Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves

[novice]

I like Scooter's draft better than Kalin's.

How about:

Decebal,

Thanks for your honesty on the issue of Open Borders. Similar to some of your team's skepticism in signing OB, a couple members of my own team are unsure of whether or not your intentions are peaceful. We all hope so, but it's easy for doubt to trickle in. what your intentions are in shying away from a mutually beneficial deal. I personally am not too worried that we'll come to agreements, but I would like to try to understand your goals a little better. Do you view us as a realistic trading partner long-term? Do you see any issues that would divide us? I won't be offended by any answer of course, but with some communication I hope I can understand your team's goals and aims a little better.

In case it was not clear, we do not intend to enter your borders upon signing an Open Borders agreement. We would be happy to include a no-scouting clause since you seem to desire one if that is your preference. Our main desire is for both of our teams to get trade routes from Open Borders. We have a trade connection between our teams now, and we would both profit from getting boosted international routes instead of only domestic routes. If you are not interested in profiting from international trade routes that is okay, but I wanted to make sure that was not a source of confusion.

Thanks!
scooter - Team RB

[scooter]

Ok guys, thoughts on this draft to CFC?

Caledorn,

Thanks again for directions, and I'm glad we were able to finally be a help to you in return. I think it's been a big boost for both of us. Let me know how things go once you meet CivPlayers. They may be a very small team, but they still seem to be doing quite well in this game.

As a courtesy, I wanted to inform you that we will be settling a new city near the oasis pretty soon. In accordance with our deal, we will not be settling past the oasis. Instead, we will settle south of it. This will be the last city we settle in this direction, so we of course will not contest any other locations you wish to settle in this region.

Thanks!
scooter - Team RB

I expect the main point up for debate is whether or not we offer them the stone up-front. Either way, I think sending both messages before the night is over is a necessity.

edit: novice's revision looks pretty good to me.

[kjn]

If we offer stone, there is an implication of a promise of stone. I'm not sure we want to give that - after all we will have to spend some resources on claiming the city, improving the stone et c.

I'm also unsure about giving them a carte blanche for all time on cities on the isthmus. If they continue to be tawdry in 20 turns time, I think a city with rice and horse would look quite tempting, especially if CivPlayers are starting to be frisky.

[kalin]

I would not offer stone upfront to CFC.
Kalin

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

CFC looks good. If discussion comes back to the point of us offering stone (from their response), we can concede to offer our surplus stone, just in case we should ever lose Brick by Brick.

With regards to CivPlayers, Scooter, good draft. I prefer Novice's revision as well. Still, though, this does not address the topic that is of greater importance long term, which is the border agreement. I want some kind of assurance from CivPlayers that they're not going to plop a city on that plains hill that will be difficult for us to dislodge without wasting tons of hammers. I'd settle for an answer here before getting trade routes if I had to choose one over the other.

[scooter]

Still, though, this does not address the topic that is of greater importance long term, which is the border agreement. I want some kind of assurance from CivPlayers that they're not going to plop a city on that plains hill that will be difficult for us to dislodge without wasting tons of hammers. I'd settle for an answer here before getting trade routes if I had to choose one over the other.

Yeah I get that, but they totally ignored the border agreement thing the last two times I've asked about it. Not sure why this would be different. So this is an attempt to get them talking about what they want rather than us repeatedly telling them what we want, and them screwing around for a week again before giving us a generic "eh no thanks" answer.

[Bigger]

The message is good, but it sounds a little too blunt for what it's meant to convey. This part feels like it needs to be toned down a little, or perhaps cut from the message altogether:

'Similar to some of your team's skepticism in signing OB, a couple members of my own team are unsure of whether or not your intentions are peaceful. We all hope so, but it's easy for doubt to trickle in.'


I also would change 'We would be happy to include a no-scouting clause since you seem to desire one.' as it sounds a bit accusatory. How does 'We would be happy to include a no-scouting clause if you prefer this to be part of the agreement.' sound instead?

Don't take that passage out! That line is the most important one in the whole message! Without it you aren't turning it back on them, as ASM suggested and was Scooter's intention!


I like Scooter's original message, but not novice or moogle's edits.

[zakalwe]

I like Novice's version. "Unsure of your intentions" is still in there, and a sufficient veiled threat IMO. Basically we're saying to stop fooling around, or we'll consider you hostile.

The message to CFC somehow manages to project a guilty conscience IMO. We should avoid that.

[zakalwe]

Ok guys, thoughts on this draft to CFC?

Caledorn,

Thanks again for directions, and I'm glad we were able to finally be a help to you in return. I think it's been a big boost for both of us. Let me know how things go once you meet CivPlayers. They may be a very small team, but they still seem to be doing quite well in this game.

As a courtesy, I wanted to inform you that we will be settling a new city near the oasis pretty soon. In accordance with our deal, we will not be settling past the oasis. Instead, we will settle south of it. This will be the last city we settle in this direction, so we of course will not contest any other locations you wish to settle in this region.

Thanks!
scooter - Team RB

I expect the main point up for debate is whether or not we offer them the stone up-front. Either way, I think sending both messages before the night is over is a necessity.

edit: novice's revision looks pretty good to me.

Why mention the deal? We haven't violated it. Just say we're settling a city south of the oasis and that will be our last city in their direction. Don't skirt the issue with "near the oasis", that reeks of a guilty conscience.

[zakalwe]

Or say: that will be our last city in your direction, in accordance with our settling agreement.