POLL: Backstabbing

[tesco samoa]

The game within a game... Its what makes a game.

I follow the game and the RP and my Races set up.

If the race is not a backstabbing race... Then I will not do it.

But if it is a race that can do it... or the circumstances in the game force it. Then yes as it is part of RP.

[tesco samoa]

Example

your Partnered with A
You have T&R's with B , C , D , E
You have a MA with F

B , c , d are Partners

A is on your right boarder

B is on your left boarder

C is on your top boarder

D is inbetween B and C

A and C are at war

C is Partnered with B and E

E and F have a MA

C and B begin attacking D

You break treaty and attack b on the same turn... with giving reasons and break treaty with C

You are not backstabbing b
As you are honouring your Partnership with A who is at war with C who is partnered with B and E

Where the interesting stuff happens is between E and F... Which way does that one swing.

This is the game within a game.

The Political ramifications of treaties and agreements are fun to play in games.

And there only for that game.

[Stone Mill]

There are some actions which are quite deplorable, however; like:

secret pre-arranged alliances before the game

Something else I find hard to forgive is purposefully exploiting some weaknesses of the game engine with deception, like agreeing to a tech trade (against humans) for tech you do not actually possess, in return for tech. The game will let you do it... but I won't generally trust that player again. I consider that pretty dirty. But it's acceptable.

[DavidG]

Breaking a Partnership or an MA for any reason is stab in the back in my book. That's why I rarely make them and even rarer make one with more than one race. By itself breaking a TR treaty is not backstabing. Everyone knows that quite often they are just temporary.

[tbontob]

I think it may be a good idea to have have a clear idea of what backstabbing is.

1) You have the honest upfront player who intends to keep his agreements and will do whatever he can to keep them even if it means losing the game.

2) You have the honest upfront player who intends to keep his agreements and will do whatever he can to keep them with the proviso that if there is legitimate evidence that a player is betraying him then all deals are off with that player.

3) You have the player who phrases his words in such a way that he knows the other player is likely to misinterpret them to his detriment. For example, Player A and Player B agree not to attack each other until 10 turns have elapsed after giving notice. Player A then parks his ships over a planet owned by B and gives the 10 turn notice. If B breaks the treaty and attacks A, then it is B who has broken the agreement. This type of player often relies upon technicalities rather than the spirit of the agreement.

4) A player misuses what is normally understood to be part of an agreement. For example, a treaty normally assumes that no hostile act will be done against another player who is party to the treaty. Player A mines player B's planets as his ships pass over them.

5) A player outright lies and makes promises he has no intention of keeping.

6) A player cheats.

Players 3 to 5 will often try to pass themselves off as player type 1 and 2. They have to if they want to take advantage of them.

It should be noted that styles 1 to 5 are a valid and integral part of the game. It a matter of playing style.

That being said, it is understandable why disagreements occur. The fewest difficulties will occur between players of style 1 and 2. They want the terms to be clearly defined so that there will be no future misunderstanding. Players 3 to 5 will often accuse players 1 and 2 of being "legalistic" because they ask questions to clarify matters and make sure there is a complete understanding of all the terms of the agreement.

Players 3 to 5 do not want the terms clearly understood as it limits their ability to maneuveur. If there is written documentation proving that a player 3 to 5 is clearly in the wrong, it means they may have to fulfill their part of the agreement or risk exposure for the type of player they are.

Problems arise when the upfront honest player believes a player who is playing one of the alternate styles. And unless there is adequate documentation proving the agreement, there will be a lot of ducking and weaving by the player of the alternate styles as he doesn't want it to be known that he misrepresents things and lies to achieve his ends.

[ June 06, 2003, 06:39: Message edited by: tbontob ]

[tesco samoa]

Ummm...

Then two turns go by and you release that b is really partnered with G who has TA's with everyone.

Oppps.

Perhaps this should go in a different thread.

I just did a major screw up.

[DavidG]

The definition of backstabbing need not be so complex. If you take actions to convince another player you are allies or friends and then attack him or assist others in attacking him then you just backstabbed him.

[Tnarg]

What for the most part makes the game interesting is Role Played races. One can be an evil mischieveous race peddeling filth through out the galaxy, and then turn their strategy around in another game being the Pope.

If one plays the game in the same style in every game, another player can learn their strategy and in a sense that is a form of "knowing thy enemy" intelligence/espionage which could be in that grey area of backstabbing.

Now in games where it is established that role playing is welcome, I don't think that this should reflect on the actual player no matter what he/she/it does, short of cheating.

It's a game and it is a simulation of diplomacy and war. And if anyone can say that their is honesty and fuzzy stuffed bears in real diplomacy and war, I would love to hear it.

[Krsqk]

In a typical free-for-all game, I expect to be backstabbed frequently. I tend to have several "layers" of trust, pushing as many as possible toward the outside. If a player backstabs without reason to break their word, I will note it and be more wary of allying with them in other games, but I will not take it out on them in another game.

