Foreign Affairs between Teams

Meshelic · November 22, 2002, 00:57

It seems that a question keeps popping up in the threads. How are the teams going to conduct their diplomacy? In a thread specifically designed for contact between teams, or through chats between ambassadors, or through email, private messaging etc.?

What are the thoughts here?

How are the teams to officially communicate with each other concerning issues that will come up between them in-game?

PM's are out between ministers if they post their discussions in their teams private forum, unless they have prior agreement from the other party involved. So that either rules out communication via PM if the other party isn't willing to let his PM's be shown to the other team involved...

So how can we answer these questions?

Thoughts?

Jon Shafer · November 22, 2002, 01:05

I don't see what's wrong with posting another team's PM to your foreign minister... it's not like you weren't going to use the info you were provided anyways. Using PMs is to keep other teams besides yours and the one you're dealing with out in the cold.

I'll start a topped thread covering all of the foreign ministers for each team once the game starts, so everyone will know who to contact for each team.

Arnelos · November 22, 2002, 01:10

Diplomacy would HAVE to be conducted by PMs, e-mails, or private chats between ambassadors/Foreign Ministers of the various teams.

Using PMs creates something of a problem, however, as we are not permitted by 'Poly rules to publish the contents of a PM w/o permission from its sender. So stuff like publishing what another team your team by PM to a third team (in order to get them upset) wouldn't be possible. Of course, even if it were allowed, there's no way to ensure that anything a team claims that another team said wasn't fabricated.... so I guess it really doesn't matter all that much.

Inverse Icarus · November 22, 2002, 01:22

of course it'll be done by PM.

making it public? interesting.

like, a deal gone afoul. the builders offer some techs and $$ to the GoW to declare war on Lux, GoW refuses and tells Lux about what the buiders are up to.

interesting indeed.

Jon Shafer · November 22, 2002, 01:25

Then we can establish some clause that says that "Any contents of a PM, email or private chat between two ministers of nations is considered to be consented by the sender as permissable to be revealed."

ZargonX · November 22, 2002, 01:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
Then we can establish some clause that says that "Any contents of a PM, email or private chat between two ministers of nations is considered to be consented by the sender as permissable to be revealed."

That would seem to be the most sensible solution. If everyone agress to the specific terms ahead of time, no one can complain later. Well, actually, people can always complain later; but they'll be wrong

Togas · November 22, 2002, 01:55

I think we can draw a distinction for this game. PMs being used for the business of interteam communications are messages meant to be sent to the whole team, not a private/personal message between individuals. It's more than reasonable to expect that a PM I send to the ambassador of another team is going to be conveyed to the entire team.

We should just be sure to make it clear in our PMs if it's interteam communication or personal communication.

--Togas

Meshelic · November 22, 2002, 03:24

I only bring this up because I had mentioned the same issues to notyoueither and he told me pretty much exactly what Arnelos quoted out of the 'Poly rules.

But if we lay down a base-rule that any PM's between Foreign Minister #1 and Foreign Minister #2 (of an opposing team) are allowed to be made public to their individual teams so that the teams may follow how their foreign policy is enforced, then that sounds like a very good solution to this issue....

Meshelic · November 22, 2002, 03:27

....and thus it is also DISCRETION that prevents Foreign Minister #1 from telling the rest of the teams what Foreign Minister #2 said in their diplomatic discussions. Discretion in such cases is a "make it or break it" affair, ie each Minister can make such dealings public in the forum or only make it public to their teammates....both options should be made available regarding foreign policy strategies and such...

Zero · November 23, 2002, 02:34

consequence of your intentions being revealed during diplomacy will only thicken the plot..

Excellent.

Meshelic · November 23, 2002, 05:30

So do all the teams agree to an amendment that
every official negotiation using PM's between two foreign ministers is considered subject to public view, depending on the discretion of the other individual?

