Vox Controli - correspondence & foreign affairs

[ZargonX]

Well, perhaps we can reach a compromise. What if we were just to give them a map of a section of Bob? Say, I don't know... maybe just ND's territory? As the RPers don't seem to really be behind this war, I don't think we should hand over a map of their territory just yet. And, on a more basic level, right now we are the only team with a a full map of two continents. Once we give it to Vox, it's out of our hands; GS could get it. I don't think that's really a strategic advantage we should give away so quickly. This is an issue that could still use some discussion, I think.

[Kloreep]

I'm afraid it IS out of our hands. Here's an excerpt of the chat we just had in IRC:

Sharpe> Sigh, if you insist , I will call for a vote
vondrack> vote on me?
Sharpe> vote on map
vondrack> or on the deal?
vondrack> ok
Sharpe> if we get invaded, then you...
Sharpe>
vondrack> you better call the vote on me, Steve
Sharpe> sigh
Sharpe> I don't want to call a vote on you, I want this map idea scrapped
Sharpe> or at least delayed until we see how things are going
vondrack> seeing only you opposing the map part in the forum, I have already sent the map to BetaHound as a sign of good will - that's why you should call the vote on me

I must say I'm very unhappy with this. We gave the map to Vox without even signing the treaty, WHICH HAS A NICE SECRECY CLAUSE. Until we sign, they could give the map to anyone, tell anyone, and not disobey the letter of the treaty when it is signed. This is NOT good.

Edit: Can't get the names to show.

[Sharpe]

I agree - this is very disturbing.

As I said in the post, I wanted to call a vote on it - but clearly it would now be a moot point. I was so opposed to trading the map that earlier on in the chat, when Vondrack insisted on trading the map, I said that I would resign as MA as I can't support that decision on such a major issue. Besides of which, we didn't trade the world map so the other civs can even accuse us of cheating.

Kloreep brought up a good point in that chat - what happens if Vox is destroyed and then joins the other civs as refugees ? Our double-crossing of the Bob civs would not be appreciated. The tech issue is minor - we are simply trying to get Monotheism from Vox to take advantage of their scientific trait - likely so are the other civs. But the map is a matter of security for the Bob civs as much our map is for us - this would be no laughing matter to them.

Clearly a vote on the map is useless now as Vondrack has sent it to them "as a sign of good faith". Without a treaty signed it seems to me that Vondrack has exceeded his authority in doing that as I didn't even get a chance to call for a vote on the map issue.

For the moment I am NOT resigning as MA, but I will have to think about it and other matters.

[vondrack]

Well... seems like the map, which I considered just a nice little touch to the whole Mono deal, is actually stirring a lot of emotions. Let me clarify a couple of points I was considering when sending the map ahead of signing the deal:

1) it is vitally important for Voxes to assess their situation as soon as possible and as accurately as possible. With the map, they can do it very well, possibly withdrawing from Bob, if they come to the conclusion their position is untenable. This would undoubtedly save everyone a big headache... and us a lot of money, as we will shortly have 150 gold deposited with them. If Voxes get eliminated, there go our money. The map very much improves the chances of Voxes to assess the situation and act accordingly & appropriately, just like it improves their chances to make the life of Bobians more difficult.

2) you do not make this kind of deals to abuse them by "spreading the map around", saying "the deal has not been signed yet, your fault you gave it to us before signing". I made it very clear to BetaHound he was supposed to keep the source of the map as secret as possible. There is a certain fundamental level of mutual trust needed to even propose a deal like that. This level of trust implies - at least for me - that it is ok to do what I did without having to fear Voxes revealing the deal, "because of having it not signed yet."

3) All the Bobians have this map, so the only team that might actually be interested in acquiring it would be GS. I see absolutely no reason why Voxes should ever share the map with GS... but even if! Do you think that GS would EVER let Bobians know? Throwing away such a CRUCIAL strategic advance? Nope! This map, when in the hands of Voxes and even GS, serves us a great purpose: makes Bob a juicy target for Estonians, a target much more viable than the totally unknown Lego.

