Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

You've got me there, Spoon. I am a sucker I guess and it's cost me a few games. But then again I'm not aware of anyone not wanting to ally with me because I can't be trusted. Maybe that's because I'm an easy mark and folks know they can take advantage of me, at least once.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

A valid point. I can only say that team play and using or being used are not mutually exclusive. My boss uses my talents to further his company, I use his company to further my reputation and earn more and more money. When one or the other is not making a sufficient gain, the relationship will end. In the meantime the more effiently we can build a quality product remains our mutual goal. You can relate this almost directly to the way I play SEIV.

This is exactly the way I play alliances. Small transgressions lead to friction. Depending how I'm roleplaying the game, this may lead to immediate war or a long period of building distrust leading to eventual war or anything in between. Often the transgression is corrected, but that seed of doubt has been planted and remains throughout the game.

For myself, I don't recall ever using a pearl harbor attack. You will always get a warning. For instance,

"For our empire's security, we require you to vacate the Freduk system by 2409.4 to make room for our new colonies and military bases."

Not much reading between the lines required there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

This back and forth gets to what my point was, albeit I obviously didn;t make it clearly.

I come at this game from the perspective of a student of political science. Let me use an analogy from international relations to get at why these two views (Geoschmo & Chane's) are not actually contradictory from a game-play POV.

There are a wide variety of different theories that explain how nations interact with each other in an anarchic environment (ie: an environment without an overarhcing authority to enforce laws and order). These theories range from the various realisms to things like various institutionalist, constructivist, and other approaches.

Goeschmo is espousing an essentially realist POV: it's a harsh world out there and you do what you have to do to survive. Chane seems to be espousing more of a institutionalist/neo-liberal view wherein cooperation can lead to greater benefit to all parties.

So, in the exact same way that nations act different in reality, so do our Empires in SE4. And (this is the key here) the real challenge comes when one "mode of behaviour" has to deal with another: a nation/space empire that works for cooperation and non-zero sum outcomes MUST always be cognizant and prepared for that nation/space empire that does not. Until just recently, the US has been at the forefront of a instutionalist power, in which it played a key role in creating, supporting, and legitimizing the postwar system of alliances and interlocking economies - and this was a non-zero sum effort. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean that they could afford to ignore those nations that act in a zero-sum manner (north korea, etc...).

And that is why players with very different approaches can still interact in the same game, and it makes it even more interesting when they do.

I generally play the same type of empire, one that practices a neo-liberal non-zero sum approach. But, my empires, alas, almost always live in a universe where there are aggressive empires that thrive on conflict and practice realpolitik. The greatest pleasure is the politics involved in dealing with these empires. So, when Geo and Chane are in the same game, they really are practicing two different value systems that must interact in a anarchic (hobbesian) universe - the trick is doing that in ways that remain within their approaches. It's a study in philosophical interaction.

Off my rant.

Alarik

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

hi away on vacation still at a computer near a lake ... not mine...

but anyways... I like the story along the way.

Playing both styles of players. WHat i do not like is players who forget what is the game and what is not. That to me is rather strange and a little disturbing.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Tesco,

Tell me what the litmus test is for determining what portion of a player's in-game behavior is his/her game personna and which part is their true character shining through? If a player is so driven to win that they'd screw over an ally to achieve that, then how can another player know they're just "playing the game" and that they wouldn't behave the same way in real life? The motivation for backstabbing an ally is a desire to win. I've yet to see a single statement saying that the backstab was done to remain "in character". If a player has such a strong desire to win that they'd betray an ally in a game, then why wouldn't they do the same thing in the real world? Does the desire to win end when the game ends? It's tough for me to believe it does, and it wouldn't seem very logical either. In the game a player has little to gain, whereas in the real world there are all sorts of tangible benefits to be derived from screwing over an ally. Promotions, prestige, money, power, sex, etc. On the one hand we have plenty of motivations for backstabbing, while in the other we have the simple desire of winning a game. Yet I should apparently believe that the in-game behavior is all just role playing and that in reality the player's personality bears no resemblance to what I'm seeing. I think that defies human nature and it absolutely defies my experiences. Now, please don't forget that I'm talking strictly about regular SEIV games, not games specifically billed as role-playing. In a role-playing game I expect a player to be in character. Treachery and backstabbing included.

You find it "strange and a little disturbing" that some players don't separate everything that takes place in the game from the real world. In contrast, I find it curious that some players see everything that takes place in the game as merely game behavior. Does nothing of our true personalities, experiences, preferences, etc., show through in our game play? If the answer is "yes, they do", then as I said said in my opening sentence, please tell me what the definitive test is for determining which behavior is "just the game" so I can separate it from the player's real personality showing through.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Sorry, I can't agree. In this context "used" means to take advantage of, abuse, victimize, exploit. Teams don't behave that way toward team members or they won't long be team members. Yes, teams use the member's skills but if it's truly a team, then the member's know what their role is up front.

Yes, your boss uses your talents and skills to further the business of the company and in return the company pays you. That isn't used in the context I'm talking about. In that context you'd be used if your employer was severely underpaying you, or if your boss takes credit for the work you do, or if they somehow mistreated you because they knew you were in the country illegaly and couldn't do anything about it for fear of being deported. If your employer is mistreating, abusing, or victimizing you, then I doubt very much that you feel like your part of a team. Otherwise, I suspect you are part of a team and what you're describing are the different roles held by you and your employer.

The same here. I'm not advocating that no one should ever drop an alliance and go to war with a former ally, although I think there should be more justification for doing it than "so I can win". Just that if that becomes necessary, then the former ally should be given fair and adequate warning. And also that no hostile, subversive, or detrimental actions should be taken against an ally while you are allied with them.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Because doing so in the game is acceptable behavior, and in fact a required part of the game where there can only be one winner. Doing so out of the game may be expected by some, and may in fact happen quite often, but it's not acceptable behavior in a civilized soceity. You play by the rules of the game while you are playing the game. You operate according to the rules of soceity and ethical behavior in real life.

The desire to do well is universal, it's not limited to games. But life is NOT a game. There is not only one "winner" in life. For me to do well in life I don not have to hurt those around me. For me to win the game, those around me must lose.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Lord Chane, how would a game of Space Empires ever end if your black/white morals of "once ally - forever ally" would be applied by everyone?

