I can't help but feel like this discussion is a little like when commentators talk about going for it on 4th down (pardon the American Football comparison). If it works out, it was a fantastic idea but if it fails, then the coach was foolish for even trying. Of course the on side kick in the Superbowl was a good "gutsy" move by the Saints because it worked, but if it hadn't worked and the Colts had scored, people would have lambasted the coach.
I feel like that's not unlike the situation now (with some differences of course). Spulla took a particular approach to diplomacy that in this situation failed to work. So now everyone is claiming that their approach was a horrible idea. (I will admit that I personally find the tone of their messages distasteful as well). However, their strategy was legitimate and could have worked, in which case they would be heralded as playing the diplo game extermely well. There is no way they could know all the other civ's relations to one another early on. They took a calculated risk in their diplomatic tone and it failed, unlike the Saints on-side kick.
Now, if someone is going to say that they aren't/weren't even aware of the risk they were taking, that's a different discussion to me.
I feel like that's not unlike the situation now (with some differences of course). Spulla took a particular approach to diplomacy that in this situation failed to work. So now everyone is claiming that their approach was a horrible idea. (I will admit that I personally find the tone of their messages distasteful as well). However, their strategy was legitimate and could have worked, in which case they would be heralded as playing the diplo game extermely well. There is no way they could know all the other civ's relations to one another early on. They took a calculated risk in their diplomatic tone and it failed, unlike the Saints on-side kick.
Now, if someone is going to say that they aren't/weren't even aware of the risk they were taking, that's a different discussion to me.