Gathering Storm - correspondence & foreign affairs

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by lmtoops
The official stance is this regard has been discussed and has not changed. The stance is a 2-team Bob (GoW/ND) and GS on Estonia only.

This is what I thought, too, but obviously some of us thought this is not the case.

Hence the need for a protocol, regarding non-official chats.

My proposal (feel free to comment and modify it):

1. Any member of Legoland is allowed to attend non-official chats.

2. ALWAY REMEMBER, the true purpose of any unofficial chat is to get information, but reveal nothing and commit to nothing.

3. Any member of Legoland is allowed to organize non-official chats, under the following conditions:
a) - there is at least one other member of the team who supports the idea
b) - he consults with the FAM about the most optimal time and place to hold the chat. If possible, the FAM should attend the chat also.
c) - he announces the team about when and where the chat will take place, in the forums (not in the chatroom, 5 minutes before the chat)

4. Rules for non-official chats. The attendants:
a) - must respect the secrecy of Legoland's long term strategies, military plans, secret alliances, secret diplomatic talks with other teams, build plans, future research plans and other sensitive information (what else?)
b) must respect the secrecy of sensitive information Legoland has learned from other teams, during official chats or PM and/or email exchanges.
c) - must make it clear right in the beginning of the chat that they are speaking unofficially. (using an explicit phrase, such as: "I do not represent my teams official position." )
d) - are not allowed to present personal opinions as being the team's official policy/will.
e) - must not contradict with the official (approved) "position". All inferences must be "qualified" over and over ("this is not an offical stance", "I cannot agree without getting back to the team" , etc.).
f) are strongly advised to discuss personal views/opinions that differ from the official position only to test different reactions to different scenarios from the other team or to find out important information, hiden otherwise.

Something like this.
Leo and Zargon: Thanks for your contribution so far
I'm sure others will help me refine this, too.

[redstar1]

I think it might be worthwhile defining the difference between un-official 'team' chats and occassions where 2 people are discussing something else and the subject of Legoland comes up.

Those discussions may be fruitful, but it doesn't make sense to stop talking so it can be announced in the forum. Certainly it should be made clear that official policy will only be discussed in official chats, and when the FAM is present, or authority is given by the FAM for someone to act on his behalf.

I don't think anyone has a problem with unofficial chats, we are just concerned as to the content of them, and I'm sure everyone would like the oppurtunity to attend.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by redstar1
I think it might be worthwhile defining the difference between un-official 'team' chats and occassions where 2 people are discussing something else and the subject of Legoland comes up.

Agreed. As long as it is 1-on-1, likely just you and your friend or someone you know well, and a clear disclaimer is given at the beginning of the chat, I would consider that just fine - I had lots of chats like that myself, too. Friendly chats with mates you happen to have in other teams certainly are quite fruitful in terms of gaining information.

One must use his common sense to distinguish between such a friendly chat with someone he knows and a chat that is likely to be perceived as 'official' by the other party.

Rule of thumb: the more people in a chat, the more official it is. The less you know the person you are talking to, the more official it is. Once it's no longer 1-on-1, "just between you and me, mate", it becomes quite tricky to navigate the waters, because the chat starts to look more or less official. Especially when everybody knows that teams have usually under 10 members, so even 2-3 of them is quite a part of that team.

[Tiberius]

I didn't say it must be announced all the time. I said you must announce it when you are organizing it.

Like: I want to chat with GS to see what's their opinion about this possible scenario ... Then you must announce it.

[ZargonX]

That proposal looks pretty solid, Tiberius. I think you've pretty much covered all the bases. And, just to reiterate: always remember who you are talking to. There is a difference between speaking to a member of another team and speaking to their FAM; even if it's casual, they may not perceive it as such.

[vondrack]

damage control

Well, uh... apparently neither Sharpe nor Nimitz are going to post any summaries (Sharpe left the team, btw). But we have to handle this as promptly as possible to prevent extensive damage to our relations with GS, so I will go ahead and try to put together a summary + a proposal of how to fix what was done.

