Foreign Policy: The CivPlayers League

[cav scout]

He is coming from a different culture where different things are considered "common practice" and "reasonable". Forcing him to do things our way, when it is clearly uncomfortable to him, does not seem very friendly.

I think Sommers summarized it best - it is not treaties that are best guaranties of the happy outcome, good will of our allies is much more important.

I don't give a damn about his culture, If someone shies away from making an unambiguous deal then I have no use for them.

But lets be honest, this isn't about his culture or his personal preferences. Ot4e is no newbie to these games. This is about him wanting to retain flexibility and "have his cake and eat it too." Saying that he "doesn't like formal treaties" and "oh i thought that was already signed" is a bunch of crap. They currently have the abilitity to DEMAND that we do everything we have discussed while being able to plausibly AVOID any accountability to us.

If ot4e doesn't want a formal looking contract with paragraphs and subparagraphs then fine. We could ask him to summarize his understanding of our agreements during a chat. But if he isn't willing to clearly state exactly where his team stands then the only thing we have is our own hopeful assumptions.

 

[Sommerswerd]

cavscout is right IMO, and so it boils down to whether we trust him or not. In fact, since 2metra is the one who will be fighting alongside him it really boils even further down to whether 2metra trusts him.

So let 2metra make the call. He is CP diplomat and Caledorn, the head Diplomat has deferred to him on this matter.

 

[Caledorn]

cavscout is right IMO, and so it boils down to whether we trust him or not. In fact, since 2metra is the one who will be fighting alongside him it really boils even further down to whether 2metra trusts him.

So let 2metra make the call. He is CP diplomat and Caledorn, the head Diplomat has deferred to him on this matter.

*nods* I agree 100% with this (I have not had a change of heart when it comes to my preference not to send it, but I trust 2metraninja to make the call he thinks is the best one, as is his right as the diplomat to CP even if I disagree).

 

[2metraninja]

I don't give a damn about his culture, If someone shies away from making an unambiguous deal then I have no use for them.

But lets be honest, this isn't about his culture or his personal preferences. Ot4e is no newbie to these games. This is about him wanting to retain flexibility and "have his cake and eat it too." Saying that he "doesn't like formal treaties" and "oh i thought that was already signed" is a bunch of crap. They currently have the abilitity to DEMAND that we do everything we have discussed while being able to plausibly AVOID any accountability to us.

If ot4e doesn't want a formal looking contract with paragraphs and subparagraphs then fine. We could ask him to summarize his understanding of our agreements during a chat. But if he isn't willing to clearly state exactly where his team stands then the only thing we have is our own hopeful assumptions.

Very very well said, Cav. Thanks for wording it so well. It covers my feelings about 100%.

I trust 2metraninja to make the call he thinks is the best one, as is his right as the diplomat to CP

Thanks, Cal . I am sending it then in short.


Maybe it is better way as it went, but still, I am a surprised and a bit disappointed my call for a vote on the case was dismissed. We are breaking a serious democracy practice set in our Team Constitution.

 

[tobiasn]

As I was away from the game for a long time, I didn't know about these alleged assumptions from past turns - but as a general rule assumption is the mother of all f4ck-ups. I kinda feel like an outsider to the discussion but here goes.

As a team, we win together and we up together. Right? In my case I have zilch to offer compared to the micro math geniuses we got around here. If they miscalculate for some reason, I could have done nothing better. As a team, their potential up is mine too.

And the same with diplo. Obviously.

That's why I think it's super important with these (heated) discussions - to really get all the facts on the table. But when the turn switches, we live and die with the decisions the team made. Also with the lack of decisions - if we don't reach an agreement on something, that's the team's problem.

In this case I'm just going to repeat what years of stakeholder management have taught me (the hard way) - assumption is the mother of all f4ckups. Sometimes I have to annoy busy people with boring details. It's important then to remember that the "diplomacy skill" lies not in changing the actual message, but rather how the message is conveyed. Sometimes one must be apologetic, sometimes come out hard, sometimes crack jokes, it all depends. But you always must remember the message - it has to be clear and with no ambiguity.

So yeah, I think it was a good idea to send the message. I also think that Cal is doing a great job of tailoring and communicating our messages, so I hope the discussion has cooled down and that Cal still wants to be an integral part of the team.

 

[2metraninja]

Very good said, Tobias This is what I know too for sure: leave a place for interpretations and you are in trouble.

 

[whb]

Hmm. I think in a game like this, writing things down is as much a courtesy -- making it easier for someone else on the team to look up in a few months time -- as a legalism.

 

[Maga_R]

I was never against having written summary of the agreement - to the contrary. I just pointed out that our "standard" NAP with all those paragraph and numbering looks more like a house buying contract than an agreement in a game played for fun.

