AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

[AreWeInsaneYet]

To record ppl in games who breached NAP.
Although my time do not allow me to play that many multis like I did, I think there shall be one thread like this, and as I failed to find one, this thread is created. If there's one like this already please PM me and feel free to ask moderators remove this thread.

Parcelt as C'tis IN Llamabeast's Chinchilla - Claimed that "NO NAP's Signed". Keep attacking while negotiating, and the so said negotiation turned out to be some way to took your provinces while keep your armies at bay. Did this to All his neighbors - Confirmed.

Tibbs as Ulm IN Velusion's Sophistry - Attacked without agreed notification. Two of three nations in the coordinated attack canceled NAP in time, only this guy attacked without saying a word.

[Micah]

Grudges should not be carried from one game to the next, this thread only encourages that. If someone breaks a NAP it should go in the game thread.

[Cheezeninja]

This is information that veterans of MP are already going to have, and act on. I don't see a problem with a thread about it.

It doesn't encourage grudges, a grudge will just lose you the game to the advantage of those not involved. It encourages proper caution towards repeat offenders.

[AdmiralZhao]

I have it on good account that AreWeInsaneYet broke a NAP himself in the Chinchilla game.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

I think this is a bad idea, in my observational experience.

First off, it won't end well, whatever your intentions are. A thread like this is tinder- not a bad thing, but add a couple sparks and it'll go up in flames. All it takes is one person having a bad day and responding carelessly, and someone responding rashly. And nobody playing containment.

I had a few other points, but I'm going to have to think on the wording a bit. And I'm not certain whether their worth going over if I'm as apathetic as I am.

I do recommend you formalize a treaty in the forum threads to a). prevent honest misunderstandings and forgetfulness, and b). hold up as evidence if you insist on running a blacklist, to resolve the eventual conflict of view.

I personally try to hold to secret alliances honestly and fairly, but I follow the trust but verify method for that. Whether by spies, or by enticements combined with minor reserves to make sure I'm not a quickly plucked fruit. If a treaty's not signed or not public, you're asking for trouble -honest or dihonest trouble. You won't always get it, but its a lot more likely.

A few games of Risk 2010 over at "Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow" eventually had me enjoying that sense of paranoia. Though not winning the game. I was still the n00b.

Anyways, I don't care either way if you come up with a blacklist, but I did want to warn you. I'm going to wander off to another thread now.

[llamabeast]

AWIY, if you are going to do this at all do it in your own head. A strong principle of dominions diplomacy is that you have to see the player as separate from the nation, and carrying grudges/friendships from one game to another really isn't okay. Remember that many people roleplay their nations, so they may just be roleplaying as a dishonest backstabbing nation in one game, and an honest one in the next. To be fair a dominions convention is that NAPs are meant to be inviolable, but many players don't know that yet (it isn't true in a lot of other turn-based games).

If someone betrays you in a game then by all means make a fuss about it in that thread - say "Ermor betrayed me! Kill him!", but saying "llamabeast is a bad person! Everyone should attack him in all games" completely ruins the role-playing spirit and is just not very nice. (incidentally this situation's never arisen!)

I have to say I think this thread is quite unpleasant and inflammatory, and players in question are likely to find it quite hurtful. I'm sure you meant well, but I think if we have this kind of thing in the forums it could really lower the tone of the community. Those who read the forums a lot will know that I am almost never critical, so I don't make these comments lightly.

[lch]

Cheezeninja said:
This is information that veterans of MP are already going to have, and act on.

Hardly. The player base is huge, games take a long time, and you'll have to be neighbors to initiate any kind of NAP talk. Some names may reoccur again and stick, but I doubt that players remember people from past games that much. They'll probably remember the nations they played.

"Veterans" know that the rules of fair play do not apply in love and war. They know that they might get backstabbed at one point or the other if they are doing too good or fall back too much, and they don't have a problem with it. After all, this is just a game, we don't play for a jackpot.

Cheezeninja said:
I don't see a problem with a thread about it.

I don't see the point of having one. You may make your own list and use it, but what's the use in making it public? There are always two sides of the same medal.

[tibbs]

AreWeInsaneYet said:
To record ppl in games who breached NAP.
Although my time do not allow me to play that many multis like I did, I think there shall be one thread like this, and as I failed to find one, this thread is created. If there's one like this already please PM me and feel free to ask moderators remove this thread.

Parcelt as C'tis IN Llamabeast's Chinchilla - Claimed that "NO NAP's Signed". Keep attacking while negotiating, and the so said negotiation turned out to be some way to took your provinces while keep your armies at bay. Did this to All his neighbors - Confirmed.

Tibbs as Ulm IN Velusion's Sophistry - Attacked without agreed notification. Two of three nations in the coordinated attack canceled NAP in time, only this guy attacked without saying a word.

Your post is quite amusing, in an ignorant sort of way.

I considered our NAP broken when your army stealthed south through my lands and destroyed one of my armies that was trying to take an independant province.