Team Info and Contacts - Templars

[ruff_hi]

I think the thing I like best about ruff's message is that I have NO idea what "Don't come the raw prawn" means

really?

some quick googles ...

The Raw Prawn is named after an Australian phrase "to come the raw prawn". The idiom is usually heard in negative constructions, such as the catchphrase, "Don't come the raw prawn with me!". It basically means "don't try to deceive me/ misrepresent the situation".

"don't come the raw prawn!" 'Don't try to put one over me!' --'Don't try to impose on me!' This catchphrase arose, during WW2, in the Australian Army; Wilkes's earliest printed date is 1942; in 1946 Rohan Rivett, 'Behind Bamboo' (a prisoner-of-war story) writes, '"Raw prawn" something far-fetched, difficult to swallow, absurd'. Apparently first dictionaried by the late Grahame Johnston, in 'The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary', 1976. A raw prawn is less edible than a cooked one. [Paul Beale, who edited and revised Partridge's book:] if in fact to do with cooking, then perhaps orig. a ref. to the Japanese delicacy. I have also heard the phrase used to mean 'Don't pretend to be the naive innocent!'

Don't come the raw prawn = don't act innocent when I know you know what's going on. Prawn is shrimp, hence a raw prawn is green and naive.

[Zeviz]

And just to throw in another opinion:

If we spent this much energy on negotiating with Imperio, we'd have peace with them by now.

What is the point of spending 2 pages discussing flowery prose from Templars whom we wouldn't want to work with under any conditions, when we could be negotiating with Imperio, who could be a valuable ally?

[darrelljs]

I like sooooo's new message.

Darrell

[ruff_hi]

me too (sooooo's message). Should I send it to Aidun via PM or to Templar via email?

[ruff_hi]

in response to my ...

quick question - what does Templar consider a 'win'? You talk about this but don't define it.

To win the game is the only formal way of winning, but to achieve something that was thought unachievable, even if it is not winning the game, is a victory, if a minor victory. For some athletes it is a victory to be among the top 10 of the world, while for others it is a shame to be less than fourth. Winning is therefore relative.

I cannot exactly say how different members of my team subjectively have defined their terms of what is a 'win' and what is a loss. To be defeated and kicked out of the game is a loss. To be an irrelevant player, whose actions do not matter is a loss as well, even if it can still get you in the game. Still, I would say that to win through peace is to get something valuable that is unachievable or extremely costly to achieve through war.

I hope that helps. Feel free to ask for more clarification if you need to.

"I hope that helps." "I hope that helps." No, not really. I wonder what he would say if I asked him what 2+2 equals ...

[ruff_hi]

I'm going to send this back via PM to Aidun as well as sending it via email to Templar

Sir Aidun,

We feel you are playing a game with us. You say that you don't want to make a demand from us. However, you claim you will not relay any proposal to the templars unless it is sufficiently amazing for them (queen-sacrifice quality). We feel you are just playing us to see what kind of offer we can make.

We would like you simply to ask your team exactly what you want in a peace deal. We'll consider whatever they say. We know you didn't have authority to make binding agreements in your first two messages. But you do have access to your team's board, so please ask them what they want.

[regoarrarr]

I still think we're being too harsh on them. I know that these presses are kind of (okay, a lot!) flowery and not saying much, but my read on it is that Aidun (and probably at least to an extent) the rest of Templars realize that they are not going to win and are kind of being wistful and talking out loud to themselves.

They realize that for whatever reason (poor play? lack of time? something else?) that they are not going to win, and so they are looking back on the earlier game and thinking "what might have been"

I still think we should try and appeal to their role playing selves. Give them / us a quest to fulfill. If we do that, I think we stand a decent chance at them playing completely in our control / a sort-of vassal. And wouldn't that be a good thing?

I do agree that if we can only negotiate with one power, Imperio is the way to go, but I don't feel like these kinds of negotiations / talking is useless

[ruff_hi]

fair enough ... what about ...

Sir Aidun,

We feel you are playing a game with us. You say that you don't want to make a demand from us. However, you claim you will not relay any proposal to the templars unless it is sufficiently amazing for them (queen-sacrifice quality). We feel you are just playing us to see what kind of offer we can make.

However, we cannot start to put together such a proposal until we know what Templar would consider a 'win' for them. We would like you simply to ask your team exactly what they are looking for in this game - what Templar would consider a 'win' for them (eg convert everyone to their religion).

We don't want to progress this war, but Templar have forced us to react. Ask Templar what they are seeking and Team RB will see how that fits with our desires. We are, and have been, more than willing to deal fairly with Templar.

I have left it open for us to still kill them in Op BB (that is a different war) and 'dealing fairly with Templar' could include killing them.

[regoarrarr]

I would specifically throw in something about a quest. How about

- what Templar would consider a 'win' for them (eg we come up with a fun "quest" that we can achieve together - maybe convert everyone to one religion, or something else)

[sooooo]

I dunno regoarrarr, they're not 13 year olds. They might call themselves knights templar, but I think they are above being given a quest.

[Sullla]

I still prefer sooooo's message (posted above by Ruff). Let's not get into talk about "quests" and what would constitute a "win" for Templars. I would like to see us cut through Templars' bull and be polite but direct. sooooo's message essentially says, "stop dicking around and tell us what terms you want for peace", and does so in a fairly diplomatic way.

Let's stop running around in circles. Templars are currently losing the war. (Notice how we are now besieging their cities instead of vice versa.) We're content to see things continue as they are now. Either they start offering us something substantial, or we just continue to tune them out.

[sooooo]

Yep, Ruff, please send the message in post #906.

[ruff_hi]

done

[sooooo]

We don't seem to be getting anywhere with aidun. Do we still object on moral grounds to sending out this message to templars:

Dear Templars,

We recently received a pm from Sir Aidun, seeking to negotiate a peace deal. However, once we proposed our deal to him, his reply did not make it clear whether he posted it on your boards. He seemed to imply that unless we made a very generous offer then he would not report it to you. We thought our deal was fair, but he believes he cannot report back to you unless it's heavily in your favour. To be honest, the whole thing is confusing. Does Sir Aidun speak for templars as a whole? Are the templars interested in negotiating a peace deal? He also proposed a pact to stop pillaging while we negotiate, but we are unsure whether the templars' turnplayer supports that pact. We like Sir Aidun and get along with him well. But war/peace is quite important, so we'd like the above issues cleared up.

Thanks,

Team Realms Beyond

Frankly, I don't see Sir Aidun getting into trouble if we send this message. He was asked by Hercules to negotiate with us. It is only natural that we would want to ask if he speaks for all of templars. And he must have been sent to discuss a peace deal with us, not for any other subject. I honestly don't see the moral grounds not to send this message.

In other news, Hercules again asked for a pause because he will be away this turnset. I asked in the main thread if there was no one that could cover.

[Sullla]

Well I don't see any reason not to send it, but I wasn't objecting to it before either. If someone wants to make the case for not sending this message, go right ahead. I agree with sooooo that we should try to clarify the situation.