Agreement Protocol?

[HeadHoncho]

I've had two occasions recently in games where I've made proposals -- one simple, one relatively comprehensive -- for agreements with other players, but then never heard back from them prior to the deadline.

In each instance, because my proposal wasn't accepted (and thus we had no agreement), I acted in a manner that I felt was reasonable, and consistent with my Kingdom's interests. And yet in each case, the other player seemed to act offended, after-the-fact.

I guess my question is this. Is there some kind of protocol or expectation here that I'm missing or otherwise unaware of?

[Brogan]

Maybe they needed more time, it is hard to tell from your post. I have found that some people are really good at getting back to you in a timely manner and some are not. It might be on of the cons to fast games is that you don't have a lot of time to sit on agreements

Lord Brogan

[HeadHoncho]

In each case it was 1.5 days prior to deadline, and I was monitoring my email and holding my orders right up until shortly before the deadline, waiting to see if my proposal would be accepted.

[Ry Vor]

In each case it was 1.5 days prior to deadline, and I was monitoring my email and holding my orders right up until shortly before the deadline, waiting to see if my proposal would be accepted.

I'd say that protocol is a response is due (if coming at all) on the next turn, not the current turn. Everyone has their own habits and may not be able to get re-engaged and consider diplomacy in the next day.

[HeadHoncho]

So how would you be able to make a deal that requires action or inaction on the current turn, then?

I'm not saying anyone has to be forced into making a deal, but is it fair for someone else to be upset if he manages to find enough time to get his orders in before the deadline, but declines to respond to a time-sensitive diplomatic message?

It's really a question of personal responsibility, in my mind. Respond or not as you choose, but don't get offended if you choose not to respond and both parties act like there's no deal.

[Ry Vor]

So how would you be able to make a deal that requires action or inaction on the current turn, then?

I'm not saying anyone has to be forced into making a deal, but is it fair for someone else to be upset if he manages to find enough time to get his orders in before the deadline, but declines to respond to a time-sensitive diplomatic message?

It's really a question of personal responsibility, in my mind. Respond or not as you choose, but don't get offended if you choose not to respond and both parties act like there's no deal.

If you want a deal, you have to give a reasonable amount of time, which I think is before the following turn is processed. Players don't regard responding to a proposal with the same weight as getting their orders submitted, and about 50% of orders it seems are submitted within an hour or so of the turn deadline. I can't think of any real-world treaty that was resolved in a day, and as you say, if there are some complications, they have to be considered in light of other agreements and plans.

[HeadHoncho]

I think that's a fair way of looking at it.

Put another way, I don't expect benefits under a treaty from someone else if we don't finish the negotiations by the turn deadline.

But I also don't expect to be treated like an oathbreaker when we don't finish the negotiations and "stuff happens" as they say.

[Lord Diamond]

Unless and until the player responds with an answer, there is no agreement. They are free to be annoyed with you, but your honor would be unsullied.