Advanced Negotiations

[padmeofnaboo.livejournal.com]

Scenario:

You are to attend a diplomatic meeting with a historically hostile party. This party has had a long history of violent confrontation with your people and has a reputation for dishonesty. Yet, the rules of conduct for this mediated meeting are that no one be armed nor display anything that could be construed as aggressive. What do you do? Explain your reasoning.

Comments

[fh_jackass]

True. That's why I suggest having backup outside - so you can protect yourself without breaking the rules of the negotiation.

Of course, this is under the assumption that the neutral third party is reliable. If not, you need to take a different approach.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_gottahavefaith/]

How often is there going to be a 100% neutral party that isn't already partial or can't be bought?
I'm sticking with my 'bring in people with superpowers' approach.

[fh_jackass]

I said "reliable", not "impartial". If they're buyable, I'd make sure I was the one paying.

And if I were choosing the terms, I'd forbid people with superpowers, since they are weapons.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_gottahavefaith/]

Well, ok, but I was assuming that we're trying to be the good guys.

Sure, but not everyone with superpowers is obviously superpowered.

[fh_jackass]

If we're the good guys, why shouldn't we make sure things go our way?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_gottahavefaith/]

Generally, people who consider themselves to be the good guys don't believe in bribes and violence and such.

[fh_jackass]

Not in my experience. Besides, why fight fair if the other side isn't? It just puts you at a disadvantage.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_gottahavefaith/]

Hey, I'm all about the gray areas, and about not fighting fair. It's just that, from my experience, some peoples' morality is more rigid than others.

[padmeofnaboo.livejournal.com]

It's not guaranteed that the other side also has the approac so *nods*