First, here is the chat, edited to not include pleasantries, unimportant stuff (like the part about Vox), misunderstandings, typos fixed etc. I may be a bit biased, so feel free to object if you believe the edit is not properly done. I did my best to make the chatlog as easy to read and follow as possible without changing the meaning.

The red marks denote points ranging from problematic to disastrous. The green marks denote points where we learned or confirmed something about GS.

Originally posted by Sharpe
Sharpe: To be honest Legoland is concerned about your invasion of GoW's territory - home area that is
Theseus: well, we weren't just going to slug it out in the south.
Cort_Haus: well it's not surprising that we weant to take the fight to the enemy.
Sharpe: K, to get to the point - Lego has a defensive alliance with GoW - regarding any invasion of their home territory - since neither you nor RP have attacked into their homeland until now - Legoland has remained uninvolved until now *1)
Theseus: We are not in GoW's homeland.
Theseus: Although we are... close.
Sharpe: Err, what about that force of yours outside of Yellowknife?
Theseus: To be honest? We knew we needed to bring the situation on Bob to a head.
Sharpe: We are concerned about it because if you did attack GoW's cities there, the treaty with GoW would require us to help with their defense *1)
Theseus: Here's a biggie: We do not want to attack GoW. *2)
Theseus: But we had to get their, and your, attention.
Cort_Haus: You seem shocked that we'd show troops to GoW's homeland. You can't really blame us for wanting to threaten the enemy where it hurts though - otherwise we just hang around in Spain soaking up 3-mover attacks for ever.
Sharpe: No, we aren't shocked
Cort_Haus: So you've promised to help them defensively. Why?
Nimitz: so you wouldn't destroy them
Cort_Haus: so you threaten us with war...
Theseus: Bear with me for a sec while I lay out some key thoughts:
Theseus: * Look at the map of Bob; it's all about ND.
Theseus: * RP is basically done, 'cept we have them on life support.
Theseus: * We can face off against both ND and GoW in the south all day long. But 1) it's getting boring, and 2) it's non-productive.
Theseus: * I know that last point is not your concern, and is in a way to your benefit... but understand, we cannot allow the current state of affairs to continue.
Theseus: * We are going to take out either ND or GoW... *2)
Nimitz: so what you going to destroy some of there cities in the north and then get them to invade you
Theseus: Do you think we mean to do this with just 12 Knights and 4 Pikes?
Sharpe: no we know you have additional forces
Theseus: Wait a sec please... I was building up to something.
Sharpe: k
Theseus: * We see an opportunity, one that I had mentioned to vondrack.
Theseus: We want to HIRE GoW. *2)
Theseus: I have asked vondrack in the past if this would be OK... and he was fine with it.
Sharpe: Hire GoW to do what ? Attack ND?
Theseus: You betcha. And yes, we know that will require the absence of RP from Bob.
Theseus: I think it is part of their contract with ND.
Sharpe: we aren't so sure about that "contract" part ....
Theseus: I think they actually want to do what they set out to do... be mercs.*2)
Theseus: Which is pretty cool, IMO.
Sharpe: at first yes, but we haven't seen much sign of that - they do appear to be working together
Cort_Haus: what did you guys want to talk about, btw.We already knew you'd declare war on us if we attacked the GoW homeland.
Nimitz: just wishing to maintain balance
Nimitz: we don't want you destroyed any more then GoW
Sharpe: We would like to avoid war with GS if possible - so to figure out if there is a way for our defensive pact with GoW NOT to be activated *3)
Theseus: Ah, ok.
Sharpe: some background - why do you think we are part of the alliance with GoW and ND
Theseus: Are you? *4)
Cort_Haus: Yes, it looked like that with the Ultimatum
