Negotiation formality/informality

[zeit]

I also think that a better use for the WC's will be against Vox- especially if they don't see it coming and we also manage to slip some forces behind the Isthmus- i can't see any better gain for cost warring option in the middle-short term, but things can change.

Right now our policy towards Vox is clear, so there is no need to get into the details of future alliances or wars, not now.

[nbarclay]

Here's a draft rewrite; sorry I didn't finish it earlier. I left out DeepO's last part about secrecy for the moment because I can't get it clear in my own mind exactly what information is secret and what isn't.

1. Our team is committed to playing honorably. We will not lie to other teams, nor will we engage in deceptive practices tantamount to lying. However, this does not mean we give up our right to have secrets.

2. All negotiations will be conducted in good faith with the expectation of keeping our promises. As in the real world, changing circumstances may disrupt an agreement (for example, forcing us to delay promised research to upgrade forces to defend against an unexpected attack). But we will not enter into any agreement unless we both plan to keep it and expect to be able to keep it, and we will not violate any agreement negotiated with us in good faith under any but the most dire of circumstances.

3. Although our ambassadors are our representatives, they do not have the authority as individuals to make binding commitments on behalf of the team. All agreements must be approved by the team as a whole, either in advance or after a draft agreement is presented to us, before they can be considered binding. If you have any doubts as to whether a proposal has been approved by our team as a whole, please ask to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. Note that in no case will we willfully abuse the ratification requirement to take advantage of another team, and should a misunderstanding occur, we will work in good faith to try to resolve the situation amicably.

4. We will try to respond to all diplomatic messages, even if only to let you know that we need more time to consider a proposal, within 24 hours of receiving them. (The time of receipt can be seen on the PM tracking page.) If you do not hear back within that time, please contact our team leader (currently Sir Ralph), our diplomatic chief (currently Zeit), and/or one of our other diplomats to make sure that word has gotten to our team as a whole. We also suggest that urgent correspondence be directed to more than one person just in case it does not reach the primary recipient in a timely manner. We request that other teams provide us with similarly timely responses to our messages.

5. Please keep in mind that since our team (a) is essentially democratic in nature, (b) prefers to operate by consensus as much as possible, and (c) is geographically dispersed, our decision-making process can sometimes take a while. We ask that you be patient if we cannot decide on a diplomatic proposal as quickly as you would prefer, and we will try to be patient regarding your needs for time to consider our proposals in return.

[alva]

Like it

[DeepO]

Nice, Nathan... I just posted that if no update was done, I was going to try it, but this will be more then adequate.

I've got no real comments on the text as you have written it, but there are some additions. Secrecy is certainly a big part of it, I would make that paragraph 6. "We consider diplomatic negotiations secret, and will not disclose these negotiations to any third party. We don't lie, but if other teams ask for diplomatic secrets, we are forced to do so, or at least deny nor acknowledge what has been asked."

Further, there is one question, which wasn't very well written in my original text either: I want to avoid that this text is purely seen as a nice document other teams can read, to see our intentions. By making it into 2 parts, one where we agree to, and one where we ask all other teams to agree to, we could make it more powerful.

The part we agree to is more or less described above, but what we expect from others is not. (except for the timing issue thing). So, what do we expect from other teams? 1) keeping their deals, each deal broken, however small, will have serious ramifications. 2) keeping our negotiations secret. 3) Allow us time, not pressuring us if a deal would be faster decided unilateral (ambassador only) if that deal could have been discussed days in advance. 4) Very clearly state when a deal gets active (by including "We have agreed on the deal" or something similar), so that we don't work from assumptions, but from deals. These messages are being logged, and can later surface as proof.

Come to think of it, maybe point 3 should be changed a little. It's clear, but I would include again that we are going to send "This deal was ratified" messages on each deal, and all proposals are not final until announced. This is a very important point for us, so let's put some more weight on it. Maybe even include a small, fictional, example.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Oh, I would include in paraghraph 2 that if situations change, deals can be renegotiated. But, as long as no new deal which somehow alters the first one is accepted by both sides, the first one is still in effect.
An example: if we promised to trade tech A for tech B, but in the mean time got tech B from another source, we are still required to give tech A to the one we have an outstanding deal with. If the other team agrees, we can set up a deal where tech A gets exchanged for tech C, but if the other team doesn't like that idea, we are forced to give tech A by the time that was promised in the original deal.

