Diplomacy Nazi, please!

[Arrian]

Sweet, sweet, sweet. Let's get our position out there on settings and such and move this baby along

-Arrian

[ruby_maser]

I'd like to find a way to participate in the diplomacy in some capacity. It may be beneficial that there will not necessarily be an immediate need since I am in the process of getting a new computer, but when the time comes, I think I would be prepared to serve. I'm certainly online enough, and my rhetorical skills are well-honed.

Several questions though:
How is policy-planning formulated? For instance, who is the "we" in regards to those who are charged with assessing diplomatic goals for the ambassadors to execute?

The team could be polled en masse to determine broad strategic goals if the diplomacy nazi's function is more a public servant than a policy planner. I guess it depends on how much latitude they're given. The diplomats then take that information or disinformation, as it were, and disseminate it to our opponents, I assume?

Is there such a thing as too much professionalism? I like the idea of conducting myself as I think a diplomat would, being prepared, and exercising discretion? However, you can't be so distant that you never gain their trust. Conversely, being too personal and intimate with them could result in a lapse in judgement that would allow them insight into our game plan. It's definitely a delicate balance.

I guess I'm really just trying to gauge how the team would respond to bureacracy and codifying our way of handling things and getting things done in the diplomatic arena. It might stand to accomplish a lot for us, and then it might be withering.

[Dominae]

I think that, since we are a team and everyone should feel like they have a say, there should never be situations when we defer to the decisions of one or two people, because they are the "experts".

In other words, if ever there is an issue that is heavily debated, it should be agreed to put it to a vote, and there should be no complaining about the results of the vote.

It's okay if the "experts" try to influence how people vote, but they themselves should only get one vote, like everyone else.

I remember situations in the PTWDG where certain members were running the show and others were just following along. In contrast, our most brilliant moments were when everyone was participating.

Our "experts" are usually such because they are more actively involved in playing the turn, but they are not necessarily better players or whatever. So I see no reason to give them special status.

So, please, let's keep this somewhat close to a "democracy" game.

[Arrian]

Agreed.

Given that we have a bunch of reasonable people on this team, the people who devote lots of time and effort and are clearly good at the game (the "experts") will naturally heavily influence the debate anyway. By contrast, if I've been away for a month (say... March, when I'll be in New Zealand for three weeks), I'm not going to pop into the middle of a debate I haven't been following and throw a tantrum if it's not going my way.

These things tend to sort out well in GS - we just need to be concious of not taking too long to make relatively minor decisions.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Fully agreed on all larger decisions. The only thing I've got to add to Dom's post is that the smaller situations should be handled by fewer of our members, but with the entire group's opinion in mind. We can't be bogged down to poll everything either... the reason why pure democracies don't work just like pure communism doesn't work.

And ruby_maser: from what I've seen of your posts (not that much, I admit), you would be an excellent diplomat, or even head of diplomacy. It would be great if you find yourself a role in here... and this role-finding can be quite organic too: I support nye as diplo nazi but only because he's the only one so far to step up. (well, and that I believe that nye can be a good diplo nazi of course). If somebody else simply does more tasks, I will support him as our ad-hoc minister just as easily.

The thing is, the people who invest the most time will post most, and their voice will be heared the loudest. Everyone is equal (and polls are always 1 vote per member), but some will have a bigger impact in certain areas than others. We haven't had many problems with this before, and I don't expect there will be in the near future...

DeepO

[DeepO]

Heh... I should have read Arrian's post before writing mine... it basically says the same thing. Good to see we're on the same level here

DeepO

[zeit]

Since (I suppose) we as a team would like to preserve our consensual form of decision making while giving more flexibilty and personal freedom of judgement to our ambassadors and negotiators "in the field", the duties for the team of our representative have to be defined.

What I feel is necessary is a constant debate regarding our diplo strategy and tactics- we were terribly lacking in one previously, while we spent enormus time and virtual ink in debating economic MM issues. To make sure such debate takes place, the populous has to recieve a flow of information, not just in the form of logs, but also in the form of reports, assesments, etc.

The diplo-nazi has to make sure these reports keep on flowing and the ambassadors never lose their touch with the "team-mind" so that they could keep on negotiating with the confidence of a true representative, with authority and responsibility. We could decide that the diplomats' office is to post turn-by-turn updates as well as assesments, ideas or whatever has to do with the matters at hand.
I can see how these threads would easily develop into a serious debate on our diplomatic strategy and tactics, and give our negotiators real tools to work with.

[Dominae]

One of my pet peeves in all demogames I have participated in so far are the dreaded diplomacy chat log.

These can go on for pages and pages, and let's face it, usually only about 10% is really relevant. Furthermore, "chat" is a real-time form of communication that relies on timing cues to make up for being asynchronous, so it's very easy to get lost in when reading a transcript.

What I would love to see is an executive summary of important chat sessions; just the key discussion points, details of any understandings/agreements made, and a note regarding the "tone" of the encounter (for instance: "Vox was really pissed").

I know this is an extra burden to put on the diplomats, but I think it would really help getting everyone involved.

[Theseus]

That's funny, Dom... I was sort of looking forward to those long and sometimes silly logs!! I find it easy enough to scan for the important bits, and yet find it interesting to observe 'tone.'

Exec summaries would be useful of course.

[Krill]

Like it or loathe it, chats are where an aweful lot of diplomacy is handled now.

Summaries would be usful, I definately agree there, and normally the gist of any chats are posted in the comments thread, or should be, in addition to highlights in the text of the chat.

---

to nye as Diplo Nazi. nye is a very...persuasive when he leads chats, or so I have seen definately a good person for the job.

[Aro]

I agree.

[History Guy]

I should also like to cast my support for nye, based largely on what I'd seen of his abilities in the original PTWDG.

[Master Zen]

Hola amigos, did someone say diplomacy?

I will unlikely have the time (or will) to hold a leadership position in this game but like I mentioned in my membership poll, I would like to toy around with the idea of a roleplaying a non-government "think tank" which can offer adivce on diplomatic matters and suggest courses of action. After all, the more opinions the merrier.

I also think most of us have evolved from the times we played the PTWDG. One of these days I might be tempted to write some "retrospective thoughts" based on what happened not only in that game but in most of the others. After all there is no better teacher in what can go right and what can go wrong than history, or rather, retrospection.

In short, even though I want to make it clear that I will likely not be volunteering for any position of leadership including ambassador, I do hope to pop up there and then contributing at least something to our team's international relations.

-MZ

[Master Zen]

Oh and before anyone else says anything, I want to say what nye, Krill, Cort Haus and DeepO are too humble to ever mention:

They are all damn good diplomats.

[History Guy]

I should like to cast in my support for the think-tank suggestion MZ offers. It's my sort of thing, really. That and unnecessarily grandiose prose.