This has the potential of escalating into a personal conflict between you and me, cav - I hope we can avoid that. I will respond to your statements, but I strongly suggest we avoid turning this into a personal matter (or if you wish to turn it into a personal matter that we take it via PM instead).
I wouldn't go so far as to say that since no one responded to your previous thread that the team as a whole has decided to cede all decision making to you and our diplomats. I know that I never have time to respond to every post on here.
There has been several months for the entire team to discuss and debate how we want to approach first-contact, and the team has debated it (it was debated before we met RB). I have not claimed in any way that I, or anyone else, should singlehandedly decide these matters on behalf of the team - on the contrary I have done my very best to get people to voice their opinions, and debate everything regarding diplomacy (going as far as crossposting stuff in several threads to ensure it gets people's attention). There is still time to discuss first-contact situations for the rest of the teams we have not met, and I am a strong proponent that we should debate it as much as possible so we are 100% prepared with what we want to offer and not to the teams we meet.
Putting "too quickly" in quotes tells me that you still don't get it. When I called you out on this previously it wasn't grumbling, it was a clear rebuke. You sent that message off in a matter of hours without allowing for input by the team and that was wrong.
No, it was not wrong just because
you think it was - I put that in quotes because the team members
who had involved themselves in the preparational discussions regarding diplomacy said they wanted speedy communications, and I'm going to fling that right back at you as I say you're obviously not getting the fact that speedy communications in first-contact situations are crucial.
You came
after the fact with a rebuke to me for doing something that I did based on those who had voiced their minds in the threads that entailed diplomacy. Simply put, and rather forthright: it's not my fault that you did not bother to involve yourself more in the preliminary discussions, and you rebuking me for taking action based on those threads is and was unfair. I did what I did based on those who involved themselves in diplomacy, and you rebuked me (and as such everyone on the team who had agreed that we needed speedy first contact communications) for that because you disagreed
in retrospect. Not very encouraging...
Anyways, here we are in another first contact situation and it seems that team members do have some input to offer now.
Which is very good, and I am very happy for that! We're also making good progress on it, which also includes your opinions
Sure, lets negotiate a NAP. But can we please decide the duration as a team? You just said that the only thing left open was the duration...
As far as I can tell, that's part of what we are discussing at the moment? In this case we do have the time, which is very good. If we had met Team WPC last turn, we would have lost the initial advantage of being the team who initiated contact by now, as WPC would probably already have sent us an offer instead by now. Which is what I am talking about - the advantages of being the first team to send off a message, and also the trust that needs to be given to the diplomats. If a NAP is agreed to until T100 for instance, it's far easier to extend that NAP to T150. Renegotating a NAP made until T150 down to T100 on the other hand? That's not possible.
The difference between a T100 NAP and a T150 NAP is pretty significant. All i'm asking for is a day or two of discussion so we can mull things over and come up with what we want to do as a team.
Yes, it is pretty significant. 2metra has made some very good points about the length of the NAP, so I see no need to comment. The team is discussing this now, but as I have said over and over again the Ambassadors needs the trust of the team in regards to
first-contact messages, so that we don't get unecessary rebukes in retrospect over doing something we believe the majority of the team has already decided upon. Rebuking members of the team when they do what they believe is the wish of the team majority is very discouraging, and it does not promote team unity (as this sub-debate is a prime example of - on the contrary this sub-debate has the potential to create a schism in the team).
No, i'm going to bring it up now. Your insistence on having me wait to raise objections until after a unilateral action has already been done is insulting.
Read the above, and my former post once again please. I have not insisted on you having to wait to raise objections at all - you are free to raise them at any time, whenever, and whatever the reasons may be. What I am advocating is, as I clearly wrote in my previous post, that the Ambassadors get the
trust they need in first-contact situations to be able to deal with sending off a communication ASAP when we meet a new team. To provide that trust we need to debate it
before-hand - not in the short window of opportunity that we have when we are in a new first-contact situation. All communications after that should be, and is, debated before sending something off.
Regardless of our disagreement on this, I need to reiterate the fact that I really appreciate your views and your thoughts. You are a great asset to the team, cav - and even though you definitely know how to get me annoyed, I wouldn't want to be on the team without you. I hope you believe me when I say that, even though this debate is pretty heated (again) now.
