MP: NewbsWithLowSelfEsteem - Year 8: A Dance with Illithids

[Peacekeeper]

...umad bros?

[bbz]

Lol I took some time and actually read some of the thread and will just tell Shamhain that everyone that has some brains wouldn't consider that a proper thread. I am sorry to say but the thread's creator said two exremely contravesial statements.
First one being that Arcane nexus is violation of the NAP and then he says that if the other player is about to win for whatever reason that is not violation of the nap. I am sorry to say but Arcane Nexus is regarded Nap breaker exactly because of the opportunity that it gives to that player to win, and in no way harms other people. So the creator of that thread must have gotten something wrong since casting Arcane Nexus is almost equal to winning soon(say have 1 victory point remaining) and yet again he considers one of them violation of the nap and the other one not a violation of the nap. For me personally if you do something to harm the person you are in nap with that counts as agression. And destroying his economy is acressive act (since with that economy he buys troops) so in fact you are killing his future troops and thus being agressive against him. Overcasting a global is in my eyes definitely a break of the Nap since you destroy his economy on purpouse. Some people might argue that Casting a global when the global set is full is not violation of the nap sice it is not malicious that you wanted to take down your Nap partner's (lets call it) Global enchantment. So you had it coming the moment you overcast R'lyeh's Global if you ask me.

P.s There is another clear mistake in that persons vision of nap. He states that ANONYMOUS spells are not violation of the nap. While in fact they damage you and are malicious on purpouse.(thus being agression from his side). Tell me then Samhain if there were only two people left, having a nap.Let say you and another guy, and there comes an Anonymous spell at your capital. lets say rain of thoads, surely it wont be some of your mages casting it and thus your opponent,(with whom you have nap) had casted it. Do you see that as a non agression act?

So clearly the creator of the thread you cite was wrong and thus canno't be fully relied on, with his fake preception of what is and what isn't a violation of the nap. I am sorry but stating that some lie is the truth, because someone said it before doesn't make it the truth.

[Finalgenesis]

I could see in the same thread that many disagrees with the OP, but really, who cares what the minority says in the end?

Was the direct specific overwrite of our global an act of aggression and malicious intent? It most certainly is. Hence we'll purge your treacherous kind from this realm.

Honestly, the cost we estimate that you've wasted in your conflict with us has been staggering with nothing to show for (well unless you count me having to waste N gems rewrite and the handful of priest/items to be a gain...), I honestly thought we could maintain a faithful NAP to our mutual benefit rather then mutual waste... But so be it.

[Samhain]

I see your point, bbz. And, I also consent that I do not agree with all of the stipulations for NAP set by my cited thread's author, LoloMo. My purpose in pointing out that thread was that the rule of overcasting another's global is considered a violation of NAP is not universal. There was, as I pointed out, at least one veteran player who made a statement I interpreted to also agree with LoloMo's and myself on the matter. There were also many others who posted disagreements with some of the authors rules but, notably to me at least, not that one. To me, that seemed to indicate that this was acceptable.

Especially as my Mother Oak was cast the very turn after I agreed to NAP, if I thought it would violate, I would have just delayed my response to the PM until after the turn was run.

Consistent with my apparently less strict view of NAP, I did not confront R'lyeh on the subject of the anonymous spell attacks until after the second and even then only to ask if he had cast them. When he denied it, I let it drop. If he had admitted the attacks, I would not have accused him of breaking NAP only of violating my understanding of our agreement and offered him a chance to renegotiate or suffer the same. I still, however, would not have moved troops into his territories without the before agreed upon 3 turns notice.

[iRFNA]

Poor WTF Is A Clock??. He died as he lived: with his mind blown.

[lwarmonger]

Personally I think that overcasting a global (since it isn't directed against any one player) is not a violation of a NAP (especially since by having a global, a player harms all other players by default by using up one of the five spaces... dispelling, which is specifically directed, would be an aggressive act since you are singling out that player simply to hurt them).

And with that I am out!

[Finalgenesis]

Interesting, I guess it's not always common sense and completely universal.

