Wag the Dog

[Shiber]

Since you haven't posted it in the logs thread yet, I assume that it is personal and you wouldn't like to expose it.
Just tell us what you can about the content, please.

[Arrian]

Ah, I'm guessing it was a sort of "f u GS"

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Well he addressed the message with a "you", and when I asked if it was an official response or his own mad ramblings, he chose ramblings. I asked him to direct the team's official response through the normal channels.

EDIT: in case that wasn't clear (it wasn't to me ), his response was message to me personally. (or at least that's how I read it)

[Arrian]

Ah, so a "f u Aeson"

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Nathan, even your edits were fairly minor. I think we did OK from a consensus perspective.

[Aeson]

No Arrian, he was much more civil than that.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Theseus
Nathan, even your edits were fairly minor. I think we did OK from a consensus perspective.

And how about two posts down from that where I realized that if the mountain ND's MedInf was on is clear, a 1-turn truce interpreted as this turn for GoW and next turn for us won't slow them down at all in attacking Toledo (assuming I remember the map correctly)? What else might I be missing because I'm at work instead of sitting down with a map in front of me (not to mention more time) and looking at all the possibilities? And what thoughts might others, especially NYE, contribute that deserve consideration? That's what bothers me about handling diplomacy in a "come up with a brand new idea and make a final offer within six hours" fashion, especially regarding something as major as offering to let an opponent off the hook for violating an agreement. I might very well have ended up all for the idea after further discussion, but I want to make sure that discussion has a chance to take place in the future because if we keep doing this sort of thing, it will probably bite us sooner or later. I just hope it doesn't this time.

I can see a need for haste in presenting the idea to GoW before they played their turn, but that could have been done without wording the message as a firm offer. That way if they were interested, they would have known to hold the turn while we made a final decision, but if someone thought of an angle that would make the idea not so good after all, we would have had room to back out. Please, let's not be in such a huge hurry with firm offers should a similar situation crop up in the future.

[DeepO]

Nathan, you have a point, however allow me to remind you of one thing: the NAP with GoW was decided in chat, between 3 people, while all the rest was unaware of what was happening. I'm not saying I would have objected, and I don't say it wouldn't have been better to wait just a bit longer this time, but there have been precedents where time was more critical then unamousity.

DeepO

[Theseus]

Fair enough... maybe for major communiques, the proposing sender should post an approval request: "I'm going to send this in xx minutes unless someone objects."

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by DeepO
Nathan, you have a point, however allow me to remind you of one thing: the NAP with GoW was decided in chat, between 3 people, while all the rest was unaware of what was happening. I'm not saying I would have objected, and I don't say it wouldn't have been better to wait just a bit longer this time, but there have been precedents where time was more critical then unamousity.

The final decision on the NAP was made more quickly, with less input, than any of us would consider ideal, and both NYE and I felt pretty uncomfortable making it. But the issue of NAPs in general had been under discussion for several days, and the current direction of the team seemed to favor a NAP with GoW to stir things up on Bob. Several people had expressed support, and I don't recall anyone's having expressed serious opposition. My view was that the discussions already held had provided a sufficient consensus and opportunity for discussion, if only barely, to justify agreeing to the NAP since the rest of the chat seemed to hinge on our approving that. But it was most certainly not a case where a final offer was made mere hours after an issue was first discussed at all.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Theseus
Fair enough... maybe for major communiques, the proposing sender should post an approval request: "I'm going to send this in xx minutes unless someone objects."

Posting "in xx minutes" messages might help, but it wouldn't even begin to solve the problem of some people's being too busy with work or other activities to get involved adequately in the discussion (and quite possibly too busy even to know that there's anything to discuss). There is really no substitute for leaving a new idea open for discussion long enough for everyone to have a fair chance to get involved, or at least as close to a fair chance as circumstances permit. In cases such as this one, making the initial message to the other team a preliminary proposal rather than an official offer can go a long way toward buying that time.

[Theseus]

I reaaallly don't like "preliminary proposals"... if anything, they should be done unofficially and at a one-to-one level.

I think xx minutes, say 20-180, and given a reasonable level of participation and review, say 4-6 active posters, should provide enough of an opportunity for someone to say "Hang on a minute, so and so should see this" or "Hmm, have we thought about ABC enough?"

It seems to have worked well enough thus far... no major contretemps.

I do have to say I am pretty pleased with the interactions here though (one wonders WTF! goes on in the Gow forum ).

Back to the GAME!!! Do we have any idea what's going on?

[notyoueither]

We will live with it.

If GoW does not move this turn, they cannot attack Toledo the following turn. I would have preferred they be frozen for their current, and following turns, and we may yet get that. Do we want it?

It is true that a major decision like agreeing to void an NAP should be discussed for more than six hours. However, there are also situations where action is required or an opportunity is lost. If that note prevents GoW from attacking this turn, then it will have served a purpose, and we have already generally agreed not to make issue of the NAP if GoW attacks, so all we have done is gain as far as I can see.

At the same time, sending a message to GoW that we are preparing a significant proposal and suggesting they hold the turn while we work on it would serve to keep the issue alive for a longer period of time and allow more of us to comment on it. It also would have played with their heads a bit more. Hehe.

Let's carry on.

[notyoueither]

And apparantly, they don't give a ****.