4) As one of the arguments I heard later on was "what if Voxes are eliminated, their members join other teams and this deal "leaks out", I would like to point out that eliminating Voxes is at this point very difficult - only GS may actually be in a position to do so... but trying to seize a single-tile chokepoint shall be so costly against immos that I can really see no real threat of that happening. And if it happens in 50 turns? By that time, all the other teams will have much more important reasons to side with us or against us.

That said, if majority feels I did more than I was allowed to, exceeding my authority, and wishes me to step down, I am ready to do so. Knowing how much troubles this thing brought in, I might have waited a bit before sending the map off, but I would have still insisted on providing it to Voxes, as I strongly believe it is in our best interest to do so.

[Sharpe]

I do agree that the map might cause Vox to reassess things and withdraw seeing how much they are outnumbered.

However, the smallest and probably most vulnerable cities of GoW and ND are in the east, nearest to the Vox city - they could decide to go after those cities - and if they do so it is very likely that the Bob civs will figure out that Vox has their map. Since none of them has traded it to Vox or GS, but has to us, and since it is definitely in none of their interests to trade the Bob map with Vox, they will know it was us.

It seems as though ND is seeing blood, so unless Vox turns the city over to them, I doubt the war will end - admittedly both GS and RP seem reluctant at best. GoW likes war so it hard to tell where they truly stand ...

Radek, none of us want you to resign but there has to be more consultation with the rest of us. As I said in the chat, I didn't want to vote against you, just against that map idea.

Just because 2 people who are in the chat agree with you doesn't mean that the rest will and it is possible that one of those not present at the chat would make an observation or two that could change everyone's minds. We have to have more discussion in the thread and actual votes on things - we have hardly any at all right now.

As for the urgency of the situation, I would be surprised if even GoW's horses could reach the Vox city in less than 2 or 3 turns.

EDIT 11pm est:
regarding Vondrack's comment about the unlikelihood of Vox being eliminated. If the 3 civs remain at war with Vox - Vox will be eliminated - immortals are not invulnerable, neither are our mercs. Plus we are approaching a new era where knights and soon med infantry can easily match up with immortals. Plus Vox is the smallest civ in score by a big margin - numbers may be on the Bob civs side.

The only thing that Vox has going for it is that there is a lack of ports facing their side and probably no or few galley to transport the troops.

[ZargonX]

I would also like to say that I am upset about the map being given away without a full discussion, for the reasons I mentioned above. More than anything else, it was a tactical advantage that we have now shared with another team without fully analyzing it fully.

That being said, I do not think it is necessary for you to step down, Vondrack, nor would I support any call for you do to so. You do an excellent job as president, and that is certain. However, I am worried about the breakdown of our system of negotiations. Too many negotiations are going on in imprompteu chats that many in the team are not aware of. We have ambassadors and a Foreign Minister for a reason; currently those positions are not being utilitzed properly. I think it may be time to re-establish our diplomatic system, and start dealing and communicating via ambassador only. Information slips out here and there in random chats, and while it may seem like idle chatter, it can be things that that not everyone on the team would like divulged.

I would propose the following:

-First of all, the FA establishes a list of "approved" items that anyone can discuss with other teams. That way if someone from a team messages you or meets you in a chat, you don't have to be completely silent with them. If they broach a topic not on the list, simply say "I cannot comment." They will understand; every team does it.
-Deals should only be discussed by appropriate ambassadors or the FA. If you are not an amb, and someone mentions a deal, just tell them the amb will contact them shortly.
-I know the issue of time is important, so I might suggest that we re-assign ambassadors to people who know they can be available almost all of the time. Everyone knows there availability, so we may need to re-assign some positions.
-NOTHING is sent to other teams without team approval. If no one objects, that equals approval. If even one person objects; convince them. If they aren't convinced, hold a vote. That's worked for us for many other areas, why not this one?

That's my thoughts on the subject. I know they may seem a little stringent, but I feel it is very important we deal with this issue now.

And if the map issue comes back to bite us in the ass, well we'll deal with that when the time comes.

[Sharpe]

I agree with Zargon that the diplomatic system does need to be revised - it does appear that the system of ambassadors and the Foreign Minister is not being used properly or is out-of-touch with what we need to use.

