Negotiation formality/informality

[nbarclay]

Can we please leave this open through the weekend? I'd like to do some work on it (both the wording and some nuances to the ideas), but I doubt that I'll have time to do it justice before then.

[DeepO]

Good enough for me. But let's put a deadline on it then: public unveiling Sunday night at the latest.

DeepO

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
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?

Other teams can do what they want, but I would like Gathering Storm to have some sort of consensus even for one-shot deals. Trading techs is a big deal (pardon the pun). If I contact Lux and tell them I'm offering them Writing for (say) 80 Gold, you can bet the team would want to discuss it first. There should at the very least be some intermediary between the person playing the turns and the diplomatic decisions being made.

In any case, is the Codex not supposed to be about inter-team protocol? A team can "formally accept" proposals any way they wish (in Vox's case it seems Jon's words and actions are more or less final). The fact that we (Gathering Storm) want to ratify important deals is our own business (and a practice I highly recommend).


Dominae

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Dominae
In any case, is the Codex not supposed to be about inter-team protocol? A team can "formally accept" proposals any way they wish (in Vox's case it seems Jon's words and actions are more or less final). The fact that we (Gathering Storm) want to ratify important deals is our own business (and a practice I highly recommend).

Yes it is, or at least that's how I see it. If we could get other teams to agree to such a codex for their own deals that's fine, but I would first of all get this out there, and agreed upon (ratified if you wish, even if this indeed means something else to everybody) for all contacts with ourselves.

DeepO

[nbarclay]

My point wasn't that ambassadors should ever be authorized to act unilaterally to commit the team to a particular course of action even regarding something minor. It has more to do with how we tend to use less formal processes a lot of the time when decisions are not controversial.

[DeepO]

It might be good to detail a little, but wasn't this more or less said in the 2nd point? Ambassadors can have lenghty, hypothetical, proposals flying around, that's why he's always a middleman. I just wanted to make the distinction between a deal and a near-deal, as that near-deal could be rejected totally by the rest of the team.

DeepO

[Dominae]

Originally posted by DeepO
I just wanted to make the distinction between a deal and a near-deal, as that near-deal could be rejected totally by the rest of the team.

Ideally, ambassadors get to near-deal status with the other team, then lay the proposal out to the other members in our own forums. Of course, there are always complications.

The only problem with the border treaty deal was that Jon thought that since so much work was put into it, it was as good as agreed-upon, while Nathan knew it still only had near-deal status. I think we're all agreed that the Codex should address this.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Dominae, on January 30, three days before the treaty was ratified, Jon sent me an inquiry about how our discussions were going. I responded to his inquiry with the following:

About all I've been able to accomplish with the last version I sent was to
make the one we hammered out in chat look better by comparison. Sorry I
couldn't do better for you. There's still a faction that would rather just
REX it out instead of predefining borders, though, so the matter is still
under discussion. (But I think the faction that prefers the stability
predefined borders would bring - if the borders are in a location acceptable
to us - is larger at present.)

Based on what I wrote, Vox had sufficient reason to act on the assumption that a border treaty would probably go through, which would provide a fully adequate explanation for the "as if" in Jon's later message. But unless they have absolutely no understanding of the English language at all, they knew we were still debating the issue and hadn't reached a final conclusion. I see no basis to support your claim that Vox's understanding of the situation was less than clear.

Nathan

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Based on what I wrote, Vox had sufficient reason to act on the assumption that a border treaty would probably go through, which would provide a fully adequate explanation for the "as if" in Jon's later message.

First, given what was going on in our own boards, I'm not sure this statement was appropriate on your part:

"(But I think the faction that prefers the stability
predefined borders would bring - if the borders are in a location acceptable to us - is larger at present.)"

The reason you thought this was that border treaty discussion basically involved 3 people on our team. When the rest of the team voted on the official poll, it was less than clear. Which is why we've done all that work on trying to get consensus on the major diplomatic issues.

But unless they have absolutely no understanding of the English language at all, they knew we were still debating the issue and hadn't reached a final conclusion.

Here we agree, as the following statement was more than clear:

"There's still a faction that would rather just
REX it out instead of predefining borders, though, so the matter is still under discussion."

I see no basis to support your claim that Vox's understanding of the situation was less than clear.

You're defeating your own argument here. As I said previously: either Vox did not understand that the treaty was not ratified yet, which implies horrible intra and inter communication skills on their part, or they laughed at the treaty while the negotiations were still in process and make a quick land-grab. In both cases Vox's actions are not exemplary.

Unless you want to go into another "as if" discussion, I think it is clear Vox acting "as if" the treaty was ratified was not exemplified in their founding of Dissidentville, since that city went against the very proprosed treaty in question (more, against the whole spirit of the treaty, which was to avoid a REX contest). And you said so yourself, as I quote:

If you want to complain about their planting a city in a location where if we wanted a border treaty, we would have to accept its location as an established fact, fine. I'm a bit miffed over that myself when they knew (or should have known) that we had serious objections to that location.

Finally, I'm honestly confused as to why you are defending their actions so vehemently. Yes, we can use Vox in the short-term, and we will. But it is impossible to now look at Vox as a completely trustworthy, reliable and efficient team. I'm not calling for a war against them. I'm just saying that we have good reasons not to want them as long-term partners. Probably it will never get to that stage, as Vox will screw up again before then.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

First, given what was going on in our own boards, I'm not sure this statement was appropriate on your part:

"(But I think the faction that prefers the stability
predefined borders would bring - if the borders are in a location acceptable to us - is larger at present.)"

