Hall of Shame

[Cerlin]

Ok but then, say you are in a game with a player with a NAP to one side an an Ally on the other, do I just sit and fail? Or attack one? So best case is to let the NAP 3 end then attack, but if I attack fast my honor is destroyed? Hmmm For me im always suspicious of my neighbors in this game. People are a tad to vicious when they dont have NAp to trust them when they DO have one.

[Edi]

I do not have moderation powers in the MP forum, but I'm going to make a public statement about this Hall of Shame idea nonetheless: NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

The reason is simple: It's asking for unnecessary friction, bad blood and general mayhem on the forums, grudges and vendettas being carried over from game to game and thread to thread and generally dividing the board and causing conflict. It would also require more work from the moderating staff. Given that I'm currently the most active moderator here, it's not much of a stretch to imagine I'd get to deal with a lot of that work.

I can guarantee everyone that if someone starts causing any big problems on the forums, they WILL be swiftly, brutally and mercilessly oppressed until they are no longer a problem. Whether the required level of oppression would reach up to the level of a permanent ban would depend on the case and whether the troublemaker was a repeat offender, but people have been permanently banned from these forums for being more trouble than they were worth keeping around for.

So, let this nonsense be buried once and for all. You don't want the mods forcibly solving problems resulting from an idea like this going haywire. You most certainly do NOT want me to be that moderator. You really, REALLY do not want that, trust me.

[IndyPendant]

The fact is that there is no treaty enforcement in this game. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is debatable (I'm solidly in the "bad-thing" camp, myself) but I have to agree with the consensus: the concept of a Hall of Shame is a terrible idea. In part because it's easily abusable (don't like someone? Post on the thread that he broke his word!) in part because it's possible there's a misunderstanding involved (I try to give people benefits of doubts whenever possible) and so on.

However, this is a very small community, and people do tend to gain a reputation. Those that break treaties and/or think it's okay to do so at a whim (or at least, who may be that type of person) are often easily found simply by checking their post history in the forums.

After some emotional reactions to being betrayed that way myself a number of times, I have decided to try a new long-term strategy of using this small-community, easy-rep situation to my advantage. If a player betrays an agreement with me, or doesn't follow through on a promise, I will do *anything and everything* I can to ruin that player's game. Period, no-holds-barred. Scorched Earth tactics? You bet! Ignoring another opponent to focus solely on the one that broke his agreement? Of course! Cripple myself, if it means ensuring the other player can't win? Check. (All of course, assuming I can't just defeat the scum normally. If I can do that, none of those extreme tactics are necessary.)

The way I figure it is, if the scum-sucking lying bastards need a reason to keep to an agreement, other than that they made it...I'll give them one: screw me over, and I'll do my best to screw you over twice as bad, in each and every game we encounter each other in. *shrug* It's what I want to do anyways. ; )

If they violate an agreement with me in one game, and I can't get revenge on them there, I am perfectly willing to wait until I play them again (if I ever do) and go for their throats in that game. I'm quite willing to sacrifice myself in another game to take out someone that has proven (to me, note!) that they are scum-sucking honourless liars, if that's the only option available to me. Don't like that idea? *shrug* Either don't play against me, or honour your agreements with me when you do, and you won't have to deal with it.

And it is very important to note that I am only talking about players that violate stated agreements or promises. If someone gives me a 3-turn warning on our NAP to gang up on me in a war, hey that's fine! You kept your agreement and gave me the promised notice. If I ask for help against a stronger foe, and you refuse to give it...that's fine, we never had an agreement in the first place. We're already at war, and you hand me my butt on a silver platter...hey, good game, excuse me while I go off to lick my wounded ego for a while. And so on, and so forth. No hard feelings.

This attitude of course requires that *I* keep all agreements I make, and I do. If giving three turns' warning before starting a war means I lose the game, then *shrug* I guess I lose. Not giving the warning doesn't necessarily mean I'll win...and becoming the type of scumsucking honourless liar I loathe isn't worth a mere chance of winning a single silly game.

Eventually, if an opponent is tempted to violate the terms of an agreement he signs with me for a short-term goal...then hopefully he'll reconsider doing so, because he knows that I *will* do everything in my power to get revenge for his betrayal. ; )

[otthegreat]

I'd like to clarify my position. I see that this can be a charged topic. In my previous post I was not suggesting a place to attack people who may have backstabbed you once. I was suggesting a place where people can post mistakes THAT THEY MADE THEMSELVES either diplomatically or otherwise so that we can all have a good laugh and learn from each other.

