Yes, we did.

Let's play a game. You and me have to agree on how to split $100, but if we don't come to agreement, nobody gets anything. If I were a smart, rational person, then even if you were only willing to give me $1, I should accept, because it's better than $0. But I'm not a smart, rational person, I'm stupid, I'm irrational, I'm spiteful and vindictive, oogy boogy, watch out! I'm gonna choose a number as my minimum, and if you offer me less than that, I'll take my ball and go home, no matter how crazy or stupid it is to take nothing. And if you know that, I bet you offer me more than $1 next time.

Obviously, the "game theory rational" play of accepting any deal even if it's $1 isn't actually smart or reasonable, nor is it unreasonable to set and enforce a minimum standard for cooperation. We can argue over where that line should be drawn, but a line should be drawn somewhere, and I'm pretty damn sure genocide is crossing it.

Of course, it's impossible to get you lot to see actual reason or understand how negotiation works, but failing that, I'd prefer that you see us as "stupid" or "unreasonable." Because negotiating with a robot is incredibly easy, you hardly have to give them anything, just make it .000001% better than the alternative. But if you can convince the other side you're "unreasonable," then they'll always be second-guessing "Did we give them enough?" So call us "stupid" as much as you like, it only gives us a stronger negotiating position 💅