The first talk between the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government and the Hong Kong Federation of Students leaves one perplexed, because it showed how students and Occupy Central movement in general are lacking realism and moderate leadership.

It started with the goal of forcing Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to have a public debate with the students about political reforms. But after the first day's riots, which forced police to disperse violent protesters, students accused the government, decided Leung was no longer a legitimate interlocutor, and demanded his resignation.

So a public debate that was supposed to be the initial and ultimate goal of the protesters, was turned into a sort of public trial of the government, a trial provided with penalties.

The protesters expected the government to act according to their will, regardless of the opinions of other stakeholders and social sectors of Hong Kong. This is because in their belief, they represent Hong Kong.

A complex process such as a constitutional reform, which by nature must involve the broadest spectrum of subjects and parties, should be carried out following the guidelines of a smaller, though significant, part of people. This proves that the students are far from being realistic given that they could not possibly expect their requests would be accepted, and certainly not at this stage of the dialogue.

What is worse is that this has arisen suspicions about what their real goals are, or whose.

Students are young and emotional by nature. But behind students are adults, lawmakers, and professors. Is it possible that such experienced people could not direct or convince them to act in a more considerate, effective manner and conceive a dialogue for what it should be, a negotiation, rather than a showdown?

There are two options. Occupy's leaders are as radical as, or even more radical than, students, and are maneuvering them.

Or on the contrary, Occupy's leaders have lost control of the protest and students have taken the helm.

It is a shame that students apparently didn't perceive the importance of the chance they have been given, the success represented by an unprecedented decision, that delegation of the students is allowed to go on TV for two hours and talk to government. They could have shown passion, moderation, maturity, humility and respect, and won a consensus in public opinion and media. But such a humble face was nowhere to be seen.

They subtly warned the government that protests would go on because they were not getting what they wanted. They openly doubted their counterparts' sincerity and pressed them to advance immediately a new proposal or roadmap.

Two weeks ago they addressed an open letter to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, urging him to tackle the crisis. That may have been their only considered step toward a constructive and reasonable management of the stalemate. Reforms are a gradual process which requires the contribution of different parties.

However, during the talk, they abandoned that positive and fruitful attitude and wasted an opportunity.

This is a shame. By pursuing this strategy, students and protesters risk delaying the current reform process and losing the progress toward democracy made so far.

Giorgio Del Moro, an Italian freelance journalist who is now living in Hong Kong