Adam said:

Exactly! That was my point all along.

Well, it's a rather pointless point.

No one can stop a player from talking. Did you really need to debate that? It isn't "part of the deal" though, as you said before. It is just talking. The deal is simply the exchange of colonies or cards.

And look, think what you want about your oh-so-clever fibbing. It's just a different way to play. I never said I don't bluff. Bluffing is not the same lying. You can silently make insinuations by your actions. Have I never played poker before? Well, honestly, not much. The game bores me. But watch poker on TV, and tell me if you see a bunch of dorks saying, "I have a full house, seriously guys!" No, none of them say much of anything, usually.

You can lie all you want, but the moment you've lied once, a good player will tune you out, and all your talk will just be hot air. It's foolish to say that because someone is honest he is therefor predictable. You assume that I am constantly telling people what I'm about to do and am extremely gullible. Far from it. I promise things very rarely, but when I do, I'm taken seriously.

It's a different way to play. You don't have to try to convince me that I'm missing out on a better way to play. Maybe it works with your friends, and if so go for it! But those I play with are "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" players, which I think is the smarter, safer way to play if you value your ships.

Anyway, play like you want to play, but don't tell me how to play. I was the top player of 2007 at Cosmic Online, so I think it's fair to say I'm doing SOMETHING right!

"The rules don't say ..." .. "The rules don't say ..." ... NOT my favorite bit of gaming logic. The rules also don't say whether or not it's okay to fling slices of pizza at my foes, but that doesn't mean I'm going to think it's fine.

Cosmic-wise, I certainly have no interest in any deals that depend on the players' remembering possible future outcomes ("I'll ally with you for the next two turns ... I won't play my zap on you unless you're at four bases," etc.), and I've definitely never played that way (and my first set was Eon, so I've been doing this for a while). I firmly believe that deals should be concluded one way or the other — either a successful deal or three ships to the warp — before the following Regroup phase.

As I've mentioned before, I'm hoping that the entire deal process is really firmed up in the upcoming FAQ. Either way, though, I'll house-rule if I have to. I have zero interest in worrying about concepts such as "binding" or "non-binding" or trying to keep track of everyone's promises. Either deal or don't deal, then move on to the Regroup phase.

Adam said:

It’s a question of semantics. Haven’t you ever had a one-sided “deal” occur? The rules explicitly say that a one-sided deal is allowable, so why would a player agree to this if there were not some other agreement (binding or not) as part of the deal? As a game of discussion and diplomacy, I think there is a reason why the rules say, “The players have one minute to make a deal,” and not, “The players have one minute to agree to exchange cards or bases.”

Adam said:

They don’t say much, but I have seen players (professional players, yes) saying things like, “Go ahead and bet; I know I have you beat” or “If you’re betting like that, I hope you have a good hand.” And yes, bluffing is lying. It may not be blatant or explicit, but it is an attempt to deceive your opponent into believing you have something you don’t.

Adam said:

A good player will take that into account when evaluating future statements. If you tune someone out completely, you are missing out on possibly useful information.

Adam said:

I was merely responding to your claims that lying in a game is “boring,” or that people who lie or bluff are “dorks” or “oh-so-clever.” I think it is much more complex and interesting than saying, “If you lie, you’re not much of a diplomat.”

TheDukester said:

I never said that you have to remember possible future outcomes; I was simply saying that the claim, “You can’t make verbal agreements as part of a deal, because the rules don’t say you can” makes as much sense as the claim, “You can’t make arrangements with other players during the game, because the rules don’t say you can.”

And yes, I have been playing Cosmic Encounter since the Eon days too. Our deals have always been a lot more interesting than just saying, “I’ll trade you a base for a base” or “I’ll trade you a base for cards.” You get partnerships, bargains, promises, arrangements, backstabbing, inconveniences…all part of what makes the game interesting, in my opinion.

There are lots of possible reasons for a "one-sided deal" to be beneficial with no strings attached. Perhaps the two players don't want to swap cards or colonies but also don't want to lose ships. The solution: one player gives another player a card neither of them cares about. Or maybe one player giving away one card and getting nothing in return would end up with an empty hand, which, if the traded card is a good one, could be less "one-sided" than it appears.

Still, saying your verbal agreement is "part of the deal" is inaccurate because the Deal is a game term, and any verbal agreement is not part of the game's rules. That's all "above the table," so to speak. You unintentionally misled us to believe something other than what you were saying. Miscommunication, that's all.

Adam said:

And that’s where we disagree: I believe that a “deal” is a term with more far-reaching implications that just “exchanging bases and cards.” I see the rule about what “may” be included as inclusive, while you see it as exclusive. You believe that verbal agreements are not part of the deal because the rules do not specifically mention them, while I believe that they are just as valid as verbal agreements in any other part of the game (i.e. the rules do not need to mention them for them to be allowed). And again, I see any verbal agreement as unenforceable, because it relies on the honesty of the players, and there are no specific rules for, “If one person breaks his part of the deal….”

And finally, I can see the validity of your interpretation of the rules, although I obviously don’t agree with it; I don’t understand why you don’t see the validity of mine.

Because it's not in the rules. Essentially, there are two parts we disagree upon:

1) Can a verbal agreement be made as part of a deal?
Your interpretation of one lonely word, "may," seems like language abuse to me, but I understand what you're saying here.

2) If a verbal agreement is part of the deal, must it be carried out as agreed upon?
Here the rules leave no room for doubt: "The terms of the deal are carried out as agreed upon" (If a Deal Was Made, p11). Note: Does not say "are carried out as agreed upon except for verbal agreements, which, by the way, we completely forgot to mention in the earlier section on deals. Our bad."

If you want to interpret the rules based on a single, slightly ambiguous word to mean that the rules are essentially a vacuum in which anything can occur, that's your prerogative, but I would suggest asking this in the FAQ thread if it hasn't been asked already because that is a loose interpretation even for Cosmic, a game for which, if there are a million players, there are a million different sets of house rules. Of course, maybe the official ruling doesn't matter. I know there are some rules we used to ignore in the Eon game.

And agreeing to disagree is fine, obviously. I don't see why I have to see the validity of someone else's interpretation. Your way of playing doesn't bother me, and I wouldn't even mind playing that way myself one time; I just don't see it supported by the rules, which would surely make it clear if this were an intended possibility. It would take no effort at all to say, "In a deal, a player may trade cards, allow his or her opponent to establish one colony [...], and/or make a verbal agreement regarding future actions." And if one aspect of a deal -- especially a part of the deal that the rules completely fail to mention -- would for some reason be exempt to the "must be enforced" rule, that would Definitely be mentioned.

Anyway, I think that's all I have to say on the matter. Happy Valentine's Day!
(The smiley is a bit creepy, but he means well.)