The reason you thought this was that border treaty discussion basically involved 3 people on our team. When the rest of the team voted on the official poll, it was less than clear. Which is why we've done all that work on trying to get consensus on the major diplomatic issues.

Actually, I was basing what I said on the preliminary poll, which had five votes in favor of one or the other of the two already-drawn-up treaties, one supporting a treaty but with different borders, and three for REXing it out. (At least I think all those votes had already been cast at the time.) That certainly wasn't a definitive margin given the total size of the team, but it was enough to get a fairly strong impression of which way the winds were blowing.

Finally, I'm honestly confused as to why you are defending their actions so vehemently. Yes, we can use Vox in the short-term, and we will. But it is impossible to now look at Vox as a completely trustworthy, reliable and efficient team. I'm not calling for a war against them. I'm just saying that we have good reasons not to want them as long-term partners. Probably it will never get to that stage, as Vox will screw up again before then.

This last message had nothing to do with defending Vox. It had to do with defending truth (at least as I see it), and to some extent with defending myself against implications that I was insufficiently clear (at least in practice) in conveying to Vox that the deal still had to be ratified.

This thread started based on the premise that Vox had misunderstood and thought the border agreement was effectively ratified when it really wasn't. But the only evidence I see supporting that claim is one particular interpretation of Jon's words. Further, I see nothing in the record that even begins to support that interpretation over the alternative interpretation that Vox was merely acting based on the assumption that some variant of the border deal would probably be ratified (which was how I interpreted Jon's "as if"). Further, by my understanding, the words "as if" themselves imply recognition that a condition does not necessarily actually exist. (Would you say you walk as if you have legs?)

I've felt all along that this thread was aimed at trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist - at least not yet - which is why I haven't given it as much attention as I have most others. I'm starting to see value in making sure such problems don't show up in the future, but I see no real evidence that Jon's view of where the border treaty situation stood was ever less than accurate.

Nathan

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
That certainly wasn't a definitive margin given the total size of the team, but it was enough to get a fairly strong impression of which way the winds were blowing.

5-1-3 is quite close to 50/50 division, especially since the '1' wanted the borders pushed back up the chokepoint. But this is unimportant in the current discussion.

This last message had nothing to do with defending Vox. It had to do with defending truth (at least as I see it), and to some extent with defending myself against implications that I was insufficiently clear (at least in practice) in conveying to Vox that the deal still had to be ratified.

I believe you were very clear, but perhaps mis-gauged what the "will of the team" was on this issue. Those are two very different things. I'm attacking Vox's actions here, not yours!

This thread started based on the premise that Vox had misunderstood and thought the border agreement was effectively ratified when it really wasn't.

You're right, this was not a good premise. But it seemed the only reasonable alternative, because the other possibility is that Vox had just "stolen" a city-site (or, the best tiles) right from under us. If you're negotiating something, and one side just takes a part of what is being negotiated, that kind of undermines the negotiation, right?

Further, I see nothing in the record that even begins to support that interpretation over the alternative interpretation that Vox was merely acting based on the assumption that some variant of the border deal would probably be ratified (which was how I interpreted Jon's "as if").

Yes, but assuming you're going to get what you want and acting as if this were true is simply not done during negotiations (and if so, it reeks of superiority). Sure, if it looks like the deal is going to go through, you can start moving your units, but you cannot found a whole city in a spot that is central to the entire negotation.


Dominae

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Dominae
I'm not calling for a war against them. I'm just saying that we have good reasons not to want them as long-term partners. Probably it will never get to that stage, as Vox will screw up again before then.

Dominae

I am calling for that war... in the ill-defined future.

I am new to MP, but it seems clear to me that we play for current advantage, but leave open the possibility of aggression (when appropriate).

[zeit]

Indeed- as Theseus often states- flexibilty is the last thing we should ignore, even when the prospect of long term peaceful relation with Vox (or anyone else for that matter) can become a reality (a questionable occurence in its own, but lets forget about this now). We are very close to binding Vox and basicly shuting them every possible chance of winning- the border treaty, the tech agreement- which can be terminated when the time comes, and finaly- getting contact with civs on the mainland, Then Vox will have no card besides what they will make for themselves, and it won't be much, probably. We shouldn't tie ourselves to them, just because we want to make it a long term relationship- they won't be a major threat if we leave them be, and it won't be too hard to take them out if we want to. But should we keep on feeding them with techs and/or protection while we might do better if we bypass Vox and focus our efforts on teams like RPG.

Sure, we better have strong ties with Vox until we get contacts, get to Republic and finish REXing- but after that? well, maybe we should and maybe we shouldn't, things will probably change. the point is we shouldn't commit ourselves right now, not offer better deals to Vox just for the prospect of it, nor fail to exploit an opportunity just so they can feel better in their relations with us (something they would never consider, at least that's what i believe).

[nbarclay]

The other big thing about Vox is that they're a lot closer to the big continent than we are. That's actually a bigger reason why I like the idea of allying with them to invade the main continent than whatever military help they could contribute would be. Having galleys be able to shuttle in prepositioned reinforcements every turn or two is of immense value.

We could get the same advantage, of course, by taking out Vox. But by the time we could take out Vox and rebuild our forces to invade the main continent, we would be approaching the end of the window of opportunity for WCs and the time when China's and Arabia's UUs start to become dominant.

Nathan

[DeepO]

I doubt that we'll be able to succesfully deploy any WCs, if we don't go for Vox. We'll need an awfull amount of them, to have any impact on a civ over seas... the teams on the main continent are already geared for war, their defenses won't be small.

DeepO