[gowb]

I vote IndyPendant be put in the hall of shame. That sort of behaviour is pathetic and annoying. This is just a game. You shouldn't take it so seriously that you actively get angry and want to ruin it for someone else who plays better than you do. I play my nations like they should be played. If I'm an evil or neutral nation with an evil pretender, you should be wary of me. I might decide to betray you! That's how things work in the world! If I'm a good nation with a good pretender, I'm going to be extremely honor-bound even to evil nations, and I'll be just as shocked and outraged (in RP) if someone betrays me. This makes much more sense than any other postition on NAPs - way more than any silly conception of "internet honor" or equally stupid "backstab everyone until no one trusts me".

[moderation]

gowb said:
I vote IndyPendant be put in the hall of shame. That sort of behaviour is pathetic and annoying. This is just a game. You shouldn't take it so seriously that you actively get angry and want to ruin it for someone else who plays better than you do. I play my nations like they should be played. If I'm an evil or neutral nation with an evil pretender, you should be wary of me. I might decide to betray you! That's how things work in the world! If I'm a good nation with a good pretender, I'm going to be extremely honor-bound even to evil nations, and I'll be just as shocked and outraged (in RP) if someone betrays me. This makes much more sense than any other postition on NAPs - way more than any silly conception of "internet honor" or equally stupid "backstab everyone until no one trusts me".

I have two thoughts on this. The first is that maybe discussions of NAPs should be done on an out-of-character basis, just so that everyone knows who we are dealing with. Blaming the breaking of your NAP on your pretender's bad behavior is not a very good idea in my opinion. That's like stealing a piece of candy and blaming it on your imaginary friend. I think you as a player should take responsibility for all your actions at the end of the day. Maybe that's a little stark, but I think it dispels a lot of confusion.

The second thing is maybe games need to start with a better set of ground rules, including agreements about whether NAPs should be honored. If you don't want to announce your NAPs to the whole game, then players could email their NAP agreements to a neutral party who will then record them. That way you have a paper trail for backing up your claims if someone backstabs you.

Edit: People are getting sidetracked by the murder example, so I am changing it. The principle behind it is still the same.

[gowb]

That doesn't make any sense, Moderation. You should play the game as your character - this is a standard, constant rule of roleplaying. If your character is evil then play evil. If your character is good then play good. It IS an imaginary friend - that's the entire point! It isn't like committing a murder though, this is just a game and not nearly as serious. That is too stark of a rule - some people will break NAPs, some won't, and that's life. You should get used to it and never trust your allies (in non-team games), because that's part of strategy gaming. Ever played Diplomacy? There's nothing in that game to force you to keep your treaties, and there shouldn't be, it would ruin the point. Same in Dominions 3.

Even if you send your NAPs to a neutral party, there is no guarantee that your ally won't claim that YOU are the one who violated it first! That would also be on the honor system, which is basically what this whole thing is based on.

I think carrying grudges across games is completely ridiculous and stupid, and anyone who does it is a worthless player. Thus, the counter to the breaking of NAPs is only this: send an in-game message to everyone in your character's voice, informing them of the breaking of the NAP and recommending that all good nations enforce the honor of the NAP. It makes sense both in game terms and it honors player participation.

I'm honestly not sure where this whole "NAPs are inviolate" concept started, but I think it is silly. There shouldn't even be NAPs. You should create each peace treaty on a personal basis with your opponent, and hold them to their honor on a personal basis. It's the same thing you would do in board games like Diplomacy or Risk. Like I said before its a standard in strategy games, and the whiners need to get used to it.

[kasnavada]

That's like committing a murder and blaming it your imaginary friend. I think you as a player should take responsibility for all your actions at the end of the day.

It is called roleplay. People do it all day when playing FPS anyway : I mean in those games you are responsible for the murder of thousands of imaginary "friends" (ok, enemies, whatever). In a strategy game, you get hundreds of your own "imaginary friend" killed too if you think of it. I really don't understand what is bothering you, unless you cannot make a difference between a game and real life.

NAP nor anything related to a game should be done on a out-of-character basis, that's just calling for real life and lasting grudge.

But, somehow, when a real person is involved, all should be fair ? When I RP I actually choose to give some hints before backstabbing people, and show that my pretender isn't reliable. If people don't get it, it's their own loss.

I like to think of NAP and alliances as secrets. Having them recorded by a third party just makes the gem less fun for me, and it screams for corruption of the neutral party. I have to add that the cry of outrage of the betrayed one is actually more funny than really threatening. In a MP game, people do not attack others without a goal. See your opponent's goal and basically you win.

I realise this post may sound harsh and may alarm some of my allies in the games I play, but :
- comparing a murder in a game to real life, to me, shows that you need to take a break from playing and cool down a bit.
- even if my goal, like most of you, is to win, alienating most of the map against me by breaking an NAP isn't really my idea of "winning".
- I tend to give hints of what my pretender personality is during the game.