This doesn't necessarily advocate posting a private discussion between ministers (in fact I hope it doesn't), but this should allow each minister to keep his team informed of their diplomatic status (and posting the PM's as proof). They also may post it in the main forum if they decide, but are subject to consequences if the other team takes action...

I'd like more input on this...especially if it becomes an issue worthy of polling the public on...

zeit · November 23, 2002, 08:13

My opinion towards revealing the content of a PM to your team members (as long as it deals with issues concerning the entire team) is that it should be done when needed, but publishing PM's on the forums and to other team representatives should be a No-No unless authorized by the sender. This is most important when conducting deals and signing agreements that are best to be kept secret.
Publishing a message like: "We had an agreement with 'X' (details) and they broke it by doing this and that" is IMO an exception to this rule, and should be permitted.

alva · November 23, 2002, 09:03

Couldn't we just use e-mails???
or do the same laws apply here too?

Spiffor · November 23, 2002, 09:23

I think we should do diplomacy like it's done IRL : no rules

ruby_maser · November 23, 2002, 09:53

on a side note, I think ambassadors should be the only ones authorized to communicate with another team. I know I don't have the luxury of negotiating directly with other nations. That should keep it more real. Anything a citizen should want added should be directed to their own ambassador to be delivered to the opposing team's. It probably would have been an unspoken rule anyway but just to prevent them from being inundated with PM's

... especially ones that haven't been censored

Zero · November 23, 2002, 16:34

Like I said the story plot will only thicken with threat of your intention being revealed. Diplomacy will have some sort of a indirect implications, lots of winking and nudging, and almost a dance of game being played by both side to dig into the truth. Much like real life as Spiffor suggests. I think it only adds to the fun factor having to try to decipher others intentions.

If PM can be publicized by the team recieving the mail, the team sending the PM should work on the draft revealing their intentions as little as possible with being able to communicate properly what they want. There will also be alot of arguement like what a definition of "IS" is... Yeah know, trying to worm their selves out of what they said. LOL

For example:

Quote:

Team A:"You clear stated in your document to Team B you wanted to make a military alliance against us. Team B and we are allies and they have reported this evil scheme you have been working on! Apparently you underestimated our bond!"

Team C: "No no that is not what we said... We simply expressed our concern that for any upcoming possibility of hostility come to us or the Team B, we wanted to let them know we are there for them."

Team A: "But wasn't the document implying that We the Team A may be planning to stab our sworn ally in the back?"

Team C: "No! never"

Team A: "well you wrote here on paragraph 12, Team A is evil'. "

Team C: "... uh .... We will have to discuss that with our foreign advisors. I am not at the liberty to define what was said by the ministry of foreign relations."

LOL

As damaging as it is may be for Team C, it is also Team A who will have to face the consequence as well... Team C prolly will never offer another secret treaty, knowing their reputation. Team A may tell Team B behind the curtain, and that may add to the whole comlexity of diplomacy again too~

Zero · November 23, 2002, 16:38

Quote:

Originally posted by ruby_maser
on a side note, I think ambassadors should be the only ones authorized to communicate with another team. I know I don't have the luxury of negotiating directly with other nations. That should keep it more real. Anything a citizen should want added should be directed to their own ambassador to be delivered to the opposing team's. It probably would have been an unspoken rule anyway but just to prevent them from being inundated with PM's

... especially ones that haven't been censored

Your right, an individual's hotheaded insult to another government does not necessarily reflect the individual's govt. Just like some American saying "Death to all the bloody brits" wuld not mean the whole country hates the UK. This will add even more to the even more strange dance we will have to participate in the game of diplomacy

Arnelos · November 23, 2002, 19:03

I agree with teams trying to prevent their citizens from discussing official policy with other team members, but how on earth is anyone going to enforce that??? Issues:

1. Many of the people who play also play in the single-player DG and end up chatting with each other. Expecting that they will NEVER mention the PTW DG (especially when it comes to occassion kidding/trash talk) flies in the face of a realistic expectation of human nature. A team that actually managed to discipline itself might have an ADVANTAGE by not doing this, but it would be impossible to force them.

