On a related topic, we were somewhat confused by your implication that this incident was caused by a "lack of co-ordination between teams" as we responded to your General Blubmuz's communiques with a direct inquiry regarding Sirius' desires concerning the proposed cooperation. There was a delay on our part, which was due to the absence of our Special Envoy to Sirius, causing a delay in us recieving the messages. However, as soon as we recieved the letters form General Blubmuz, we responded. This took place the same year that our armies sieged and captured Oprion B.
In fact, we laid out two distinct plans of co-ordination for capturing the enemy home islands, and invited the wise Sirians to choose the strategy they favored. We got no response from your General, or any other Sirian following this communique. We did not hear from you again until we contacted you following the occupation of Mirza. We look forward with great anticipation to your response to our proposals, including any possible plans your Generals may have developed.
Let me first just explain what happened here.
It's clear to me that our intentions with regard to this co-ordination were poorly communicated. Our intention was to set up a much more involved and detailed planning than what seems to have been understood. It was not simply a request for alignment of our broader strategic plans. Instead it would have involved arranging times for generals to directly chat. Not just occasionally, but each turn. And to co-ordinate individual moves in detail. Such an idea however clearly requires a more active and immediate response.
So, after receiving no response for a number of turns, our general became frustrated with the idea. When a response finally did arrive, with no explanation for the delay and only some suggestions of broad strategic plans, our general simply gave up on the idea completely. It's increasingly clear to me however that you were simply entirely unaware of what it was that we were trying to arrange. Our general personally took it as a complete lack of interest in close co-operation and has had a petulant attitude ever since. However I think his response was thoroughly unwarrented, as his intent was simply never conveyed to you in a way that might have made clear the response he was after. This misunderstanding is part of what's lead to the greater breakdown in the diplomatic situation.
Agreeing on the broader plan before narrowing in to the details may well have been a good approach to lead into the sort of co-ordination we desired. So your message was perfectly fine in that regard. It just clashed with what we were hoping for at the time, and the whole process seemed destined to be too slow to acheive anything worthwhile.
A detailed, turn by turn active discussion as we intended would certainly have avoided the confusion that lead to the poaching in question, and that was the only point I was making there. Who's fault it is that this did not occur is a separate issue, and I am willing to conceed it was at least partly our own bad communication. We should also have at least responded to the message you did send. Like I said, this was at the peak of my own absence, our general had given up in despair, and no-one else thought to step in. We intend to avoid such a situation in the future.
We apologize for the delay in responding to your last message, as you intimated that you were contemplating some resolution to the Mirza incident. Consequently, we were waiting for your proposal to rectify the situation over the Sirian occupation of Mirza which you so accurately referred to as "poaching." Again, we can imagine no solution that would satisfy us, save the Sirians simply transferring the city to us, however, as we have indicated previously, we have resigned ourselves to leaving this matter within the discretion of the wise Sirians.
To be frank, we are in a state of universal disagreement on the matter over here. It seems both teams were waiting for each other to some extent, as we were hoping your response might shed some light on the debate over here.
Instead it seems some light has been shed, but not through diplomatic channels. A number of settlers have appeared in the area, and it seems reasonably clear that your intent is to settle the all or most of the remaining available spaces on this spoke. While this highlights further the breakdown in the diplomatic situation, and has some members of the team a little concerned, personally I think it is a perfectly reasonable, legitimate and justified reaction to the situation. It's not a co-operative reaction, but our own city poaching, however unintentional at the time, was no a co-operative action to begin with, so it's understandable.
My goal at this stage is simply to find a resolution to the situation with which we can agree to call it even and move on. Although we'd, on balance, prefer to avoid a pointless culture war and over-settling of the spoke, we respect your right to settle the available locations. However, it's no use if you still feel wronged, and the ensuing culture war then only serves to damage relations further. So, I have a number of suggestions and questions as to what you would find an acceptable resolution to the situation.
Firstly, with regard to conceeding Mirza, the team is still divided on whether we ought to or not. However, I can say a couple of things with confidence. There is no way I will be able to convince people to vote in favour of gifting the city if this is to be followed by your continuing to settle aggressively in the area. On the other hand, if gifting the city would give us an agreement that you will avoid any further settlements in the area, then people here would at least feel like they are getting something out of it and be more willing to conceed Mirza. This leads to a couple of potentially viable options:
* Gifting the city in exchange for a no settlement agreement, or,
* Keeping the city in exchange for allowing you to settle the area as you please.
But first I need to know, would either of these options satisfy you? Or come close at least, such that we can consider some other possibilities that may make up the difference? The second option is kind of the status quo, which is what would likely happen if nothing was done, however the question remains as to whether you would consider this to make us even, or continue to hold the whole situation against us in the future.
If we can find a resolution to the situation that satisfies us both, we can then return to the better co-operation that we used to have.
so I guess they just forgot... it was a while ago
we should probably finish it when the Anarchy ends... we need the Merchant 
for upgrades anyway.
) so we dont have to found that city right away. We can give them all the way until the end of the next turn (starting in about 3 hours) to decide. We offered them settlers too so that should give them something to think about... but we can't agree to what they wanted (ie we promise not to settle anymore cities on Comet in exchange for Mizra)... That would be giving up 3 cities for one
... And we cant allow them to stall our expansion while they frantically try to pop all their borders... or settle under our noses
pool anyway