Theseus: But with ND too? *4)
Sharpe: hard to say, we do have a NAP with them
Sharpe: not sure how much longer it has to go *4)
Sharpe: a) we realized that RP was doomed no matter what
Sharpe: b) we wanted peace in general, a balance of power, and a build-off.
Sharpe: and c) No one had a clue about what was going on in GoW and ND *5)
Sharpe: you know the phrase "Keep your friends close and your rivals even closer?"
Theseus: Let me cut to the chase: How do you feel about GoW (and Vox? and Lego?) having a good chunk of Bob?
Theseus: Us too of course... and if we can, we would like to try to restore part of Spain.
Sharpe: you are proposing a gangup on ND then?
Theseus: I guess I'm proposing a balance of power sans ND.
Theseus: If anything, and my teammates might kill me for this... I'd like to see GoW STRONGER.
Nimitz: well umm I don't know what the team would say
Nimitz: I don't think they would do this at all before any NAP with ND was over
Theseus: Yes, agreed, honor all deals.
Sharpe: What does GoW say about this?
Theseus: NO idea.
Cort_Haus: But could you at least stay neutral?
Nimitz: it would depend most likely
Nimitz: on what you came up with
Nimitz: as in if GoW would agree
Cort_Haus: depend?
Cort_Haus: you've already been offered territory
Sharpe: no, we mean re diplomatic fallout
Cort_Haus: with who? GS, GoW, Vox?
Nimitz: if both GoW and GS agree there would be none
Sharpe: what Nimitz said, if we had proof that GoW was onboard with this, things would look a little different *6)
Theseus: I have floated this idea in front of MZ and Un0.
Cort_Haus: if you help us dismantle ND, we'll hardly hold that against you
Sharpe: question then: why has GoW asked us for help defending against your forces?
Cort_Haus: to precipitate this conversation?
Theseus: We needed both a carrot and a stick...
Sharpe: I doubt it - GoW was quite firm in invoking the defense clause
Nimitz: yes
Theseus: If we can't make happen what we are discussing here, we needed to position ourselves for another course. But we would MUCH rather do this.
Nimitz: you most likely will not get them to agree by invading
Theseus: We have not yet invaded.
Theseus: BTW, I do NOT mean to come off overly aggressive... we are in a tough sot and doing a best we can.
Cort_Haus: GoW and GS have been forcing each others hand to make not striking a deal with each other unpalatable
Sharpe: hmm, well if you don't invade, Lego won't be forced to join the war... which will please us
Cort_Haus: So you'd rather we did a deal with GoW?
Sharpe: if possible *6)
Nimitz: I think everyone would *6)
Sharpe: what Lego is concerned about is what will do you if GoW says no, at least right now no to taking out ND?
Theseus: Fair point.
Sharpe: admittedly they have said even to us that things are "open" after RP is gone *7)
Cort_Haus: You want to know our plan B as well?
Cort_Haus: Well, it looks grim. World War....
Theseus: We'll fight. *2)
Sharpe: what we hope is that Lego and GS could perhaps come to an agreement to avoid any defense treaty being triggered if possible *3)
Theseus: I hear ya, Sharpe.
Theseus: Not sure what to do though...
Sharpe: out of curiousity, do you find it curious that neither GoW or ND have tried to land on Stormia *8)
Theseus: They don't have the troops.
Cort_Haus: have you seen our navy?
Nimitz: you see if war happen it may trigger a bad series of events for all
Theseus: I hear ya, Nimitz.
Sharpe: you have 12 ships?, admittedly a lot, but about the same as GoW and ND combined
Sharpe: and they do have the troops btw
Cort_Haus: So how come you made this serious comitment to defend GoW against GS? ... a bit interventionist for builders isn't it - if you don't mind me saying.
Sharpe: Because we don't want them to invade Stormia... *8)
Cort_Haus: really?
Sharpe: yep, more balance thing
Nimitz: yes
Nimitz: but we don't want the opposite either (GoW falling)
