1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Foreign Policy: WePlayCiv

Discussion in 'Team CivFanatics' started by talonschild, Jul 29, 2012.

  1. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Also, once again, great job, Yossa. Your information is invaluable I can say. Keep up the good work.

    On the message to WPC, a lot depends who will answer me. I know there are few major moving figures in their team and I happens to know them all and know what they are thinking on alliances and as of me (I think they will think of CFC as of me, knowing I was organizing the whole ISDG2 thing and seeing I am writing to them). In regard to this, we can send them just blah-blah - happy to meet you guys" message and leave the agreements part for the second our message after they reply and we know who is in charge of their diplomacy or moving things generally (I suppose it is RobWorham, in which case it is the middle option - decent gentleman real original authentic English btw - yet modest and conservative at diplomacy)? Or save the hassle of proposing deals to them ourselves saving us the feeling as if we possibly can sound desperate to propose NAP, leaving them to propose us a deal in their reply to our "Greetings" message?
     
  2. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,954
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Well, you're the one who knows them, and what you propose doesn't sound nonsensical. I could support that. Most of all, though, I think specifying turn 107 is clever, and I think we should send it. I would be worried that their assumption will be that we've worked out our micro to the point that we know we'll have a sufficient army then, and start building up against us. I suppose we can always point them at RB.
     
  3. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    :) worst case would be if Rhotaerill answers and he says something about Sommers, meaning he will associate Team CFC with the controversial figure or our comrade Sommerswerd and the opinion he have on his methods :)
     
  4. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Now thinking about turn 107, I think it might turn in to actually a bad idea. One simple rule I have found dealing with people (in RL and in civ too) is that people like when you give them a chance to think they easy see your motives not so deep and putting you a label. If they think they understand your motives and they see them as simple and natural ones (greed, fear, lust, pride etc) they are less cautious to think about your real reasons. Now with turn 107 we will make them think so much and so deep, they might see some dangers we never though they will see in our simple NAP proposal. There is the other opposite case of course. When you put things really simple - they start to think what lies behind this, as they think this cant be your only and real agenda.

    What other team members think? Do you guys think sending just a greeting message without offering any deal yet is a better way?
     
  5. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    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).

    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.

    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...

    Which is very good, and I am very happy for that! We're also making good progress on it, which also includes your opinions :)

    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.

    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).

    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.
     
  6. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    I think we should offer them a NAP. As I stated earlier, I am uncertain about the length we should aim for, so I'm leaving that to you and others. I do think turn 150 is too long, as I am afraid they will take that as an act of fear against their UU - but if we could actually get a NAP until turn 150 with them, then that would be great. Turn 100 on the other hand may be too short. So somewhere around turn 120-130? I don't really know ...

    You know these guys though, so I'm going to state clearly once more that I have full confidence that you will end up writing what you think will benefit our team the most. If your opinion is that we should not offer a NAP in the first message, then that's the best decision in my opinion as well.
     
  7. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,954
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    If it would so much help trust, we could simply send off messges with no proposals, only a greeting. That would doubtless help speed while avoiding controversiality. It does, however, give the oher team the initiative in proposing deals.
     
  8. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    It is a thought yes. But as you say, it does give the other team the initiative in the deal proposals, which may be the same as giving them the upper hand.

    However, if the majority of the team believes that is not a problem, then that's probably the easiest and the best way to resolve this debate once and for all in the speediest possible manner. I would disagree with the majority in that case, but it wouldn't be the first time I do that. ;)
     
  9. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Hey, you guys, I like your passion :)

    We are team. No one choose his other teammates by taste or color, but that we are different isnt a problem, we must try and use this as our advantage and complement each-other. We want whatever anyone is good at to contribute to the team.

    Cav is a veteran from the demo-games and my personal opinion on him is that he is The Cautious One. I still remember that case in the MTDG2 where we all at Amazon was screaming at him in Q : "Just attack this Sirius stack at your home island and annihilate them - then we will finish Sirius on the Starland" But Cav is not green rookie - he had his agenda and he was cautious. After all we still won the war, but he played this case solid and most safe for his team, not giving much fuсk about Amazon plans or desires. Which is actually good to have such Cautious One on your team :) I am much happy that Cav is here to set brakes at times to some overly - enthusiastic sentiments in the team and bring us back to the ugly, but healthy reality.

    On the other side, Cal is the guy who everyone would love, as he is careful, responsible, he takes care and talk with people nice. And thats why he is our chief ambassador and the one to present us to RB. As we do want RB as friends, at least in the beginning, right?

    Come on guys, straighten the lines, we have a game to win. Give us your best. CFC needs you.
     
  10. 2metraninja

    2metraninja Defender of Nabaxica

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Location:
    Plovdiv, BG
    Giving them the opportunity to propose deals isnt necessary bad thing I think. Other psychological trick I have learned is that when in doubt, let the other speak. He will either give a proposal to which he is ready and you have the power to accept or reject, or he will say nothing, leaving to you the opportunity to propose your vision on the deal anyway.

    In case they propose a deal, it is even better, as people like to think that a given deal is actually their idea. Saves a lot of resistance.
     
  11. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,630
    I think it might be a bit too clever If we go with a non-standard number like 107 and this might turn them off a bit. I like 2metra's idea of just starting out with a "Great to meet you guys!" message and then follow up with the NAP one. We should really play up how we are glad to meet them because we know they are cool guys and our teams are similar- so it is only natural we will cooperate. :)
     
  12. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,954
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Yes. I much prefer them as our friends.
     
