 |
| |
|
|
dejon
|
|
From the general forum earlier this evening:
quote:
GhengisFarb> I am very impressed with the Roleplay team today.
E_T> why?
GhengisFarb> I thought they were going to declare war on us.
E_T> What, and break our non Agression Pact
GhengisFarb> Who knows?
E_T> GF, the thing is that, we want to keep the agreements that we make. I know that Togas was a bit upset and I really think that he had gone a bit over board, but I really don't think that he wants to break an agreement that was hard fought to make
E_T> Sometimes he can get a bit "dominering (sp)".
GhengisFarb> E_T, but what about the Writ/Hors Back trade? That wasn't honored?
E_T> GF, can't trade something that we are still researching
E_T> GF, I don't know exectly how much longer we have until we do get Writing, I'll have to check the report, if they put that in that is
E_T> I think it's about 10 turns or so, but don't quote me on that, because I'd have to hunt through the reports.. :/
GhengisFarb> Wow, your that far away? I thought it would be much sooner.
E_T> I don't have the PTW game yet, so I just do the RP stuff, when I can.
E_T> I wish I could get a little bit more involed, but I don't have the game to really get as involved as I'd like to.
GhengisFarb> Oh
E_T> But atleast we are heavy on the RP, so I can get by....
GhengisFarb> With all your analysts I'm sure they post most everything you need in your forums. Arnelos likes to make analysis
E_T> Oh c**p, that cat's throwing up on the Carpet, I've got to go
GhengisFarb> That goodness for hard wood floors
E_T> Arn's hed problems with his ISP until just recently, got to go
* E_T has left #apolyton
GhengisFarb> bye
|
With Panzer's PM, and GF's statements, it is clear they consider us as having broken a tech deal that we could not possibly have honoured or dishonoured yet - as we don't have Writing. Our communication with them definitely broke down on that point somewhere.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:24
|
|
I'm *this* close to just closing down all foreign relations with them for X number of turns or until another Togas takes the throne because I am sick of being forced to backpeddle diplomatically and kiss their ass.
(Just erased most of this message as it was turning into a rant)
1) NO tech deals with GoW until they are out of our land PERIOD. They have no legitimate reason to be here. They are snooping, tresspassing, and harassing my people. I will reopen trade with them AFTER they leave, and if they want a PR war, we'll give them one. We can be just as mean and spiteful and deceitful as they are.
2) I authorize us to create a .jpg of Cow Valley ONLY. Please post it for review. Please use an older copy, one that doesn't have our most recent maps on it. I am willing to say THIS is our claim. The .jpg must not include lands south of the Highlands.
3) This image will be sent to them AFTER they agree to leave and start leaving, including the tresspassor north of Madrid.
3) adaMada remains ambassador at this time.
4) adaMada does everything he can to chat with them in public instead of sending PMs. I think we'll do better in face-to-face discussions than over PM with this issue.
5) Once we HAVE Writing, we will not TRADE them writing, but we will sell it to them. If they want to ***** about this, tell them "Sorry, but we already have Riding." When they ***** some more, tell them, "If you don't want to buy it, we understand. If you don't want to buy tech from us in the future, that's fine." and walk away.
Result = They go PR nightmare on us, and we use our best spin artists to turn it on them. We still have Horseback Riding, they still DON'T have writing. In the end, they lose the most.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
|
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DAVOUT
It is quite clear that we must reduce sharply the volume of diplomatic correspondance with people twisting any sentence we write. We can instead adopt a businesslike attitude, and to begin with review the PM or whatever BEFORE they are send. |
This I wholeheartedly agree on. I have ceased making any comments or remarks back to GF via email. For a time he send a comment or question with every save he sent over and I often wrote him back. These informal exchanges are the source of the alleged "tech deal" ... and unless anyone can find me proof elsewhere, I think this is where it comes from.
Frankly, all of this "tech deal" chatter was about as official as our 4-way tech alliance. A lot of talk about how it sounded like a great idea, but never any promises or signatures or whatnot. Nothing more than a "Sounds great, let's do it." However, those vague promises have been relied upon by GoW and even if we try to explain our way out of it, they'll still have bitter feelings towards us.
I'm going to make sure that we no longer have any unofficial, casual deals made. All deals will be done through the diplomats through proper channels, always. We may also want to bring this matter to the public forum to some degree. Perhaps not "cry foul" but state that we'd like to set up some groundrules for what is official and what is not, given that everyone's nation works differently and just become one guy tells you something, that doesn't mean that THE TEAM has made a deal with you.
I should not be the one to set such a plan in motion, perhaps Davout would be better suited for it.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dejon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
I'm going to make sure that we no longer have any unofficial, casual deals made. All deals will be done through the diplomats through proper channels, always. We may also want to bring this matter to the public forum to some degree. Perhaps not "cry foul" but state that we'd like to set up some groundrules for what is official and what is not, given that everyone's nation works differently and just become one guy tells you something, that doesn't mean that THE TEAM has made a deal with you.
I should not be the one to set such a plan in motion, perhaps Davout would be better suited for it.
--Togas |
I have started the Standard Trade Format thread for precisely this purpose. Davout and everyone else is encouraged to help discuss and refine the format.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
adaMada
|
 |
"The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Mar 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
Togas,
Three questions.
