Announcement

**Hot Mustard** · January 20, 2003, 05:41

BTW, my hope is that someone with a more appropriate background and/or training will step up to take responsibility for revising this format with everyone's input.

Since I am hoping many will have suggestions, it won't work to have everyone edit the first post. To recommend alterations, go to edit my original post, copy the contents to your clipboard, back out of editing the post, reply to the thread, and paste into your reply, and then make modifications. (Or just write a completely different format suggestion from scratch.)

**DAVOUT** · January 20, 2003, 11:38

This is interesting, but I see it rather as a preparation form for the ambassadors (after addition of several items) when they collect the data prior a formal agreement than the agreement itself.
In fact, PTW opens a totally unknown word to be explored by the diplomacy, and I think that the litterary format can be beneficial for us, if it is properly backed up by your agreement form. In other words, the flowers of rhetorics drawn by our imaginative writers are a facet of our strength that we may choose to show, or not, in those documents.
All this makes that I do not favor the gift of any of those ideas to our competitors.

**Ninot** · January 20, 2003, 12:11

It resembles the ingame diplomacy window. I like that

however, i propose a

1st party comments:

2nd party comments:

they may be left blank, or they may be filled to ease along the process of diplomacy. Commentary doesnt really fit into any other field of the form, and it can be a usefull tool into assuring the other party of the goals of the trade.

**Crousto** · January 20, 2003, 12:22

I totally agree with DAVOUT. This could be used as a framework or reference to ensure that our diplomatic propositions are complete and can't be contested. But no need to ensure that our competitors are as rigorous as we are

**E_T** · January 20, 2003, 13:11

The problem with the "tech trade on when turn" is that with REX going on now, we CANNOT get a firm time frame for the next tech advance. With our Nation being so small, the increase and/or decrease in the population, by even one citizen, can have a big Effect on the time for Research. Plus, We might be Pop Rushing something and that might make the tech longer to attain. Several Variables for Time to Research (TtR) on the Early game

So the timing of future tech agreements should either have the wording that the TtR is variable because of several factors while the nation is building. That the TtR is an Estimate of the time of when the agreed trade could take place, and NOT when because of actualities of the game.

Example: Writing
TtR was less before the settler was built (Madrid had more pop)
TtR was reduced when Barcelona was built, but might be not the same timeframe {TtR now - (TtR then - turns to build city) not equil to Zero}

Eta Tamali

**Arnelos** · January 20, 2003, 14:37

E_T is right, but that issue is larger than even he surmises.

There's a large degree of fluidity in inter-human diplomacy that makes over-legalizing and time-tabling it highly problematic. You just have to respond to things as they come and use your room to manuever to the best of your ability.

While I think the above might be useful for clarifying final arrangements, it's not really necessary. Precision in the use of our language when conducting diplomacy would solve the problem on its own (being clear about whether a deal is tentative or final, whether we have a technology or not, how soon we might get a technology and the likely variation in that timeframe, etc.).

**DAVOUT** · January 20, 2003, 14:54

Originally posted by Arnelos

There's a large degree of fluidity in inter-human diplomacy that makes over-legalizing and time-tabling it highly problematic. You just have to respond to things as they come and use your room to manuever to the best of your ability.

While I think the above might be useful for clarifying final arrangements, it's not really necessary. Precision in the use of our language when conducting diplomacy would solve the problem on its own (being clear about whether a deal is tentative or final, whether we have a technology or not, how soon we might get a technology and the likely variation in that timeframe, etc.).

Quite controversial : you seem to negate complexity which requires the use some help in the decision making process. I wonder how a strategy can be designed and applied when *you just respond to things as they come*,and without a strategy your room to manoeuver will soon become very small. Precision in the use of your language is the very final step, and cannot replace the work and thinking to be made before.

But that just my opinion.

**mrmitchell** · January 20, 2003, 15:00

No! We need to confuse our enemies!

Then, when they are reading over our legalese, we can March on Atlantis!

(or whatever their capital is...)

**Ninot** · January 20, 2003, 15:21

I disagree with Arnelos

while regular speach-type negotiations will be pretty neccesary to get a trade hammered out, this kind of documentation is absolutely neccesary if there is to be no confusion in what is wanted.

if we just go on the fly, things CAN get hectic. Ive seen that in C3DG turn chats. Misunderstanding is quite possible. Ghengis stated earlier that he thought we were going to declare war on him. THATS how far we've gotten with reacting to things as they come.

With a solid outline, everything runs more smoothly. if GoW understood better what we planed to do while their warriors are in our heartland, they would have taken our warnings with less panic. They thought the trade agreement was COMPLETELY anihilated, when it was only in a questionable state. That is a difference between hostilities and a trade.

**E_T** · January 20, 2003, 16:01

This also comes from having several channels of communication, where the things that are communicated via the different means can cause confusion and Misunderstandings.

Whether on not GF DID beleave what I had said, that still does not mean that he's still trying to cause trouble.

If he can create a situation that would really make us look bad AND still come up looking good, then he has accomplished his missions. With that, he can sow the seeds of Mistrust against us with ND & Lux. If he's able to do that, then he can try to get "hired out" by them, if things get worst.

If we have Records of the Agreements, even though they are tenative, then we can try to keep that from happening.

Eta Tamali

**Hot Mustard** · January 20, 2003, 16:02

Here's another idea.

Not everything taking place between two civs can be put in terms of a trade agreement. Case in point - Togas was/is making noise about not trading any techs to GoW until they respect our territory claims.

For these situations, I suggest a clear stated Official Edict of Spain. Anything else said casually or formally, in any medium, is just heresay until an Official Edict of Spain is issued to the other civ(s). That way GF would have known that all of Togas' comments were not the official stance of Spain until he had been given an official edict.

**pikesfan** · January 20, 2003, 18:58

Originally posted by dejon
For these situations, I suggest a clear stated Official Edict of Spain.

We need a special smilie to stamp it with. How about

**DAVOUT** · January 22, 2003, 09:52

Re: Standard Trade Format

A few additions to your proposal

[QUOTE] Originally posted by dejon

2 Team Trade Agreement or Treaty
Party 1: Roleplay Team
Party 2: Glory of War

Maps
To Party 1: [ ] WM [ ] TM
To Party 2: [ ] WM [ ] TM

Gold
To Party 1: [ ]GPT [ ] G
To Party 2: [ ]GPT [ ] G

Technologies
To Party 1:
To Party 2:

Turns to be Executed on
Party 1: Send: Accept:
Party 2: Send: Accept:

Other
Right of Passage [ ] Turns [ ] Beginning turn [ ] Ending turn [ ]
Non-Agression [ ] Turns [ ] Beginning turn [ ] Ending turn [ ]
Settlement Agreement [ ] Turns [ ] Beginning turn [ ] Ending turn [ ]

Terms of Non-Agression
Write terms here

Terms of Settlement
Write terms here

General
Does this agreement or treaty is secret ? :
Are all commitments resulting from the agreement or treaty listed above ?:
Has this agreement or treaty any effects on another agreement or treaty ? :
Have other agreements or treaties any effects on this one ? :

Signatories
Party 1: Name Accept [ ] Send [ ]
Party 2: Name Accept [ ] Send [ ]

**GodKing** · January 22, 2003, 14:08

A good outline, but it is more of an outline to be followed by the diplomats. I suggest that each side have a formal "Signing" of the end document that is archived so that we can reference it. That is when the trades and what not take place. Not before.

GK