Diplomacy ethics
 

If you acheive agreement with Nation1 to declare WAR together to nation2. You declare, and your ally says it declared it as well. At the end you realize that Nation1 never canceled NAP with nation2 and don't going to, and doesn't go to war at all. For me learning of it was quite late for obvious reasons.

In RL I understand everything but direct lie to my eyes. As for game community ethics, I'm just trying to understand the borders - where is the border between something which is a "strong dimoplacy skill" and creating a situation similar for me to attacking me ignoring NAP.

Is there some kind of a reputation list, where newbie player can learn about reputation of other players? Or reputation and dimoplacy are dead here? Or work only for a few elite players who afraid only to break work given to each others?

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

This is actually the most complicated question to answer of the ones you've posted so far. First, it depends on the kind of game that you've joined. Often in the first post of a game thread, the game host will state outright whether diplomacy should be machiavellian (nothing you say to another player matters, and you don't have to respect any agreements/whatever that you make with them), or that diplomacy is binding. In a diplo is binding game, breaking agreements with other players is frowned upon and could hurt your reputation. Many of the more experienced players are quite trustworthy in such games, but there are also those who feel that if it is to their advantage to break a deal with another player, that it is their right to do so.

There is no active tracking of people who break agreements... only your own memory, and the memories of those who hear about such things. So if you want to find out whether someone is trustworthy you have to play a game with them, look up other games they've been in, or ask around and see what other people have to say about them.

For the record, in my personal experience most people do not break treaties in the diplo is binding sort of games. If you are worried about playing with trustworthy players, joining only those sorts of games is probably sufficient to avoid being backstabbed.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Fact:
Every player develops a relationship and reputation with other players as to how 'honorable' he is, how sneaky, and so on.

Opinion:
There is a difference between misleading and outright lying. For example:

"So are you going to attack me next turn?"
"No, I'm not."

vs.

"So, are you going to attack me next turn?"
"You aren't nearly as good a target as [Nation A] is."

In the first example, if an attack did occur, it would be a direct lie and should impact reputation. In the latter example the responder misdirected, and never actually claimed they weren't going to attack, merely suggested an alternative course of action without committing to anything. In that case I'd say an attack is merely sneaky, and shouldn't impact reputation (or rather, shouldn't impact your reputation for honor. It should improve your reputation for craftiness).

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Militarist, it's impossible to judge the situation, given that you are only providing the story of one party in a larger tale.

The responsibility of each nation is to its own welfare, and it would be distressing to say the least for your presumed ally to join in the war as he had agreed to, if between making the agreement with you and the time to go to war, events conspired to make joining in this gankfest disadvantageous to your intended ally.

I do agree that if you had made some sort of payment to him, in return for him joining you in the war, it would be unfair for him not to return that payment, if he has changed his mind.

It's not exactly like ganging up on a nation 2-to-1 is an honourable enterprise in the first place, unless you intended target was as strong as the two of you.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

There can be only one.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Yeah, I tried to answer fairly generally, but really it depends a lot on the specific situation. And is a very sticky sort of question in a game like this.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

My recommendation is to choose games which suits you.
If you honor the NAP and expect everyone to do so - join games with unbreakable NAPS.
If you think NAP is crap and all means are good for victory - join Machiavellian games.
If you prefer no diplomacy at all - join RAND games.

If administrator of the game didn't state any diplomacy rules in the OP - ask him to specify, or else it would be a stumbling block later on.

And you can certainly create your own game with your own rules.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

It's written: "Standard rules regarding diplomacy" .. and that's all we have..
As for specific situation - after coming to agreement and my question which turn he will declare war, I've got:
"I'm declaring war on this move.
Cheers,"

Quite strightforward. I understand the difference between beign evasive in answers, ans open lie, Squirrelloid, and I've read Machiavelli , all book I've managed to find, though, thanks anyway. It's the same in life. We can dislike people who are evasive and canny, but we never deal with a person who openly lied at least once.


Thanks all for advice. I see It's a complicated issue.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

And the guy who broke the deal, avoided war against him in this way. I was thinking to attack him and questioned our NAP (he did something, I would say, evasive before all this situation), and tell that he should free the province or we should reconsider our NAP (he was made in dependence of some borders agreement, which was ignored by him.). So I proposed to remove his army or fight with me against the closest enemy to this my border. He choose second..and that's result. I'm not complaining :) just trying to understand the spirit here and what to expect from this "diplomacy".

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Dominions coul learn a lot from Civilization game - diplomacy and morale punishment for attacking much weaker player.

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.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Someone who whines about getting stabbed.

More generally, someone who fails to grasp that there are no rules to diplomacy, diplomacy is merely a vehicle for manipulating the actions of other players. Care Bears want everyone to always keep their word, and for people to play nicely. Needless to say, Diplomacy is a boring game when played that way.