Even if you do not seem to be able to separate it, it is a game and not reality. I do not like having to agree to Tesco, but I too think it is important to separate game and life. And yes, kill me for it, I am playing games to win, even if I also have fun if I do not win in the end. That's the nature of a game.

I would never directly lie and deceive, but if it becomes obvious that the game is nearing a point where it is you or me, I will choose me and even attack first instead of waiting for your attack - or waiting for the game to end by the natural death of all players, as you seem to prefer?

This is of course different if team victory is possible, there just is no reason to become a sole winner then and attack an ally if he is not directly keeping you from winning. I'm refering to "Last man standing" games, and these include "all others down" when they finally end, and someone has to bring them down for the game to end.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

I disagree with the "required part" of your statement. I've won a few games, all without betraying anyone. Slynky's won a few games, and to the best of my knowledge he hasn't betrayed anyone either. I've played in a few games that Asmala was in and have never seen him betray anyone either. So, it seems it is not "required", merely an option. I want to make sure I'm absolutely clear on what I consider betrayal. Using a treaty to bypass an ally's defenses; Pearl Harbor style attacks where as an ally you position fleets over one or more of the ally's worlds and then drop the treaty; agreeing to some action (e.g. trade, gift, etc.) then not following through and blaming it on a game glitch; allowing a third party to attack an ally through your space; talking your ally into attacking a third party or waiting until they've done so and then attacking them; passing information you gained from an ally to a third-party without your ally's permission; and any other actions which take advantage of your alliance to the detriment of your ally. In a "Last man standing" game, such as the tournament game I mentioned in an earlier post, it's inevitable that you'll have to fight your ally if the game comes down to the two of you. That's fine. You can stipulate that at the begining of the alliance. This alliance is for x number of turns, or until a certain goal is met. When it's time to end the alliance you can send a notice to the other player giving them fair and ample warning that the alliance is about to end. And I see it as perfectly valid to terminate an alliance if your ally proves untrustworthy or gets you into a jam. In some games I spell out terms of any alliances I enter into. I'll propose making them for specific amounts of time, renewable if both parties agree. That way the other player knows what the situation is and can plan accordingly.

In a role-playing game I agree wholeheartedly. In other games I don't agree. There's ethical and unethical behavior, whether it's in a game or not. Let's see if I can make a couple of analogies to illustrate my point. Is it acceptable for a player to intentionally injur a player on the other team to enable their team to win? I played basketball in high school and started to play in college, a junior college, too. One of the first things the coach discussed was protecting the ball. One of his instructions was that if an opponent was trying to slap the ball out of your hands to try and hit them on the on the point of the finger with the ball in the hopes of injuring the hand and slowing them down or putting them out of the game. Now, there's nothing expressly in the rules about that, at least as far as I know, so I guess it's okay. It might be lumped in under "unsportsmanlike conduct", but it's one of those things that would be almost impossible to prove. But it sure sounds unethical and unsportsmanlike to me. Enough so that I quit playing basketball. I didn't want to win that bad. Apparently the coach did want to win that bad. Carlos Boozer of the Cleveland Cavaliers jumped ship and went to Salt Lake City after having promised Cleveland that he'd stay with the Cavaliers. Is there anything in the rules that says he can't do that? Nope. Is it ethical? Nope.

Again I am forced to disagree. A new position comes open and you and a coworker friend are the only two in line for it. There's only one position so one of you will win and the other will lose. You and a friend both have the hots for the same girl. What's the rule, "all's fair in love and war"? Ethics goes beyond rules, whether it's in life or in a game. Let's say I figured a way to read SEIV turn files. Is there a rule that says I can't use my newly discovered skill to win games? Or should I be saluted for my cleverness? After all espionage is a key part of the relationship between real nations and cvivilizations. Everyone has the same opportunity to do what I have done so am I inside or outside the lines here?

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Looks like definitions have tripped us up once again, Lord Chane. I agree making use of another's skills and assets is acceptable while abuse is unacceptable. On that basis, I concede your point.

All in all I don't think any of us are totally black or totally white. Lord Chane, I think you will agree there are cases where an alliance must be ended. As a game evolves, needs change and often the allied parties cannot agree on how to satisfy these changes. The solution is often a change in treaty status. (Wouldn't it be nice to go from "partnership" to "trade alliance" without starting over?)

By the same token I think Geo would agree that sometimes it is not just a good idea, but absolutely essential to hang on to a treaty. Your ally may be overbearing, threatening and unreliable, but without him you are nothing. Here, you hang on in a perpetual state of fear hoping and planning for a better future.

Okay, I said a lot of nothing there and said it in a wishy-washy manner http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

I just want to add, I have no real solution for the orignal problem that Slynky presented. I too, have had my feelings hurt at times plalying SEIV. I have managed to adjust my outlook so that I can get past these crises quickly. It helps immensely that the SEIV crowd is the most gentlemanly (or ladylike) crowd I've ever dealt with. They don't rub it in, they help you get over it.

Slynky, I too advise you take some time off. A couple weeks or a month. When you come back, pick and choose your games carefully.

Y'all come back now y'hear! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Lord Chane, while I still disagree with some points, I can agree to your list of "betrayals". I consider what you mentioned bad style too, I would not do it, but paranoid as I am I would not rely on my allies to feel the same - unless their past action in the game have given me a more safe feeling.

But you have left a huge grey area. There still is a difference between using an alliance to move fleets in the systems of the soon-to-be enemy, braking an alliance without notice, or declaring every action XXX turns earlier, for example. This attacking without notice is getting even greyer when there have been tensions before, and you see large fleets assembled, and even expect an assault by your ally.

Another problem is the term "ally". In most games, you usually are "allied" via a TR treaty with everyone you are not at war with, just because of the mutual benefits of such a treaty. I do not consider such a mere formality a real alliance, for example.