Cort_Haus: You could have sent troops to defend Stormia if you didn't want GoW to invade us
Sharpe: we would be willing, if we could reach Stormia easily *8)
Theseus: Cutting to the chase again: IF we can negotiate a deal with GoW, are you OK with a NEW balance: Lego, GS, and GoW, with Vox and RP as supporting players?
Nimitz: as I said that is not up to us its up to the team
Nimitz: we can't make decisions like that
Theseus: Fair enough... is it something to be considered, and what are yout thoughts on the team's likely thinking?
Nimitz: I'd say 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 *6)
Sharpe: yeah, Nimitz is right
Sharpe: the key would be the neutral people on Lego
Sharpe: that would depend on whether GoW was fully on board with this
Theseus: Also, would you want to fight, and would you want a piece of Bob?
Nimitz: if we agreed most likely
Theseus: Assume that we can get GoW on board.
Theseus: (Not that we REMOTELY have)
Sharpe: it would be a fair agreement re balance *6)
Theseus: Please guide us as to the communications that would be necessary for the concurrence of the rest of Team Lego.
Theseus: Not now, but however you feel appropriate.
Cort_Haus: so am I right that you called this chat to see if there was a way for us to avoid war?
Sharpe: yes Cort_Haus
Sharpe: I think that GoW definitely wants resolution of the RP conflict before they will agree to anything
Theseus: RP must leave Bob, that is clear.
Cort_Haus: the RP conflict is resolvable, we think
Sharpe: are you sure that GoW will accept RP only leaving Bob ?
Nimitz: in other word for GoW it would mean they would get more land than all of our land on bob put together
Cort_Haus: it's not just about land for GoW, its about the war - ending it
Sharpe: undoubtedly GoW would want a large chunk of Bob to agree to this
Theseus: Yes, that is one of the key things that we can offer.
Cort_Haus: with ND out of the way they can have a contiguous chunk... that's better than a few bits the other side of ND - which they'll have to fight us interminably for under the staus quo. *2)
Theseus: Yeah, I think none of us looks at GoW's territory and say "GREAT, just the empire I wanted to build!"
Sharpe: yeah, GoW is in a bad situation re future strategic resources
Sharpe: oil rubber won't be likely showing up in their current territories
Cort_Haus: so you can see we have something to offer them *2)
Sharpe: as long as others have parts of Bob, even GoW controlling most of Bob would have defensive problems
Nimitz: ya but I still think they would demand the most land and you have to think about what GoW would want in return for their support
Cort_Haus: ...many turns ago, GoW/ND tried to take Spain...
Nimitz: and are doing so
Cort_Haus: slowly
Sharpe: I don't know about that - the crucial battle seems to be for Pamplona - if it falls RP is finished...
Cort_Haus: if GoW have a contract to remove RP they've been held up by GS *2)
Cort_Haus: GS can deliver their contract
Cort_Haus: RP in Spain would be finished. Not RP
Sharpe: have you guys thought about a RPxodus?
Sharpe: even at least temporarily?
Cort_Haus: so, my friends - do you feel nearer to or further from war with GS?
Theseus: May I suggest we've accomplished what we needed to here? You do not want to get drawn into a war on Bob, and would like to see "a" balance of power maintained. We are pursuing such a path. GoW is the next step. Yes?
Sharpe: yeah *6)
Cort_Haus: ok, that's it then
Sharpe: we should continue to talk - been too long between chats
Sharpe: later I mean
Sharpe: not have this long gap between chats
Nimitz: we shall relay the chat to our team and see what they say
Theseus: Agreed. More communication. Much more. I am going to try to make Monday evening my personal chat night. We will report back to you on our progress with GoW, and eagerly look forward to the results of Lego's internal discussions.
Nimitz: ok
Sharpe: ok

