Personal Reaction to Whomp

[fe3333au]

I want to react to this as I see he is confusing game issues with team issues

>Game Issues - How we choose to play the game
>Team issues - How MIA is playing the game

Foreign Minister Feaurius III,

To be blunt, we don't perceive our relationship as a high priority in the eyes of MIA and find it quite offensive, in fact, that we have not had the opportunity to deal with a decision maker directly. We were and still are, extremely disappointed in the knowledge level of your envoy - Kentharu. Emp. Napoleon even said to us he is teaching Kentharu the ropes and though Emp. Napoleon is a communicator he doesn't get into "game mechanics". Both are nice young men but I am personally outraged by both your insulting comments and your government forcing me to deal with your lackeys in the first place. You and your bureaucrats have not given our people a high degree of confidence with your treatment and heavy handed tone when you or your president have not even attempted to speak with us on IM.

If you wish to discuss hard numbers then you should be prepared to bring someone with knowledge of the game to the table. Dealings must be done with people of authority. If said player cannot make an executive decision, he should stay home.
It is far better when both sides agree on a certain deal before showing (voting etc) it to their teams. Then actions can be taken to the team for a vote.

When you have decided you are willing to talk business, feel free to appoint a capable member as ambassador.

This of course, us being Honourable, does not change any of our current deals.

Here is what we are willing to offer at this point.

Spoiler :

-MIA gives wheel upon completion and KISS gives pottery now.

- MIA and KISS land units stay outside of each other's actual borders, during the peace.

- MIA and KISS sea units don't stay on the same tile in each other's territory for 2 consecutive turns, during the peace.

-MIA and KISS will offer each other "Most Favored Nation status". Most Favored Nation simply means that we will offer what we learn at the monopoly beaker cost less the Emperor trade rate discount if, and only if, MIA will reciprocate. Other nations will pay monopoly beaker cost. No shared research, no sweet heart deals, just cold number crunching.

- KISS will get writing while MIA gets Masonry and Myst. As soon as KISS gets Writing, the team with the best research capability starts on Code of Laws, while the other team starts on Philosophy. Code of Laws will be discovered first and given to the other party before Philosophy is discovered, so that Republic comes as a free tech.

- Techs are shared between both teams when Writing and Republic are discovered. We believe this balances out under "Most Favored Nation" status.

- MIA and KISS are at peace. Since both of us can't really know what new developments will be in the future, our peace deal is basically unlimited, and can only be terminated at least ten turns beforehand. This shall not be done, before at least 10 turns have passed after the discovery of republic.

Yours in bond,
Major Idiot Whomp

 

[peter grimes]

A lot on my mind on this...

If you wish to discuss hard numbers then you should be prepared to bring someone with knowledge of the game to the table. Dealings must be done with people of authority. If said player cannot make an executive decision, he should stay home.
It is far better when both sides agree on a certain deal before showing (voting etc) it to their teams. Then actions can be taken to the team for a vote.

This is exactly how we have been working all along!

It almost seems like this response is an effort to sabotage any potential agreement. How can we possibly feel comfortable dealing with a team that speaks to its neighbors in that way? Talk about a rock and a hard place!!

So. Do we change Diplomats? I'm not sure why that would affect anything in the chats, except possibly to stroke his ego a little. Show him that we are listining.

Ignore it? Say: Got your last letter. Didn't say much about the proposal we sent, but we'll take as a starting point the current things in motion.... [add in stuff about Dnuts...]....

 

[General_W]

Listen up you bottom dwelling barbarian slime eaters,

If you think you can just insult our team, our teammates, and our intelligence and we'll just take it… you've got another thing coming!
You've managed to combine an astonishing amount of arrogance along with your patronizing attitude.
I look forward to stuffing this letter down your throat right before I burn your last city to the ground and carry your children off to Athens for a proper Greek education… so that the world will never have to deal with the likes of you again!

Man! it still makes me feel good just to paste my initial reaction again! LOL

 

[General_W]

And here's my more reasoned suggestion for a response..

