 |
| |
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I agree with DeepO. A little "slap on the wrist" to our childish neighbor is in order here. We need to get the message across to Vox (and members of our own team) that things that are discussed are not immediately ratified. Might I point out (again) that they liberally assumed and communicated with us as though the border treaty was ratified, and then slipped in a city under the pretense that it was not in fact ratified.
I say refuse the deal for this turn, sending them a message that we're interested in trading, but not under a "trade all techs" deal, at least not yet.
And, please, no comments about how a slap on the wrist is not the right way to treat a long-term partner: their behaviour toward us is much worse, and indicates they're a short-term asset but a long-term liability.
Dominae
Last edited by Dominae on 10-02-2003 at 17:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
No matter what we decide eventually (with a poll!), we lose nothing by not accepting the deal this turn. If we do decide that "trade all techs" goes, we can ask Vox to send the techs again in a few turns; if we decide against it, we have not committed in bad faith.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I'm to school now, so I do not have time to think this through. But decisions are best not made in haste. Take your time Sir Ralph; I'm sure you'll make the right decision (or someone else will come online to advise you!).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:25
|
|
Contacts are high on my agenda as well, but it would be silly of us to now accept a deal, by accepting the techs, that means Vox gives us some 8 worthless techs, for which they assume we'll be giving them 8 advanced techs when we get them. We haven't got a portocol signed with them, so most likely they are assuming we all agreed on the 'trade all techs deal', and even indefinate (as nowhere was talked about the end date or conditions). We can't let that happen, as agreeing to their gift now means that whenever we stop the tech deal, we would be breaking a promise.
So, first of all, reject their deal. Then, diplomacy (Nathan!), in which we clearly state that they are free to offer our contact to anyone they like, and if they make some gold in the process, that's good for them (gifts are always appreciated). Further, we need to get some discussion on the techs going, writing for the techs they're offering us now seems okay (if they have been trading our contact around).
Next, what to research next: maybe we can ask them to get to Monarchy, telling them we'll get to literature and MM ourselves asap. Or, ask them for MM, they'll need it first if they want to settle part of the main continent.
last, start negotiations on the slaves deal. And start negotiations with other partners, if the 4 teams are all tensed up, maybe we can broker techs for them... Vox could do it too, if they were a bit more smart about it.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
Dominae, did you check the chat logs to verify whether or not they are behaving unreasonably in assuming that we are operating under a "trade all techs" deal for the time being? And as for our having nothing to lose, right now Vox trusts us enough to hand over techs without any guarantee in the game mechanics that they'll get something back. I view that kind of trust as a LOT to lose while we're working on the Great Library project! Also, you don't slap someone on the wrist and then turn your back on them - especially not someone whose behavior is "childish".
As for the border treaty, I'll remind you again that they said they were playing as if it was ratified, not that they assumed it already was. (Imagine a huge rival stack amassing right outside one of our cities. Would we not be likely to behave as if they had declared war even though no declaration of war actually came?) They did take advantage of the absence of a particular defined border to put Dissidentville in a place I'd proposed in a treaty version that I later told them our team had rejected, but their behavior was still consistent with assuming that some version of the border treaty would be ratified.
Sir Ralph, my understanding of the "trade all techs" deal was not that it was something that neither team could ever back out of under any circumstances for the entire rest of the game. I would consider us morally obligated to make sure that at the time we back out, Vox has gotten at least as much out of the deal as we have, preferably a little more. But especially after what they pulled with Alphabet earlier, I would have no qualms about renegotiating in light of the Great Library project.
I think we should accept the two techs they're offering now and give them Writing, but have them hold off giving us Horseback Riding. That keeps the balance of techs in a place where we can renegotiate in good faith without the time pressure that would be involved in trying to decide what our relationship with Vox will be in a single day. And it avoids the strain that would be likely to occur if we tell Vox, "No, the trade all techs deal is off," without coming back with a clear, concrete alternative. (I won't have a lot of time for diplomacy this week, and it's a lot easier to promote a decision that will ruffle feathers when you aren't the one who has to compose messages to try to smooth them back out!)
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Dominae, did you check the chat logs to verify whether or not they are behaving unreasonably in assuming that we are operating under a "trade all techs" deal for the time being?
|
Yes (I've been through those chat logs 3 times now, and dang they're long!). Although there is a passage where you say that Gathering Storm is interested in such a deal, there is no real "finalization", which is why I personally get the impression nothing is agreed upon when a lot actually is.
I hope this is not too much to ask, but maybe the ambassadors could post a list of "current agreements/deal" for each civ (just like in SP, but a lot more complex). For those who aren't taking part in the actual discussions, it would be nice to have a handy reference of what exactly is officially going on between teams. Consider this a summary of the 'Contact' threads.
quote:
And as for our having nothing to lose, right now Vox trusts us enough to hand over techs without any guarantee in the game mechanics that they'll get something back. I view that kind of trust as a LOT to lose while we're working on the Great Library project!
|
True, but realistically we're not likely to lose anything. We wait one turn, ask them to clarify exactly what they expect from us, and move on. Any harm in that?
quote:
Also, you don't slap someone on the wrist and then turn your back on them - especially not someone whose behavior is "childish".
|
I was never insinuating that we should turn our back on them. In fact, slapping them on the wrist would be in interests of a healthier partnership.
quote:
As for the border treaty, I'll remind you again that they said they were playing as if it was ratified, not that they assumed it already was.
|
You'll have to explain to me your logic on this one. Making decisions "as if" something is ratified is sometimes inexcusable. If the U.S. bombs Iraq, can they say they're just behaving "as if" they had U.N. approval? Similarly, founding a city "as if" a border treaty had been ratified is not an acceptable course of action, given that the treaty may have been altered.
