Mad Scientists Embassy

Just had this chat with Peter:
General_W: Are you avoiding me? :-)

Peter: haha - no. We're really crazy at work, since our fearless leader just had his kid. Can we chat tonight?

General_W: sure - we can try that again. The paranoia is setting in pretty deep over here though - just to warn you.

So we'll see...
I'll keep you all posted.
:salute:
 
The old "boss had a kid trick". Good show Gen_W and keep up the good work.
 
yeah - good guess. :gripe:

I'm drafting a harassment letter to send. :D I'll post it for discussion as soon as it's ready.
:salute:
 
Proposed note to send:
Namaste Peter.
The Ninajs salute the Mad Scientists.

So, here’s pretty much where we’re at:
  1. March 3 Contact between Mad Scientists and SANCTA. Chat in-game with HUSch. Formal letter sent.
  2. March 4 Positive response from MS. Peace negotiations start.
  3. March 7 Formal peace treaty sent from SANCTA to MS for signature.
  4. March 9 After 2 days of silence, General_W sends a note to Peter asking to chat.
  5. March 12 After 5 days of silence, General_W sends another note to Peter asking for a response of any kind.
  6. March 13 Finally receive an informal note saying MS likes the treaty. Promises that, “Signed copy will follow this weekend at the latest.” (ie, tomorrow or the next day)
  7. March 17 After 4 days of silence, General_W sends an official note asking about the treaty and other issues. A sample seal to sign the treaty is provided to try to help.
  8. March 25 After 12 days of silence, General_W asks Peter in a chat if we’re being avoided on purpose. Peter offers to chat that night.
  9. March 27 Peter never shows back up online (that General_W observes) or even trys to make contact or explain himself for 2 days and counting.

Is that about right?

We like to think we’re not dense… and this looks like a pretty clear message.
Are we wrong?

-- General_W, Daimyo of State, SANCTA

It’s a little brutal. But I think it’s probably necessary at this point to shock them out of their stall tactics.

I think we need to get closure with them – and this is the best way I can think to do it without just continually badgering them. At least this way – if things get really sour – it’ll be clear who strangled the relationship.

Thoughts?
 
...That's not brutal.

Brutal would be us killing the MS woody 2 warrior that is scouting out our lands and then sending them a message that we'll hunt them down unless they talk to us.

Actually, I'd prefer it to be a little more cutting, you insinuate the point, so that just means that they can still try to wriggle around the point. I know I'm easy to misunderstand at times, and not that skilled at manipulating people (it's meant as a complement!) but why can't we just tell them that we think they are already in an alliance?

so the second to last line would sorta read

"We like to think we're not dense...but this looks like a pretty clear message that you have already found in game partners, and they sure don't seem to be us."
 
Krill, there are 2 Keys to expert diplomacy:
#1. Never tell everything you know.​

We're not sure if the Mad Scientists are aware that they've been compromised. I suspect that they aren't, otherwise they wouldn't be trying so hard to avoid us.

This letter is basically a fishing expedition. And you never know what you might catch! I want them to stop avoiding us and to start talking. If we can get them talking, we might learn all sorts of useful things. We might not - but then, we're no worse off than when we're being ignored.

Therefore, I think the letter needs to balance shaming them into responding with not being so hostile that we make them an "enemy" rather than just a member of another alliance. It's a slight distinction, but an important one.

= my take anyway.
 
I like it, it spells things out clearly and I think that's what is needed right now.

I would consider re-wording the March 27 entry to remove the acusatory tone - maybe add "No further contact" at the end of the March 25 entry and then just "March 27 2 days of silence". I think we want this message to be as neutral in tone as possible and we will see by their response (if any) how they read it.
 
send it.

to their team email though and also a pm copy to thier main players.
 
Thanks Memphus and Deylin.
I’m going to make most of the changes Dreylin suggested – I like that.

Version 2
Namaste Peter.
The Ninajs salute the Mad Scientists.