Which isn't to say everyone will always lie, it means rational players will lie when it suits their purposes and outweighs the penalty for lying.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Dominions 3 isn't the kind of game were I would expect to find binding diplomacy in every game, you're a god here to ban all others, so you can only expect temporary diplo solutions, as there are no such thing as allied victory.So even in a diplo binding game, you'll have to fight your 'allies' in the end.

Reasons that can lead to diplo violations in a dom game :

'Your women are all sorceresses : they wield long hairs !'

'Your hat is red, red is the color of evil !'

'How You Dare Eat Salad On A Friday, You Heretic !'

'Your God has got too many hands/tentacles/claws to be trustworthy !'

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Not all games are actually about the dom3 universe where pretender gods vie for absolute dominion though. Some are just games. The objective doesn't have to be 'there can be only one' or there wouldn't be team games etc

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Carebears? Since people are starting to treat people like this is an MMORPG forum, might as well start using the terminology too. So goes another good game community! IRC is totally to blame IMO.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Foodstamp, "carebear" is an old phrase from the PBM Diplomacy community (Diplomacy is a board game first published in 1959, and there weren't that many MMO's around then). As Squirrel above already defined, it means a person who freaks out when somebody backstabbs them. Actually, the word "carebear" is a derviate from the phrase "carebear allies", ie two (or more) people who stuck together from game to game, co-operating and looking after each others backsides (effectively playing as a team against the other players) then voted for a draw when just they two were left; it affected the Diplomacy ladder heavily in the 80's (and even in the 90's even though different rule-sets had been defined to prevent care-bears from ruling the ladder).

I don't know if the MMO carebear is a derivate from the Diplomacy carebear (in MMO's carebears are AFAIU people who do not like PvP encounters, but I might be wrong), but at least for me carebears in Dom are the carebears of Diplomacy and not the MMO carebears :)

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

They sound pretty similar!

BTW been playing Diplomacy since the mid 80s and I had never heard the term used.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

The definition of what a care bear is differs highly from game to game. For example, in an mmo it could mean anything from a person who doesn't want pvp in a game at all, to a person who doesn't like pvp where any player can kill you at any time and take everything your character owns.

Under jarkko's definition I can't say as I've ever run into a dominions care bear.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

You've never encountered Dominions players who think diplomatic agreements are binding and they never back-stab others who think so, and freak out if somebody is more machiavellian? :)

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I think he meant, he has never seen players who usually cooporate during a game, and then declare things a draw at the end.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Yeah, I meant the carebear allies thing. I've seen plenty of people freak out over being backstabbed.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Carebear is a pretty derogative term for people who have a different understanding of diplomacy.

Shall people who think diplomacy means anything goes be known as Nazis?

/godwin's law

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Well played, sir.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Doesn't Machiavellian already have a poor enough reputation to be considered derogatory in many circles? Why do we need to go straight to the bottom?

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Foodstamp: That IRC comment is offensive. And I don't even know what you are talking about? How could IRC possibly cause this community to fail? I've been on IRC a few months and it's a lot of fun and a great way to make friends and learn about Dominions.

It's probably safe to say that less than 10% of the players here on these boards spend any time on IRC and it's only about 25 of us regulars. The interesting thing is it's heavily weighted to the hall of fame. Perhaps because you learn about the game 10 times faster there.

We joke about it because the IRC folks get slammed on these forums frequently. It's not like folks on IRC all agree or some kind of strange conspiracy. We argue everyday about everything.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

The word "gunboaters" is already there for people who think diplomacy mean nothing. And for people who do diplomacy when it suits them but canruthlessly take advantage of situations are called "machiavellians".

"Nazis" are reserved for people who are anal about following the rules to the letter even when they have no point or purpose (like the famous "White sets up first! Don't touch your pieces yet, you set up second according to the rules!" in chess, as if it made any difference who sets up first).

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

That's BS.

Jarkko: I was just fulfilling godwin's law.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Lighten up. I was kidding. The use of "totally" should have been an indicator.

I swear, oversensitive CareBears.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

I was unaware that "care bear" referred to anything outside of Diplomacy. That is where I learned and used the term. It was not necessarily derogatory, it was used to describe a method of play. I have never played a MMO and hope to keep it that way.

My point is that there is a time and place to keep your word, and a time not to. 99% of the time, you keep your word, or do not commit to anything. The other 1%, if it suited you, you broke it.

In Diplomacy, it you never, ever, ever, left your backside open. Here, if you do so, and someone moves in, they are called every name in the book. In Diplomacy, it was good play. You maximized your return for a minimum of time and effort.

Now, there was an opportunity cost to doing so. If you gained a reputation for not keeping your word, it was much hard to work out deals. In a game where everyone started with the same strength, that meant that you would have to give more than you received which put you in a worse position vis a vis the other players. The player I feared the most in Diplomacy was not the player who did not keep his word, it was the player that DID EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID.

To me, it is simple, you negotiate with the other player, if he stabs you, you make sure he does not win. You take him down with you. It is a valid tactic and makes sure that he does not reap a reward for his actions.