To be honest, I felt that way about most of the ministerial positions - that's one of the reasons I ran for office this time. Because the game is getting increasingly complex, the powers and work of the ministers have to increase - if for nothing else than to keep Vondrack sane with all of the work to be done (I mean that list of suggestions of what to do each turn is just getting longer and longer) That is not to say that the ministers weren't going to increase their workload anyway of course.

I also agree with Zargon that we need to have open discussions and votes if even one person opposes it - the team has shrunk enough that even one person is a significant minority here... We especially need votes for issues that are external since they can't be reversed like internal matters can.

[lmtoops]

Unbelieveable, after I posted a thread reminding Vondrack that this is a democracy he goes and makes the deal. Maybe he thought we were the RP team. From the tone of the chat log, I was afraid something like this would happen.

Bobians will find out that we gave Vox the map. That is my fearless prediction. Either someone with Vox or one of us will have a side discussion (purely confidential of course) and it will all come around. That's human nature; we want to show off our secret knowledge. I just hope it's not for a few centuries and it won't matter anymore.

This a serious breach of our democracy, but is forgiveable. My ranting is over and I support Vondrack as president.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by ZargonX

Too many negotiations are going on in imprompteu chats that many in the team are not aware of. We have ambassadors and a Foreign Minister for a reason; currently those positions are not being utilitzed properly.
...
I think it may be time to re-establish our diplomatic system, and start dealing and communicating via ambassador only.

First of all, I am the ambassador to Vox and I was in the chatroom. Second, this is not always doable: I for instance don't have that much "online time", so to speak, hence our arragement with Vondrack: I handle the PMs with Vox and he handles the chats. There are deals that simply cannot be achieved via PMs. Chats are a very-very good tool to prepare treaties and break the ice; obviuously we have to finalize the final drafts later offline and make them official in PM exchanges.

Information slips out here and there in random chats, and while it may seem like idle chatter, it can be things that that not everyone on the team would like divulged.
...
First of all, the FA establishes a list of "approved" items that anyone can discuss with other teams. That way if someone from a team messages you or meets you in a chat, you don't have to be completely silent with them. If they broach a topic not on the list, simply say "I cannot comment." They will understand; every team does it.

This is a good idea. The FA should prepare a guidline, what is secret, what is not, etc. Kind of like my Enlightened thread, where I have in the first post a list of the active trade clauses we have to follow.

-Deals should only be discussed by appropriate ambassadors or the FA. If you are not an amb, and someone mentions a deal, just tell them the amb will contact them shortly.

The ambassador, the FA or the President. I think all of these should have negotiatopn rights.

-I know the issue of time is important, so I might suggest that we re-assign ambassadors to people who know they can be available almost all of the time. Everyone knows there availability, so we may need to re-assign some positions.

Good idea. Candidates?

NOTHING is sent to other teams without team approval. If no one objects, that equals approval. If even one person objects; convince them. If they aren't convinced, hold a vote. That's worked for us for many other areas, why not this one?

I agree.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by lmtoops
Bobians will find out that we gave Vox the map. That is my fearless prediction.

So what? Where does it say that we can't give it? We didn't break any treaty, what's the problem?

[Tiberius]

The map is a huge advantage for Vox and this is good. This is why we gave it to them. We need the small teams to survive. We can't win this game fighting against one strong warmonger team, I hope you know that? Civ3 is just better suited for a warlike approach. I know that from my games. I am always more succesful when I go and fight instead of just build; always.

We are a builder team in this game and if we want to win it we need to keep a balance between teams as much as possible and as long as possible, because otherwise we won't win! We might have t take some risks from time to time to help the small ones, but this is what we must do. We need the small teams, we need a balance of power, I can't emphisize this enough. We also need to keep the world divided and not united against us. This is why we wanted to help Lux and this is why we prefer to help a bit GoW and not RP or ND

This being said, probably Vondrack should have waited our approval to give them the map, but I'd have fighted to give Voxes the map.