I also think it takes a bit the tension, and thereby the fun, out of the game if you can rely 100% on everyone else in the game. Political maneuvering is nice http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif. But downright lying, and what else you described as "betrayal" is something different. Still, there is not only black or white, I think we agreee which is which, but what about the grey areas, which are the biggest? I do not think there are general, "right" rules of behaviour for any situation in the game. And no one has the right to impose his personal, subjective view of these grey areas on every other player. This is a matter of personal style.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

My biggest weakness in competitive PBW games is that I like to role-play my empire all the time, even in games where role-play is not a declared part of the game! Unfortunately I always tend to play that peaceful push-over race that often neglects the chance to take advantage of expansion opportunities through force. [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Cold.gif[/img]

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Roleplaying is nice, regardless in what type of game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

It is just not a very good choice to roleplay a mackerel when entering in a piranha basin http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

He said, as the Aether lords begged and scraped at his table for whatever scraps he chose to send their way...in the hopes of preserving their existence...(NGC4)

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Ok, after reading your list of specfic examples I'd have to say maybe our differences here are more ones of semantics. I don't think I've even flat out lied to someone as in telling them that we have a rock solid treaty for X number of turns and then pulling a sneak attack three turns before it ends. I have occasionally allowed them to feel like we are allies, while being intentionally vague about how long it is to Last. People will very often hear what they want, regardless of what you actually say. My sins would be more of ommision in that case.

I have on occasion enterered into negotiations for a treaty with absolutly no intention of joining an alliance. Just to buy time so that I can attack. Is it bad faith negotiations? Perhaps. But it's negotiations. It wasn't an actual alliance.

I might have a person I am in alliance with, and give "aid and comfort" to their enemy. Not that I would neccesarily tell them what my allies plans were, but I might also "forget" to mention to my ally that there might be a build up of this third parties forces in an undefended sector. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

The main thing that is an irritant to me is when you join an alliance with someone and they assume you are joined at the hip. If you don't give them every piece of technology you have they feel like you are not being a good ally. Mainly because I think that style of play is simply boring, but also because I don't want to help them that much. And you always have to attack everyone they are at war with? Even when it's not in my interests? That's no fun.

Your real life examples are most definetly apples to oranges. Honestly I am strugling not to be personally offended at some of your comments here. If you think just because I'd break some of your own personal unwritten rules in an SE4 game that I would be the kind of unethical person that would injure another human being, you really are way off base.

Puposly hurting someone in a sporting event is wrong. It is most definetly against the rules in every organized sport I know of. Any player that would do it, or coach that would encourage it has no business being in teh sport. Whether or not you could do it and get away with it is possible, but doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. That's the point I'm trying to make to you here. I'm not talking about doing stuff in SE4 games that is wrong, but being able to get away with it. I'm talking about doing stuff that is perfectly acceptable, but that you somehow have decided is wrong.

And your guy that left Clevland and went to Salt Lake, I don't know anything about pro basketball, but that's not ethics guy. That's business. Pro sports is millionaire players negotiating with millionaire owners. If you were no longer happy at your job and got a better offer wouldn't you go?

Yes, it's the rule that says "DON'T CHEAT". What you describe is not a strategy or a tactic. It's not a grey area and cannot be justified. It's flat out cheating. You won't be commended for your cleverness, and we won't debate whether or not it's acceptable. You will be Banned for life from playing on PBW and blacklisted from PBEM games. It's not at all the same as espionage and it's way way outside the lines.

As far as competing in real life for a girl, or a job. In that case, yes, someone's going to get the girl or the job and someone isn't. But it doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do anything you want to the other person. You still have to follow the rules of soceity. You do the best to sell yourself, and hope they pick you. But even there it's not a zero-sum game. There are always more jobs, and more girls out there. As you gain life experience and perspective you will learn that.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Good question. I'm glad you asked it. First, perhaps folks would be a bit more judicious about allying if the alliances were taken more seriously. The rule of thumb now seems to be to ally with everyone and then decide who to attack later. I don't see that as very realistic. Is a space faring race really going to make treaties with every race they encounter? No checking into their background, no attempt to find out if they have the same values you do, nothing else taken into consideration, just sign the treaty and throw open the doors to your territory? I think not. The problem is if you don't agree to most of the treaties, then you've just marked yourself for an early exit from the game. Second, I've said a couple of times that I believe it's acceptable to make treaties for fixed amounts of time, or ones that are renewed periodically, or expire when a certain goal is reached. What I don't find acceptable are treaties where your ally is using you, turns on you suddenly without cause (i.e. you did nothing to cause them to drop the alliance), drops the alliance because they can get a better deal elsewhere, and the others that I've already mentioned in other Posts. Part of the problem with treaties/alliances is that they allow folks into your territory unimpeded. Yes, England is our ally, but I expect the U.S. would object strenuously if British forces started scouting the "colonies". And I'm pretty confident that should we Terrans ever get around to colonizing any of the other planets in our solar system that we'd take a pretty dim view of some alien race colonizing Jupiter merely because we'd signed a trade agreement with them. Yet players in SEIV seem to think that a simple trade agreement entitles them to explore their ally's territory, settle planets in systems otherwise entirely owned by an ally without so much as a "by your leave", and engage in other equally unacceptable behaviors. If I'm going to agree to a treaty that provides them with so many advatages, then does it seem so ridiculous to expect my ally to be faithful? If trade treaties are going to be just that and nothing else, then the game needs to be modified so they don't give access to your territory. Then I won't place so much importance on them.

Saying that does not make it so. It is your opinion and I respect that, even if I don't agree with it. And please keep in mind that I'm not saying that every act is a reflection of the player's character. But, since I cannot tell which are and which aren't and no one participating in this thread has offered a viable litmus test, then it leaves me mistrustful of that player. There are those who believe that winning is everything and should be achieved by any means possible. Others, myself included, believe that how you play the game is more important, including your in-game behavior. They are different viewpoints and I'm not trying to convert anyone, get anyone to join my line of thought, or to say that the "win at all costs" crowd are wrong. I disagree with them but it's not up to me to say which is right or wrong. What I can say is that if a player employs the art of the backstab, then they shouldn't be surprised if other players don't want to do business with them in the future and shouldn't be outraged if those players circulate word to warn other players.

Perhaps you can share how to separate the real player from the in-game personna. Or do you Subscribe to the notion that everyone who plays is really a nice person, not a mean streak anywhere, that not a single player is just as motivated to win in real life as they are in the game? If so, then I submit that you must not have met any ladder climbers, politicians, folks who are driven to win and will do anything to do so. And I do separate game from life. I'm simply carrying on a relatively dispationate discussion about my views on this topic. I'm not even midly upset. We're all entitled to our points of view. You have yours and I have mine. I would never kill you for playing to win. I wouldn't even kill you for betraying me in a game. I just wouldn't ever trust you again.