Whomp,

We were all saddened by your letter.
Sad because…
1st) That you would have so little respect for how we have chosen to run our team
2nd) That even if you do disrespect us so - that you would insults us by trying to tell us how to run our team.
3rd) That as we are making a good faith effort to begin handling diplomacy in the multi-team environment that is new to all of us - you would treat us with such contempt.

We only bring this up - not to whine - but as a plea for mutual respect.
You, obviously, don't have to like the way we do things - but we would like you to accept our way - as we will accept yours.

For the time being, our diplomacy is in a holding pattern. If you would like to send us a re-worded letter - we will be willing to move past this current sad state of affairs.


PS: - I agree with PeterG - We have been working in a very clear manner (and, sorta, what Whomp seems to suggest in part of his letter... arg! <deep cleansing breaths>)

 

[fe3333au]

This is my personal rsponce to Whomp ... I feel that I as a player must talk to him as a player ... so my rsponce is not as Feaurius III or every citizen of MIA ...

Dear person behind the Whomp

I am writing this letter as a personal reaction to your last message ... as mentioned I am writing as the person behind fe3333au ...

I feel you are confusing the
Game Issues or how we as a group of players have chosen to play this game
and
Team Issues or the team MIA roleplaying element

Here are my points and excuse me if they are stated bluntly as I am extremely offended in the tone of your message.

1. We as a team have decided to play this game in a manner where all players are included and encouraged to participate ... therefore we are assigned through a process, for roles to be filled these are then exchanged after a period of time ... I know that your team works differently ... but this has been chosen to best suit us.

2. As I have sent various times now ... we have developed a diplomatic system which fits how we play the game ... we do not want another scenario where we have the anarchy of the first chat ...
>send letter
>MIA discuss
>chat with dip
>Dip has ability to barter and agree on agenda
>Dip can be sounded out about new stuff
>You write new stuff in official letter
>etc

3. Not all of us have or want MSM ... I personally have AIM ... as Nikodeemus knows ... if you wanted to talk so bad why didn't you contact me on AIM?

So bottomline ... we as a group of players have decided on the best way we collectively want to play this game ... we come from different backgrounds so the system we have developed and taken on suits us as we wish to play the game ... which is one of inclusion and fun

So in lieu of this I give you the opportunity to reword your letter ... or if it stands then MIA will see it an official correspondence.

I again hope that you do not take offense to this ... or if you do take offense with me and not MIA

Hoping this clears some things up ... I trust that it has just been a clash of game systems and not in teams within the game

Yours sincerely

The person hehind the fe3333au avatar

 

[peter grimes]

Good thought, General. I'm not sure the 'pleading' tone will go over superwell, but I think it's a much safer route to go than antagonism. It's wise to bear in mind why we are trying to ally with them for now:

2 civs joined research twice as fast as 2 civs apart. (1 +1 =3)

Joining allows us both to expand without fear of attack

We are stronger together against the other continent's machinations

Anything I've missed?

EDIT: xpost with Fe's personal letter to Whomp. Great way to handle it, and the option of rewording was very wise. I really hope things don't fall apart over this. Arguing over Diplomacy mechanics is really a stupid reason to not have a mutually beneficial pact.

 

[Chamnix]

Note – this is a cross-post with this entire thread.

Purely in the interest of maintaining peace, I am going to try to see things from their point of view:

First, some background on their team - many of the players on that team knew each other before the DemoGame and joined together. They have played many Succession Games together and have learned to trust one another’s judgment. For example, you will see that they don’t have a “designated player” – they reach consensus, and anyone available when the save is received will play it.

I suspect their decision-making is the same way – they each have a feel for what the team will accept, and any of them can probably agree to a deal knowing that the team’s consent is really a formality. This setup naturally makes them very impatient with our “bureaucratic” approach.

Second, although it pains me to say it, our diplomats could be better informed. Donuts complained about it because there was some uncertainty about whether we had Iron Working or not when we met with them. During our first marathon session with KISS, in the side chat, our diplomats were also occasionally asking me if we had Iron Working, what we were researching currently, etc. Both these meetings we knew about well in advance, and we could have been better prepared.