[redstar1]

Guys I say we calm down here. All we have done is shared intelligence with a civ in trouble and trying to catch up with the rest of us. I have intelligence sources who tell me things that help us, like what teams are researching and even what they are building in their cities. I couldn probably get a map of Estonia if I asked nicely.

The way I see it, we are handing Vox a lifeline. If they get sent back to Estonia without a fight then that only strengthens GS. If they remain on Bob then that only stunts the 3 Bobians. Either way it helps us.

Lets be clear about it. We haven't given away any resources, we haven't put ourselves in danger. It can't be tr\ced back to us unless Vondrack wrote 'From Lego with Love' in 5 foot letters all over the map. Perhaps we should have had a vote, but afiak noone called for one. I'd have done the same myself in Vondrack's position. Remember we don't actually have any tech deals signed sealed and delivered yet. The map was a sweetner in an already good deal for us.

As for the changes to procedure... perhaps something needs to be done. Certainly I've been conduction diplomatic discussions and I have no official role. I don't mind but I feel its not fair on the relevant ambassador who probably feels left out.

Almost everything done by this team has majority support of the team. I beleive the map deal is one of them. Maybe we should have had a poll about it but its a bit late now. I suggest in future that if anyone has any doubt over an issue, call for a poll. That gives 3 days more discussion on it before the votes are needed.

[Tiberius]

Well said, redstar.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Sharpe
As I said in the post, I wanted to call a vote on it - but clearly it would now be a moot point. I was so opposed to trading the map that earlier on in the chat, when Vondrack insisted on trading the map, I said that I would resign as MA as I can't support that decision on such a major issue. Besides of which, we didn't trade the world map so the other civs can even accuse us of cheating.

Cheating? Why would anyone want to accuse us of cheating? Trading maps is completely legal - it was from the very beginning (minimaps) and I see absolutely no reason why trading partial maps should be "cheating". There is no rule saying that if trading maps, it must be world maps, that I am sure of.

Originally posted by Sharpe
Kloreep brought up a good point in that chat - what happens if Vox is destroyed and then joins the other civs as refugees ? Our double-crossing of the Bob civs would not be appreciated. The tech issue is minor - we are simply trying to get Monotheism from Vox to take advantage of their scientific trait - likely so are the other civs. But the map is a matter of security for the Bob civs as much our map is for us - this would be no laughing matter to them.

This is certainly a valid point that needs to be addressed. I have already explained I do not really see Voxes wiped out any time soon, but even if... let's try to see things clearly: trading Mono with Voxes for a war loan of 200 gold in the moment they can use it to upgrade 5 warriors to immortals (hope I do have my numbers right here) would certainly be perceived as "siding with Voxes", no matter what. Or, at least, as unscrupulously ignoring the matters of Bobians' security in an effort to strike a good deal of our own. If we throw in the map of Bob, which we were perfectly free to throw in, as no clause has ever bound us to keep it for ourselves, this would hardly change how Bobians would feel about our involvement in this incident. Our relations with them would suffer, that's for sure. The only difference might be the actual level of the deterioration of our relations - and that, I believe, would be small to negligible.

Originally posted by Sharpe
I do agree that the map might cause Vox to reassess things and withdraw seeing how much they are outnumbered.

I believe it was in the chat with BetaHound where he mentioned that Voxes are very well prepared to wage war and even if they might have look "off balanced", they were in fact very well aware of what they were doing. Actually, I believe that the map will tell them to KEEP pushing for their Bobian settlements. The map in fact shows that neither of the Bobians civs is actually able to wage war against them effectively - Spaniards are badly overstretched, plus having free land enough. GoW is stretched in the W-E direction as well, just like ND. All of the Bobian teams will/would have difficult time traversing the continent with their units - unlike Voxes that will be reinforcing their military across a single-tile strait, having their capital four tiles away.

Voxes do know that they are behind in the number of cities and total territory. What they did not know was that in fact, this had very little to do with what their chances of waging war with Bobians were. Now they know.

Originally posted by Sharpe
However, the smallest and probably most vulnerable cities of GoW and ND are in the east, nearest to the Vox city - they could decide to go after those cities - and if they do so it is very likely that the Bob civs will figure out that Vox has their map. Since none of them has traded it to Vox or GS, but has to us, and since it is definitely in none of their interests to trade the Bob map with Vox, they will know it was us.

