Negotiation formality/informality

[zeit]

I post this after reading the idea DeepO had regarding the last incident (sadly, one of many...) with Vox, which you may not all noticed. I refer to the "we thought it was ratified" part of Jon Miller's last note to Nathan. He reffered the border treaty draft made by him and Nathan on the last chat. In that chat, Nathan clearly stated that any agreement or suggestion made by him is informal and cannot be treated as agreed upon by our team, and only after a ratification by our team it be regarded as such (or something in that spirit).

Even if he (Jon) was bluffing, that Vox thought it was ratified, it comes to remind us the importance of stating that any form agreement made by ambassadors/representatives in negotiations is not binding unless clearly stated that it was authorized by our team members.

So, i think it would a good idea to send some form of clarification to all the teams, stating the above. Every ambassador can make compose in a manner he sees fit, just keep in mind sone thing:

We should state that this is strictly a precaution taken by the team, to make sure that the team is not obliged by anything which the members havn't discussed and agreed upon. It is best to steer away from any implications that we don't trust the other team or that the problem is in their "misunderstanding".

Vox should also get one, while we would be sparing any cynism from them- it doesn't matter anymore, since we already who we are dealing with.

[Dominae]

Re: Negotiation formality/informality

Originally posted by zeit
I refer to the "we thought it was ratified" part of Jon Miller's last note to Nathan.

I honestly hate to say this, but "I told you so" (not just zeit, everyone). Now they sneak in a city that basically forces us to accept the proposal. Bleh, I'm surprised no one else is bothered by this, but I guess we're concentrating on the GL right now...

zeit, I'll make sure to tell LI that anything I discuss with them is not final until I explicity say so. Somehow I expect things to proceed more smoothly with LI than with Vox.


Dominae

[Meshelic]

SMASH EM! BE MEN! WAR! DON'T TAKE ANY GUFF FROM THESE SWINE!!!

j/k

[DeepO]

Dominae, try to get those kind of messages in.

But what we really should aim for is kind of a Codex, Protocol, or book of Relation things. Just a rule set, where what we will and won't do in diplo contact is documented. Wasn't there a start on this sometime ago? Something like

1. We will play honorably, we won't lie. We can simply not tell something, though. But we do not break any promise made, any deal negotiated.

2. Whatever discussions between ambassadors take place, any deal is not final until we formerly declared it raitified by the team. We also expect the same from our relations: when they agree to a deal, they clearly state it to us, and they don't assume any draft negotiations final until they hear from us it is.

3. We will try to acknowledge receipt of every diplomatic message within 24h of receiving it (as can be seen on the PM tracking page). It will either be a reply, or in case we need more time a simple 'thank you for the message, it was posted on the board' reply. If in those 24h no response has come, the one contacting should contact someone else, either the head of the diplomatic scholia for that momrent, or the player or president of GS.
We expect the same from our contacts, in that they try to follow this guideline.

4. All diplomatic issues are in GS democratic in nature, so could lead to wide spread discussions, and polls. Sometimes, these political debates can take time, certainly as GS is worldwide. Please take reasonable time limits in consideration when proposing or setting deadlines. We will try to accomodate your time needs as well.

5. we consider negotiations between teams completely secret to other teams. Information received in a negotiation can be exchanged sometimes (depending on the nature of the information), but never will be said how we got our intelligence.

6... and so on

DeepO

[edit: when going over it, I noticed I said diplomatic instead of democratic...]

[nbarclay]

Jon said, "we have been playing as if it was ratified." That is completely different from saying that they thought we had ratified it. If you expect a deal to be ratified, you can go ahead and start playing as if it were ratified before it actually is. For example, that's what Sir Ralph did when he went ahead and switched our research from Bronze Working to Alphabet based on Vox's conditional approval of our tech trade proposal before they gave final approval.

[Dominae]

"Although we have not actually declared war, we're playing as though we had declared war."

No point in argument amongst ourselves, or with Vox, really. DeepO's codex idea is excellent, and we should definitely adopt it for any external communication.


Dominae

[zeit]

This is indeed a great idea, and will come just in time as we try to make our way into the world stage, as it serves our honorable trade ambitions- a trader never breaks his promise, and any dealings with him are kept secret.

Its more of a declaration, but i think that an agreement by the other teams to those articles that also binds them- like #2 and #6.

I will send the GoW's consuls a note regarding this codex we're working on, as well as emphasizing the formality issue of the negotiations. Can the ambassadors (besides Dominae, that already did) do so as well?

oh, and, where is alva?

[DeepO]

Well... with RPG I have more or less the same understanding, with the legos I have little contact. I'll wait until we decided on a final version, as my version was only something to get us rolling. Every comment of anyone would be welcome, to see if we adapt what is there already, and add to it if necessary. We should be absolutely sure about what we agree to, as later on, other teams will use it as evidence against us, just as well as we'll use it as evidence to support our claims (like Vox slipping in a city in the middle of border negotiations not being very polite)

DeepO

[alva]

. We should be absolutely sure about what we agree to, as later on, other teams will use it as evidence against us,

This is indeed the hard one. These are things that can come back to hunt us later.

Why not make one we can send to all teams?

[DeepO]

Alva, I was assuming this would go to all teams... any comments on it so far?

DeepO

[alva]

No, not really. I like it very much.

[zeit]

Well, C'mon people, we've got a codex to complete!

Anyone has any correction/additions in mind?

I wholeheartedly agree to send the proposal as it is- there can't be a better time then now- a few turns before we start on negotiating to someone besides Vox (whoopie!).

[DeepO]

well... I corrected a typo, but maybe it's best if we've got some grammitcal comments from Native English speakers as well, to avoid any ambiguity.

So far, I haven't seen any additional points, though.

I propose to both post this in a thread on the general forum, as send a version of it too all ambassadors. In the forum, we can then ask if anyone wants to join us in accepting the declaration, it could make it all more official. Further, if we in the future want to update our codex, we can find the thread, and just unburry it.

DeepO

[nbarclay]

If we went strictly by this, we would need to have ratification votes for things like the tech trades we're trying to line up now. Would it be better to word things so formal ratification is required only for ongoing or long-term agreements, while one-shot agreements can operate with less formal team approval?

[DeepO]

Nathan, it was not my intention that we needed to ratify everything in-team, but that we mention for every deal, how small it might seem, that we formally declare the deal as final, and ratified from our side.

Yes, I think we need to do this, as otherwise there are going to be discussion on what is a small deal, and what not. If we agree to trade one tech for another, we could imply to ratify by agreeing to a deal in-game, which can be a faster response, but normally, we should need to at least have the deal posted on our forum for a day or so, so that everyone can comment on it.

I doubt this will get us in trouble, as most of the times we'll agree well in front to any deal, but it is also a message to the world: we are democratic, and thus bureaucratic, please allow us time by offering deals well before the are actual happening, and we'll be very efficient.

DeepO