quote:
They did take advantage of the absence of a particular defined border to put Dissidentville in a place I'd proposed in a treaty version that I later told them our team had rejected, but their behavior was still consistent with assuming that some version of the border treaty would be ratified.
|
Hm, so they pick and choose which proposals and parts of proposals they want to ratify? Nice partnership.
quote:
I would consider us morally obligated to make sure that at the time we back out, Vox has gotten at least as much out of the deal as we have, preferably a little more.
|
A little more, because we owe them something? I like to be friends as much as the next guy, but in this game Vox is a tool, not a buddy.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
You'll have to explain to me your logic on this one. Making decisions "as if" something is ratified is sometimes inexcusable. If the U.S. bombs Iraq, can they say they're just behaving "as if" they had U.N. approval? Similarly, founding a city "as if" a border treaty had been ratified is not an acceptable course of action, given that the treaty may have been altered.
|
Look at why there would be a problem in your example above. To whatever extent actions rely on an assumption for their validity, if that assumption does not hold, the actions lose legitimacy.
Nothing in Vox's choice of locations for Dissidentville could possibly be construed as illegitimate had we decided, "No, we don't want a border treaty." We could have gone to war over it, but our doing so would have been due to greed on our part, not to any objective violation on theirs.
If you want to complain about their planting a city in a location where if we wanted a border treaty, we would have to accept its location as an established fact, fine. I'm a bit miffed over that myself when they knew (or should have known) that we had serious objections to that location. But that's an entirely separate issue from the "as if" issue. Indeed, it is only the fact that we did decide to go for a border treaty that made the city's effect on defining exact borders such a pain.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
This is going to be a bit tricky. I suspect that we'll get the shields for a worker before we get the food, unless we court disease by working FPs more than necessary, so let's go ahead and start on another warrior just in case. I'm thinking work two FPs this turn and 1 FP and one fur the following two. If the extra laborer when we hit size 3 lands on a FP, we'll be on track to build a worker the moment we hit size 4 (thereby dropping us back to size 3). If he lands on a fur, we'll hit 10 shields before we're ready to build our worker, so we can either waste shields (maybe switching to a spearman until we're ready to get our worker) or build an additional warrior and delay our first worker or two just a little. (Note that size is our long-term limiting factor on cranking out workers quickly, so only the start of our chain of workers would be affected, not the end.) By the way, the reason for starting something other than a worker right now is to make absolutely sure that if we forget, we won't end up building one before we're ready.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
Draft message to Vox:
quote:
Greetings BetaHound, Jon, and People of Vox Controli,
While trying to address the trade situation, we of Gathering Storm realized that no formal agreement has ever been drawn up regarding our tech sharing arrangement. We have a general understanding to share all techs our two teams obtain at least for the time being, but that leaves room for possible misunderstandings later on. Of particular concern was making sure you do not view this as a game-long commitment on our part, since we prefer to maintain some flexibility as game conditions change. (After all, there could be more than 3500 years to go before this ends.)
Rather than risk the possibility that our teams might be working from different understandings of what has been agreed to, we've decided to defer accepting your tech offer for the moment while we try to clarify the agreement. Sir Ralph and I submitted the following proposal for ratification, and the vote thus far has come back strongly in support.
quote:
(1) Gathering Storm and Vox Controli hereby formally agree to give each other all technologies discovered, through whatever means, for the duration of this agreement.
(2) This agreement may be cancelled by either team under the following conditions. (a) The team wishing to cancel the agreement must provide a minimum of ten turns' notice. (b) Both sides, and especially the side initiating cancellation, are required to act in good faith to ensure that the treaty will be ended (or transitioned to some other arrangement) in a way that is equitable to both. Both agree not to manipulate the timing of tech discovery, tech trades with other parties, the ending of the deal itself, or any other factor in such a way as to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. |
If this is acceptable to you, please re-offer the techs you offered this turn and we can pick up from there. We're expecting Writing in three turns, and can forward it to you then. (It would probably be better if you don't include Horseback Riding just yet, given the confusion that surrounded your getting it and the fact that our need for it is not urgent.) If this is too far from what you had in mind for you to consider it acceptable, we'll need to try to iron out the differences in what our teams had in mind.
In regard to what you should research next, I hate to suggest it knowing first-hand the pain of delaying research, but how about if you wait until we get you Writing? That will give both teams a bit more time to think about our research options, and perhaps even coordinate our research with one or two other teams.
Sincerely,
The People of Gathering Storm
Nathan Barclay, Chief Economist |
Does this look okay?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
If you want to complain about their planting a city in a location where if we wanted a border treaty, we would have to accept its location as an established fact, fine. I'm a bit miffed over that myself when they knew (or should have known) that we had serious objections to that location. |
This is exactly my point, which makes me wonder what we're disagreeing about. If you've got good reasons to take Vox's side on this issue other than you want a trading partner, I would like to hear them. For my part, I simply cannot understand how Vox's actions on this issue could be excused.
1. We attempt to negotiate a border treaty, in order to peacefully divvy up the land.
2. During these negotiations, they rush in and grab the best site.
Whether or not that site was "on the table" at some point is irrelevant. Here's the most likely scenario:
Voxian #1: The border treaty negotiations are almost complete: is our road to that prime site ready and a Settler on its way?
Voxian #2: Yes. This is excellent! We've got Gathering Storm off our backs for now, and managed to grab a nice city right from under them!
Voxian #1: Good thing we got it up before the negotations were finished, ha ha ha!
Voxian #2: Ha ha ha!
But we seem to agreeing on this. The reason I'm pushing the issue is that no one apart from me seems to care that Vox is a horrible neighbour.
Dominae
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-02-2003 17:40
|