Foreign Affairs between Teams

[Zero]

Like I said the story plot will only thicken with threat of your intention being revealed. Diplomacy will have some sort of a indirect implications, lots of winking and nudging, and almost a dance of game being played by both side to dig into the truth. Much like real life as Spiffor suggests. I think it only adds to the fun factor having to try to decipher others intentions.

If PM can be publicized by the team recieving the mail, the team sending the PM should work on the draft revealing their intentions as little as possible with being able to communicate properly what they want. There will also be alot of arguement like what a definition of "IS" is... Yeah know, trying to worm their selves out of what they said. LOL

For example:

Team A:"You clear stated in your document to Team B you wanted to make a military alliance against us. Team B and we are allies and they have reported this evil scheme you have been working on! Apparently you underestimated our bond!"

Team C: "No no that is not what we said... We simply expressed our concern that for any upcoming possibility of hostility come to us or the Team B, we wanted to let them know we are there for them."

Team A: "But wasn't the document implying that We the Team A may be planning to stab our sworn ally in the back?"

Team C: "No! never"

Team A: "well you wrote here on paragraph 12, Team A is evil'. "

Team C: "... uh .... We will have to discuss that with our foreign advisors. I am not at the liberty to define what was said by the ministry of foreign relations."

LOL

As damaging as it is may be for Team C, it is also Team A who will have to face the consequence as well... Team C prolly will never offer another secret treaty, knowing their reputation. Team A may tell Team B behind the curtain, and that may add to the whole comlexity of diplomacy again too~

[Zero]

Originally posted by ruby_maser
on a side note, I think ambassadors should be the only ones authorized to communicate with another team. I know I don't have the luxury of negotiating directly with other nations. That should keep it more real. Anything a citizen should want added should be directed to their own ambassador to be delivered to the opposing team's. It probably would have been an unspoken rule anyway but just to prevent them from being inundated with PM's

... especially ones that haven't been censored

Your right, an individual's hotheaded insult to another government does not necessarily reflect the individual's govt. Just like some American saying "Death to all the bloody brits" wuld not mean the whole country hates the UK. This will add even more to the even more strange dance we will have to participate in the game of diplomacy

[Arnelos]

I agree with teams trying to prevent their citizens from discussing official policy with other team members, but how on earth is anyone going to enforce that??? Issues:

1. Many of the people who play also play in the single-player DG and end up chatting with each other. Expecting that they will NEVER mention the PTW DG (especially when it comes to occassion kidding/trash talk) flies in the face of a realistic expectation of human nature. A team that actually managed to discipline itself might have an ADVANTAGE by not doing this, but it would be impossible to force them.

2. Under 'poly rules, they can send PMs to each other which no-one else can read and which not even the recipient is permitted to publish if they wanted to. If it's two non-official members of different teams just gossiping, there's no way for anyone but the two of them to know what was said.

Ultimately, teams that have the self-discipline to keep from telling other teams things they shouldn't will be BETTER OFF, but there's little way for the inter-team community to enforce a no-discussion rule. Let the teams attempt to enforce it on their own members if they want (though that will be largely fruitless other than as self-enforcement).

[Zero]

You'll have to let the individuals off, free to say what they will, the government just has to diavow any relations with the view of the individual.

[Meshelic]

What is wrong with all the members of your team knowing what you communicated with another foreign diplomat, and knowing exactly what was discussed? I don't want to keep anything from my team.

So I'll trust them not to release any official information that could harm my team, or else it'll be off with their heads!

[Zero]

Releasing information within team should be left to the team itself. As for releasing diplomatic conversation between two foriegn advisory branch, that should be left to "no rule" rule.

[Meshelic]

Originally posted by Calc II
Releasing information within team should be left to the team itself. As for releasing diplomatic conversation between two foriegn advisory branch, that should be left to "no rule" rule.

So you're saying that it should automatically be assumed that any PM between ambassadors is considered "fair game" to post in your team thread AND the PTW thread (if they choose that route...complete with the consequenes that go with it). If so then I second the idea and give it the
but
You know that the 'poly rules state otherwise....

what teams would consent to this "amendment" to the rules is the question.
?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Meshelic


So you're saying that it should automatically be assumed that any PM between ambassadors is considered "fair game" to post in your team thread AND the PTW thread (if they choose that route...complete with the consequenes that go with it). If so then I second the idea and give it the
but
You know that the 'poly rules state otherwise....

what teams would consent to this "amendment" to the rules is the question.
?

I'll post a poll.

[Meshelic]

Thanks Trip I was hoping someone would get to that.

[CiverDan]

I would like to know what communications is going on between our team and another. I don't want to tell someone lets research X when someone is having a discussion about going to war which, if happened, would make it better for us to research Y. Basically, this handicaps the decision making prcess of other team members.

[Meshelic]

No CiverDan I think you misunderstand. That's ok.

Unless you have a rogue ambassador who doesn't follow the desires of his own team through diplomacy, then that problem you speak of will most surely not happen.

I would assume that the teams would have a poll or at least a serious discussion before arranging to go to war. BUT THIS ALLOWS your ambassador to tell you EXACTLY what was said in his communications with the other team, so that NONE of your team is left in the dark.

[ZargonX]

I definately feel that ambassador PMs should be considered "non-private" if one of the two involved decides to go public with the information. As has been said, in real life diplomacy, there's nothing stopping anyone from disclosing diplomatic discussions expcept for trust and strategy. If I want Team A to know that Team B secretly contacted us, trying to convince us to join them in a war, if our team feels it's in our best interest to pass along that info to Team A, so be it. The downside is that Team B will probably never trust us again, but that's how the diplomacy games works, right?

[Zero]

When an ambassador is appointed he should be appointed acknowledging that his pm privacy may be revoked.

[Meshelic]

ZargonX and Calc II are right on the money.

[ThePlagueRat]

Well, since Markos is the owner and makes the rules here...
Perhaps he will allow public quoting of PM only here in this demogame?

It would make it legal ad convenient to forward a (PM) diplomatic request from an foreign emmisary to the people or the cabinet of the recieving team.