Alanxo Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 You are right on this point, Twig. In RL, a foreigner diplomat must be agreed by the government. He is never imposed. And after a war, we can't imagine than a military leader or anyone involved as a leader in this war could be accepted as a diplomat to restore the peace. Kierrip, even if our opponents dislike him, proved his sharp analysis by withdrawing from the French diplomatic corps. This is not the case of our opponents from where distrust of the French community. But as in RL, some people believe themselves indispensable and unavoidable and refused to give way and return to anonymity. Alanxo Friendly Privateer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenakha Kan Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 You are right on this point, Twig. In RL, a foreigner diplomat must be agreed by the government. He is never imposed. And after a war, we can't imagine than a military leader or anyone involved as a leader in this war could be accepted as a diplomat to restore the peace. Kierrip, even if our opponents dislike him, proved his sharp analysis by withdrawing from the French diplomatic corps. This is not the case of our opponents from where distrust of the French community. But as in RL, some people believe themselves indispensable and unavoidable and refused to give way and return to anonymity. Alanxo Friendly Privateer Everytime I read a comment like that it just makes my job harder, if I need a new diplomat to speak with, I'll just request a new one but be sure I won't do that of the forums. Moreover Praefect is not the only Dutch diplomat we are speaking with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenakha Kan Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Twig, I'm not here to argue with you about things I have no knowledge of and I'm sure that if your diplomats want to speak with someone else, they will just request it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lytse Pier Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Everytime I read a comment like that it just makes my job harder. It does indeed, hence we made announcement #3. A lot of people mistake a diplomat for a politician. Both have motives, both don't speak for themselves, but both serve different purposes. Politicians are the council, diplomats are for the council's foreign affairs in liaison. Shooting at messengers is easy, seeing for what they really are; intelligent, witty, but empty shells with words of others; could improve quality of live on both sides, but that is apparently harder then using the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twig Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 (edited) It does indeed, hence we made announcement #3. A lot of people mistake a diplomat for a politician. Both have motives, both don't speak for themselves, but both serve different purposes. Politicians are the council, diplomats are for the council's foreign affairs in liaison. Shooting at messengers is easy, seeing for what they really are; intelligent, witty, but empty shells with words of others; could improve quality of live on both sides, but that is apparently harder then using the gun. True, but it makes the work extremely hard. I mean, if you get an anouncement by another nation about something totaly new, you have to ask a few things which were not specified but need to get cleared. But when the diplomate can not talk about anything and just deliver the statement, how should you possibly clarify those points? There is a reason why at national affairs not the diplomates handle the problem. The political leader met themselfes to clarify them. We only have "councils" which rule us, so we naturaly need at least one who is in charge for the diplomates and can actualy say something. The words of those "diplomatic leaders" have to be on the same level as the words of the council (Or at least should represent the council). If this is not possible, than both councils should meet. Edited June 29, 2016 by Twig 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praefect Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 (edited) Hey Twig, true, true. By saying messenger, not the delivery of words is meant, but the intentions and motivations of the own council/community. By having different kind of characters/communicators within a diplomatic corps we are able to match to certain situation and circumstances, e.g. dependent on content, addressee, mood of the own council/community towards the another nation and so on. And o.c. diplos are also human beings. Also for them this is a game they wanna have fun with and we except from them to invest a lot of their time with talking, writing, preparing decision making processes, to take care of foreign relations, to explain foreign positions/opinions, etc. etc.. Cos of that it´s also up to the diplo corps to decide who of them has currently the motivation and the time to deal/to invest efforts with another council/foreign diplo. I guess we are not too different here with the swedish nation. Edited June 29, 2016 by praefect 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lytse Pier Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 True, but it makes the work extremely hard. I mean, if you get an anouncement by another nation about something totaly new, you have to ask a few things which were not specified but need to get cleared. But