Question about diplomacy - Page 14

sector24 · #**131** September 5th, 2008, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by konming

From the "intrigue" point of view, shouldn't breaking NAPs deliberately and sending "'PWNED u n00b!@!!" be more skillful than those with "reasonable" reasons? If you subscribe to "lively diplomacy" and not "lazy" diplomacy, shouldn't the first action more commendable? It is deliberately and masterfully excuted instead of being forced, isn't it?

I believe the skillful way to handle it is to claim that you were informed by a 3rd party that they were going to break the NAP and sneak attack you, so you just did it first. Impossible to disprove, egg on everyone's face, entertaining all around.

licker · #**132** September 5th, 2008, 11:12 PM

Ahh you misunderstand. You can hold the grudge, but taking action against that player in an already running game is what I would find offensive, obviously you may change your opinion of them, and react accordingly. Point is, you're in 2 games with this player, and in the 2nd you start ripping him for breaking the NAP in the 1st game. Not relevant to me as a player in that 2nd game, and not a reason to change my approach to that 2nd game. Assume you had NAPs with him in both games, would you assume they were both void if one were broken?

I am not against a NAP breaker list other than for the fact that it will only lead to arguments and grief. Keep one for yourself though if you want to.

I don't define facts as anything other than what you stated. I just don't think his breaking of the NAP is as horrible as you do, for the reasons he gave, and for the FACT that it wasn't a complete back stab (essentially changed the terms to NAP+3).

Again he is going to suffer the consequences of the action (if he actually took it) and everyone would hopefully just move on after making whatever personal decision they want to.

Crust · #**133** September 6th, 2008, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by licker

Ahh you misunderstand. You can hold the grudge, but taking action against that player in an already running game is what I would find offensive, obviously you may change your opinion of them, and react accordingly. Point is, you're in 2 games with this player, and in the 2nd you start ripping him for breaking the NAP in the 1st game. Not relevant to me as a player in that 2nd game, and not a reason to change my approach to that 2nd game. Assume you had NAPs with him in both games, would you assume they were both void if one were broken

Of course it's relevant if I have first hand experience that someone does not follow agreements when it suits him. Strategy will have to reflect the devaluation of the NAP. What that would mean exactly would depend on the exact circumstances of the game.

chrispedersen · #**134** September 6th, 2008, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoloMo

You can not have a public list of NAP breakers because whether a NAP is broken or not is subject to oppossing interpretations. Such a list would be bad for the community because of the abuse and conflict that it would generate. You can of course tell someone you play with privately what you think of the other players in your game.

Your contention that its bad for the community is not supported by evidence. Ebay's seller rating is essentially the same thing - and last I checked they had a market capitalization rating in the billions of dollars. Seems to work for them.

Personally, I *don't* think facts should be given. No opinions nothing.

There should just be a list, maintained alphebetically, soemthing like this:

Violators name : Game : Reported By.

Grumpy FruitBat SnowWhite
Grumpy Pimpin' Caravaggio
Grumpy Veritas Joe DiMaggio
Heliotrop Standardds Grumpy
SunTzu KingMaker X the unknown.

No opinion, no verification. No arguments, no flames.
IF you wanted to get fancy, you could do the same thing for people that get caught cheating or using exploits.

Norbert KingMaker Hacking game files GlointheDark.
SlickWilly Veritas Bogus Violation JoeDimaggio

etc.

WingedDog · #**135** September 6th, 2008, 01:51 AM

You are fighting the windmills, Chris. I don't think ANY of those who breake the NAP really care about being posted. Scoregraphs is your best ingame friend, not the list of untrustworthy players.

Dedas · #**136** September 6th, 2008, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by konming

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dedas

Quote:

Originally Posted by konming

Yes, but that game also forbids diplomacy of any kind. So I do not see your point here.

Also, most people here are mature enough to separate forum person from game person. If you are untrustworthy in game, you will be dealt with game consequences, like no deal with you or even not playing with you. There are however no forum consequences, your questions will still be answered and help will still be provided. Where is your example of people mixing forum person and game person?

But that is not what the no break NAP under any circumstances crowd is saying. One or two of them even want a list of people that break NAPs on the forum. Please read the whole thread before answering.

As for the game I said it was a long time ago. Apparently I don't remember the details, but that doesn't matter. My point is still valid: you should try to separate your forum person from your game person. An "anonymous" game is one way to do that.

I fail to see how "no break NAP under any circumstances crowd" is trying to mix forum and game person. Did they ask for banning a user from forum when he or she regularly "backstab" in game? Never responding to that person's thread? Or doing other nasty stuff to his or her forum reputation?

If they merely say this is what this guy did in this game and how he should not be trusted IN GAME, I believe it is perfectly clear seperation of forum and game person. I do not see a problem with list either as long as the list only consists of facts, like how someone breached NAP and what's his or her excuse for it. After all, one's game person reputation is not connected to his forum behavior, much less real life reputation. But it is invaluable when someone needs to make a IN GAME decision about diplomacy.

But if you are to separate in game person from forum person that list should only contain pretender names, because that is what you are playing - in game. Anything else mixes this world with the different game worlds. And the point to not do that is so that you should be allowed to play several in game persons in several games with the consequences in one game staying put in that game. Everything else is meta gaming.

If you want a list of NAP breakers forum names posted on the forum you are logically mixing the game worlds with the forum world. The result of this is that one game will leak into another.

llamabeast · #**137** September 6th, 2008, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Yes, and if not for consequences in other games, no one will stick to NAPs.

I don't think this is right. Because in real life, no-one enforces diplomacy. And yet most nations, most of the time, stick roughly to the alliances they've made. Certainly in real life alliances and treaties have some value.

WingedDog · #**138** September 6th, 2008, 05:15 AM

Value of alliance is mutual interests, or some levers one can push on another.

Edratman · #**139** September 6th, 2008, 05:18 AM

A thought has occured to me while following this interesting thread.

This thread was initiated on the main forum because the potential NAP breaker knew it was wrong to break the NAP, and was looking for permission/validation to justify his actions.

My 5 cents.

Tifone · #**140** September 6th, 2008, 05:20 AM

Excuse me chris, your idea of how this "NAP breakers" list (which i personally abhor in first place) should work seem crazy to me. A list where the only one who posts is judge and jury? no right to even say "but i thought he was plotting against me because this or that" or "we were in a machiavellian politics match"? I find all this quite tyrannical and Big-Brother style