So, the way they see us is as a team with weak knowledge of what is happening in the game and incapable of making a decision. We have chosen a team-based decision-making process, and that is none of their business to tell us to change. However, when it comes to tech trades, there are not that many options. We can certainly decide what we will give up for a given tech and what we will accept for a given tech. I think we tried to do that before both meetings, but somehow either we didn’t make a firm decision, or the decision wasn’t conveyed to the diplomats, or the diplomats didn’t convey it to our rivals. In any case, I think it is something that we can do better, and I can understand KISS’ frustration.

Where do we go from here? I think we explain to them that our team did not know each other prior to this game, so our decision-making process is going to be more time-consuming than theirs. I also think we apologize (yes, really) for our imperfect knowledge at our first meeting and assure them that if a chat is planned in advance, our representative will have all the relevant facts at his fingertips.

Regarding their specific proposal, I think we relay our gratitude for their kind offer of Pottery, but we realized we needed it urgently, and since we had problems communicating, we have obtained it from another source (give whatever Donut details you want).

The unit rules are good.

Express disappointment that we failed to reach more positive agreement on future research. MFN trade status sounds like a good beginning, however, we firmly believe it is in both teams best interest to plan communicate planned future research paths to avoid duplication, even if the “plan” is only 1 tech at a time.

We should agree that there will be peace – either side wanting to declare war must provide 10-turn notice.

Do they deserve this “soft” treatment? Absolutely not. They are arrogant and should be put in their place. However, despite the temptation to respond with exactly how we feel, I strongly feel it is in our best interest to play the meek apologetic neighbor until we are ready for open hostilities.

 

[M4 Sherman]

Do they deserve this “soft” treatment? Absolutely not. They are arrogant and should be put in their place. However, despite the temptation to respond with exactly how we feel, I strongly feel it is in our best interest to play the meek apologetic neighbor until we are ready for open hostilities.

KISS is only trying to play hard with us. They have a weak military for now, but we must write a meek reply. Once we are ready we are going to smash them. I agree with you.

edit - Now I feel they were not cautious enough and revealed their aggressive position. We should deal with them carefully in the future, and do not neglect our military. This letter shows us that their intentions are only to conquer our cities and destroy our culture.

The point is that now we are sure of that. They could have adopted a more friendly position thus hidding their intentions. But they didn't do that. They acted like an AI would.

 

[fe3333au]

Guyz I like what you are comming up with ... as the Official response ... but I feel that I as a player (not as MIA) ... will respond so that he can tone his letter down ... because these official responses ignore the fact that we have our own rules which is for inclusion of everyone on an equal level ... and that we don't necessarily feel that the chat is the best form of diplomacy ... and that we have a diverse group of people with differing degrees of technology and aptitude ...

 

[M4 Sherman]

I have edited my post. Just wrote that to make sure you would read .

 

[peter grimes]

with differing degrees of technology and aptitude ...

Hey there, mister - You better not be calling my little compy slow!!!

I think that there are some great points in Chamnix's post. We can start to build off that for official response. I'm going to have to disapper for a few hours, but hopefully we'll have something from Whomp in the mean time.

@Chamnix: How do you know that some of those guys know eachother so well?

 

[fe3333au]

Draft II of personal letter to Whomp

@Grimsey ... thanks for the imspiration and a way of creating a lightness to this ...

Dear person behind the Whomp

I am writing this letter as a personal reaction to your last message ... as mentioned I am writing as the person behind fe3333au ... and this should in no way be connected with an MIA response ... which is currently on hold until this is cleared up ...

I feel you are confusing the
Game Issues or how we as a group of players have chosen to play this game
and
Team Issues or the team MIA roleplaying element
Since your aggressive letter makes reference to both ...

Here are my points and excuse me if they are stated bluntly as I am extremely offended and taken aback in the tone of your message.

1. We as a team are made up of a diverse group of people living all over the planet, we come from diverse age groups, occupations, technical ability and computer resources (hey man even got a guy who has big problems because he only has a Mac ... I'm starting a collection for him ).

Anyway we as a team have decided to play this game in our unique manner where all players are included and encouraged to participate ... In order to facilitate this players are assigned in-game roles where the person is responsible for various aspects of the game ... after a period of time other people are encouraged to take on roles ... this way everyone will eventually have a chance to experience all the exciting and fun elements of this unique gaming experience and perhaps concentrate on the elements thay are most comfortable with.