So, here’s pretty much where we’re at:
  1. March 3 Contact between Mad Scientists and SANCTA. Chat in-game with HUSch. Formal letter sent.
  2. March 4 Positive response from MS. Peace negotiations start.
  3. March 7 Formal peace treaty sent from SANCTA to MS for signature.
  4. March 9 After 2 days of silence, General_W sends a note to Peter asking to chat.
  5. March 12 After 5 days of silence, General_W sends another note to Peter asking for a response of any kind.
  6. March 13 Finally receive an informal note saying MS likes the treaty. Promises that, “Signed copy will follow this weekend at the latest.” (ie, tomorrow or the next day)
  7. March 17 After 4 days of silence, General_W sends an official note asking about the treaty and other issues. A sample seal to sign the treaty is provided to try to help.
  8. March 25 After 12 days of silence, General_W asks Peter in a chat if we’re being avoided on purpose. Peter offers to chat that night. [didn’t happen]
  9. March 27 2 more days, and counting, of total silence.

Is that about right?

We like to think we’re not dense… and this looks like a pretty clear message.
Are we wrong?

-- General_W, Daimyo of State, SANCTA
EDIT: SENT! to MS gmail and to Peter Grimes gmail

Any other opinions?
I’d like to send this off in about 3-4 hours.
 
Krill, there are 2 Keys to expert diplomacy:
#1. Never tell everything you know.​

We're not sure if the Mad Scientists are aware that they've been compromised. I suspect that they aren't, otherwise they wouldn't be trying so hard to avoid us.

This letter is basically a fishing expedition. And you never know what you might catch! I want them to stop avoiding us and to start talking. If we can get them talking, we might learn all sorts of useful things. We might not - but then, we're no worse off than when we're being ignored.

Therefore, I think the letter needs to balance shaming them into responding with not being so hostile that we make them an "enemy" rather than just a member of another alliance. It's a slight distinction, but an important one.

= my take anyway.

Cool, just nice to hear the reasoning :)

I like the second draft.
 
2nd draft good by me!
 
ok, thanks all.
Sending Version 2 now.

:salute:
 
We got a reply.
But it's just more excuses. No real answers.
Joshua, Honorable Ninjas of SANCTA,

As best we can tell, Peter's RL boss has been intercepting carrier pigeons and eating them for lunch.
We were under the impression that the treaty had been considered to be signed and delivered.
Our apologies for not attaching an official seal and returning it.

The Mad Scientists are very interested in continued cordial relations with SANCTA. Please do
not misinterpret silence for disagreement with the diplomatic process or lack of desire to negotiate.

Several of our scientists have had urgent matters which impeded our ability to concentrate on this
to the extent that we would wish. For example, I had to spend several days caring for hospitalized
family and friends. Even now as I write it, I regret not being able to respond sooner, but I got to it
as soon as feasible.

Soon we will be able to put this period of difficulty behind us and return to prompt communications.
I will be watching for pigeons to ensure their messages are not intercepted. And maybe Peter's
boss will find a diet more to his liking in the coming days.

Best regards for continued friendship,
DaveShack of the Mad Scientists

P.S. I'm not the most eloquent guy on the team, but hope it's at least a little entertaining. ;-)

I propose we write back with something like:
"Thanks for the update. But we couldn't help but notice there's still no officially sealed treaty or response to the other issues in our letter from March 17. Any comment on that?"

That needs to be softened up. But other than that, is there any disagreement on the main point of what our next letter needs to say?
 
...that was a waste of 30 seconds reading.

Really want to corner that scout now...and trap/kill it. Not against a treaty if they won't agree to it...and yes, I know we can't do that and it is a bad idea, not sugesting that we do, just that we may be able to.
 
Well, on the other hand, real life sometimes is like that. I wouldn't give up on them just yet.
 
Would we really want, as an ally, a team that doesn't reply to an email in a month?

Whichever way you spin it it doesn't reflect well on MS.
 
Back
Top Bottom