| From: | TopCat <topcat@***.NET> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Runner's Attitudes |
| Date: | Tue, 1 Jul 1997 20:50:06 -0500 |
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
