AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

[Edratman]

I read the first two posts and decided that the purpose of this thread is offensive to me and I do not believe it is consistent with the tenor of the forum.

There is probably a place for this thread, but not here.

I write this from my perspective as a contender for both the oldest player (56) and longest tenure as a computer game player. (I'm sure someone will top me in both categories.) I started playing text-only computer games, with a cassette (that is correct, a cassette identical to the pre-CD music cassettes) as the storage medium way back in 1980 or 81.

I've seen this start before many times, and it has never boded well.

[lch]

Edratman said:
I write this from my perspective as a contender for both the oldest player (56) and longest tenure as a computer game player.

Quick, gather around here, someone is challenging Gandalf Parker. :O

[sum1lost]

There's a 62 y/o in the legion arena forums, and a handful more who are over 40...

[Sleet]

sum1won said:
There's a 62 y/o in the legion arena forums, and a handful more who are over 40...

Only reason to jump back in the thread as all has been said:

Raises a hand for the 40+ crowd.

[Sombre]

I was personally pretty surprised to see how seriously people take NAPs - everyone seemed to mention them and they appear to basically be the only kind of treaty used in dom3. Yet they aren't in the manual, that I can see, and they aren't any more supported by the game than any oter kind of diplomacy. They're just something some people like to use.

I personally would never agree to a NAP, because if I want to attack you, I will. At any moment. That's how diplomacy works in reality - the punishment for breaking treaties and generally behaving like a bastard is that it can come back to haunt you, but I don't think it should carry across from game to game, following a player. It probably will, to some extent, but given the number of people who like to roleplay their nation a little, it does seem a bit silly.

I think the main problem here is that there's a lack of communication. Person A says "NAP for 10 turns, agree?" to person B. To them, if B agrees, that's like a law or rule in the game for the next tne turns and they will observe it strictly. But to B, perhaps when they agreed to that "NAP for 10 turns" they were under the impression it was just like diplomacy in most games, where treaty breaking does happen but can backfire spectacularly. If both players assume the other is thinking the same thing, all you get is:

A: NAP for 10 turns?
B: Yes.

Not much of a discussion there, but the two players meant very different things. Perhaps if A had said "Non Agression Pact for the next 10 turns? Please note if you agree, I will take this as a promise from you as a player of the game and if you break it I will not play with you again." then B would never have agreed, since it isn't nice for people to be playing the game according to different rules (the reason I'd never agree to a NAP, ever).

[Shovah32]

Just thought I should add that in my history of playing dominions I have always considered NAPs to be inviolable and have maintained them and followed their rules whenever I agreed to them and have recieved the same from those I have made them with as that was simply the way they were introduced to me(or the way i interpreted them, not sure. Was quite a while ago) when i first started playing dominions 2.

I think we need to agree here on whether they are inviolable or not and the general consensus seems to be not.

[Kristoffer O]

A need to agree here might not be needed.

Now people knows that there are different ways to percieve NAP's and it is possible to decide if a new game will be one way or the other.

Seems there is enough players of each kind to accomodate games for both. And I suppose most people dont have a big issue with either kind, just as long as they know what they are getting into. I personally prefer not to play with strict NAP's, but I wouldn't mind playing that way if I knew beforehand that everyone in the game had the same view on NAP's.

It should not be too difficult to post:

New game: Gemet
Map: Aran
Graphs: On
NAP's: yes
Mods:

etc

[LoloMo]

I would suggest that differentiation in the next game I play. Although I think the default assumption is that NAPs are unbreakable.

Perhaps we can establish a set of NAP rules that can be adopted per game, so that it is very clear. We can just say, we will be using NAP Ruleset Number 3 for this game.

I for one would like a rule set where if you terminate an existing NAP, you are bound by the 3 turn peace announcement clause, but the nation you terminated the NAP with is allowed to decide if war will start immediately, at his discretion. It makes much more sense that way.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Heh. That reminds me of my "Las Vegas" style game idea. I'm going to start one up once I lighten my current game load. I'm pretty full at the moment.

New Game: Ministry of Truth
Map: Aran
Graphs: Off
NAP, secret alliances: yes
Treachery: Optional, but encouraged.
Mods: Worthy heroes.
Joining: Public.
Out of game reputation- Unchanged because...
What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.

[Kristoffer O]

Nice