AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

[johan osterman]

I don't quite get why people are saying that if NAPs can be broken they don't exist. Allies backstab each other in the real world and people still form alliances. Hitler violated his NAP with Stalin. Byzantium signed a perpetual peace with their muslim neigbour that was broken at intervals of of ten years or so, and after each violation of the treatie tributes were exchanged and a new perpetual peace was announced.

Not that this should influence how you play, but when dom PPP first was conceived it was a conscious decision not to include hardcoded diplomacy options, and some effort were even made to discourage players from forming longterm alliances. So it is certainly not a intended feature of the game. But obviously if people feel it it more enjoyable to play this way they should. As others pointed out, the tension over this issue is from peoples different expectations.

[NTJedi]

johan osterman said:
I don't quite get why people are saying that if NAPs can be broken they don't exist. Allies backstab each other in the real world and people still form alliances. Hitler violated his NAP with Stalin. Byzantium signed a perpetual peace with their muslim neigbour that was broken at intervals of of ten years or so, and after each violation of the treatie tributes were exchanged and a new perpetual peace was announced.

Not that this should influence how you play, but when dom PPP first was conceived it was a conscious decision not to include hardcoded diplomacy options, and some effort were even made to discourage players from forming longterm alliances. So it is certainly not a intended feature of the game. But obviously if people feel it it more enjoyable to play this way they should. As others pointed out, the tension over this issue is from peoples different expectations.

I agree players should be allowed to violate NAPs or even quit playing when they don't like the way the game is proceeding. However, all this information should be logged on a website for others to review. If one player has a long-term history of always quitting after turn30 a history of the behavior should be recorded. By recording the behaviors of others the host and players of a game will be more knowledgeable for what can be expected. For most individuals which are common backstabbers or game droppers they will disagree and most individuals which are honorable with treaties will approve.
The current environment provides a disadvantage to those willing to be honorable for treaties made during a game. Providing all the treaty information to be publicly known on a website will still allow players to backstab on a treaty. There's no reason new players have to suffer months of hurtful gaming experiences to learn which individuals are the backstabbers and/or game droppers.

[Aethyr]

NT--

I completely disagree with almost everything you have said. However, we do agree on two very important points:

1) Those who "trust" will always be at a disadvantage (potentially) in WAR.

2) "There can be only one" (unless he/she allows a weaker ally, a respected/feared opponent, or an obedient lackey to survive).

I think both new and old players should keep these things in mind, and defend themselves accordingly, or be prepared to suffer a "hurtful" experience.

[NTJedi]

Aethyr said:
NT--

I completely disagree with almost everything you have said. However, we do agree on two very important points:

1) Those who "trust" will always be at a disadvantage (potentially) in WAR.

2) "There can be only one" (unless he/she allows a weaker ally, a respected/feared opponent, or an obedient lackey to survive).

I think both new and old players should keep these things in mind, and defend themselves accordingly, or be prepared to suffer a "hurtful" experience.

My point was there's no need for NEW players to go thru the hassles of learning who can be trusted and who cannot be trusted. And gamers new with hosting a new game shouldn't have the pains of learning which gamers are known for dropping out early.

Tibbs, I didn't mean "emotionally" hurtful... I meant "game time lost" hurtful as it could take months to identify the known backstabbers compared to those known to be honorable to the treaties.

[tibbs]

NTJedi said:
There's no reason new players have to suffer months of hurtful gaming experiences to learn which individuals are the backstabbers and/or game droppers.

Raise your hand if you've had a hurtful, suffering experience playing Dominions.

If you have, you're taking the game too seriously.

[Morkilus]

tibbs said:

Raise your hand if you've had a hurtful, suffering experience playing Dominions.

If you have, you're taking the game too seriously.

Considering that AreWeInsaneYet hasn't posted since his cheap shot, I'd say he was just getting out some aggression. I'll play with you anytime, Tibbs. Hugs for all!

Also: I don't make "formal" NAPs because I'd have to, you know... take notes or something. I don't need more paperwork, especially with four games running.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

On the counter side to my 'Las Vegas' game (WWI, secret pacts), it may be interesting to have a public diplomacy game, where everyone agrees to conduct diplomacy by forum, and consider the results binding. This way, the politicin could get pretty fierce as everybody negotiates- kind of like the scramble to get mercs, except you see the other' bids.

Include in each contract several 'breach' and termination clauses. The common termination would be three turns warning, psssibly shortened to one with a cancellation fee. the 'breach' would fall under accidental and intentional penalties, with varying degrees of repercussion. They might be levied a fine, or excluded from all further political discussions, treated as a rogue.

The idea is that diplomatic alliances can be publicly bought. If someone knows about your public treaty, then they can negotiate with a third party to get that party to declare the three turn warning and shift sides. This whole system of public negotiations removes most of the misunderstandings, gives a record, and etc. etc.
Completely public negotiations may be problematic- so maybe limit it only to the binding agreement made public. An agreement will not be valid until it posted and signed by both parties. Before then, it is as nonexistent, and useless.

Of course, there's also the game style with no diplomacy whatsoever- or just trade. Continuing with orwell, I'd call that game the ministry of peace.

[Dedas]

If Parcelt and Tibbs had been cheating (breaking game rules) I too would have been angry. But apparently this didn't happen. They just broke an in-game mutual agreement called "NAP" by some people. Not covered by any rules, not default ones or rules tied to just this game, agreed upon by every participant before the game started.
So end of story.

Everything could have been all different of course. But it wasn't... so no need point fingers on anyone or start constructing "top-ten-wanted-dishonest-people-who-played-fair-by-the rules-but-cheated-me-anyways-somehow" lists. That is just playing silly, not Dominions.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

If we're going to draw parallels from history, nations have had peace followed by war followed by peace, even when individuals such as kings and queens are involved. Or three years between every battle.

You could interpret pretenders as either closely involved with their people (Fertility god), or rather careless (God of Death)- an assault against your nation isn't always an assault against your pretender, personally, though sometimes it may be. One could argue that a pretender would be more likely to view their people as 'chess pieces', disposable when its to their advantage.

[Aethyr]

I would argue that a callus pretender who sees their people as "chess pieces" would more likely view those people as the source of their power. Therefore, any attack on those people (or the precious land they occupy)would be considered to be a direct threat to his/her power base.