And yes, I think that finding all these paragraphs and such a bit strange and over the top is a cultural thing - I am coming from similar part of the world OT4e does and I have been part of >$1,000,000 collaborations that were less formalized than our NAP yet very successful.

 

[YossarianLives]

Short message received from OT4E:

Signed,
OT4E for Team CivPlayers

This was in response to this email message sent on April 26:

CivPlayers-CivFanatics Treaty (CPCFT)

Section 1. Members of the CivPlayers-CivFanatics Treaty

1.1. Team CivPlayers

1.2. Team CivFanatics

Section 2. Treaty Duration and Terms

2.1. The cancellation of this treaty cannot be notified before the beginning of turn 160.

2.2. This treaty may only be cancelled with a 20 turn-gap notification, so it can be canceled not earlier than at turn 180.

2.3. The members of this treaty cannot enter into agreements with third parties which interfere or may cause interference to any of its clauses.

2.4. Both members of the treaty must adhere to all clauses together.

Section 3. Non-Aggression Pact

3.1. The members agree to not conduct actions which will lead to declaration of war between the members of this pact while this pact is in effect.

3.2. If any of the members is at war with third party, the other member agrees to not help to that third party.

3.2.1. Giving aid to a third party includes, but is not limited to providing gold, gifting units, giving espionage information, etc.

3.3. Both members agree to consult with the other member before gifting military units to a third party, whether they are at war with a treaty member or not, for the duration of the pact.

Section 4. Open Borders

4.1. Both members agree to maintain an Open Borders treaty to facilitate trade and unit movement for the length of this pact.

Section 5. Espionage

5.1. Both members agree to not exceed 100 espionage spending against the other before the beginning of turn 160.

Section 6. Map Trading

6.1. Both members will freely gift maps to the other on request.

Section 7. Temporary Exceptions

7.1. Temporary exceptions can be made to the terms of the pact with the express agreement of both members. This is meant to allow either member to react to unforeseen circumstances or circumstances outside of their control.

Section 8. Amendments

8.1. A proposed amendment may be submitted by either member.

8.2. A proposed amendment will be adopted upon agreement of both members.

Signed,
2metraninja for Team CFC

 

[tobiasn]

Nice.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well, that was easy

 

[Bowsling]

Should we inform them that we intend to send RB marble, as per an earlier agreement?

 

[YossarianLives]

Yes, and also acknowledge that we have landed Taj and thank them for their help in allowing us to get it. According to APTMod, it looks like they gave us 160 gold on T130 that has not been paid back yet.

Poly also gave us 150 gold over T128-T129 that we should thank them for. We have repaid this already.

 

[YossarianLives]

I just came in here to post that I checked CivStats for the first time in a long time and noticed that CP performed 5 drafts and / or 1-pop whips.

However, arriving in this thread, I think that the more important issue is that we have had no communication with CivPlayers whatsoever after they signed our treaty four weeks ago!

We never thanked them for their help with Taj. We never addressed the 160 gold loan that they gave us. We haven't checked in on them to see how they are doing. Based on these recent whips / drafts, could it be that RB is going after them and not the Germans. Is there anything that we could do to help our allies if this is the case?

We should definitely send them something, just to check in and let them know that we haven't forgotten about them. They're supposed to be our first and strongest allies against RB. Any ideas from the team about what we should say to them?

 

[2metraninja]

I think it is my fault I did not reported the short sporadic chats we had with ot4e. In fact I did thanked them for their help with Taj and ot4e congratulated us and said it was honor for them to be part of this.

The money I know for sure Bistrita gave back during the Easter holiday.

I also know they have NAP with RB about the same 170-175 turn period. Just yesterday ot4e said to me they finally signed NAP with Germans, to which I was very very disappointed and showed it to him. I was warning him what is going on and was advising him to not make NAP with Germans to be able to cut off couple of cities and deny them to RB. Just the same I said to MZ btw, to which he responded by making NAP with Germans.

Here is the chat from yesterday.

