[namad]

After speaking with rdonj about the topic, I get the feeling that the idea he has in mind is not the same idea baalz just stated. Then again who knows, the vagueness of the topic makes it difficult to tell if anyone is agreeing with anyone else.

In a game especially designed for manipulation of other players via diplomacy, is it possible to have *all* diplomacy be totally meaningless?



This contradiction led me to consider if I wished to play in this game or not. However, once I realized this phenomenon, where everyone interrupts the same statement in a different fashion, was universal... I was able to rationalize my position as yet another interruption of that statement. Therefore, I can believe whatever I want to believe without needing to disbelieve anyone else's interpretation! It then became logically consistent for everyone to disagree about the scenario's guidelines. As a result I won't have any problem playing in the game.


On a larger scope, the games where diplomatic constraints are "unstated" or stated as "no restrictions"... suffer from the same problem. Many people take this to mean that naps cannot be broken and then they whine when they are. Still others take this to mean there are no rules and no need to honor naps. So, the scenario in which every dominions3 game is played is one where each individual player plays according to his own set of rules, which almost always differ from another player's guidelines. This seems to be a contradiction of sorts, but given that it has occurred 1000s of times and in fact ALWAYS occurs... clearly it must be a valid and consistent game setup. Despite appearances to the contrary.