when the diplomate can not talk about anything and just deliver the statement, how should you possibly clarify those points? There is a reason why at national affairs not the diplomates handle the problem. The political leader met themselfes to clarify them. We only have "councils" which rule us, so we naturaly need at least one who is in charge for the diplomates and can actualy say something. The words of those "diplomatic leaders" have to be on the same level as the words of the council (Or at least should represent the council). If this is not possible, than both councils should meet. Twig, I could not agree more, well said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanxo Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 (edited) You are right Lytse and Tenakha ! I beg your pardon. What makes me angry was "Kerrib, if u retired from diplomacy then simply keep away from diplo business". Forum isn't a diplomatic place and everyone must be free to comment an announcement here. Alanxo Confused Privateer Edited June 29, 2016 by Alanxo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIerrick de Badas Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Im Swedish, so your statement proves nothing. EDIT: But if you want to know why Im so pissed: I was the of those, which talked with Kierrip about given you St.George and Basse-Terre. (Even though we got St.George from the Dutch) I was the one who guaranteed to my people that we have to bit in the sour apple in order to fight the danes like civilized nations. Fairly and proud. Than you betrayed us. For me, that is something that I can not forget and will not forget. After that, I did not seen any "good" thing done by the french. So of course I am pissed when you proclaim how "nice" you are. Cause you are not. Eric and me moved on your Ts to warn you about the tension that was really big into the french nation about the sweden with the last attack and the bad propagand around it. Then the french council decide in the majority to ask the sweden to give back st george and basseterre or face a war vs france. Sweden accept to give back the ports. Eric and me were happy to have a good news for french and to succes to decrease the fact a war may happend. It's were missunderstanding occures. Sweden feel free to attack dans thinking french won't interfer. You never told us about your wish to attack the dutch. All he blabla was made around drunk, pvp, and stuff. French were just decreasing in tension vs sweden when road town appears 2 days after and i wasn't present to calm down the people. When i connect back, the war was already started. What should i-ve done? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twig Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) Eric and me moved on your Ts to warn you about the tension that was really big into the french nation about the sweden with the last attack and the bad propagand around it. Then the french council decide in the majority to ask the sweden to give back st george and basseterre or face a war vs france. Sweden accept to give back the ports. Eric and me were happy to have a good news for french and to succes to decrease the fact a war may happend. It's were missunderstanding occures. Sweden feel free to attack dans thinking french won't interfer. You never told us about your wish to attack the dutch. All he blabla was made around drunk, pvp, and stuff. French were just decreasing in tension vs sweden when road town appears 2 days after and i wasn't present to calm down the people. When i connect back, the war was already started. What should i-ve done? Let me answere you: your first words where: "Because you are at war with the danes...." So no, there was no missunderstanding. We had to correct you that we were not at war with them at that point because we did not received any declaration of war yet. We told you also, that we dont want to attack the danes but if they attack us, we have to react. Secondly you did not asked us. You demanded those ports and told us that you already want to capture the ports directly (You said you already informed your players). I belive you said word-to-word: "If you defend those ports, france will declare war". I told you that we have to talk about it on our council and that we need time to at least take our ships out of the port and our ressurces. So we both agreed that I will inform you on the next day. Your also told us that "france will not interefere at your war with the danes" word-for-word. Further we pulled the drunk diplomate up because you said DRUNK would permanately hunt in your homewaters. He clearly confirmed that there happend one incident but nothing else in 2 weeks, you had nothing to prove anything else and you got a replacement for that ship. Before the war was declared, I personaly went to your TS and accepted your demands - just for the reason that we would be able to fight the danes without you. Just because we trusted your words, which will never ever happen again. And I mean that in the following way: I will never again trust a captain which is sailing under the flag of your council nor what your diplomates delivers when it is not written. EDIT: Believe it or not but cause of the impudence of the demand we were thinking of directly declaring war to you. But we decided not to. You want to make pacify with the swedes mentality and open both nations to maybe get closer again? The only way I see how this is