Public Diplomacy Thread

[darrelljs]

I'm of the opinion we don't want to get pulled into a long debate in the main forum. I'd just basically post one short message on why we felt the action was justified after Krill clarifies to Naldo that our move was legal, and then ignore anything thereafter.

Who do we need to justify things with? Banana is best done privately. Rabbits are a nono-factor and PAL is our enemy.

Darrell

[Dreylin]

tbh, I would favour something a lot shorter, and with less details - I think the current version comes off as a bit "look at all these really good reasons we had ... it wasn't really just because it was expediant, honest!" IYSWIM

It was with regret that we took this step against Imperio, however regarding the Peace agreement which Naldo references: in addition to including a NAP, also included a Gunpowder trade - which Imperio did not fulfill - and an agreement for them to declare on Templars - which was delayed so much that Templars eventually made the first move.

In addition; Imperio's record is one of declaring WAR on RB, then failing to support their Templar allies. Eventually when it became clear that RB had the upper hand in the conflict, they switched sides and negotiated a split of their previous allies lands! It's not exactly easy to trust someone after that.

Edit: I agree with Darrell, it's not like we need to convince anyone; except maybe Naldo, and that would be better done privately than in public.

[darrelljs]

Funny things is 2 turns ago he refused Education for free from us and instead gave RB mil trad for Education....go figure!

Funny .

Ha Ha hilarious

If true it couldn't have happened to a "nicer" bunch of folks.

Even better. Think the Templars are holding a grudge? I guess we weren't the only ones who didn't like Imperio playing all sides...

Darrell

[ruff_hi]

Hmm - ok, longer message in email to Imperio and Dreylin's shorter message to the public thread? All those in favour?

[Iamjohn]

Sounds good.

[Swiss Pauli]

How about this attempt:

It was with regret that we took this step against Imperio. However, regarding the Peace agreement which Naldo refers: in addition to including a NAP, it also included a Gunpowder trade which Imperio did not fulfill, and an agreement for them to declare on Templars which was delayed so much that Templars actually declared on Imperio.

So regarding 'ethical' play, Imperio can hardly claim to have a spotless record, especially when one also considers they sabotaged resources using Spies whilst under an agreed NAP 'cool-off' period, and also betrayed their former allies to eliminate them from the game.

I don't like the part about trust (as we were pretty untrustworthy ourselves), and should instead throw the 'ethical play' back in their face.

[ruff_hi]

Krill has commented in the public thread. I like SP's revision - posting that seems like the way forward.

[Sullla]

I don't care too much what we say, but we've now spent over 12 hours going in circles on this. Sometimes you've just got to cut through the Gordian Knot and put your best draft forward. We already have the private message we're going to pass on to Naldo/Imperio. Given that Templars and PAL are laughing their asses off in the public forum, and Banana is cheering us on from the sidelines, I don't think we need some kind of masterpiece. Just a short statement justifying our actions.

Zeviz's message seemed fine to me. So is Ruff's. I don't like the Dreylin/Swiss ones as much because I favor the bullet points for emphasis.

[ruff_hi]

just posted this ...

Considering Imperio's past actions, it is our view that they aren't in a position to complain about the current situation. Here is a brief list of their past actions from our point of view:

1. During the cooldown period of our previous NAP they used spies to disconnect our sole source of metal. Regardless of whether espionage is considered an act of war, preventing us from training troops to prepare for the end of NAP broke the spirit of that agreement.

2. Our current agreement that included the NAP Imperio is talking about also included following clauses:
2.1. Imperio was supposed to trade us Gunpowder. Not only did they fail to do this, but they ignored our messages about it.
2.2. Imperio was supposed to join us in war against Templars. They broke both letter and spirit of this clause by delaying their attack for so long that Templars declared on them instead.

In addition to broken agreements with us, Imperio did several other things that discouraged good relations:

3. Imperio had negotiated a trade embargo against us, denying us critical military technologies.

4. Imperio had teamed with Templars to declare war on us.

5. During the war between Imperio+Templars and RB, Imperio sat on the sidelines doing nothing with their huge army and betrayed their allies as soon as it became clear who was winning the war. Not only did they sign a separate peace deal with us, they made a secret agreement to split the lands of their former ally with their enemy. This kind of behavior does not make them look trustworthy even if it was to our benefit in this case.

Because Imperio ignored their responsibilities from our most recent agreement, Team RB considers that agreement broken -- by them, not us -- and therefore void.

Our team takes diplomacy and our diplomatic commitments seriously. We expect the same from others. Given Imperio's history of working diplomatically (conspiring with other teams against us), secretly (using spies to destroy critical resources despite having a NAP with us), and actively (declaring war) against us, we feel that we have sufficient casus belli for our current actions. This was our last choice.

Team RB

which was Z's latest version with some tightening up of some words.

[sunrise089]

Looks great, I'm glad we posted something.

Did the friendlier message go to Nalda via email yet?

[ruff_hi]

email as per Imp thread sent just after I posted publically

[regoarrarr]

From Imperio in the public thread

Ok Krill thank you! I see that here you play different.

For us (in spanish forum) all of pacts signed are unbreakable and I was playing during these 2 month with this point of view. If here the diplomacy have not any importance for me is not necessary send messages or make pacts. Another time I will not waste time.

If I had played konwing these conditions RB never will captured an imperio city It is the problem

Now I'm alone making imperio's movements and managing imperio's diplomacy, but in this conditions this game are not interesting for me. I was making a big effort to play the turns regulary and a lot of times I've lost the turn and for that sometime we can do all thing that we want to do (like attack in a concret turn or be quick with diplomcy answers) but never we make nothing or lie deliberate like RB has made.

Sorry I don't want to waste more time in a game where diplomacy has not importance.

Thank you for all and sorry for all the problems that imperio causes to other teams during these months.

Should we (and if so, how) respond?

[regoarrarr]

My thought would be to repeat something along the lines of:


2. Our current agreement that included the NAP Imperio is talking about also included following clauses:
2.1. Imperio was supposed to trade us Gunpowder. Not only did they fail to do this, but they ignored our messages about it.
2.2. Imperio was supposed to join us in war against Templars. They broke both letter and spirit of this clause by delaying their attack for so long that Templars declared on them instead.


Because Imperio ignored their responsibilities from our most recent agreement, Team RB considers that agreement broken -- by them, not us -- and therefore void.

[ruff_hi]

does his comment call for a response. I think he is withdrawing from the game.

[Swiss Pauli]

I think Naldo's resigning because he's upset and he knows his cause is lost. His argument is pretty shaky given he was pretty selective about which clauses of the deal he was going to respect. We shouldn't rush to reply: it would be better for us if other teams pointed out his selectiveness on what constitutes a binding agreement.