You wouldn't have to wait for me to attack first. In such a situation I'd send you a message and let you know that it was time to drop the alliance and fight it out for final victory. We'd agree to end the alliance in x number of turns and then have at it. All very gentlemanly. I'd want to win because of superior tactics, military skill, ship design, empire design, not because I knifed you before you could knifed me. I just don't see that there's any glory in that sort of victory.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Very good point, I have exactly the same feeling about this. Just leading to different concludions obviously. Exactly this common careless treaty-making is the reason why I do not consider these Space Empires T+R treaties as real treaties. They are a convention, a must, a routine thing, like saying "hi" to someone you encounter. I think it is foolish to rely on eternal peace and safety just because of such a kind of treaty, without any reinforcing contacts and agreements above this.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

This is exactly why I lowered max trade levels from treaties from 20% to 10% in Adamant Mod... It is still better to make T&R with everyone, but it won't kill you not to... Maybe in 20 player games, but in smaller games, it is harder to triple your income from trade alone...

Also, remote mining income does not get added to trade treaty production. With the increased power of remote mining in Adamant, you can easily get away without many treaties... Also, it makes income from treaties have even less of a doubling/tripling effect, due to part of your income not participating in trade treaties.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Well, I had a good time at Dragon*Con (and was even able to forget "the game" and recent events/discussions for, I'd say, 98% of the time).

But here I am, catching up on the Boards, and getting the same "dreary" feeling again. Noticed by my wife, she said, "Baby, don't get upset again and quit just about the only game you've played for over 3 years.".

Yes, I DO enjoy the game. Only MOO (and MOO2) has ever "kept" me for so long.

I'm sorry I started a controversy. I intended this thread as a commentary as to my reactions of late and withdrawels from games (as well as my explanation for never playing multi-player games again).

I've read, with interest, all the comments made since I left for Dragon*Con. I'll admit, before my comments, that I am prejudiced toward Lord Chane's comments not only because he's my best friend but because he's lived his life just exactly as he has commented in his Posts. There were times when he was my supervisor and ANYTHING that I did that merited noting, he made absolutely sure that everyone important knew I was the one who did it. And he has done the same for other staff NOT as close as we are. That's just the way he is and the reason why I'd work for him anywhere, anytime. And play a game of SE4 with him anywhere, anytime as a partner...whether we started the game as designated partners (or met in a game and decided to make a treaty).

I trust Geo quite a bit, too. As he alluded to in Posts, he is very explicit about his treaties and how long they Last. If he says "We will be in a treaty till turn 30", I know he might attack on turn 31. If he says "I won't attack you without 3 turns notice", I believe him.

Now, during a treaty with Lord Chane or Geo, let's talk about "secondary" pieces of trust. WIll Lord Chane tell another person (not treatied with me) I'm building up an attack fleet? Nope. No doubt at all. Will Geo? Not sure. But, Geo never discussed those parameters and I understand his game to be of such that he considers that honoring his treaty. No need to go into whether that is right or wrong. I'm just pointing out what I think to be a difference in both their points of view. I would also submit that I would expect most every player to prefer the kind of treaty Lord Chane would offer.

I also think it's a waste of time to debate who is right or wrong (and I think Lord Chane stated that). More directly to the point, and as an additional explanation of why I quit the "Tourney", I think it's natural for people to not want to play as an ally to a person they cannot trust.

I also think that people who will use any method possible to win a game are more likely to do the same in life. Said another way, a person you can trust in a game where a mere win is bragging rights is also a person you are probably better posting your faith in in real life. (not saying they wouldn't backstab you but that it's less likely)

Adding to my list of thoughts--I'll try to explain it without insulting anyone--I believe that people who cheating, backstabbing, spinning white lies, and bending the truth (etc.), are the kind of people who will never understand those people who don't share those kinds of beliefs/tactics. Said in another way, people who believe the (questionable) tactics I listed above will never understand the viewpoint of those who don't share those approaches. They can debate till their fingers have grown tired of typing...and still not agree. And that's fine. I think all anyone needs to understand is that the "honest" (to encompass a concept in a single word) players will learn who are like them and who are not. And given no new players to PBW, games will (generally) polarize to the point that those of one ilk will gravitate toward games comprised those of similar feelings. Which means there will be games of people who know they can trust the other players and games of people who will always look over their back. And, that's fine, too. It will also result in people like me who will never play another game of multiplayer. Call me a baby. Call me a sore loser. Call me anything you want. But I'm in the game for entertainment. EVERY game I have ever won has been done so within the limits of what I feel to be honorable. Though I am not the most succesful player around, I feel good that I didn't find some way to screw over someone that I had a treaty with in a game in order to put another notch on my win column.

So, in a world of "cutthroats" and "doormats", I may not be at the top of the pyramid of game-playing or making as much money as I could if I had screwed coworkers over. But I get much more sleep.

I remember someone who posted a message over a month about about "Nice guys finishing Last". It was a good thread and some people believed that nice people DO finish Last. Working in reverse (life to games direction), I also believe those to be people who feel same way in games. (my way of trying to prove what Lord Chane was saying...that people who think it's OK to lie in a game are more likely to believe it's OK to lie in RL...and vice-versa).

I believe what I have written. I also believe those who "live by a different" code will believe I just don't understand. That is also the reason why I'll not waste any more time trying to "convert" those who differ in opinon. I have better things to do with my like than "typing at a wall". And the reason why this is my Last post.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

I love that this post ends with your sig:

ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that they cannot separately plunder a third. (Ambrose Bierce)

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

A bit of a grey area. I wouldn't have a problem with that so long as there was some sort of notice given when the alliance is being terminated. Something more than a fleet showing up over one of my planets and a note saying that the alliance is over.

A player certainly can't be held responsible for what someone else chooses to believe.

That is most definitely part of the game.

Another gray area. But I'd tend to say that's acceptable depending on the terms of the treaty. For example, you and I have a treaty in TGE and I wouldn't expect you to warn me if someone was going to attack me.

I agree completely, unless the alliance specifically calls for that sort of thing. I prefer to use alliances to secure my borders so I can use the forces that would otherwise have to defend them to attack someone I'm not allied to elsewhere.

