Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Sombre, invoking Godwin's Law is not a good thing.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Typical nazi.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I guess I have a different outlook on diplomacy in this and other games. Using Chess, Go, Checkers, or any number of games that pit you agianst another person from the start as an example, there isn't any sort of diplomacy other than you won't cheat in the game.

Even in Poker where there are thousands of dollars at stake there IS diplomacy. Its called 'playing soft' on another player (you just check it down once there are only the 2 of you etc).

From the first day I decided to play Dom 3 MP, I decided to be Honorable to a fault. This has hindered me and helped me in games, but for the most part it has made it an enjoyable experiance for me.

I will ALWAYS keep my word, Naps, or any promises I make in the game. I have also broken Naps and gone to war (after all there can be only one), but I have always given notice etc.

Because of this I have made a number of GOOD friends and can usually expect a fairly easy early expansion period.

I have had a few people who act (in MY eyes) dishonorable and I actually keep a list of them. You can talk about leaving it in the game all you want, but if you where sneak attacted by a player, you won't forget them.
You may not go out of your way to attack them in another game, but you won't forget them...OR trust them.

It is no different than playing sports. If you get a cheap shot from another player you remember them. And if you get a chance to step on their ankle/hand/arm or just blindside them, you will, it's human nature.

By keeping this list I can chose to not play with an individual, warn others that are my friends about them, or get even.

People have long memories and you can quote Sun Tzu, or any number of philosophers to justify your actions.

Me...I like Michael Corleone, "Revenge is best when its cold".

THAT is just the way I am.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Wait, was IRC just given a short-form post-modernist criticism?

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

May I have your list, GrudgeBringer?

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

The list is private for many reasons.

1. MY definitions of dishonorable may not be any one Else's.

2. I don't want to slight anyone (they may have ONLY done it to me).

3. I am not the Dom sheriff or have the last and only say in this game.

4. You need to have your own list of things that YOU feel are not honorable.

However, IF I was in a game with you and we where allies, I might warn you to look out for someone.

I think your wise to find out as much info as you can, but just by reading this thread you can see that there are MANY definitions and views on this subject. AND it can be one of the most inflammatory subjects on here, so be careful when calling someone out in public.:up:

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Curiously enough, in PBM Diplomacy this sort of behaviour led to various rules to prevent such "Carebear alliances" to rule the ladder... Then again, PBM Diplomacy in the 80's saw a couple thousands people on the ladder, so many more people than I suspect play regularily Dominions 3 MP which are organised on these forums; thus I believe the risk for such "carebears" to have an equally devastating effect on Dominions 3 MP is not that high. Besides, I think it is good there are games where diplomatic agreements are binding, as that hopefully means the "carebear attitude" doesn't spread to *all* games :)

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Maybe its a basic difference in the games. One is called Diplomacy and the other called Dominion. By definition it would seem that those should treat the subject of alliances differently.

-- MY NAME IS JUAN!
There can only be Juan. All Hail Juan.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Keeping one's word is different from being a carebear. In Diplomacy, there is no research, no recruiting, no site-searching, and thus no reason to turtle; furthermore, there is no randomness or scripting in combat, so the only way to get a combat advantage is through surprise. In Dominions, you can spend long periods of time fighting no one, then declare war on someone and win. In Diplomacy, that would never happen.

Nevertheless, in Diplomacy there is still value to keeping one's word most of the time. Someone who regularly broke agreements in Diplomacy without any real benefit to them would swiftly develop a bad reputation. "Why did you stab me? You didn't get any useful benefit from it" is a valid reason to dislike someone, even when "Why did you stab me? We had an agreement" is not.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Why would you bother making an agreement with anyone then?