'd the topic...but
yours was a very enlightened post...
-Keith

Message no. 114 Bruce H. Nagel wrote:
>
> You wrote:
> > In article <01IKTPSM0QCM9I4AZC@******.acs.muohio.edu>, "Bruce H.
Nagel"
> > <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> rambled on endlessly about Runner's
> > Attitudes
> *ahem* Not as endlessly as some feel the need to.

Maybe not. :)

> And let's not talk about what shadowrunning is 'intended' to be, eh?

Why not? This is a list devoted to Shadowrun, it wouldn't be the first
time the subject has come up, and won't be the last, and every time it
does it'll eventually start a flame, so what the heck :)

> > As has been said by people far better educated and more intelligent than
> > I - "nothing is impossible to a person who is determined" - Just
bloody
> > difficult. :)
> Exactly. You seemed to be writing this post to show how every thing I
> mentioned wasn't enough by itself to do the job, or to point out the downsides.

Neither and both. The ideas you had were perfectly reasonable, except
that after reading it, I felt it might be worthwhile commenting on it in
case some of those new to the game didn't consider the consequences, and
thought that "Hey, that'd be a cool idea."

> I'm already well aware of the downsides, and don't need you to point out to me,
> for instance, that magic can't do the job by itself, or that 'terrorist'-style
> methods have big drawbacks. Doesn't mean I wouldn't do some major property
> damage to help cover an escape, though...
>
> I knew I was going to regret posting to this thread again, but this part seemed
> fairly innocent. Guess some things are just born evil.

Well, Bruce. I'm sorry you've taken it as a personal attack on yourself,
it wasn't intended that way, and I don't recall anywhere in the post,
where I mentioned you specifically, I merely played devil's advocate to
your suggestions, but if you want to take it personally, hey, that's
your privilege.

--
Dark Avenger
Giving up on reality becauae I don't like illusions.

Message no. 115 You wrote:
> > And let's not talk about what shadowrunning is 'intended' to be, eh?
> Why not? This is a list devoted to Shadowrun, it wouldn't be the first
> time the subject has come up, and won't be the last, and every time it
> does it'll eventually start a flame, so what the heck :)
Umm, you answered your own question. Since it comes down to opinion, why
bother, eh? Gratuitously wasting time should be more fun than that. ;)

losthalo

Message no. 116 ----
From: Bruce H. Nagel <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
Date: 07 July 1997 01:08
Subject: Re: Runner's Attitudes

>You wrote:
>> > And let's not talk about what shadowrunning is 'intended' to be, eh?
>> Why not? This is a list devoted to Shadowrun, it wouldn't be the first
>> time the subject has come up, and won't be the last, and every time it
>> does it'll eventually start a flame, so what the heck :)

>Umm, you answered your own question.

I know, it was quite deliberate. don't worry, you'll get used to me
arguing with myself and answering my own questions, it's a problem I have
:)

> Since it comes down to opinion, why
>bother, eh? Gratuitously wasting time should be more fun than that. ;)

Ah, someone else who fails to rise to the bait :) Agreed, wasting time
should definately be more fun than starting flames. Oh well, guess I'll
have to go find Nightlife and start quoting Jurassic Park at him again
<grin>

>losthalo

Message no. 117 >Ah, someone else who fails to rise to the bait :) Agreed, wasting time
>should definately be more fun than starting flames. Oh well, guess I'll
>have to go find Nightlife and start quoting Jurassic Park at him again
><grin>

Doh! Nope no tonight I just finished a weekend of double shifts and I'm way
too tired.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

YES and my followers will be legion! The world will be mine
"SO SWEARS THE LEADER!"
All will bow before my might and bask in my radience. Kneel before you lord
and master. Kiss the ruby ring of power and cower before me.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Message no. 118 At 08:33 PM 7/2/97 -0005, woneal@*******.NET wrote:
>On 2 Jul 97 at 15:09, Michael Broadwater wrote:
>
>> At 03:25 PM 7/2/97 -0005, woneal@*******.NET wrote:
>> >On 1 Jul 97 at 23:24, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The mere fact that a target is a megacorporation doesn't change the
>> >> financial cost of a given run against it, and your fixation that every
>> >> run against any megacorp involves a cost of billions is the crux of the
>> >> problem here. If the cost is small, the benefit of pursuit is similarly
>> >> small.
>> >
>> > That's half the crux. I get the distinct impression that Bob
>> thinks all
>> >runners are pond scum, low-lives, street trash and rank amatuers. He
>> >seems to think that there are no professionals in the shadow business,
>> >that they are all lying, thieving criminals. That a very limit view of a
>> >very diverse group. Obviously *some* runners fit into that category, but
>> >there are plenty who don't.
>>
>> Yeah, they're are all those heroe's out there that are clean cut,
>> wonderful people with no problems with society, and that's why they run
>> the shadows rather than use their skills to a productive end. I mean,
>> they learned all that great stuff at the corp and left because the corps
>> are bad mean people. Or they learned it in the military because gov't's
>> are all bad mean people. And now they run against corps and the gov't
>> for other corps and gov't's and don't worry about killing because, of
>> course, if you work for a corp, you aren't trying to feed your family and
>> be a good member of society, you're one of the bad mean people who's
>> bringing down the world with your crimes. You know, you kill people.
>> Oh, and shadowrunners who do are different. They're heroes of the common
>> man. You know, that ones that work at corps and try to be a productive
>> member of society. But not ones you encounter. Those are all bad mean
>> people, and shadowrunners are heroes and great guys. Yeah!
>>
>
> My we are feeling sarcastic aren't we. Borrowed Bob's blinders
did you?
>No, they aren't heroes of the common man, and no where did I say or imply
>that. What I did say is that not all of them are street punks.