I know that your team works differently ... and is a strong collective of many old camrades from previous campaignes ... I imagine that old battles and scars are often discussed ... but our system has been developed and adopted to best suit our way of playing.

2. As I have sent various times now ... we have developed a diplomatic system which fits how we play the game ...

We can both agree that the anarchy of our first chat was totally unproductive ... therefore we have developed and tweeked a system that will work for us ... and eliminate the unproductive nature of previous chat ...

>Rival sends a proposal of things to discuss
>MIA as a whole team discuss this and come up with guidlines
>the Diplomatic Chat session is where both teams haggle a deal and discuss the proposal
>Diplomats have the ability to barter and agree on items on the agenda ... this is their brief
>Diplomats can be sounded out about new stuff but ...
>Rival must write new proposal in official letter
>MIA discuss

I am sorry if this is frustrating to you but this is how we as a team have decided to persue diplomacy ... I totally understand your perception of having unbriefed diplomats ... but if things go widely from the agenda MIA have stated that the whole team MUST have the ability to input ... This is an exciting and important part of the game and MIA want that everyone should have the opportunity to take part in some manner.

3. Not all of us have or want MSM ... I personally have AIM ... as Nikodeemus knows ... if you wanted to talk so bad why didn't you contact me on AIM? ... I say this because if you felt frustrated you could have contacted me personally ...

So bottomline ... we as a group of players have decided on the best way we collectively want to play this game ... and as stated before, we all come from different backgrounds so the system we have developed and taken on suits the group of people designated MIA ... which is a simple wish to share the excitement and (just quietly adictiveness) to all the players of our team.

So in lieu of this I give you the opportunity to reword your letter ... or if it stands then MIA will see it an official correspondence.

I again hope that you do not take offense to this ... or if you do take offense with me and not MIA

Hoping this clears some things up ... I trust that it has just been a clash of game systems and not in teams within the game

Yours sincerely

The person hehind the fe3333au avatar

 

[Chamnix]

@Chamnix: How do you know that some of those guys know eachother so well?

Whomp picked much of his team on this page. Even after that, if you look through the signups, you will see many people requesting to be on KISS because someone from that team recruited them. I also just recognize many of the names from the SG and SGOTM Forums.

Edit - @fe3333au - since that is a personal letter and not an MIA letter, you certainly do not need team approval, but for what it's worth, I think it looks great!

 

[M4 Sherman]

I think these mentions to "offense" are going to make them think we are weak.

I mean, there are several of them. Maybe we should erase one or two.

 

[General_W]

Love it!
Nice work Fe - and all the contributed.

As for an eventual "official" response, I think Chamnix has made a good start at that.

However - apart from all the inter-personal aspects of this letter... it does reveal a more agressive face of KISS. We've seen a downgrade from "peace till we're all that's left" to "peace for the ancient age" to "peace till 10 turns of warning."

Let's all be aware!

 

[fe3333au]

Draft III and final since 3 is my lucky number

and I further tone things down ... as my anger dissipates into the ether ... but still what a wanker

Dear person behind the Whomp

I am writing this letter as a personal reaction to your last message ... I wish to absolutely and unequivocally state that I am writing as the person behind fe3333au ... and this should in NO WAY be connected with an MIA response ... which is currently on hold until this is cleared up ...

I feel you are confusing the Game Issues (or how we as a group of players have chosen to play this game) and the Team Issues (or the team MIA roleplaying element) since your missive makes reference to both ...

Here are my points and excuse me if they are stated bluntly as I am extremely offended and taken aback in the tone of your message.

Why am I offended ? ... I have come to the conclusion that it is because I have the honour of holding the Foreign Minister position and as such have had a large part in developing the diplomatic system ... a system that was only just being discussed and designed prior to our contact ...

1. We, (like KISS) as a team are made up of a diverse group of people living all over the planet, we come from diverse age groups, occupations, technical ability and computer resources (hey man we even got a guy who has big problems cos he's only got a Mac ... I'm passing a collection hat around for him at my local pub ).

