Foreign Policy: RealmsBeyond

[Caledorn]

Okay, according to the poll in the other thread there's 9 in favour of sending a response, and 3 in opposition. By the looks of it the message tobias wrote has strong support as well, so I'm going to assume that's what we want to send.

I see cavscout has proposed that we ask about their exploration, and I'm of two minds there. I really like the simplicity of the draft tobias wrote, as it's not pushy or anything - but at the same time it could be helpful to ask them saying something like "We'd like our warrior to continue exploring, but at the moment it looks like we're going to have to go around your territory which will require extra turns in our travels." If we do this we show them that we are not really interested in scouting out their territory (well, we are obviously.. but I'm trying to be a bit devious here) in case that is worrying them (which I believe need no beer bets, as I'm pretty sure we all agree that they are).

Another alternative is to just send off the message as it is of course, and bring map sharing back up at the time they've said they want to negotiate a border treaty. That way we don't get any "Please go <that way> if you'd like to get away from our cultural borders as fast as possible" response back.

What do you guys think?

Oh, and I suggest we wrap up this discussion about 24 hours from now, and send off a response then, unless someone can offer a good reason why we should wait even longer. The majority seems in favour of sending it off as soon as possible, but I would like to come to an agreement on whether or not to ask them about terrain info as well.

 

[RegentMan]

I really like tobiasn's draft. I would like to see cav's exploration line included in it, though.

Hi Scooter/RB,

Thanks for your response. We've had a chat and we respect that you don't want to commit 100% to a border agreement before you've seen the land for yourself. We're in agreement not to settle aggressively - for us that means "not passing the oasis to our west" for now. Let's revisit the specifics when you've had the chance to explore more.

Is there any interesting terrain you guys have discovered like the oasis? We are still trying to make sense of the layout of our world; it appears to be rather diverse.

We would really like working with your team too, so do chime back when you've had a look around. Good luck with your scouting endeavors!

Caledorn, on behalf of Team CFC

 

[2metraninja]

Oh, and I suggest we wrap up this discussion about 24 hours from now, and send off a response then, unless someone can offer a good reason why we should wait even longer. The majority seems in favour of sending it off as soon as possible, but I would like to come to an agreement on whether or not to ask them about terrain info as well.

Send the message now, we can ask for terrain in the next message. Let this be dialogue.

 

[cav scout]

I love RegentMan's synthesis draft. I would change the oasis sentence ever so slightly to this:

We're in agreement not to settle aggressively - for us that means neither team settling past the oasis.

This puts them on notice that we will consider it an act of war if they plant a city on our side of the halfway line. It also clearly states that we intend to stay on our side. It doesn't demand a response or assent from them, just tells them how it is.

They are naturally curious to see what this whole oasis things is all about before making a blind agreement. But once they get eyes on the terrain i'm sure they will see that our position is reasonable and they will also know we aren't pushovers.

 

[Caledorn]

While I see what you mean, cavscout, I think it superfluous myself. They already know that we intend to stay on our side of the oasis, otherwise we wouldn't have suggested it. And they have tentatively agreed to it as well, so it would - in my opinion - be a bit on the aggressive side.

As you say, they will see we have not been unreasonable when they discover it, so why bring it up again? Just thinking aloud here though, and I will include it if the majority wants me to.

Oh, and 2metraninja. I would like to send it now, but I have given the team a notice about when I intend to send it, so I think I should stick to that. It's not a big deal at the moment if they wait until tomorrow. If there is a consensus on the team that I can send it before the time limit I have set, I'll send it before though

 

[cav scout]

And they have tentatively agreed to it as well, so it would - in my opinion - be a bit on the aggressive side.

That's not aggressive, it just shows that we have some grapes and that we call things as we see it. I think they will actually appreciate that we are being crystal clear.

 

[Caledorn]

That's not aggressive, it just shows that we have some grapes and that we call things as we see it. I think they will actually appreciate that we are being crystal clear.

Well, I disagree. I have said I am not a betting man, and I really am not, but I would be willing to bet a beer on the fact that we would be all up in flames if RB said something like that to us if the situation were reversed. If we had told them that we would revisit the topic in 20-30 turns when we have more information about the map, and that we tentatively agreed to the deal as proposed by them, and they asserted themselves by that, I think we would consider that kind of assertion as insulting. Never forget to consider "How would I view this if I were on the receiving end of this message?".

My preference is to send the message as tobias suggested, without asking about any terrain info as 2metra suggested, nor with any assertations that may come across as aggressive. But that's my preference, and I hope we will have more opinions before tomorrow. I like 2metra's suggestion about asking for terrain info in the next message. By then our warrior should have moved to a position where we can leave RB's cities behind, which is a good thing imho before asking about that.

 

[talonschild]

Have to say I'm with Caledorn on this one.