I'll start by saying I'm sorry if I've offended you. I've tried to write everything I've said to take issue with the opinion you expressed and not you personally. There's a difference between the thought and the person who expressed it. I've made no personal attacks, accused you of nothing, and stuck to disagreeing with the opinion and not the author. I can't help the fact that you happened to have expressed the opinion I disagree with. You expressed dismay "... that few people get the same satisfaction from this style of play that I do. So I find that people don't want to be allies with me to begin with because of what they have heard abotu me form other players, or comments I've made in the forum." By this I assume that you are bothered that more people don't adhere to "your own personal unwritten rules in an SE4 game". I'm merely expressing my dismay that the style of play you described is appealing. Am I not as entitled to my opinion as you to yours? I haven't said you are an unethical person, nor have I said that you'd injure another human being. I don't know you but I've no reason to believe that you are or that you would. What I have said is that some of our personality shows through in the way we play, probably even when we are role playing. I've also said that folks who truly believe in winning at all costs in a game probably don't end it there. It's just not in their personality. I've also mentioned several times that games specifically marked as role-playing are exempt from those thoughts. There have been several counter Posts suggesting that I learn to separate what occurs in the game from real life. Perhaps you can help me with this one. How do I pick out those players who are just role playing from those players who really are prepared to win at any cost, whether it's in the game or real life? Surely in your years of playing and running the SEIV site you must have met a few real jerks. Do I take it on faith? Do I ask the person and then believe their response without question? You see what I mean? Have you ever met people who in real life will say or do anything to get what they want? Slander a co-worker, let a project fail to make themselves look better, take credit for someone else's work, lied to a girl so they could get her, etc., etc., etc. Do you think that sort of person might also be the kind of person who'd screw an ally over in SEIV? Are you one of those kinds of people? Certainly not. Is everyone who espouses a win at all costs attitude a nice guy? Certainly not. The key is once I've been betrayed by an someone I trusted, in this case an ally, how can I ever trust them again? And unless someone can share the means of determining who is role playing and who is just letting their personality show through, I can't tell what kind of person I'm truly dealing with.

I agree. But it goes on all the time and it goes on in the name of "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".

There are a lot of grey areas in sports rules. And even where something is clearly against the rules it's oftimes difficult to say whether it was intentional or an accident. If I have the basketball and an opponent is trying to slap it away from me while I'm moving it around, who's to say whether the broken finger they just got was on purpose or just an accident? Do you watch football? Ever see a late hit on the QB that puts him out of action for a bit? Was it intentional or an accident?

I agree. So why do players do it and why would a coach tolerate it or tell them to do it? Because right or wrong, it's part of the game. The same as steroids, illegal performance enhancers, practicing early, recruiting violations, covering up sexual misconduct, having someone else take tests for an athlete, and so on. It's all become part of the game. And why? To win! And I'm sure that many of those coaches and athletes who indulge in these behaviors are otherwise nice guys and gals. They behave one way in a game and completely different outside of the game.

I understand that we aren't talking about cheating or a clear rules violation. But I think there is a difference between being acceptable and being the right thing to do. That's my opinion, no one has to agree with me, I'm not trying to convert anyone. I just don't see it the same way.

Sorry, I can't agree. It is ethics. If you tell someone you are going to do something, then you should do it. I don't care if it hurts. I don't care if you got a better offer. You gave your word. Now, if there's an extinuating circumstance that prevents you from following through, then that's a different issue. Ann Landers said it quite nicely in her Ten Commandments of Getting Along with People, "Make promises sparingly, and keep them faithfully, no matter what it costs." The one thing we all have that we can truly call our own is our integrity. It is just flat wrong to tell someone, even a millionaire owner, that you're going to stay and then leave. Boozer used them in every negative sense of the word. Not knowing whether you were familiar with this incident I didn't go into a lot of detail in my initial post. So, let me fill in some of that detail and see if you still think it isn't an ethical issue. The player was in an option year. Cleveland could pick up the option or let the player become a free agent. They could have picked up the option and paid him something like 6-7 million for the year. He'd had a really good year though. So, the Cleveland owner and coach talked to him and told him that they wanted to reward him with a new contract worth something like $48 million over I think three or four years. To do that though they'd have to let the option pass and allow him to become a free agent. Would he be willing to do that? Absolutely, he said. Besides, he and his wife loved Cleveland, loved the fans, and really wanted to stay there. So, the Cavs let the option lapse, making him a free agent. He immediately signed an offer sheet from Salt Lake for $68 million. Now, I can't know what happened behind the scenes, but that surely looks to me like he stuck a knife in Cleveland's back. I'd say he had it all plotted out ahead of time. To me the whole thing has ethics written all over it.

Yep. But I wouldn't lie to do it. And I especially wouldn't do it on the heels of my employer going out of their way for me. The millionaire owner in this case could have just exercised the option and locked him in for another year at the lower salary. It was a cheap shot on the player's part and he must have felt so too. He refused all interviews on the subject afterwards. I'd expect if he felt he'd done the right thing he'd have been more than happy to get up and defend what he'd done. As a side note, his leaving hurt the team, hurt the fans, hurt the owner, hurt the coach, and likely marked him as a mercenary who puts his agenda ahead of everything else. Oh, and by all reports the fans loved him. He was a nice guy who readily signed autographs, chatted with fans at courtside, and so on. I mention that as an example of how difficult it can be to pick out the nice guys from those who put their personal agenda in front of all other considerations. Oh, and should anyone answer that it's acceptable when there's that much money involved then I submit the following joke:

A man sees a beautiful woman in a bar. He walks up to her and strikes up a conversation. After chatting a bit he asks her if she'd be willing to sleep with him for a million dollars. "Sure!", she says. "How about for five dollars?", the man asks. The woman is outraged! "Of course not!", she replies, "What sort of girl do you think I am?" Smiling, the man answers, "We've already determined that. Now we're just haggling over the price."