Oh, maybe a point 7: all deals have timing, or duration clauses. Sometimes these are implicit ( techs get delivered the moment they are discovered), sometimes explicit (NAP for 10 turns, starting in 1625 BC), but always present. If no duration is given, an infinite duration is implied. If no start date is given, the start is as fast as possible. Not following these dates or durations is the same as breaking a treaty, which is one of the most serious offenses against GS. Delaying tactics are not allowed (mistakes can always happen of course, but no intentional delay will be accepted).

DeepO

[nbarclay]

DeepO, the reason I left out the secrecy provision was that I couldn't pin down exactly what we're prepared to promise to keep secret and what we aren't. Are you suggesting that we not tell Vox who we trade our techs (and potentially ones they research and give us) with? If we do share who we got a tech from (at least with Vox), where is the line between what's secret and what isn't? I can't write the provision without having it clear in my own mind what it is.

[DeepO]

Yes, I woud suggest that we don't tell Vox that we will trade a certain tech to someone, just like we don't tell RP that we got Math from Vox if we would like to sell the math.

I'm not sure if we want to do this so rigidly, but I certainly want to avoid that e.g. Vox buys a tech from us for 20 gold, and then contact another team to tell them that we have it for sale for 20 gold or less. If we want to ask 30 gold, we shouldn't ever need to answer to a team on why it was more expensive for them, as opposed to someone else.

Also note the NAP deal between Lux and RP: RP told ND to wait one turn, as then their deal would be over. Such is totally unacceptable in my eyes, although it depends on what was agreed between Lux and RP. If not otherwise stated, I would like to keep these NAP deals completely secret, in that RP wasn't even allowed to tell ND there was a NAP between them and Lux, let alone tell them the details about it.

Of course, we need to be able to cinlcude some clause in specific deals that makes the information public, if we ally ourselves with a certain civ, sometimes it;s good to let the rest of the world know. But these are exceptions, I'd rather have the default choice total secrecy.

One other thing I want to avoid: Vox has been very liberal as to what they share with us, and that's no problem for me. However, I can imagine they want to get something back too. I've got no problem when we tell them: "You can expect Literature from us in 12 turns time, please don't make any deals with someone else.". I've got a problem with telling them: "we are going to get literature and 20 gold in exchange for our CoL from RP in 12 turns.".

The main reason to include the secrecy part is to keep others from back stabbing us, unpunished. RP truely betrayed Lux by warning ND (sure, it was for their own good) of the details of their NAP, with this Codex we should prevent them to do so (without breaking what we agreed to, of course, it's no game rule like the no-spying clause).

DeepO

[zeit]

DeepO-i think its futile to tell other teams- "don't backstab us", and naive as well, even if its under the sophisticated and agreed upon definition of a codex. If they backstab us, they probably won't care about the codex as well...

I saw the codex as a proclamation, as well as a kind request- if they want to respect that- we will remember and treat them with respect, If they play by their own rules- we save ourselves the right for "diplomatical self-defence". In short, there is no point in asking them to sign it. We know other team will try to manipulate and trick us, and the codex won't change that- that's just the game, and the codex is part of it- it might serve us good in the long run if seem like the fair and respectful team, but there's no point in trying to make them all look like it.
The codex as Nathan re-wrote it looks just fine- we don't need the secrecy part- this will handicap us unnecessarily, while other teams, even if they agree upon it (unlikely, but still), will surely break it, because, as you said- its open for too much interpretation, so i'd say leave out as well.

[DeepO]

Zeit, you're partially right when it comes to judging my intentions, so I guess I wasn't very clear (or maybe even confused ).

I don't want to say to other teams "don't backstab us", I want to make clear what we see as backstabbing. Do you agree that RP telling ND that they better wait 1 turn to attack Lux, as that would mean they didn't have to join the war against ND was a backstabbing move? I think it is, but others might feel that it is acceptable, albeit not very polite.

I agree on the proclamation part, you're right. There is no need for them to sign it. But still, I think that we need to include some point on secrecy of deals, so that everybody knows that we are going to respect them, and if they break secrecy our respect for them diminishes.

Maybe we need to include a paragraph to state our intentions more clearly, if we're even confusing ourselves, it is clear that other teams will be confused as well. The "proclamation, as well as a kind request" sentense caught on, I think, it describes quite compact what we want to achieve.

DeepO