I say it is universal because in all my past MP games whenever it came up it was considered a breach, I also asked in IRC back then and the 3 or so vets that was on all agree that targeted overwrite was a breach, but of course its a given that there could be some here and there that disagrees.

Iwarmonger, you say "isn't directed against any one player" is not a violation, I agree, however when I say a direct overwrite I mean specific directed overwrite: a) he specifically cast mother oak, while I already have it up, during a NAP. From what you're saying, it looks like you're agreeing actually. A random overwrite when slots are full is perfectly acceptable applying common sense, which is not the case here.

Regardless, my stance on NAP is simple, all acts of aggression are breach of non-aggression pact... lol

[NaivePhilosopher]

My take on this debate, since it seems that we all get to chime in

Casting a new global and overwriting one when there are 5 globals up shouldn't constitute a breach of a NAP. Casting a global that is already up, which will always overwrite a single individual's global, would be. Why?

Well, dispel seems to be pretty uniformly agreed to be a breach of a NAP. It targets an individual to their detriment. Overcasting a global (in this case, Samhaim's Mother Oak replacing Finalgensis') results in the same thing, but with added upside for the overcaster. It still targets one individual with whom you've presumably reached an agreement and can substantially hurt them, only this time you profit more directly from it. If someone that I have a NAP with overwrites my Well of Misery, for instance, I'll definitely consider it a breach and declare war. (Just as a heads up, everyone! )

That said, considering that Samhaim says he didn't consider it a breach, it brings to mind something I read when I was first researching diplomacy for MP Dominions: if something isn't clear, spell it out when you agree on the NAP in the first place. Misunderstandings can happen, after all, and it's better to get all that out of the way at first. In any case, that's my piece. Considering this is a no-rules game newbie game, we should all take it as a 'live and learn' experience.

[Calahan]

Passing FYI - Thought I'd pass on some of the 3+ years of experience I have on NAP's, for those interested.

Everyone will have a different view as to what constitutes a breach of NAP. But when you are about to do something that you think might breach a NAP (such as stealth preaching/stealth troop movement/over-writing currently existing globals), then it's pointless arguing or discussing what other players think (by digging up threads), as there's only one player's view that matters. And that's the player you have the NAP with. Nobody else's views matter one bit. (with regards that particular NAP. Other players views may effect future NAP's these players have, but that's for the future)

So unless you either get the ok for your actions in advance with your NAP partner ("Hi there, do you mind if I stealth troops into your land or not?"), or you clearly laid out some terms of the NAP when signing (and not just said "Do you want a NAP-3?"), then just about any action you take that impacts negatively on your NAP partner can be considered a breach (by some players). I've seen players claim NAP breaches over Scouts or building fort/temples on borders before now, which just shows some players will always take these things to the extreme. Edit - Just remembered ages ago one player claiming I breached an NPA with him just because I purchased a load of archers on his border, as doing that *obviously* meant I was going to invade him next turn?!? (so be aware that there are nutters out there)

So if you are a player who signs NAP's, then you either need to lay out a few general terms before signing on what might constitute a NAP breach. (1. No stealth preaching. 2. No targeted global over-writes. 3. Casting the following globals without asking. etc.). Or accept that some players will view any negative impact you have on them as a breach. But what you can't do is rely on any sort of "The general community consensus is that XYZ is/isn't a breach of NAP" as there just isn't a 'general community consensus' in existence. The closest you'll get to community agreement on this matter is with certain powerful/harmful globals, as most players agree they are an instant declaration of war on the world (rather than a breach of NAP). But even that view isn't universally accepted (although I would say it has a fairly large majority).


FWIW, if someone randomly overwrote my global by putting a new one up, then I wouldn't consider that a NAP breach (or an act of war). But if someone targeted my global specifically with an over-write, then that's an instant declaration of war for me. Since they targeted me with a spell that had quite a big negative impact on my empire and removed a valuable resource (since I wouldn't have put the global up if it wasn't valuable to me).

[bbz]

Yea thats a good point NaivePhilosopher. It is a live and learn, and the understanding of the game for one of the players might be different than the understanding for another and that doesn't make the other person's view wrong or right. So we just have to see how would people react to our actions and try to learn from it