Pirates doing Diplomacy?

[luddite]

We could try having someone else send the messages, and see if that makes a difference.

[thestick]

If you're looking for idiots to be diplomats, I'll gladly fill in.

If they want blunt and direct diplo, we could just tell them 'we don't want an NAP with you at this point.'

[Nakor]

Luddite, I don't think we should let them have their way and try to bully us.
I'll reply and they'll have to deal with it.

What do we want to give them at this point?

[Jkaen]

I think the last line is a joke, I would ignore that, just respond with:

"Ok so we agree/propose:

Screenshots with resources shown sent every 10 turns (while rapid scouting still on, we can amend the frequency later). Build queues, research targets, and other items that are not purely map related may be scrubbed

We will both alert one another when we meet somebody else, and try to indicate both where that civ is, and try to help a meeting take place

We will both alert the other civ to any plotting against them we hear of by others

We hope this captures all you wanted"

[Nakor]

Something like:

TEAM:

Ok, so we agree/propose:

Screenshots with resources shown every 10 turns, (frequency can be altered), first screenshot on T12.
Discussion of a settling agreement when the land between us is scouted.
Notification of meeting other teams, where we met and who. Aid in setting up a meeting when requested.
Notification of rumours regarding strikes against each other.

We hope this captures everything.

[thestick]

Change 'Discussion of a settling agreement...' to 'Discussion of a settling agreement and NAP...'

[Bigger]

If they want blunt and direct diplo, we could just tell them 'we don't want an NAP with you at this point.'

no, lets not do that! At least, no point until they start asking for one directly.
We might or might want one then, so no point in burning bridges.

We could try having someone else send the messages, and see if that makes a difference.

Nakor is doing fine, I took that as jest. Just don't put oledavy back in charge.

I also want to strongly suggest that this is NOT a situation where "mirroring" TEAM in our diplomacy is a good idea. Take them at their word, that they will be blunt and don't overreact to any harshness in their tones, that is just TEAM being TEAM. I think we can avoid being prideful and avoid overreacting in ways against our best interest because they "hurt our feelings." But to be frank, I don't trust TEAM to do the same, and adopting their style of diplomacy is just going to increase the chances they get pissed off at us.

[Bigger]

Change 'Discussion of a settling agreement...' to 'Discussion of a settling agreement and NAP...'

I don't like that change. If aren't sure what we think of a NAP at the moment, and they aren't yet pushing it, no point in us bringing it up. When they start asking for one, we should be in better shape to respond (i.e. have a solid opinion ourselves). I'd rather not play our hand before its necessary.

[thestick]

In the diplo message, didn't they say '...willing to agree to a settling agreement and an NAP'? It seems they're angry at us for not committing, which suddenly sounds very stupid. Unless this is a calculated act, in which case I have got to hand it to them.

[Bigger]

In the diplo message, didn't they say '...willing to agree to a settling agreement and an NAP'? It seems they're angry at us for not committing, which suddenly sounds very stupid. Unless this is a calculated act, in which case I have got to hand it to them.

Yes, with the very important pre-script "once all the land has been scouted." Meaning we don't need to discuss NAP's until they decide the land has been sufficiently scouted and bring it up.