| From: | "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Runner's Attitudes |
| Date: | Thu, 3 Jul 1997 23:30:16 +0100 |
<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