*1) ... GS was told we had a defensive alliance with GoW, which was not triggered so far, letting us remain uninvolved up to now

This is incorrect, even if not a complete lie. We have an alliance focused on driving GS off Bob, in which we play a defensive role - which is quite a difference. Our gunpowder research, iron & saltpeter, and LEF are everything, but uninvolvement... it's the maximum involvement imaginable under current circumstances. See proposal A for an idea how to handle this.

*2) ... GS made it clear they do not understand how close to each other GoW and ND are. They believe it's all just a mercenary contract. They very much hope GoW will eventually agree to stab ND in their back. The GS troops positioned for an attack are to be a bargaining chip in the first place - ready to attack ND, if GoW joins them, ready to attack GoW (and ND) if GoW refuses to join.

*3) ... we made the impression, at least from time to time, though not all the time, that our main concern was how to avoid fighting as in how to avoid honouring our alliance with GoW(/ND). That's not true - but fixing this should be easy - see the proposal B.

*4) ... we accidentally revealed something GS was maybe considering, but certainly not sure about - that we are allied with ND, too. Trying to fix the fault by pretending there was only an NAP was just adding insult to injury, as that's the same problem as with *1)... if not a lie, then certainly an incorrect statement. See proposal A.

*5) ... this is mostly a minor thing, but we shall keep in mind that we did NOT tell GS our main reason to get involved in the war (no GS presence on Bob). If we are ever forced to admit what it is, we will be contradicting ourselves. But frankly, I would leave this be and just cover that with Proposal C.

*6) ... we said, several times, that we would like to see GS striking a deal with GoW (against ND). That is not true, as we want Bob divided between GoW and ND, with no GS presence at all. Fortunately, as GoW is never going to strike the deal with GS, we might hopefully never have to explain that. Same as *5), let's cover this with proposal C.

*7) ... unless I have forgotten something very important, GoW NEVER indicated they'd be ready to turn against ND once the war was over. This probably just encouraged GS to try talking GoW into the backstab deal, but not more than that. No action required, I believe.

*8) ... I consider this one of the worst faults made in the chat. Ironically, the problem is we told them truth. But I am quite sure it would be better if they did not know. Oh, well... this cannot be fixed. The best we can do is to not mention it again.

So, here is what I believe we should do:

A. explain the nature of our ties with GoW
Even though I would have preferred not telling GS at all, I believe that now it would be better to tell them the whole truth than to leave the half-truth and lies without any comments. They would find out sooner or later and it would backfire at us. I think telling them "we are allied to GoW and ND" is the correct description of the current state of things. I would try hard to not go into details, specifically trying to not explicitly tell them what the goal of the alliance is - as that is a sure way to make them attack with all they have. But I fear it may be impossible to avoid this topic.

B. restate our position regarding their troops near Yellowknife
I believe a single sentence like "while it's true we would prefer not having to fight you, there is only one way to accomplish that - if you withdraw from the vicinity of the GoW/ND homelands". That should be enough, IMHO.

C. make it clear the stances and opinions presented were not Legoland's official position,
but rather stances and opinions of one/two of our members, which did not represent the majority of the team.

I am afraid I cannot think of anything else to do... in many cases, bringing a topic up again would only make things worse...

[lmtoops]

I agree that we must deal with them honestly, with no deceptions. If Sharpe has left the team, then GS will soon know Sharpe's version of the truth.

Of course, Nimitz did not post a summary. Every politician knows that when you are leading in the polls, you just smile and shake hands.

[redstar1]

I think an 'Official' chat with GS would certainly be the first step. Perhaps if we can make sure Vondrack and Nimitz are both there so our FAM elect (so far) can learn from the master

[vondrack]

Well, yes, I assume the official chat to be something we must do ASAP. My abovementioned proposals were meant as a basis for the discussion what we tell them in that chat.

[vondrack]

Ummm, I'm getting a bit nervous about this. I do not think we can leave it be for a week. I would prefer contacting GS before they play this turn. Is everyone ok with the proposals I mentioned? I do not want to go speaking to Theseus without knowing everybody gave it a thought.

And yes, I would also like Nimitz to be there with me, mostly because Theseus will be more likely to believe it's me conveying the official stance, not just me doing the same as Sharpe, just in the opposite direction.

[Tiberius]

Yes, OK, go ahead.

... though I would start with c).

Hmm, in the same time we could maybe skip a), telling them instead loud and clear that the presented informations were not entirely accurate or true. Which one, we should let them guess
Of course, if the chat slips in that direvction, tell them about a).

[vondrack]

Yep, me too. The points would be mentioned in the order C-A-B. Denoting them the way I did was quite arbitrary, as they emerged from the comments I was making.

[Tiberius]

One more observation: make it a friendly chat though. Despite our alliance against them and the possible war, we are not enemies. Just rivals.

[vondrack]

Certainly, a very friendly one.

BTW... perhaps I might try to not address the nature of our alliance with GoW/ND on my own (C-B instead of C-A-B). But if they ask (and I doubt they would not), I will be honest.

I am somehow not feeling comfortable not denying the statement "Legoland has remained uninvolved so far"... I fear that could backfire on us in the future.

[Tiberius]

This is what I said in my last but one post, is it not?