I agree. Have you seen the movie "A Few Good Men"? If so, remember the scene where Kevin Bacon's character has just finished his examination of a coporal where he's been asking the corporal to show him where in the SOP for GITMO it talks about Code Reds? The corporal says that Code Reds aren't in the SOP. In his cross Tom Cruise asks him where in the SOP is the section on how to find the mess hall. The coporal says that isn't in the SOP either. Cruise asks him if he hasn't eaten at all since arriving at the base. No, the corporal says, he just followed the other guys and found the mess hall. The point is that not everything is an official rule. So, just play the Devil's advocate, can you point me to where in the SEIV or PBW rules it specifically says that what I described is illegal and forbidden? My point is that not everything that's wrong is a rule, written down for all to see. Sometimes things are just accepted as wrong.

I only offered those thoughts to refute these statements:

Sometimes winning in life means others have to lose too.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif Either you're older than I think you are or I'm not as young as you apparently think I am. I'm 47, Geo. My perspective is based on my experiences over those years. I know I still have a lot of learning to do though, and I don't mean that sarcastically. I work on that every day.

As you said, I suspect we really aren't that far apart on what behaviors we do and don't find acceptable in the game. More a matter of definitions and semantics I think. I don't think you and I have been in that many games together. You've never done anything I found objectionable and I've never heard anything negative about you. In fact, I was surprised when I read your post, the one that got me writing these Posts, because from what I know about you it seemed out of character. I've never met you and only know you from the limited dealings we've had in SEIV and here on the forum. That aside, you strike me as a nice guy. I don't have any problem with you and the bad traits and examples I've used in this thread were to describe win at all cost personalities, not you. Despite your post, I don't think that you are truly a win at all costs player. I can't express my opinion though without making reference to your post. Please remember though that it's the issue I'm attacking, not you as a person.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Moving fleets up sounds fine to me. If you know an alliance is about to end, then I've no problem with getting ready. If there have been tensions between you and an ally, or you see large fleets assembling and your ally can't offer a plausible explanation, then you certainly have every right to defend yourself, including a preemtive strike. An ally who you've had problems with who is taking belligerent actions isn't an ally and doesn't deserve to be treated as one. I have just such a problem in a game I'm playing. A player I have a treaty with is piling up ships in a system that I own exclusively. No explanation why. I'm not threatening them, although I too have a fleet there that they might pervceive as a threat. Or perhaps they're concerned about other players drifting in and colonizing their territory. But it makes me nervous and if I can't get a proper explanation, then I guess I'll have to take action. I see that as totally justified. Now, I could use their ships being in my space as sufficient provocation and just attack. But I don't think that's the proper way to handle things.

In that a TR treaty gives your treaty partner access to your space, I have to consider it a real treaty. I wish that everything below MA did't work that way or that the game employed a "borders" concept which treaty partners below MA would recognize.

I don't think being an honest player has to decrease the fun. In one game you and I might be allies, while in another we might be deadly enemies. One of us might string the other along on the issue of signing a treaty, as Geo described in one of his Posts. We might only agree to a treaty for a limited amount of time. And there could be more games specifcally billed as being role-playing games where I've already said that anything is fair game. In such a game I might even stab you in the back but you'd know it was because I was playing my part and not because I have a win at all costs approach to playing. Finally, yes it is a matter of personal style. I'm not telling anyone how to play, not setting any rules about what can and cannot be done, not even passing judgment on someone who chooses to play the backstabbing style of game. All I'm saying is that I don't agree with that style and that any player who employs it shouldn't be surprised if I refuse to have anything to do with them in a future game. It's their choice to play that way, it is mine to never trust them again.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Lord Chance. What I mean about determining the difference between in game and out of game.

Example. Looking at what I post at shrapnel and using ingame to proove to other players that I cannot be trusted and should be taken out. Getting threating emails because of ingame stuff , Getting slandered because of ingame stuff.

To me it is a clean slate with every player every game. I read an empires descriptions. If they state they are a filthy backstabbing race... I heed the warning. Early in the game. If it is a peaceful race.... and they do not play it or there is no rp from that race... I watch out...

Some players i like to play with due to their rping... some because I know I will have good fights with. That is a fortunate side product of getting to know players. But I still clean the slate with them.

But unfortantly not everyone plays to win. I know I do not play to win. I play for enjoyment. Which is created due to ingame experiences. Trechery , Alliances, Backstabbing, Role Playing, Harsh decissions, political victories and defeats. They are all what makes a game. The final outcome is some one has to mop the map. But getting it dirty is where the fun is at. I find if you play a game not caring if you win or lose really allows you to enjoy the game as a game.

I do not understand this idea that if a player plays one way then they must be like this in real life. People act differently with each social society that they are a member of.

Take Geo as an example playing a game of SEIV on PBW , posting on shrapnel and (making up the rest ) going to work and then coming home to his family and then going out to play a game of ball.

You have many social socities that Geo is a member of here. What Geo choses to do in the one game of SEIV such as playing a game to win via game routes to win is 100% socially acceptable within a seiv game between the players who are playing the game. In the other socities that Geo is involved in these activites are unacceptable or not goals that one strives to achieve in those social socities. ( typing bad as usual ) Perhaps the closest thing would be his ball game. But that may just be a league of lob ball that he has decided to join for exercise and as a way to keep in touch with old friends. Then the goal would be to be competitive and enjoy an evening out that is healthy. Winning is a bonus and is only important for a few games during the playoffs. Guess what I am trying to say here is that in a game of SEIV Geo can be a SOB and this does not mean that in every other aspect of his life he must be a SOB. We are lucky that Geo is what he is in the PBW world and in the shrapnel world. He is opinionated. He is of a strong character who will post what his opinions are and will back them up. He will reach out and attempt to help people when he feels he can or if he feels there is a chance to make someone enjoy their day. Geo also devotes quite a bit of his time to the community and does this knowing that it can affect the other aspects of his life. This is the geo that i know ( as well as the in game one ) As for the other parts of his life. I do not know them. Nor do I need to know them unless we end up neighbours or work together. Then I would get to know those aspects as well in our relationship. But I am quite happy with shrapnel , PBW and gaming. And I am very glad that I have had the oppertuntity to get to know Geo in those parts of his world. Likewise I am sure he is happy to know me in those aspects of my life.

I also know that I do not take one game of seiv and paint a picture of geo outside of the game. Due to the fact that it is a game. And nothing more. And one game at that. If you happen to see a pattern... You have the option to go on that in the next game and miss out on some aspects of that game's story because it is the way you play. Again I do not play that way. And treat each game differently depending on the race I play.

