Don't you think that by showing that you have negotiation skills, even by employing more or less obvious ploys, you actually show the other part you can play th

Don't you think that by showing that you have negotiation skills, even by employing more or less obvious ploys, you actually show the other part you can play the game just as well as they can? ...so they can stop trying to out-game you and they can start thinking about offers that really make sense both for you and for them. ...I think a lot of business deals start to make more sense once you "de-gamificate" them: you show the other part that "gaming" tricks won't work in this negotiation because you're on the same level as they are on using them, so both parties can now concentrate on a compromise offer that provides the best "real value" for both! Yes, and that's what I have a problem with. I believe (very naively, I realise) that negotiations should _start_ with trying to find the "compromise offer that provides the best "real value"". What you seem to be suggesting (if I understand you correctly) is that one should first try to con the opposing party unless they're in on the game, in which case you move on to a "proper" negotiation. Whenever I see someone trying to do that to me, my immediate impulse is to kill the negotiation and walk away right there (perhaps go try to find someone less slimy to deal with). And I do realise that this can result in me losing out and I probably wouldn't last long in business, but cheap manipulation is something I just can't stomach. I guess that's why I'm a developer and not a businessman... Maybe the best way to "win" a negotiation is to "kill" it, i.e. turn it into something that's no longer a negotiation, where it's obvious that no one side can "win", no fucking way, so both parties can concentrate on the best possible compromise. That pretty much has been my "tactic" in the past. I realise that this means I miss out on dealing with the "pro gamers", but, well, fuck'em.