Ot4e: hi
Ot4e: civfr will allow us to send missionary to you across their land
Ot4e: so we can arrange it
2metraninja: that is great
Ot4e: we may be can arrange it through RB since Apolyton refuses to close borders with them
2metraninja: we are a bit worried by them not talking to us at all
Ot4e: this is common situation
2metraninja: Frenchies I mean
Ot4e: very usual
Ot4e: i am not surprized
2metraninja: but they dont seems to lack participation
2metraninja: they log in and out like 10 times a turn
2metraninja: why is so hard to respond to a single specific message?
Ot4e: it is a diplomatic move
2metraninja: yeah, I know
Ot4e: to show that you are busy to do anything
2metraninja: and this is what worries me
Ot4e: same thing as "not showing their true economic"
Ot4e: not showing their true reasoning
Ot4e: and making it look like they dont pay much attention
Ot4e: they also refused to trade maps
2metraninja: you think so?
Ot4e: i think they got map from uciv
2metraninja: which wont help them much if you or Poly did not traded with Uciv before
2metraninja: RB asked us very very persistently to give them answer on NAP extention. they wanted NAP till t200
2metraninja: they even threatened us semi-veiled
Ot4e: this could be expected, of course they have power and will try to threat others
2metraninja: little they know how bad we react to threats
Ot4e: they understand this
Ot4e: actually there are 2 possible reactions
Ot4e: 1) to try to extend peace as fast as possible
2) declare what is obvious if you dont choose 1)
2metraninja: yes, they do want to know what to expect and to plan accordingly and are not afraid to act harder to get quicker answer
Ot4e: we finally got peace with inca
Ot4e: not sure that is important now though
Ot4e: if they are truely going to be attacked
2metraninja: I see this even as backdraft
2metraninja: now you cant take anything from them, even their empty border cities
2metraninja: and all will stay for RB to be captured
2metraninja: Poly did the same mistake (in my PoV)
Ot4e: i know I proposed to capture them even before it was clear that they are the target
Ot4e: but alone for us it is not good opportunity
Ot4e: their border cities not worth that
2metraninja: we will see if RB will like them better
2metraninja: what are Rb teching right now?
Ot4e: guilds
Ot4e: 2 turns
Ot4e: 1 turn for this new turn
2metraninja: aha
2metraninja: makes sense with all the stables they were building
2metraninja: this means they are some 5-6 turns from attacking
2metraninja: little after t150
2metraninja: or t150
2metraninja: havent looked all their cities near Germans
2metraninja: damned German are not teching Archery and HBR
Ot4e: did you tell them to do this?\
2metraninja: tried
2metraninja: but will tell them in straight words right now
2metraninja: I see their power is not even rising.
Ot4e: i will send them note now
Ot4e: before we couldnt do this because were almost foes
Ot4e: so it could be considered as "tricky" plan
Ot4e: to ruin their economy even more
2metraninja: but we told them
2metraninja: seems they did not got it or did not believed us
2metraninja: MZ told me he saw Rb kept half their army in their own capitol and moved the other half to Germans borders

 

[2metraninja]

Do we want to try to bring the issue about attacking French to ot4e again? At the last time I spoke with him about this, he was almost ready to break (after all his reasoning against, he said: "OK, I will think about it again"). If he is not hesitant to whip an army now, maybe he will change his opinion? In my opinion he did not wanted to cripple CivFR to not leave us and RB the only 2 superpowers on the map. I am almost sure he will count on them to possibly form a block to balance us after RB are no longer big factor.

 

[Sommerswerd]

What is the harm to keep talking to him about it? Are we worried that CivFr will attack us? I thought we had a NAP with them? Can we eliminate SpAp AND CivFr before the NAP with RB ends? Do we plan to try this?

Also 2metra, I will remind you again very gently and friendly about calling the French players "Frenchies" in your chats with others. It is a term which some people consider offensive and I think it will not be good for us if a chat gets shared with French players for some other reason and they notice "Hey why this guy keeps saying "Frenchies" he must have some bias against French people/French speakers. This is different from a roleplaying Diplogame afterall, where such talk is more understandable

 

[2metraninja]

What is the harm to keep talking to him about it? Are we worried that CivFr will attack us?

No, we are not worried they will attack us, but if we keep telling this to ot4e, he can use this to his advantage redirecting it to CivFR and earning them as allies against us later. Yes, not highly likely or changing anything (he might get them against us without we ever opening our mouths about it regardless), but still I think we are better not repeating on wake up and going to bed "CivFR delenda est!" without a good reason.

I thought we had a NAP with them?

About this I am positive, we dont have NAP with Team CivFR. We have NAP with the other French-speaking team Uciv till t200.

Also 2metra, I will remind you again very gently and friendly about calling the French players "Frenchies" in your chats with others.

OK, it is known I am not native English speaker. How you call a group of citizens of France? Like you call group of Spanish citizens "Spaniards", those from Holland you call "Dutch", those from Germany you call Germans, and so on. How are those from France called? Frenchs just does not sounds (nor writes) right.

 

[Sommerswerd]

How you call a group of citizens of France? Like you call group of Spanish citizens "Spaniards".

"the French" or French, or French people/guys/gals etc.

I went to the store and saw a beautiful French girl.

I think the French are plotting against us.

I like those French guys, they seem very friendly.

So what are we going to do about these dishonourable French?

Let's send the French a message so they know we didn't forget.

... I will send my bill, just forward your mailing address and credit card numbers

 

[2metraninja]

But where the plural "s" goes? Like "One German" and "Many Germans"?