Anyway we as a team have decided to play this game in our unique manner where all players are included and encouraged to participate ... In order to facilitate this, players are assigned in-game roles where the person is responsible for various aspects of the game ... after a period of time other people are encouraged to take on these roles ... or even new yet to be defined roles ... in this way everyone will eventually have a chance to experience all the exciting and fun elements of this unique gaming experience and later perhaps concentrate on the elements they are most comfortable with.

I know that your team works differently ... and is a strong collective of many old comrades from previous campaigns ... I imagine that old battles and scars are often discussed ... but our system has been developed and adopted to best suit our way of playing ... it is also one where members are able to suggest new and innovative ways of playing ... we openly encourage dynamic discussion and our rules and methods are adaptable ... but this is our prerogative not yours ... so you and every other team and player will have to come to terms with this ... and I respectfully say Deal with It

2. As I have stated in various correspondences now ... we have developed a diplomatic system which fits how we play the game ...

We can both agree that the anarchy of our first chat was totally unproductive ... therefore we have developed and tweaked a system that will work for us ... and eliminate the unproductive nature of previous chat ...

>Rival sends a proposal of things to discuss
>MIA as a whole team discuss this and come up with guidlines
>the Diplomatic Chat session is where both teams haggle a deal and discuss the proposal
>Diplomats have the ability to barter and agree on items on the agenda ... this is their brief
>Diplomats can be sounded out about new stuff but ...
>Rival must write new proposal in official letter
>MIA discuss

I am sorry if this is frustrating to you but this is how we as a team have decided to pursue diplomacy ... I totally understand your perception of having unbriefed diplomats ... but if things go widely from the agenda MIA have stated that the whole team MUST have the ability to input ... This is an exciting and important part of the game and MIA want that everyone should have the opportunity to take part in some manner.

If it helps, and it did me see it as trying to do business with an Asian culture ... It is OK to be frustrated with the Chinese because they do things differently ... all that is needed is to be aware that Yes is not agreement but merely an acknowledgement that you have stated something ... It is however unacceptable to be rude and/or condescending

3. Not all of us have or want MSM ... I personally have AIM (fe3333au) ... as Nikodeemus knows ... if you wanted to talk so bad why didn't you contact me on AIM? ... I bring this up because if you felt frustrated you could have contacted me personally ... and perhaps things could have been rationally discussed ...

So bottomline ... we as a group of players have decided on the best way we collectively want to play this game ... and as stated before, we all come from different backgrounds so the system we have developed and taken on suits the group of people designated MIA ... which is a simple wish to share the excitement and (just quietly addictiveness) to all the players of our team.

So in lieu of this I give you the opportunity to reword your letter ... or if it stands then MIA will see it an official correspondence.

I again hope that you do not take offence to this ... or if you do then let it be with me and not MIA.

Hoping this clears some things up ... I trust that it has just been a clash of game systems and not in teams within the game

Yours sincerely

The person behind the fe3333au avatar

 

[fe3333au]

I have begun personal dialogue with Whomp ... and as such will not post full transcript or maybe just post summary

 

[Kentharu]

i think we should flat out give diplomats more power in making decisions if FE is away, but 1 person should be on hand
though this has been the case in the majority of the meetings
also tell Whomp that he shouldn't simple engage in diplomacy like he normally does,
now im saying this without reading much of this thread but times should be set more often, yes i would rather be on call with whomp any time he is on-line which i usually am
power to diplomats, thats my suggestion

 

[fe3333au]

OK lets forget the irritation of words written in the heat of diplomacy ...

We are getting there ...

I will personally apologize to these two young men if you feel that is what is necessary.

I think the experience they get from these discussions is fantastic and have said so in our threads. I am in charge of my companies summer intern program so I like to teach young people the right way to do things.

Where Ken, in particular, has been complained about and we got off on the wrong foot is when I asked him to schedule a specfic time (some of us have to work) but he, being a teenager, couldn't accomodate us because he doesn't wake up till 10:30. This is where the adult-teenager disconnect happens. This is where I feel it would be helpful for one of the more experienced members could be along at least in the background.

So a calm discussion ... I suggest we put it behind us ... I will probably not post any more but am close to getting the smoothing happening ...

 

[M4 Sherman]

Great! So we need to calm down things before the storm. WAR is coming, and soon. We must be prepared.