2. Under 'poly rules, they can send PMs to each other which no-one else can read and which not even the recipient is permitted to publish if they wanted to. If it's two non-official members of different teams just gossiping, there's no way for anyone but the two of them to know what was said.

Ultimately, teams that have the self-discipline to keep from telling other teams things they shouldn't will be BETTER OFF, but there's little way for the inter-team community to enforce a no-discussion rule. Let the teams attempt to enforce it on their own members if they want (though that will be largely fruitless other than as self-enforcement).

Zero · November 23, 2002, 19:14

You'll have to let the individuals off, free to say what they will, the government just has to diavow any relations with the view of the individual.

Meshelic · November 23, 2002, 19:17

What is wrong with all the members of your team knowing what you communicated with another foreign diplomat, and knowing exactly what was discussed? I don't want to keep anything from my team.

So I'll trust them not to release any official information that could harm my team, or else it'll be off with their heads!

Zero · November 23, 2002, 20:08

Releasing information within team should be left to the team itself. As for releasing diplomatic conversation between two foriegn advisory branch, that should be left to "no rule" rule.

Meshelic · November 23, 2002, 20:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Calc II
Releasing information within team should be left to the team itself. As for releasing diplomatic conversation between two foriegn advisory branch, that should be left to "no rule" rule.

So you're saying that it should automatically be assumed that any PM between ambassadors is considered "fair game" to post in your team thread AND the PTW thread (if they choose that route...complete with the consequenes that go with it). If so then I second the idea and give it the

but
You know that the 'poly rules state otherwise....

what teams would consent to this "amendment" to the rules is the question.
?

Jon Shafer · November 23, 2002, 21:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Meshelic

So you're saying that it should automatically be assumed that any PM between ambassadors is considered "fair game" to post in your team thread AND the PTW thread (if they choose that route...complete with the consequenes that go with it). If so then I second the idea and give it the

but
You know that the 'poly rules state otherwise....

what teams would consent to this "amendment" to the rules is the question.
?

I'll post a poll.

Meshelic · November 23, 2002, 21:54

Thanks Trip I was hoping someone would get to that.

CiverDan · November 24, 2002, 08:18

I would like to know what communications is going on between our team and another. I don't want to tell someone lets research X when someone is having a discussion about going to war which, if happened, would make it better for us to research Y. Basically, this handicaps the decision making prcess of other team members.

Meshelic · November 24, 2002, 18:01

No CiverDan I think you misunderstand. That's ok.

Unless you have a rogue ambassador who doesn't follow the desires of his own team through diplomacy, then that problem you speak of will most surely not happen.

I would assume that the teams would have a poll or at least a serious discussion before arranging to go to war. BUT THIS ALLOWS your ambassador to tell you EXACTLY what was said in his communications with the other team, so that NONE of your team is left in the dark.

ZargonX · November 25, 2002, 01:00

I definately feel that ambassador PMs should be considered "non-private" if one of the two involved decides to go public with the information. As has been said, in real life diplomacy, there's nothing stopping anyone from disclosing diplomatic discussions expcept for trust and strategy. If I want Team A to know that Team B secretly contacted us, trying to convince us to join them in a war, if our team feels it's in our best interest to pass along that info to Team A, so be it. The downside is that Team B will probably never trust us again, but that's how the diplomacy games works, right?

Zero · November 25, 2002, 01:35

When an ambassador is appointed he should be appointed acknowledging that his pm privacy may be revoked.

Meshelic · November 25, 2002, 03:31

ZargonX and Calc II are right on the money.

ThePlagueRat · November 25, 2002, 18:32

Well, since Markos is the owner and makes the rules here...
Perhaps he will allow public quoting of PM only here in this demogame?

It would make it legal ad convenient to forward a (PM) diplomatic request from an foreign emmisary to the people or the cabinet of the recieving team.