Sorry, this is just plain paranoid, Steve. Voxes landed on the easternmost tip of Bob. They have nowhere to go, but to the West. So seeing them heading West would hardly be any sign of "having a map". The only thing that might lead Bobians to even remotely think about whether it could be possible for Voxes to have a (partial) map would be if they went straight for the iron resources. But even then, Luxes would be the very first to become suspected - their affair with Voxes is well known (since Voxes did so much for them in the beginning... who knows what the ACTUAL price of that lifesaving belt might have been...). The lack of Map Making was actually not a problem, they were able to provide an outgame image... just like what we did now. And Luxes knew PERFECTLY where the key resources were - they warred over them.

Originally posted by Sharpe
It seems as though ND is seeing blood, so unless Vox turns the city over to them, I doubt the war will end - admittedly both GS and RP seem reluctant at best. GoW likes war so it hard to tell where they truly stand ...

Who says the war should end? Yes, ND is keen to fight Voxes, But as you said, GS & RPers are very reluctant to intervene and GoW is actually trying to make the most of this situation, negotiating peace for a valuable compensation (GF PMed me, offering to trade Mono to us, which they were "probably supposed to get together with resale rights for not wiping Voxes off"). Both GoW and RPers would like to see ND weakened, there is little doubt about it. Ceding the easternmost part of Bob to Voxes in exchange for having ND leave the scene would certainly look like a viable deal to them... that's why I strongly believe the war will not be short at all and that Bobians are highly unlikely to truly unite against Voxes.

Originally posted by Sharpe
As for the urgency of the situation, I would be surprised if even GoW's horses could reach the Vox city in less than 2 or 3 turns.

It is not the threat of GoW horses reaching the Vox city (for that, Voxes do not really need any map). It is the urgent need to know what the military capabilities and geographical distribution of GoW, ND, and RPers are - this is invaluable in considering whom to appease and whom to fight. And this is what is being decided during these very turns.

Originally posted by Sharpe
regarding Vondrack's comment about the unlikelihood of Vox being eliminated. If the 3 civs remain at war with Vox - Vox will be eliminated - immortals are not invulnerable, neither are our mercs. Plus we are approaching a new era where knights and soon med infantry can easily match up with immortals. Plus Vox is the smallest civ in score by a big margin - numbers may be on the Bob civs side.

I do not see how 3 civs remaining at war actually affect things in any way... 3 civs ACTUALLY FIGHTING might be a different thing, but I do not see that happening. And you certainly realize that the score is far from accurately depicting your actual military strength. Imagine Voxes have a couple of Warriors waiting for upgrades (that's quite likely what they need our money for). One turn and their military changes from "weak" to "strong"... Plus, as you correctly pointed out, Bobians would need navy to carry the war over to Estonia. And they do not have it - GoW has most probably just one galley ready to be deployed in the area... that is certainly less than enough... mounting an attack on Fortress Estonia would be extremely costly and not guaranteed to succeed.

Originally posted by ZargonX
However, I am worried about the breakdown of our system of negotiations. Too many negotiations are going on in imprompteu chats that many in the team are not aware of. We have ambassadors and a Foreign Minister for a reason; currently those positions are not being utilitzed properly. I think it may be time to re-establish our diplomatic system, and start dealing and communicating via ambassador only. Information slips out here and there in random chats, and while it may seem like idle chatter, it can be things that that not everyone on the team would like divulged.

Well, in this very case, the ambassador (Tibi) WAS present (and FAM was invited to be there too, although not present eventually), even if just listening "behind the doors", and approved the idea. I fully understand your concerns, but it is technically quite difficult to "get back to the team" every time a new idea appears - sometimes, there is too little time to do so... additionally, I do not believe that it was the very idea of the map deal being proposed to Voxes that is causing some of you to disagree. It is the fact that I sent it on while not having the treaty signed yet - and regarding that, see my comment later in this post.

