Yeah, I really don't like the aggressive tone. Nobody ever gets anywhere with threats in these games. Talk nasty and they'll reply the same way. I think we really should take a more conciliatory approach. More like, "Obviously we wanted the marble for Taj, but you beat us. We would feel a lot better about our relationship if we could revise that deal for something in lieu of the marble, such as a couple Fast Workers or something of that nature. What do you think?"
|
Diplomacy Master Thread- Helping Your Opponents Beat Themselves
|
(May 6th, 2013, 01:56)Azza Wrote: I'm not saying we should just ignore it, but it needs to be clear that we're not pissed because we missed out of Taj (even if we are). We're pissed because they blatantly lied about when they secured marble, and demanded that we take our 10 turns of marble when we had already acquired it from other sources. I much prefer something along the lines of what novice suggested over a big "fuck you CFC" type note. We can specify that in our next message. For this one, we can cause them to freak out a little and we don't lose anything in the process. They already have zero respect for our team. They already aren't going to do anything for us that they think they can weasel out of somehow. We need to, at a minimum, remind them that they benefit from the deal we care most about with them, the NAP. Quote:This gives rise to an argument: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the opposite. The answer is that one would like to be both, but since it is difficult to combine the two it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to make way. For generally speaking, one can say the following about men: they are ungrateful, inconsistent, feigners and dissimulators, avoiders of danger, eager for gain, and whilst it profits them they are all yours. They will offer you their blood, their property, their life and their offspring when your need for them is remote. But when your needs are pressing, they turn away. The prince who depends entirely on their words perishes when he finds he has not taken any other precautions. This is because friendships purchased with money and not by greatness and nobility of spirit are paid for, but not collected, and when you need them they cannot be used. Men are less worried about harming somebody who makes himself loved than someone who makes himself feared, for love is held by a chain of obligation which, since men are bad, is broken at every opportunity for personal gain. Fear, on the other hand, is maintained by a dread of punishment which will never desert you. We're in the process of switching into Nationhood and drafting like crazy. Make them wonder if they're the intended target. Make them want the NAP more than we do. Signaling weakness will only invite more shenanigans from this team.
Active in:
FFH-20: Jonas Endain of the Clan of Embers EITB Pitboss 1: Clan/Elohim/Calabim with Mardoc and Thoth
I conpletely disagree with Scooter's draft message. It might feel good to vent like that but it would be far more productive to ignore the "good faith" part.
We may still need CFC to be friends down the line - let's not burn any bridges here. Just stick to the facts and don't get personal. If we don't want the marble now, simply decline it and say "We don't need it right now thanks, we will negitiate the 10 turn period via email" in-game. What's more I would not mention Taj Mahal at all. 
I don't like the idea of reparations (in fast workers or something else), since they beat us to Taj Mahal through good Civ play.
But their diplo style and the way they offer marble now is shitty. Granted, we allowed them to frame the treaty so this could happen, but we could have asked for their marble on T131 and seen what they said about that - which would have been a shitty move by us. Also, a short timeline for reference, all dates in CET (GMT +1): Quote:April 3rd: we ask for a marble ETA
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
(May 6th, 2013, 01:41)novice Wrote:Quote:Hi Scooter Well, I actually disagree with the point you make in the P.S. I think it's fairly likely that the Spanish team agreed to peace before the marble city was settled. I am not talking about in-game signing of peace but diplomacy. And even if not, they didn't actually state that the marble hook-up was due to the signing of peace, just that both of those things happened. (May 6th, 2013, 02:34)kjn Wrote: I don't like the idea of reparations (in fast workers or something else), since they beat us to Taj Mahal through good Civ play. Agreed 100% (May 6th, 2013, 02:34)kjn Wrote: But their diplo style and the way they offer marble now is shitty. Granted, we allowed them to frame the treaty so this could happen, but we could have asked for their marble on T131 and seen what they said about that - which would have been a shitty move by us. Agreed 100% as well. Especially the part I bolded. They know what they did. They never had any intention at all of following through on the marble, which is why they framed the treaty that way. THIS is why we can't just let it slide. Their latest message is more than just an insult, it's them trying to see if they can make fools of us again, because we've convinced them somehow that they can get away with it. We need to un-convince them of that. ![[Image: skullcrack.jpg]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/84822082/Realms%20Beyond/skullcrack.jpg)
Active in:
FFH-20: Jonas Endain of the Clan of Embers EITB Pitboss 1: Clan/Elohim/Calabim with Mardoc and Thoth
I like both Azza and Ellimist's extreme positions, all the messages from the middle ground seem a bit petty, and I can't see how they would have the desired effect of making CFC play diplo straight with us.
BTW Seven, is it the whipping that you wouldn't be proud of?
Completed: RB Demogame - Gillette, PBEM46, Pitboss 13, Pitboss 18, Pitboss 30, Pitboss 31, Pitboss 38, Pitboss 42, Pitboss 46, Pitboss 52 (Pindicator's game), Pitboss 57
In progress: Rimworld Quote:What happened to *mutuallly* convenient? I guess I'm more in the Ellimist camp. Call them on their BS. Let them respond if they choose. |