 

[tobiasn]

I kinda liked the edits to my draft The thing with the oasis makes us sound a bit more assertive, something that fits us better. Asking about terrain, i dunno, it can't hurt when put like that.

 

[2metraninja]

I love RegentMan's synthesis draft. I would change the oasis sentence ever so slightly to this:

We're in agreement not to settle aggressively - for us that means neither team settling past the oasis.

This puts them on notice that we will consider it an act of war if they plant a city on our side of the halfway line. It also clearly states that we intend to stay on our side. It doesn't demand a response or assent from them, just tells them how it is.

They are naturally curious to see what this whole oasis things is all about before making a blind agreement. But once they get eyes on the terrain i'm sure they will see that our position is reasonable and they will also know we aren't pushovers.

I like the meaning and the message.

 

[RegentMan]

I like including the oasis revision. It lets RB know our opinion about the border agreement, yet the next sentence lets them know it's not a sealed, final deal without them looking at the land. They're not going to be able to explore and settle a city by the oasis in 20 to 30 turns anyway, so they don't have anything to lose by going along with our take on the border, then hammering out specifics when they finally do show up.

Hi Scooter/RB,

Thanks for your response. We've had a chat and we respect that you don't want to commit 100% to a border agreement before you've seen the land for yourself. We're in agreement not to settle aggressively - for us that means neither team settling past the oasis. Let's revisit the specifics when you've had the chance to explore more.

Is there any interesting terrain you guys have discovered like the oasis? We are still trying to make sense of the layout of our world; it appears to be rather diverse.

We would really like working with your team too, so do chime back when you've had a look around. Good luck with your scouting endeavors!

Caledorn, on behalf of Team CFC

 

[tobiasn]

I think that ^^ is good. Is anyone opposing this very much? Or can we send it?

 

[Aivoturso]

IMO, asking about terrain may not be such a good idea. We shared some significant info with them and they pointedly did not. I think right now, we should take a cordial but rather neutral stance with RB. They already said that they'd like to work with us when they have more info. Asking for more at this point sounds a bit like begging or fishing for info. (Plus they probably do not have that much useful knowledge anyway about their surroundings with their explorers being more like exploders with the luck they are having.)

As for taking an assertive stand about the oasis, I like that. We are not pushing too much but just enough to get the message through.

 

[tobiasn]

Without it, we're more business-like. With it, we're more chatty. Testing the water, kind of. More informal, even. But all in all, the impact is rather minor, IMO. With or without it, I think we should send something soonish.

 

[Caledorn]

This is difficult to make a consensus of.

In favour of sending the entire revised message (with asking for terrain info, and oasis statement): cavscout, regentman, tobiasn, 2metraninja
In favour of sending the message without asking for terrain info (with oasis statement): aivoturso
In favour of leaving out both terrain info and oasis statement: caledorn, talonschild

I don't mind the statement about the oasis that much really, but are you guys really sure we want to include both an assertive statement about the oasis and an outright begging statement where we ask them for terrain info? Because that's what we're doing if we include that question .. beg for info. And it's pretty obvious too. I hope you guys realize we are almost certain to get a "we haven't seen anything special so far" in response, and that you're not planning to use that as an excuse in-team to just claim "See? They don't want to cooperate after all!" when we get that no from them.

 

[Aivoturso]

I am ok as well with the original. I am just really uncomfortable with asking about terrain. My thoughts about that are pretty much the same as Caledorn's. Also I believe business-like is the way to go with RB.

 

[2metraninja]

are you guys really sure we want to include both an assertive statement about the oasis and an outright begging statement where we ask them for terrain info?

I've read somewhere that this is a simple psychological trick - if you feel someone is not liking you for not some specific reason, you can make him like you more if you ask him he to give you something even without real value - like his pencil in the office.

 

[Caledorn]

I've read somewhere that this is a simple psychological trick - if you feel someone is not liking you for not some specific reason, you can make him like you more if you ask him he to give you something even without real value - like his pencil in the office.

What do you mean by this? You think RB will like us more if we ask them to give us information? *scratches my head*

 

[tobiasn]

Dunno if it matters much, as I've said earlier.. I'm fine with or without the question for lay of the land, but I don't think we'll get much of an answer - tbh, i guess we might know more than them anyway.

The thing about that statement though, is that it's bound to create some kind of discussion like this over at RB. I'm not sure if that's favorable or not.. might be.

We could contact them again later with that question when there's more on the table. Like a substantial border agreement proposal, longer term NAP. At that point we know more too. And we've met more teams. At the moment there's no real leverage, no real reason for them to share anything. So maybe it's just a moot point to ask about anything.

Hehe, I DO feel that we obsess about nothing right now. I think these things are a PERFECT example of things that can be left to the diplomat's discretion.

 

[talonschild]

Good point. We're starting to go in circles.