In a roleplaying game, I expect that people will live up to their race's reputation--hopefully they've filled in their race history, etc., and are fairly discernible up front. Backstabbing is expected when it fits in with the race, or when circumstances have pushed an alliance apart. I don't expect that the same player will RP the same way in another game, and don't take it out on them in other games.

I think the big problem is when players aren't satisfied to take knowledge of other players with them to the next game, and carry grudges instead. If someone breaks an alliance, you'll know better next time. Until then, it is only a game, after all.

[Pax]

First off, let me respond to this post by Slynky.

Originally posted by Slynky:
This is one of the grey areas that couldn't be explained well in the short span of the question. For that, I apologize.

Wronged....OK...

You are allied and your optics discover a stealth/cloaked ship from one of your alies deep in your territory. Is that being wronged? Should you drop the alliance immediately and begin an attack? Or should you tell him to leave? And should you consider this action hostile? After all, it was in stealth mode? SO, is that wronged?

That is entirely dependant on why the ship is there, my relationship with that ally, the "character"/persona of the race I am playing (I *always* RP my race, at least as far as actions, if not mannerisms and speech patterns. ) ... and so on.

It also depends on who else is in that system; if it's a border system, shared between me and neighbor A (with whom I am at peace), then Neighbor B (with whom I am allied) might want to keep a surreptitious eye on A (with whom he has almost no contact).

Your ally colonizes planets in "your" space...Is that being wronged?

Depends on the wording of our intersettlement-and-alliance policy, if any, and wether or not he ASKED first. Absent such a treaty, and absent such a request -- I issue a "request" that that ally immediately vacate thatw orld, or, offer me "sufficient" compensation for ceding sovereignty over said world(s) to them.

[b]Or, a big fleet enters "your" space. Is it headed to a destination that you can believe doesn't worry you? Did he give advance notice or just show up?[/qb]

A big fleet showing up, without notice, and which I did not expect to see ... is every bit as much MY fault as the ally's; I should have had forward observers on "his" side of our border, just as I'd expect him to have just on "my" side. One of the ways I like to best come to trust someone, is to each let the other cross one system into the other's space, and park a single, out-of-the-way satellite to give "eyes" just the other side of the border Wormholes.

If I wasn't allowed to do that, and a fleet suddenly shows up, then I make (additional) preparations for defense, and SHADOW the fleet ... but unless the fleet's intentions become crystal clear, I won't strike pre-emptively.

Well, not normally. Some of the races I play are absolute psychopaths, and they'll attack just for the FUN of it.

Did you agree on gifts of tech and he doesn't fulfill his agreements?

That's breach of contract, and a violation of the attached treat(-y/-ies); he has already backstabbed, so a comensurate response is appropriate.

In that case, immediate expulsion form your space of all unapproved assets, termination of any T&R or other higher treaties, and so on.

War, however, might be an over-reaction, depending on the scale of the theft (you should never GIFT a huge amount of tech to someone you cannot trust 110%, anyway; that's what TRADES are for -- outside of a team environment, anyway).

...

Now, with that said, my answers were:

In general, do you believe "backstabbing" is just part of the game?"

Yes; absolutely.

If you "backstab" someone, do you worry about your "reputation" in PBW?

No; anyone that holds that sort of a grudge, isn't someone I'd care to game with again, anyway.

Would you be more likely to "backstab" in a rollplaying game?

Yes ... because, for me, there's nothing BUT a role-playing SE4 game.

Would you be more likely to "backstab" if you had a T&R agreement?

No; the level of treaty has little or nothing to do with the odds of treachery happening. Only the character of the race I am playing, and the in-game history of the race potentially being betrayed.

Would you be more likely to "backstab" if you had a NA agreement?

No; see above.

Would you "backstab" if you had a Partnership agreement?

Yes, absolutely, if the action was in-character.

Do you consider it permissable to "backstab" an ally whom you feel wronged you?

Yes, as I understand your question. Then again, I don't think it's honestly POSSIBLE to betray someone who has wronged you ... only to overreact (see above).

You have 3 allies. 2 of them suggest you drop the other and attack. Do you?

No, not just because I was asked to.

When you are "backstabbed", do you remember & carry it to the next game w/ them?

Absolutely not!!! That would make me the sort of person I refuse to play with ... !

Do you find it OK to "backstab" with an explanation or a # or turns warning?

Yes; it's more honorable IMO than a surprise attack.

Besides, I try never to make treaties that don't have a built-in "warn and terminate" opt-out clause, to the effect of "this agreement can be terminated with X turns advanced notice, during which all parties will remvoe their ships from non-joint space and pursue no hostilities against the other."

[ June 06, 2003, 05:35: Message edited by: Pax ]