possible is by handing us over something that is equal to your betrayl like full guadeloupe. That includes that St. John stays swedish and the silver port. So basicaly ever port on the main island and Rosaly. Edited June 30, 2016 by Twig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenakha Kan Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) EDIT: Believe it or not but cause of the impudence of the demand we were thinking of directly declaring war to you. But we decided not to. You want to make pacify with the swedes mentality and open both nations to maybe get closer again? The only way I see how this is possible is by handing us over something that is equal to your betrayl like full guadeloupe. That includes that St. John stays swedish and the silver port. So basicaly ever port on the main island and Rosaly. That will never happen, the treaty is signed by all parties Sweden included. Did we force your council to sign?! If your council wanted the full Guadeloupe it would have been easier and less time consuming to just not enter any negociation and let the war go on without end....But it seems some are more reasonnable than you. Edited June 30, 2016 by Tenakha Kan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twig Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) That will never happen, the treaty is signed by all parties Sweden included. Did we force your council to sign?! If your council wanted the full Guadeloupe it would have been easier and less time consuming to just not enter any negociation and let the war go on without end....But it seems some are more reasonnable than you. I am not talking about what the council agreed on. I know that the council agreed for peace and I accept that. But still if you want to let us forget your betrayl you should pay repentance. If you ever want to be friendly with the swedes again, than you have to afford something. If not I dont think that the swedes will never ever do anything for you, the only thing you will get is cannonfire. If you want to close the gab, you should think about what I advise you. Nothing less but nothing more too. Edited June 30, 2016 by Twig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenakha Kan Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 One guy is saying something, the other is saying something else....I'm not a fortune teller....in the end the war would have started anyway, those ports changed hand several time. Even if the war had been avoided, your situation would have been worse, you wouldn't have Fort Baii, you wouldn't have Marigot, Basse- Terre and St Georges would have been French, Camp du Roy and Rosaly also. You would have been left with a smaller territory and no ressources. I think for my part that the treaty is fair for all sides. Next time if you don't want any misunderstanding, write everything down...If you can't leave with what you call a "betreyal" I can't do anything for you. I never had any problem with the swedes during the war, there were no taunt, no insult only respect and fairplay. I even had good talk with some of you guys. But in the end if you want to hate our community, just hate us, It won't keep me awake at night and i'll continue to be friendly to everyone. Fair winds Captain 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twig Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 One guy is saying something, the other is saying something else....I'm not a fortune teller....in the end the war would have started anyway, those ports changed hand several time. Even if the war had been avoided, your situation would have been worse, you wouldn't have Fort Baii, you wouldn't have Marigot, Basse- Terre and St Georges would have been French, Camp du Roy and Rosaly also. You would have been left with a smaller territory and no ressources. I think for my part that the treaty is fair for all sides. Next time if you don't want any misunderstanding, write everything down...If you can't leave with what you call a "betreyal" I can't do anything for you. I never had any problem with the swedes during the war, there were no taunt, no insult only respect and fairplay. I even had good talk with some of you guys. But in the end if you want to hate our community, just hate us, It won't keep me awake at night and i'll continue to be friendly to everyone. Fair winds Captain Your bill is not right. St. George was never your territory. It was Dutch. You could have asked for Basse-Terre and there woudn't have been any problems. But not St.George. For Marigot and Fort Baai there already had been talkings. But you should be happy that a lot of swedes got annoyed by the game - not by fighting you. (I count myself in there) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenakha Kan Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 But you should be happy that a lot of swedes got annoyed by the game How come everybody is telling me the same thing....? The Danes told us that,...The dutch told me the same, you are saying that to me now.....Half our players left also....The brit told it to the Dutch..... So wake up pls, its the same for everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sveno Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Please dear posters, this is a thread about an alliance between the Dutch and the Swedes, please keep comments about the Antilles war out of here. Thanks! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts