Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I'm not sure I'd say I'd dislike someone who is evasive and canny when i'm playing as an opponent in a war game. I'd probably respect them for it. Misdirection is fundamental to the art of war, and diplomacy is just war by other means. Consider the words of Sun Tzu:

"All warfare is based on deception."
"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt."
"Be extremely subtle even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate."

I find it hard to dislike someone for conducting themselves skillfully in a war game. Of course, if they are really good at it, you may know they were non-committal, but you won't know what their aims are.

Re: Civilizations
Its other people who are making judgements about diplomacy, and they are making them based on exactly what they should be making them on: relative advantage, future prediction/projection, and self interest. That you think troop morale should suffer when attacking a weaker foe is mind-boggling.

Re:Standard rules for diplomacy
Standard diplomacy is Machiavellian - ie, only what the game engine enforces, which is nothing. There is no other standard. Machiavellian just means caveat emptor, not that you can expect everyone to lie.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I personally like my diplomacy bloody, and will never ever join a game where I can't lie to and manipulate other players.

But yeah, it's really a matter of prefrence. If you want lasting agreements, sure, play with people who want the same.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

A lot of players would consider diplomacy to be completely pointless if you're allowed to lie and break any treaty. So I can see why they'd get annoyed if they ran into other people who were playing that way and they didn't realise it - it would feel like they'd been wasting their time.

If you have strong feelings about diplomacy you should make them known. I also think diplomacy outside of the game (for example lying about your own diplomatic preferences or carrying stuff from one game to another) is generally recognised to be BS because people want the game to be the game and everything outside of it to be unrelated.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Diplomacy is what you make of it. Personally, I wouldn't trust that person again.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I've played a couple games with binding diplo agreements. Not my cup of tea. I've played Diplomacy the board-game as PBM (and later PBeM) since early 80's, and not being able to backstabb if you really really truly need to is just weird. Everybody builds up their own reputation. I wouldn't count on anybodys word in game as long as there is no clear advantage of sticking to his word (like he is getting something useful from a war, like new land or just being able to hold down an expanding neighbour), and usually not even when it would be of great benefit to stick to their word. It is, after all, just a game, and sometimes an un-timely backstabb can make the game more interesting (especially if there is a good story to it :) ).

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I see. The more people respond - the more opinions we have :).
I don't really have some strict "demand" for a game. If it's a "standard rule", then at least it's predictable, even lack of guarantee is information.

The question of how I believe it should be done (as any other law) - the way it benefits community better. Some libertarians, of course will say that the less laws the better. I uderstand them as well unless they act as spoilers of community and we lose newbie players s result who we could enjoy playing with. I believe Dom3 were quite popular and still many people are looking for games on this forum. Karma doesn't really work in game enviroment, but in life we have compassion and some of people believe in something. And Machiavelli is just one of strategists, worth to be familiar with, but not many really could take 100% of his ethics in RL even if they think that they could :). After achieving something in management, really a lot of managers start thinink about usig the word "ecology" in relation to management practices. And that's not only because of beliefs or somethig othe irrational. No one can really rule without integrity. And being different with different people make you loos this feeling of integrity.
But that's not what I wated to say.. Being the owner of your word even to your enemies (I mean avoid direct lie) let you much more loyality of your subordinates. If your subordinates see you are direct lier, they will cynically copy your practices against you. And you will not be able to collect those people around you, which could be kept in a state of loyality, basing on positive feelings, not only greed, lie and other staff... Here we have no such word as people management, so we have less realism. That's what I wanted to say.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

The big issue is how you handle it.

Having played Diplomacy PBEM for a while, Diplomacy is a huge thing. The catch is, you should never lie, unless it is a game changing issue. If there are four nations left, you are #4 allied to #1, and realize tha if you gang up against #2 and #3 you are going to lose, you go ahead and make the stab. The only possible way you win is if you all gang up against #1. The problem is, do the other players trust you when the dust settles?

That is the fundamental problem "care bears" have. They do not know how to play the diplomatic game well. You should constantly be going back and forth regarding the game. Talk about some discussions you are having with other players, forment wars in other parts of the map by discussing what other players are going to do to them, etc.

I played in a game a few years back where one I tried to switch from being allied to the #3 player, to the #1 player (#3 was in a better late game situation). #1 kept on "messing up orders". So when push came to shove and I had to go a way, I went with he #3 player. #1, completely blindsided by this, made it his sole purpose in the game to keep me from winning. Some players might get upset by it, but in a game with diplomacy, even the nuclear option is on the table (I'll do what ever it takes to keep you from winning). The heck of it is, and the player never saw this, is that it really was in my best interest to side with him, but he never saw what he did as impacting relations. How can I side with someone if they "keep messing up orders"?

All that said, Diplomacy is a huge factor in games and should be that way. Keeping you word should carry some weight, but players should understand when a player does not keep his word when it is in his best interest to break an agreement unannounced.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Ugh. Did you have to go there?

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Where, "Care bears"? What's a "care bear"?

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

In the long term, having a reputation for never breaking your word will attract you as an ally, and mark you for people that will take advantage of it.

Still, generally said, the people that will never break words will tend to know who each other are. Watch each others backs.