| Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Topic: League of nations "idea" Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 20:40 |
Agreed, SF & TD. Overall we've seen written communication work quite well in resolving disputes! The key, imo, is that the leaders communicating need to maintain as open a mind as possible to the facts...
I think Chat might help as well, perhaps...
K.
|
 |
scottfitz
Forum Warrior
Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Location: Spokane WA USA
Status: Offline
Points: 433
|
Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 17:34 |
|
I agree, overall I do not feel the concept proposed her has any merit, and I agree that the primary mode of communication is and will always be messages, but the ability to set up private chats in addition to mail would be of some use
|
 |
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 16:26 |
scottfitz wrote:
The only part of this thread that is of interest to me is improved inter-alliance communication, a need that would be met fully by private chat functionality |
Chat has a limited place.
For most problem solving, mail is a far better method of communication. First, mail offers the writer a superior opportunity to chose his words carefully. Second, chat is so informal that tone and context can often fail when dealing with sensitive issues. Third, chat requires participants to be on-line at the same time which is often not possible in our global community.
I would say chat is useful when the players already have a sound relationship and the issue is small and uncomplicated.
I think the biggest impediment to communication is attitude. The second biggest impediment is some players do not speak english fluently and use google translator which really can screw up tone and context.
|
 |
Bragdush the Bald
Greenhorn
Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 74
|
Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 14:13 |
No to Attilla's League
Yes to Nokigun's Confederate chat 
|
 |
scottfitz
Forum Warrior
Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Location: Spokane WA USA
Status: Offline
Points: 433
|
Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 07:25 |
|
The only part of this thread that is of interest to me is improved inter-alliance communication, a need that would be met fully by private chat functionality
|
 |
Llyorn Of Jaensch
Postmaster
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Points: 924
|
Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 00:12 |
|
Against
|
 |
Mr. Ubiquitous Feral
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Points: 416
|
Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 23:03 |
I guess there won't be any refugees. Another job well done, Mr. Feral, very well done.
|
|
I am a Machine.
|
 |
Raritor
Wordsmith
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 151
|
Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 22:52 |
|
I also think relations between alliances are good as they are now. Bureocracy is never a good thing.
|
 |
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 22:49 |
|
It's hard enough as is to have a war without the 200 confeds and naps being pulled in, making one side get utterly destroyed. The last thing we need is to make it worse by making every alliance have to "agree" on what's ok for an alliance to do. I'm against this idea.
|
 |
Grego
Postmaster
Joined: 09 May 2010
Location: Klek
Status: Offline
Points: 729
|
Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 22:21 |
Nokigon wrote:
Why don't instead you have a chat room with your Confeds, that can only be viewed by people who're authorised to do so? |
That would be better option.
|
 |