The Last few games I have played the Nostro... Who seem to like politics far more than fighting and will do anything to keep the peace in the galaxy.

I also play a race called the Augmentation who hate everyone but ingame story has caused the race to work with one of its enemies to defeat an even more powerful enemy. ( it occured while we were at war. A more powerful enemy came in and attacked... ) This relationship has streched to fighitng another powerful group of allied races... Due to the crazyiness of our partners young and inexperienced leader. but the augmentation know that the relationship could end depending on who is in charge ( 4 governments in 210 turns )

I aslo play a race called SRM-10 who would sell your empires planets for a few destroyers if they got the chance. They would then attempt to tie you down with years of paperwork to pay for the transaction.

They are all different and I am glad that the people who play in games with me give me a chance every game to develop the empire and to develop the story that unfolds for that game.

For it would not be fun to enter a game and go. Hmm.... Lets hope I end up beside the following players because they play like this everygame so I can work to get rid of that player who I do not like from six games ago.

It is late and I was paged for work while on vacation.

Geo... Sorry for using you as an example. And if I offened please forgive.

Slynky I am sad and disappointed to see you leave. It was good knowing you here and at pbw. I will miss reading your Posts.

Roanon.... you do not like having to agree with me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

No problem Tesco. You have actually done a better job of describing what I was trying to say myself.

Lord Chane, I know you didn't say that specifically I was a bad person. What you were doing was making a broad generalization. You were saying if a person would do A then therefore they would also do B. Since I admit freely that I do A, by your logic you must think I am capable of doing B.

You don't owe me an appology. You didn't say I would do B. I was being overly sensitive. Sorry about that.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

I'm not making a generalization so much as I am connecting one set of observed behavior to a set of expected behavior. In my experience those who truly espouse the win at all costs philosophy are also likely, but not certain, to want to win at all costs in the real world. Of course not all people who would win at all costs in a game would also do so in the real world. But how can I tell one from the other? Let me couch it another way, and this is just an example to make a point not an attempt to connect anyone to what I'm describing. Let's say you and I are walking down the street and we see a skinhead in a Nazi uniform. Are you saying that based on your knowledge of Nazi, neo-Nazi, behavior that you wouldn't develop a certain set of expectations about the guy? You'd feel perfectly comfortable walking up to him, talking to him, having some sort of meaningful interaction with him? I suspect you wouldn't. I know I wouldn't. Of course it's entirely possible that he's on his way to a costume party. Or he could be an actor heading to a set. Maybe even a teacher heading to school (yes, I had a humanities teacher in high school who came to school once or twice a year in a Nazi uniform, playing the part of a die hard Nazi to give his classes first hand knowledge of what it'd be like to be a Nazi - all this with the blessing of the school district). But from a distance and without any additional information it's pretty much impossible to tell. Some players who would stab an ally in a game of SEIV are just role playing. Others would likely stab a friend or collegue in the back in real life as readily as they would an ally in SEIV. I think odds are that a person who plays that way in a game is more likely, although not assured, to behave the same way in real life.

I believe it's an established fact that the anonymity the internet provides encourages people to speak more freely. Simply put, people feel freer to speak their mind in email and in forums when they don't have to confront the person they are talking to, the recipient may not be able to identify them at all, and there is a vastly reduced chance of incuring consequences for what they say or the way they say it. If we can accept that as valid, then I submit that a person who speaks very carefully on the internet is also more likely to speak very carefully in person. It would then seem to follow that a person who speaks with total disregard in person would be vastly more likely to "let it all hang out" on the internet. So doesn't it seem reasonable that a person who would behave badly in real life is more likely to do so in a game, where there are fewer ramifications for their actions?

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

What! Now you are calling me a Nazi?!? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

No, of course if I encountered someone dressed like this in a public place I would have concerns. And it would be for good reason. People often dress in such a way to demonstrate their affinity for that particular set of beliefs. Not everyone that dresses that way believes that way, and I wouldn't support tossing people in jail based on the way they dress, but it would give me a preconceived notion about the person.

But again, your example is flawed. We are talking about a game, while you are giving real-world analogies. If I was playing a strategy set in WWII era earth, and an opponent chose to play as a Nazi country, I would not take this as an indication that they were sypathetic to those political beliefs.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If you betrayed me in a non role-playing game, then I might post something on the forum pointing out that you had betrayed me. I think it's only fair to warn others if a player elects to play that way. I did that after I was badly betrayed in the Mediocrity game. I would never send anyone a threatening email. In fact I posted what I did concerning the Mediocrity incident because I didn't want to send the other player anything that could be construed as negative or threatening to their personal email address. I know I wouldn't want to receive something like that, so I stuck to posting on the forum, a public place where they should feel less threatenend. And I didn't slander the other player. He used a treaty to launch a Pearl Harbor style attack on me. To compound my aggravation he was infinitely stronger than I was yet felt compelled to resort to this tactic to launch his attack. The analogy I'll use is that my empire was roughly like a medieval knight on horse back while his was like the latest M1 tank. There was no way for me to win, but he felt the need to sneak around and shoot me from behind just in case. Seems just a tad cowardly to me. So, I posted a forum message congratulating him on his spectactular victory. His answer was that he plays to win. Did I slander the other player? Only if the truth is slander. Of course the other player wasn't happy with my post. In my opinion that was because he didn't like having other players know that he employs that tactic. After all, it's much more difficult to stab an ally if you can't sneak up on them.

Then you are a better man than I. I don't know how you can trust a player who has betrayed you in the past. If you and played several games and in each game I used and discarded you, you'd still be willing to ally with me in the next game? Sorry, I'm not that trusting.

Well, many players don't write anything or use the stock write-up. I'm not clear on how I can tell if the racial description is what the player actually intends to use of if that too might be a deception.

Same here, but I can't do the clean slate thing. From my perspective that's ignoring experiences and taking their behavior on faith. I'm not much on faith. I'm real big on empirical evidence.

I always play to win. There are just limits on what I'll do to achieve that goal. My behavior is more important to me than winning.

Obviously, I can't agree completely. I don't think there's any glory in winning by betrayal. It's like a sucker punch, or shooting someone in the back. You risk virtually nothing and therefore gain virtually nothing.