Originally posted by ZargonX
I would propose the following:

-First of all, the FA establishes a list of "approved" items that anyone can discuss with other teams. That way if someone from a team messages you or meets you in a chat, you don't have to be completely silent with them. If they broach a topic not on the list, simply say "I cannot comment." They will understand; every team does it.

Now, this is something I support 100%.
Nimitz, will you start working on this?

Originally posted by ZargonX
-Deals should only be discussed by appropriate ambassadors or the FA. If you are not an amb, and someone mentions a deal, just tell them the amb will contact them shortly.

Respectfully, I would appreciate being also considered as a person authorized to at least propose and discuss deals.

Originally posted by ZargonX
-NOTHING is sent to other teams without team approval. If no one objects, that equals approval. If even one person objects; convince them. If they aren't convinced, hold a vote. That's worked for us for many other areas, why not this one?

Well... ok... let's try it and see if it works... how long we wait before sending anything off? I mean... how long we wish to wait for the one that may not agree? 24 hours? I do not oppose the idea, I just want to know the rules we are setting.

Also, keep in mind, that if we make it a rule that once one of our members disagrees (and keeps disagreeing) with something, we hold a vote, we will most likely need up to 48-72 hours to move on with things... that's 2-3 turns. Just thought I would point that out.

Originally posted by lmtoops
Unbelieveable, after I posted a thread reminding Vondrack that this is a democracy he goes and makes the deal. Maybe he thought we were the RP team. From the tone of the chat log, I was afraid something like this would happen.

[...snip...]

This a serious breach of our democracy, but is forgiveable. My ranting is over and I support Vondrack as president.

Well, actually it was just the very opposite. I sent the map shortly after midnight my time, at a moment where I was convinced the deal was supported by me, redstar, Tiberius, yourself (judging from the posts in the forum), and not questioned by Nimitz, ZargonX, and Kloreep (all of them showed in the chatroom in the meantime, not objecting it). I felt like I had input enough to go on and send the map (considering how urgent I felt it was to provide the map to Voxes at our earliest convenience), as Sharpe was the only one vocally objecting... so I feel that even if I might have "misassessed" the situation, I hardly breached our democracy... as it's currently being used (very few polls, most often just "gauging" team's opinion - which is actually not beacuse we would be lazy to do it the "right way", but because 1-3 day polls are often not sutiable to do things in a game that often plays a turn in 24-36 hours). So far, this has been working quite nicely, this is the first occasion where a problem arose.

Originally posted by Tiberius
The map is a huge advantage for Vox and this is good. This is why we gave it to them. We need the small teams to survive. We can't win this game fighting against one strong warmonger team, I hope you know that? Civ3 is just better suited for a warlike approach. I know that from my games. I am always more succesful when I go and fight instead of just build; always.

We are a builder team in this game and if we want to win it we need to keep a balance between teams as much as possible and as long as possible, because otherwise we won't win! We might have t take some risks from time to time to help the small ones, but this is what we must do. We need the small teams, we need a balance of power, I can't emphisize this enough. We also need to keep the world divided and not united against us. This is why we wanted to help Lux and this is why we prefer to help a bit GoW and not RP or ND

I could not have said it better.

Helping the underdogs to keep the strong teams busy and not thinking of us is our primary concern, at least until we settle all of Legos, railroad every single tile and produce 200 arty pieces. Only then, we will be able to afford the luxury of not caring any more...

Originally posted by redstar1
Almost everything done by this team has majority support of the team. I beleive the map deal is one of them. Maybe we should have had a poll about it but its a bit late now. I suggest in future that if anyone has any doubt over an issue, call for a poll. That gives 3 days more discussion on it before the votes are needed.

Another something I fully agree with. Let's make THIS our rule from now on. If anything proposed makes anyone feel very strongly about it, let he say "I want a vote held upon the issue". No need to actually post any rushed polls immediately, but it will be clear that I or anyone else actually making the decision is supposed to wait until things settle down completely, not just relying on a (possibly only seemingly) overwhelming support or lack of disagreement shown in the forum and chatroom.

[lmtoops]

Originally posted by Tiberius

So what? Where does it say that we can't give it? We didn't break any treaty, what's the problem?

Just a prediction....I did not mention any problems.