known backstabbers

[Stagger Lee]

Militarist, I gave a quick read to your game thread - Greenstone, right? - and I am curious. Are you complaining that these two players broke NAPs with you? Or are you complaining for somebody else?

This stuff should never have escaped your game thread, period. From Greenstone:

Originally Posted by Hadrian_II

Do whatever you want.

P.S. It's Hadrian_II's game.

[TwoBits]

My thoughts:

I learned to hate NAPs early on. Way too restricting. I still make deals all the time, but I never get into anything binding if I can help it, in fact, I will straighten out anyone who misapprehends my intentions ("I said I didn't want a war right now, but that does not mean I agreed to a NAP though", for example). And of course, I keep all that kind of discussion in-game, or at least in-thread (as said elsewhere, every game is unique, and these kind of discussions have no place outside the specific game).

Above all, in every game I've ever played (and that includes games with my RL friends), I've never trusted anyone any more than I had to (not having ever played, nor being interested in playing, a game where the rules state diplomacy is set in stone - how boring is that!?). If I get caught with my pants down and get spanked, well, that's just my own damn fault, isn't it?

[Hoplosternum]

I agree that such threads are not very helpful if people are actually named as they can often turn nasty very quickly.

I used to love NAPs and was glad the community had them. But the more I play I realise NAPs are quite restrictive and can lead to mid game paralysis as they lock down a lot of options. And unless nations are very unequal in power giving X turns notice before an attack not only gives the attacked player plenty of time to prepare but also to work on your other neighbours to equal the odds. A recipe for peaceful stagnation which often happens.

But they are so useful early on I (and lots of others) are not likely to give them up It is a shame more don't have sunset clauses. Most early on NAPs could expire after year three (turn 36 say) and still fulfill most of their purpose without causing this paralysis later. But I have never offered or been offered such a deal. And I suspect most people would be suspicious if they were offered such a deal. It hints at bad relations later However if such deals were not unusual, but the norm, they might solve a lot of problems with the current never ending NAPs. People could get the early security they desire without being stuck with the long term concequences.

I know some people think diplomacy should always be ruthless (as opposed to just in the games where that is stated). And say betrayal is part of life and should be part of Dom 3. And so it is. But quite frankly if I want to deal constantly with lies, half truths and betrayals I'll go to work and dabble in office politics Or simply turn on the news Lies and betrayal are part of life - and not the good part. Dom 3 is one of the things I do to get away from that. While the odd NAP betrayal isn't going to make me pack Dom 3 in, if I really felt I couldn't trust anything people said in the game I doubt I would bother playing much. And I suspect I would not be alone.

It takes a lot of time and skill (as well as luck) to beat another player unless there is a gulf in nation power. It takes a lot of time, energy and patience to construct an alliance and hold it together. While betrayals of agreements are cheap, quick and easy. It usually is not possible to be fully prepared for betrayal and still be able to do much else. IMO the game simply takes too long and requires too much effort for it to be decided by treachery more than once in a while.

So by chance or design we have a community that largely honours NAPs, but not completely. This is good as it keeps everyone on their toes. You trust NAPs but not absolutely. You still need a contingency plan and to leave something back to defend against betrayal. Which is quite a good outcome I think. And there are blenty of no diplomacy or 'ruthless' diplomacy games for those who tire of NAPs. Which again is good as at least everyone knows what they are getting.

As for Greenstone (which I am in) I have NAPs with both the named backstabbers But I am not sure that either have broken their other NAPs so I shall be honouring my agreements until someone shows some evidence that this is not the case.

[militarist]

It looks like there are no votes supporting that thread, so you can remove it if you want. I didn't do it to make happy myself only to be the only contributor

[Calahan]

Thank you Annette for removing the two players named in the OP.

Originally Posted by Annette

(thanks, Calahan, for the finding the thread with this post by Kristoffer):

I had that thread close to hand actually as I knew it was linked in a post from the "Sheap's Multiplayer Tips" thread, which I always have bookmarked.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com//showthread.php?t=32050

Still reckon this above post should be made compulsory reading (or sticky'd) for anyone signing up to any MP games, so that everyone knows in advance what level of etiquette is expected of them in-game and out-of-game. As it's more-or-less an instant guide to a friendlier community IMO

[Septimius Severus]

Following on Calahan's idea somewhat, I'd still say Militarist, that something like a pledge (along the lines of Baalz's Good Player Pledge) could make your goal for this thread become something of a reality without creating bad feelings and labeling people. A Good Ally Pledge thread, or what have you, would be both positive and constructive for the community. Reaffirming the view that many of us hold in keeping our word in games with binding diplomacy and towards one another. It would not be a list, pledging would be voluntary, but it would at least provide new players with some some assistance (which I think was part of your goal) in knowing something about potential partners in a game.

[militarist]

The Baalz's Good Player Pledge and http://forum.shrapnelgames.com//showthread.php?t=32050 posted by Calahan are both useful, but still I don't think that it is proper to prohibit other players to exchange information. I wrote about obstruction.. In our case obstruction is not possible, just because people like pyg and many other wil be happy to be in backstabbing list, because they don't see anything wrong to be liested in it. And if the list wouldn't be popular, it would die out itself, but if people reported there regularly, it would mean it's useful.
And, even if it was not like I described (worst scenario some players threaten us with) and it became a thread of hate, I believe it's also not a problem. Just we had to rename it to holy wars and let people tell what they think about each other and moderate only trolling. And if we have such thread admins would have much more moral authority not to allow these things in other threads. Just take any thread they don't like and move it here.

I'm a newbie on this forum though and don't know all the stories. Maybe I miss something. Just I believe that any prohibition and appeals to admins to prohibit something is really a last resort. and I'm quite surprised that people who are not admins voted so energetically to close MY thread.

[DrPraetorious]

I'm trying to be a known backstabber but I keep reverting into bad honorable habits .


Personally, I think that players in these games (myself included) almost always err too much on the side of being honest and honorable in terms of in-game agreements; which, after all, it would be much more in-character to break! So if a backstabber list de-incentivizes that sort of thing, bollocks it. This should be completely distinct from actual cheating, of course.


But I'm opposed to good-player pledges for the same reason that I'm opposed to no-treachery games. The only way to police them is to report people for what is, I suppose, in the context of the game, cheating

And that's a pretty severe thing, so in ambiguous cases, which is what always comes up when you try to enforce in-game honor of agreements, what are you going to do? Better to leave the whole shebang alone in the first place.

In closing, I'd like to congratulate , and Septimus Severus as being the only three people who've had the balls to actually break the terms of an agreement in one of these games. Kudos!

[Septimius Severus]

DrP, how dare you insult my honor! Naming me but not the other two above is selective defamation. Forcing me to have to post yet again here. Are there not two sides to every story?

But seriously, personally (and I can only speak for myself), I just consider every new game a clean slate and try not to carry baggage from other games into new games or let peoples opinions of others influence what I think of them. A onetime backstabber, shouldn't be branded as completely untrustworthy. Of course there's no way to police pledge's but seems to me a more positive twist. I think Baalz had more success with the new player pledge, than attempting to post a list of everyone who has ever not really tried to follow through to the end on a game they started in.

[Gandalf Parker]

Yes policing some game restrictions is imposssible. If you use my favorite definition that with computers "impossible" means "we can do it but its probably more effort than its worth". Actually no-treachery games, and no-diplomacy games, can be policed by use of game logs, backups, master password, and the various DungeonMaster mods such as Watchers. BUT that would probably be more time and effort than any admin might want to put into a game. Particularly since it almost requires that the same person not play in that game.

Also, not to open old wounds, but I think this is part of the reason you wont see some people play in too many games. If their online login has one reputation they dont want associated with their game personae. People in recognized positions of authority or reputations for being friendly and helpful would find it hard to enter into a game. You have people expecting the same from you in the game. And you might not want to damage your online personae even though the idea of playing games is having a chance to be what you are not.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...631#post669631