As Slynky said, if you don't have the same perspective then it's unlikely that I can explain it in a way that'll convey my position. I've tried using several different analogies, examples, logical connections, etc. To Subscribe to the idea that there's no correlation between a player's in game behavior and their out of game behavior, I'd have to believe that every player is able to completely divorce themselves from every experience, every bit of input, every bit of social conditioning, every feeling and emotion that they've had in real life. I'd have to believe that they can essentially create a completely new and entirely different personality every time they step into the game. Sorry, I can't do that and I can't fathom how anyone can. If you bring even one bit, no matter how small, of your true personality into the game, then you have just validated my position. The question then becomes how do otehr players separate your real personality traits from your in-game personality?

Take Geo as an example playing a game of SEIV on PBW , posting on shrapnel and (making up the rest ) going to work and then coming home to his family and then going out to play a game of ball.

You are absolutely correct. Just because a player is an SOB in a game of SEIV doesn't mean that in other aspects of their life they must be an SOB. And I haven't said that they must be either. What I said is that I believe they are more likely to be an SOB in real life too. If I understand your position correctly, you see no correlation between in-game and out-of-game behaviors. I do see a correlation. I make that statement based on personal experiences, not on whim, or speculation. In some players the correlation is much stronger than in others. If you can accept that, then what's needed is a way to tell from a distance, without knowing the player concerned, how to tell how much of the in-game personality correlates with the player's real personality. Can you tell me how to do that?

Yes, we are. But this isn't about Geo. It's about the position that Geo articulated. I've tried to make that clear. I'm attacking what he said, not the man himself. We can agree to disagree. Slynky and I are best friends, but we don't always agree and have had some interesting and empassioned discussions on issues we didn't see eye to eye on. But I don't take it personally when he thinks that my position doesn't make sense and I don't believe he is offended when I disagree with him. I can disagree with a person's position without finding the person disagreeable. Then again I can agree with a person's position while finding the person totally contemtable. Hitler was a terrible person, but not everything he did was terrible.

I'm not advocating carrying a grudge from game to game and playing to annihilate a player who wronged me a half-dozen games ago. In a non-RP game though, if a player things I'm going to treaty up with or trust them after they've betrayed me in another non-RP game, then they're being naive. If I can bring about their demise, then I'd be happy to do so, but not at the cost of my game.

Hopefully they didn't keep you at work too long.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

The sort of player that takes the time to write a customized race description is the sort of player that roleplays their empire... Most people that write such a description will try their hardest to act that way in-game...

Ah, but many people can... it is what roleplaying is all about. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Their life experiences and all that might subconsciously determine the types of characters they chose to roleplay, but the roles they choose to play don't define everything about them.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

The preconceived notion is all I was going for.

As I said to Tesco in my Last post to him, you apparently see a clear separation between the player and the position they play in the game, even in non-RP games. I don't and no one has offered any objective evidence that there is such a separation. I submit to you that it is pretty much impossible not to carry over some of our personalities into the game. If you agree that players carry over even one small attribute from their real personality into the game, then you invalidate the clear separation hypothesis. It's then a matter of determining how much of the player's real personality leaks over into their in-game personna. And I disagree about my examples being flawed. My point was that people have preconceived notions and that they have them in games as well as out.

No, neither would I. Any more than I would think that an actor who plays Hitler is a Nazi sympathizer or that one who plays Jesus is a godly or devoutly religious man. It's a role. I've already said that I've no problem with what someone does in a role-playing game. They should play their role. I played a Nazgul position in a Lord of the Rings play-by-mail game once and I tried to stay in character. Would anyone trust one of the Dark Lord's servants? But unless the other game players had never read, seen, or heard of LOTR before, then they knew what to expect. Is every game of SEIV an RP game? In my opinion no and that notion is supported by the fact that some games announce themselves as being RP and others don't. If they were all RP, then there's be no reason to announce some games as RP. So for me there's a clear difference between someone playing a role and just being a player in a game.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

I do agree there is a point at which behavior of players in a game is reflective of their character, or lack of it out of the game. And in that regard your examples do have some merit. There is a line that a person can cross while playing a game which will cause me to question them as a person. Where we disagree I suppose is exactly where that line is drawn.

I would like to keep it simple and just say that for me the line is cheating. Of course that would require everyone to have the same definition of what is cheating, and then we start our debate all over again. I guess maybe that's the point you've been trying to make all along. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

A good point and one I may seem to have overlooked. I rarely pay attention to those descriptions for a couple of reasons. One, I'd have to pay more attention to what the stock descriptions say in order to know if the description I'm looking at is custom or not. Two, they seem more like fluff to me than actually useful information. But I see I could be wrong on that. Again the problem though would be to tell who has created their race and intends to play in accordance with their description and who is using the description to decieve those who pay attention to it.

You're right, the roles they choose to play doesn't define everything about them, and I never indicated I think it does. The role they choose to play may in fact say nothing about them. Or perhaps it does say something about them. That's hard to tell and impossible for me to know when I meet them in a game. Really though if their life experiences, even one of them, influences their in-game behavior, then that validates my hypothesis that it's virtually impossible to preclude that from happening. It's then a matter of trying to determine how much of their real personality they exhibit in the game. But I'm only making this argument in reference to non-RP games. In RP games I've no problem with what any player does, because I know up front that everyone is role playing.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Exactly! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Well, one of the points. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

So you mean, I take the time to write something like *this race description* so that you can know all about how nasty the Zhentara are, and you don't even bother reading it? I am hurt. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/Injured.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif

In my experience, the vast majority of people that take the time to write a race description play by it...

For many, every game _is_ a RP game... It is fairly easy to pick these people out of the crowd. This game becomes really boring if all you do is build an empire and attack people...

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Oh, don't you worry...some of us HAVE read it...and it greatly affects how we deal with you in certain games....ahem....If you know what I mean...

Alarik

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

There is also the much more peaceful Kazharii Imperium, which really isn't an imperium, I just like the name. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

I see the error of my ways and have corrected that mistake. Please forgive my ignorance, I promise I'll read all race descriptions in the future. Nicely written, by the way.

Ok, I'll try and be more sensitive to that in the future. I can pick out some of those people easily enough. They're the ones who send elaborate Messages. With others I can't tell.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

You should make it the Kazharii Emporium and sell useless junk there like "Spaceempires.net - Number one in All of Space Empires for a Reason" t-shirts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif