Re: Casual PBEM (looking for players)
 

14/16 turns in, waiting for Man and Shinuyama.
I'm off now, so hosting will be Monday evening GMT+1 at the earliest.

Re: Casual PBEM (looking for players)
 

turn 16 hosted (or is it turn 15, and I sent you turn 16... well...)

7/16 turns in

Re: Casual PBEM (looking for players)
 

Deleted.

Re: Casual PBEM (looking for players)
 

14/16 turns in. Waiting for Abysia and Pythium

Re: Casual PBEM (looking for players)
 

nice, fast turn!
turn hosted

Re: Casual PBEM (looking for players)
 

Deleted.

Re: Casual PBEM (looking for players)
 

Frank,

You're not exactly being fair, nor following Sheap's excellent rules of diplomacy (i.e. carrying grudges from game to game, or anyhow trying to impugn my reputation in other games). My diplomacy was conducted in-character, as were my actions in our game. In this game, I had actually pledged to help Vanheim some time ago... and I did employ some misleading remarks to achieve this end and attack Ermor, but that is the way of war. So, I certainly don't mind you accusing Marignon of treachery... however, to say that I, personally, am not trustworthy is both unfair and untrue. This also carries over to other games I happen to be playing in. Just because I chose to mislead someone in one game does not mean I will do so another... I have been a loyal and true ally in many a game.

Actually, now that I look at my message sent to you, i said, quote: "we have no interest in conflict with you at this time... we wish to claim the independant provinces near your great city." Well, I did in fact take those provinces... and my (in-game) protestation of having no interest in conflict with you was rather vague. At no point did I "promise" not to take your capital.

I just was attacked (without warning) by Darrel playing Pythium. While in-game i'm going to whine about not giving me warning etc, etc. I don't translate that into a judgment about Darrel as a player being untrustworthy. I would appreciate the same consideration from you.

thanks for taking the time to read this rather long post - I think the distinction between player and in-game persona is important; I also think deception is a natural part of war and diplomacy.

Re: Casual PBEM (looking for players)
 

Deception is an important part, but so is a reputation for truth.

There's a difference between carrying grudges and knowing someone's reputation.

In a system like Dominions where diplomacy is only enforced by trust, earning and keeping trust is necessary. If I thought my neighbors weren't going to keep their word, I wouldn't bother much with treaties. If someone is a loyal and true ally in "many" games, that's very different from being one in "every" game.

Of course, there is a difference between lying and misleading. That's why I always ask people to make explicit statements and pacts... if they say "I have no interest in X", that doesn't actually mean they aren't going to do X. But if they say "I'm not going to attack any provinces beyond this line," then you know exactly what they have and haven't promised to do.

Did Marignon explicitly violate their word, break any promises or pacts? What do each of you say? The rest of the world needs to know...

Re: Casual PBEM (looking for players)
 

Like Ewierl said, there is a big difference in saying "I have no intention of attacking you" and "I agree to a NAP for the next 10 turns", etc.

Treaties should be stated explicitly, and then agreed upon. Breaking such a treaty is one thing, and misleading someone with diplomatic communications is another.

Re: Casual PBEM (looking for players)
 

Well, I agree with you in part, Ewierl. I think having a good reputation is part of a game... at the same time, I feel it is necessary to again stress the difference between a person and their in-game nation/persona... certainly if a person is consistently untrustworthy and just a jerk, other people might mistrust them. However, using deception in a game is not, I think a reason to distrust everything that person does.

I also like your point about explicit pacts... people who have encountered me in other games may have noticed that I make very very explicit pacts most of the time, because I want to be able to say when and how a pact has been violated, if that happens. I deliberately made my diplomacy with Frank vague because I planned to attack him... more importantly, I feel he read into my words and decided I had "promised" not to attack him, when in fact I had done no such thing.

Anyhow, perhaps i'm just being touchy about my pride or somesuch. I will let other people judge as they wish, although I reserve the right to defend myself =)