  13. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    Thank you for the compliments, 2metraninja :)

    I hope this matter can be put to rest. Of course I try to defend myself and my views, but I really mean what I say when I say that I am glad cav is on our team. A discussion every now and then is good too, as long as it doesn't get too personal of course. ;)

    In regards to the first message.. You have a point when you say what you say about giving the other part an opportunity to come with suggestions for deals. But in this particular matter we know we want a NAP, so why not just offer one right away? We are not doubting what we want, only discussion how long we want it to last initially. :)
     
  14. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,954
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    But as the offer requires both the fact of an NAP and the detail of duration, we cannot very well offer one until we decide how long.
     
  15. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,630
    Prove it. Show me the posts in these preliminary discussions (before Grant announced first contact with RB on 6 September) where the team agreed that speed is so essential that you could send a binding agreement on your own initiative.

    I think your cognitive dissonance over this issue is so strong that you have created a false memory of the team empowering you to send a binding diplomatic agreement in a matter of hours without proper discussion.

    When you review the posts you will see that:

    1. Grant announces we have contact with RB.
    2. You say we should respond quickly, within a day or two.
    3. Sommerswerd says that is too long, we need to respond right now.
    4. I raise the issue that our diplomats shouldn't be sending binding agreements without the team deciding first.
    5. You bat away my concern and then send the message before i can even respond.
    6. No one else even got a chance to post... :sad:

     
  16. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=471449 Posts #1-#23 (Before contacting RB)

    Post #1: Daveshack suggests that we can possibly start off with a NAP
    Post #2: Grant states a NAP is generally a good idea with at the very least the first team we meet
    Post #3: Talonschild consents, and even creates a first draft
    Post #5: I give my consent to the draft

    If you continue to read you can see that the participants in the discussion has a consensus that we want to establish a NAP, under the right circumstances. The participants in the intial discussions were Daveshack, Grant2004, Talonschild, 2metraninja, Sommerswerd, Aivoturso, YossarianLives and myself.

    Love the pictures! :goodjob:
     
  17. 1889

    1889 Mayor of H-Marker Lake

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Devil's Punchbowl
    I agree with Cav that initial diplomacy with RB was too quick but that doesn't seem to be the case now. Furthermore I believe it worked out just as we all wanted so I hope we can avoid reviewing all the details of that argument again.

    I would very much prefer to include a NAP proposal in our initial contact, although I am unsure what length would be optimal. I don't see what we gain by not asking. Their reaction to the NAP request gives us some indication of what their intentions are. If we just say “Hi” and they just say “Hi” back then we are wasting time and since they likely have contact with another team already that delay is time they can spend plotting against us. I say lets get some indication of their intentions now rather than next week or longer depending on weather they want to delay diplomacy or not.
     
  18. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,630
    @Caledorn-Yes, i'm fully aware of all of the first contact planning discussion prior to meeting RB. We had a draft message prepared by Talonschild ready for final adjustments. Everything was great. Then we made contact with RB.

    If you review post #24 you will see that Grant announces contact and even puts up a copy of Talonschild's draft:

    Spoiler :

    No binding agreements there, just the suggestion of a NAP and an invitation to start a dialogue on establishing one.

    But then...

    Post #26 and Sommers is saying send a message right now and include a specific NAP offer to turn 100.

    Post #30 is me raising some objections, including one about sending a NAP offer the team hadn't decided on yet:
    Posts #33, 37 and 38 are you and Sommers disregarding my objections. And then without giving me or anyone else a chance to respond you send the message.
     
  19. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    Also, let me direct the attention to these other posts in the same thread, which was posted after we met RB, but before I sent off the message to RB.

    Post #26: Sommerswerd states he thinks waiting a day is too long (which I concede to as I know Sommerswerd is far more experienced with diplomacy in these games than I am)
    Post #27: Sommerswerd explains the importance of why we need to send off messages quickly in first-contact situations
    Post #39: Bowsling approves of sending off the message asap.
    Post #41: Yossarian approves of sending off the message asap (in retrospect of the message being sent though).

    Then let me direct the attention to the actual RB discussion thread, here.

    Posts #4, #5, #6: Sommerswerd, Bowsling and grant is happy about the speed the message was sent off with.

    Finally let me direct the attention to my post #44 in that thread where I ask for a consensus on the drafts that we send off to new teams we meet (post-meeting RB). The only responses to that was a "NVM" from Sommerswerd, and the translated messages from Yossarian.

    I'm going to ignore what you say about "cognitive dissonance", and file that in the "cav is agitated at me" folder. Now, of course you may perceive the posts differently than I do. It's only natural that we try to read into posts what we want to read into them (and in this debate it is to be expected that I will try to find things that are in favour of my viewpoint, while you will try to find things that are in favour of your viewpoint - to strengthen our causes). But at least I have given you the proof you asked for, based on how I read those posts. :)
     
  20. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    The draft put up clearly stated "we would like to formalize a non-aggression pact with your government", which I read as for all intentions: Our team wanted a NAP with RB.

    I believed, and still believe based on the reactions of the team, that I did the right thing based on how I read our team consensus back then.

    But really .. we're stirring around in old moldy soup here .. What I want to know is how the team feels we're going to deal with future first-contacts, and if there is still a consensus about quick first-contact messages. Perhaps a vote is in order?
     

Share This Page