Someone who stabbed me and made a game changing play was respected. Sure, I hated the fact I got stabbed, but it led to him winning the game. Good for him, I should have made sure I was not a viable stabbing target. I think that is where people get upset is they do not like to think they did anything wrong. They want to point the finger at the player who stabbed and say he was not ethical, lied, whatever. For my line of work, the most important thing is your word. You never over-promise, you over-deliver. If I am on time, it means nothing to the customer. If I am a day late, I am garbage.

The flip side...

I have an NAP with country X, if I give three turns notice of cancelling the NAP, guess what happens... All of a sudden, I have a militarized border. If I just invaded, I get all these provinces for free! The reason why many people get upset when they are stabbed, is that they are putting all their eggs in another basket, and when they do not invest in any scouting activity to see what is going on somewhere else, in a presumably quiet sector, they get blindsided. In Diplomacy, if you saw someone massing on your border, you were talking to him constantly to find out his intentions. If you did not get an answer you liked, you took precautions against his potential moves.

The one game played with enforced diplomacy was not a fun experience. Had NAPs with several players, and then they all let them expire or gave the requisite notice and went after me. I tried several times to make deals and negotiate with them, all to no avail. A couple of them said that they could not call off the dogs on me because they had other NAPs, which were unbreakable, and had to keep expanding to keep up with X. To me, that is a bunch of hooey... But, by the rules of the game, they were correct.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

If the MMO usage of Carebear is derived from Diplomacy I think that is really cool. In an MMO it is someone who avoids player versus player by sticking to the safe zones or forming large alliances that completely eliminates the risk of losing in pvp. The latter is the extreme and is also called "zerging" (Starcraft reference).

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Regarding reputation carrying over games.

Personally I consider people who backstab when the opportunity arises to be clever and will surely be more careful of them in the following games. Those who honor agreements even to their death every single time I consider a gullible idiots that are mostly assets when they're allied with me, as then I can either have them fight with me or fight them when I feel like doing that.

That's really it. I do have diplomacy with people who I know backstab, the thing just is that you need to be in regular contact and watch them closely for when the tables change and it isn't profitable for them to have agreements with you anymore. Having specific hatred against a specifid player since you lost the last game is just ridiculosuly childish, and gladly the people I regularily play with don't do that.

Machiavellian diplomacy feels more real and is far more intriguing, but that's just my five euro cents.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Ive seen carebear used in many online forums. Ive been called it in UO, CoH, WoW, and of course Dom3. Not as a whiner I dont think. Ive always acknowledged that they all openly had a PvP element. But usually in reference to the preference to play support roles to guilds in safe zones.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Not to mention, a majority of the contributions made to help the game was from the irc crowd.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Hey thanks guys. Without you I would never have Dominions 3. Get over yourselves. Plenty of people make contributions to this game, and not all of them use IRC.

P.S. I guess you missed the memo:

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Actions speak louder than words? Perhaps you should actually get to that instead of trolling more?

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Sure KissBlade, between 15 hours of classes, 40+ hours of work a week and taking care of my newborn, what can I do to make your Dominions experience better? It's a lot easier to ruffle your feathers while listening to the professor!

As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, I don't hold any animosity towards people who use IRC. I just find the distinction between people who do and who don't kinda comical. It's just a chat client afterall.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

So ... in other words, you have nothing better to do than trolling? Honestly, prefacing your statement with, "I don't hold any animosity" doesn't refute the fact that your actions show you DO hold such animosity.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Well I meant I have never seen evidence of this player base divide that the "IRCers" are always alluding to. If I've seen any animosity at all, it's a couple of you guys downing Gandalf or making fun of Baalz's guides, but I thought even that was in good humor.

I think you guys are paranoid and I think you are the only ones who see and promote a seperation of yourselves from the average forum user.

As far as contributions go, I have created and released mods, a map and mini mods to help facilitate special rules in MP games. Even with my limited time, I am generating content for the SP community even now; I just don't have the time to polish it to the point that I would feel proud to release it even as a beta, but hopefully that will change soon.

Anywho, have fun perpetuating some mythical divide between yourselves and the people who aren't cool enough to use IRC.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Yeah I'm not really seeing why Kissblade's statement set you off so bad if you don't hold any animosity.

And if you find the distinction between irc people and others ridiculous, what's with 'get over yourselves'? Which 'guys' are you talking to?

I don't draw a line between people who use irc often and those who don't but you obviously do.

Edit: Nice. I wrote this before I saw that latest post. Pretty amusing.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

The "get over yourselves" was directed at Kissblade and the other guy that was saying that regular forumers feel there is a conspiracy blah blah. I'm not the greatest text communicator in the world, so I apologize.

Re: Diplomacy ethics
 

Sombre, I wonder if you guys maybe talk about this stuff in IRC and it becomes "Fact". No one dislikes you guys. (You guys meaning the people who think they are treated different because they use IRC).