1) Should I admit that there is land to the south of us, or should I simply state "We have a .jpg of the land we are claiming as our territory. This is the fertile land close to our capital that we are currently in the process of settling, and we ask you to respect that." (Or something along those lines). The .jpg makes it clear that there is land to the south, however -- claiming our backs are to the wall probably won't work. Indeed, I've got a nasty feeling that this whole message from Panzer was caused by the fact that they're looking at the map and know that the continent's too small if the sea's directly behind us.
2) Should I challange them on this trading issue? I can say something along the lines of "There must have been some misunderstanding; though I understand that our teams have had informal discussions on possible trades (this being one possibility), I don't remember any official agreement going through on the issue. If such an agreement has, I apologize, and please point me to the correct message." That does make us sound a bit jackassy, but it'll firmly establish the "it's not binding unless it goes through the right channels" route.
3) They're asking for the map before they move, that they know which direction they can move in. If we don't want to give them the map itself, can we say something along the lines of "You may retreat your warrior to the north, north east, north west, or north (making up the directions for now), which will start you on a path that will bring you clear of our territory."
I'll try to hammer out something later and post it here for public review/changes/corrections.
-- adaMada
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arnelos
This is starting to sound too legalistic even for the way in which RL diplomacy is conducted...
The problem we have here is GhengisFarb, not that our diplomacy is too informal. Informal diplomacy is generally BETTER, the problem we have is that GhengisFarb's desire to be provocative is greater than his desire to serve his own interests  In short, we're not dealing with an entirely rational actor 
If we have to be more legalistic with GoW, so be it. But that's no reason to handicap ourselves with everyone else! |
About diplomacy
This is to clarify my own understanding about informal and formal diplomacy.
The diplomats accomplish two tasks:
- intelligence gathering through chats, PM or any other means in the view of learning what the competing civs are doing, what they want, what they fear, and ideally what they are going to do. This is done consistently by ambassadors and FAM, and therefore is official if informal and not committing. Another part of the intelligence is handled by unofficial persons outside the diplomatic area.
- Negotiation of treaties consisting of designing and finalizing agreements on a specific project. This can be named the formal diplomacy. It must be noted that the writing of treaties should be preferably delegated to some experts we have in the team, after all pertinent data have been collected by the ambassadors. Treaties commit the parties in trying to reduce ambiguities potentially hidden in any agreement; remaining detrimental ambiguities are backed by our military strength.
We see that there is no contradiction between formal and informal diplomacy but obvious complementarities; the informal diplomacy prepares and often is the origin of treaties.
Arnelos, do you agree ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pikesfan
|
|
Re, the image:
I think blacking out the name of Pamplona will make things look suspicious. We can black out the numbers and the build, but I think we should keep the name, especially as they will be able to see it anyway if they walk over from Madrid.
Nevertheless, I don’t think giving them an image is a good idea. It will only encourage more outrageous behaviour in the future so they can make us give away more goodies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ninot
|
 |
Centre Bell
Nov 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
On the issue of wether diplomatic formula vs. informal diplomacy.
with the case of GoW especially, we need diplomatic formula. With the precise nature of a regulated diplomacy system, they cannot twist our words as much, and we get more of what we want, and less of what they want.
Arnelos said informal diplomacy was better. I tend to disagree. It IS faster, but it allows for more errors, and costly mistakes in phrasing. I take for example History Guy's PM to... uhm, think it was Lux. He said somewhere that they had our blessing to explore our south. Now, they may just explore our south, but then again they may start putting settlers in it, because we blessed them. It was a very minute mistake, but they CAN run away with it.
With a team like GoW, which has already proven they can twist words, we need uniformity in our diplomacy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ninot
|
|
Centre Bell
Nov 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
lol, last thing I want is to be as "complex" as the AI.
The diplomacy can only be as complex, or simple, as they players behind them
With Ghengis going off the handle, suspecting us of this that and the other thing, and with our admittedly strange request for them to stay away from a rather sizeable part of the continent, things are complex. Do they need a complex form of diplomacy? Maybe not.
But I'll bet anything GoW just wants to spread bad rumours and ill-thoughts all around, not just on us. If no one trust anyone else, no one will ask questions about a declaration of war. they are setting the mood for the type of game they have always wanted.
We need to make this public with other teams, and clearly state we want a peaceful ends, with trade. But we need allibies should we have to defend ourselves from a GoW attack, or intrustion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dejon
|
|
I wasn't suggesting that we attempt to put ourselves into a in-game-diplomacy-only-straight-jacket. Everyone made their preference clear long ago and I'm fine with things as they are - it certainly adds a challenging aspect to the game. I guess I was just saying - "You asked for it, you got it!" with regards to complex diplomacy.
However, I do think that we have to pull in the reigns a bit, and that creating standard communication protocols for trade agreements and official edicts is a step in the right direction. They can be as informal or formal as we like, but they must at least make it clear to the other civs the difference between 1) some single citizen of Spain, be it Lord Togas or someone else, talking, ranting, or promising the world and 2) an official team decision on a trade or stance.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-01-2003 10:23
|