Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I believe there was a game some time back where it wasn't revealed what nation everyone played until after the game was over. I think that was a great way to separate your forum person from your game person.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

LLama, "many players" infers a majority. Might be better to restate it as "some players" to be more general.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Yes, but that game also forbids diplomacy of any kind. So I do not see your point here.

Also, most people here are mature enough to separate forum person from game person. If you are untrustworthy in game, you will be dealt with game consequences, like no deal with you or even not playing with you. There are however no forum consequences, your questions will still be answered and help will still be provided. Where is your example of people mixing forum person and game person?

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I'm curious as to how inviolable treaties could be enforced? How could the host or admin or whoever know what actually happened between 2 players?

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

It is not inviolable in any sense in most games, unlike some people would like you to believe. The only consequences are that people will trust you less, and are less inclined to enter treaties with you, in this game or in other games. It is not really a big deal.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

But if it's only that there is no difference between games with inviolable treaties and those without.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

But that is not what the no break NAP under any circumstances crowd is saying. One or two of them even want a list of people that break NAPs on the forum. Please read the whole thread before answering.

As for the game I said it was a long time ago. Apparently I don't remember the details, but that doesn't matter. My point is still valid: you should try to separate your forum person from your game person. An "anonymous" game is one way to do that.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I was trying to ensure I was being fair to the inviolable-NAPs group, who I felt I was in danger of offending. I'll consider a mild rewording.

So long as it's only within that game, I definitely agree. If people try to slur the name of that player more widely, I think that's most distasteful*. Particularly if it's a game where NAPs are not considered inviolable, reputation should be local to that game. That encourages role-playing. I'd love to play a sneaky weasel Moloch one game, and an honourable dragon the next, with no-one distrusting my dragon any the less because of my moloch's naughty behaviour.

* - I am assuming that the NAP breaker was not aware he was doing anything wrong, which is, I think, almost always the case, since few people here are immature enough to deliberately break rules.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

I fail to see how "no break NAP under any circumstances crowd" is trying to mix forum and game person. Did they ask for banning a user from forum when he or she regularly "backstab" in game? Never responding to that person's thread? Or doing other nasty stuff to his or her forum reputation?

If they merely say this is what this guy did in this game and how he should not be trusted IN GAME, I believe it is perfectly clear seperation of forum and game person. I do not see a problem with list either as long as the list only consists of facts, like how someone breached NAP and what's his or her excuse for it. After all, one's game person reputation is not connected to his forum behavior, much less real life reputation. But it is invaluable when someone needs to make a IN GAME decision about diplomacy.

Re: Question about diplomacy
 

Because there is no way to tell whether you are currently playing the sneaky weasel Moloch or the honorable dragon in the current game. For all I know, you could be playing the sneaky weasel dragon all the time.