No, you said all of them aren't criminals. That's a huge difference in
your arguement. Your example was of a criminal. Breaking and entering is
a crime, datat steals are a crime, casting a spell with intent to harm is a
crime, not having a SIN is a crime, carrying a weapon without the proper
permits is a crime. Shadowrunners=Criminals. QED.

Try and keep up.

Mike Broadwater
"I don't care if you don't like my manners. I don't like them much myself.
They're pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings."

Message no. 119 <snip just about everything that's gone before...>
This is really just devolving into a I'm right/ you're scum debate,
and to paraphrase Ford Fairlane; "Having this conversation is like
masturbating with a cheese grater. Kinda interesting at first, but
mostly painful.".
I think the 'conflicting' views expressed in the front of the
Shadowrun Companion prety much says it all. Not all runners are saints,
nor are they all viscously, amoral killers only out to make a buck. And
most are just people trying to get by. Every player should set his/her
own moral limits as to who she/he will or will not kill [ some of us
just have our meters turned lower than others, while some have the thing
completely off, and have smashed the control from the wall!]. You play
your cold hearted killers, I'll play my 'Saints' [we both cack just as
many people, I'm just more discriminatory about who catches a bullet
from me <GRIN>].

Kohl, the 'I try not to kill on principle if I don't have to, unless I
meet an out of control death dealer, who slags a innocents in the
crossfire, then the kid gloves are off!', physad ork gunslinger.

Message no. 120 At 09:36 3.07.97 -0400, you wrote:

>'Do you think this is who I am? I am a professional thief. I don't don't

>run around killing people I don't have to.'

> --Seth Gecko, From Dusk to Dawn

And how he finished??? He survived :)))

<center>]-[ yASiU ]-[ aKa mARCiN sERkIES ]-[ e-MAiL - yasiu@******.com
]-[ </center>

Message no. 121 >
>> You're egotistical blatherings have labelled you a foolish,
>>immature, narrow-minded, bigoted, slandering idiot!
>
>Foolish? Far from the fool am I. Immature? At times, yes, though not in
>debate. Narrow-minded? I've opened my mind to thoughts few ever have and
>ever will. That's why I can support my opinions with rational and logical
>evidence rather than resorting to flames. Bigoted? Sometimes, but not
>here. Slandering? I haven't reduced anyone's character from where it
>already is, and certainly not to criminal levels if I did. Idiot? A 180
>I.Q. and test scores of rather amazing levels prove me far above that.
>Genius is the word commonly used.
>
>Perhaps you should learn the language before you attempt to use it. Or
>maybe think of who you try to use it upon? Or maybe think at all?
>
Jesus, Bob, Topcat, whatever. You're claim to be a smart guy, so act like
one. You do have good points, and you occasionally express them quite
well. However, as you sharpen your wit, you do it by striking and grinding
it on other people's jugulars. Your sarcasm is uselessly offensive and
your complete assurance that you are right and others are wrong in every
situation transforms the threads in which you participate to needless blood
baths. Just take a look at some of your posts, at the tone you take.
Imagine someone else wrote that in response to something you said. If you
don't see a problem, just sign off the list because what you are doing is
not discussing. You are attacking in a foul and base manner, while
simultaneously remaining self-righteous as you point out that you have not
stooped to swearing or flaming. Your tone, however, is enough of a flame,
because it is simply uncivilized. Try to point out where you think someone
is wrong in a more agreeable manner without disregarding others' points
entirely, I know I wouldn't stand for someone addressing me the way you
have responded to Paul.

At it's heart, I think that this disagreement is based on a few
fundamental assumptions about how the shadowrun world functions. Both
assumptions are based on logical arguments (yours AND Paul's, as far as I
can tell), and they are mutually exclusive, especially the way the two of
you are communicating. If you'd spend a little more time respecting others
opinions and thoughts (hell, even if you are smarter than they are) than
you do expressing your opinion that their thoughts are shit, I and others
wouldn't feel so much like tracking you down and hurting you. Following
this thread I have encountered you saying that Paul's every word and
thought on this subject is completely and absolutely without a shred of
merit more often than you have actually responded to his points. Simply
saying that Paul is wrong does not make it true, and saying it over and
over the way you do is not the action of a good debater. When someone said
that you pick out pieces of another's argument and pull them apart, I don't
believe that was the compliment you felt it to be. It likely referred to
the fact that you conveniently ignore anything reasonable that Paul says
and tear to pieces the fringe that you can target easily. Surely Paul
isn't the moron you claim him to be, incapable of producing any accurate
thoughts. I don't remember him being so on the list previously. "Arguing"
the way you do may demonstrate your intelligence, but it also dramatically
highlights your complete stupidity. Chill out, stop "sharpening your wit",
and use your reputedly vast mental faculties to try to recognize the fact
that it is often possible for two points of view to be incompatible without
necessitating that one actually be absolutely true and the other false.
There are many shades of gray in the shadows, and even more among those
that read the books and re-create those shadows within their imaginations.

--DT

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer