In general, I don't feel that attacking the underlying logic of an argument actually helps.
But yeah, it's why I consider the idea of "Option two is the diplomatic option!" to be ridiculous, because I don't feel we're avoiding a fight regardless, and I don't feel Option 2 will cow them into submission, because it relies on them knowing enough to fear the name and reputation of the Cai despite being out of contact with humans for probably close to two hundred years now.
So I voted for Option 3, which tries to get them talking and see what falls out before the inevitable fight happens. Rather than assuming they'll be cowed by a name most of them potentially weren't even alive to recognize.
I really don't know how to parse that first sentence. Attacking the underlying logic of an argument is actually awesome. But you've been really aggressive in this discussion, so if you weren't attacking arguments, what were you attacking? People? if that was your intention, then a lot of your approach tracks a lot better. But that's... bad. It's a bad thing to do. Please don't do that.
In any case, this selective approach to facts is really starting to grate. The vote goes:
[] Enter and engage, but be prepared. Use the trappings of Cai authority and your own power to intimidate them into backing down. If they attack anyway, this is a grouping you can handle.
The trappings of Cai authority
and your own power. This includes the power to spot their ambush before it begins, which is really intimidating to an ambush predator. In option 2 we're likely to spit out Hanyi and Zhengui to show our full numbers, which we wouldn't do in option 3 because it calls on us to pretend we're unaware of the ambush. A vigilant, more numerous, potential threat/meal that openly calls out your maneuvers is unnerving, it's intimidating. But it's not particularly
aggressive, especially when our only demand is to talk(and for them to stop plotting to eat us). The reference to the Cai is only to further bolster our show of confidence, it's not an explicit promise of retribution or anything.
The spiders are currently planning to kill and eat us. Simply conversing with them isn't likely to change their mind, because what they want isn't conversation, it's to kill and eat us. If we want to convince them to stop trying to kill and eat us, we need to shake the basis of their decision to do so. The best way to do that is to make it seem like we're too risky to fight for the value of a meal.
Claiming that an option isn't diplomacy because you think it will fail, rather than it doesn't engage in diplomacy, is literal nonsense. Succeed or fail, diplomacy is diplomacy. 2 is literally the diplomatic choice, between it and 3. Denying that is incoherent, and it's "attacking the underlying logic" of the vote option, which doesn't actually help the discourse.
