Inviolate NAP, First Draft

[LoloMo]

Originally Posted by GrudgeBringer

So...you take offense that Sector 24 laughed at one of your many 'rules' (#17), but your first words written are "ha ha"?

It just shows that like everything else in this world AND the world of D3 there are many takes and sides to an issue.

IF you want people to NOT take advantage of loopholes (as THEY see it) then you need to make it public so it is somewhat enforceable.

IF you want secrecy, then don't whine when someone makes 5 agreements and HAS to honor one over the other (usually in his own self intrest) and states what the terms where/are in HIS opinion.

You have a full page of rules that you want players to abide by and what looks like sign an oath to obey.

For the most part I agree with you but there are several that seem to make no sense to me.

Not becaue they are bad, stupid, or wrong....But because they conflict with each other and saying that one agreement made because its a certain type (NAP) supercedes all others no matter WHEN it is made and (now this is what I mean ) in MY mind ridiculous.

You did a lot of work and I think if you where to prepare a game that you had to state that you would abide by those rules before joining, then I would think it would be GREAT.

But to propose that this be universal is just like secrecy...no one REALLY knows what was agreed to.

I don't take offense at all to Sector 24's comments on the NAP rules. These are just the rules I have found to be fair in general, and that I would use in the future so that I don't have to spell out every detail whenever I make a NAP. If others would like to use it, I'm happy. If they would like to modify it, go ahead. If they want to have their own NAPs very vague so that they can have an advantage, they are quite free to do so. If your policy is to make a bunch of NAPs and follow only the ones that are advantageous to you, that is of course your style of playing. But if you agree with the points on this particular style of NAP, then it would make it a lot easier to just say " I agree to Inviolate NAP-3", and that would carry a certain meaning.

Again, I am not imposing at all any rule on anybody. If they find these set of rules useful, then good, and just specify it. If the name Inviolate NAP carries a negative connotation to anyone, then just say Lolomo's NAP-3. Or just say Lolomo's NAP-3 but let's make it non-inviolate

If someone proposes a different kind of NAP to me, I'll sign it based on its merits, though it may take a while to iron out all the details.

[GrudgeBringer]

Well, as usual in a election year sometimes people want the same thing but just can't agree how to get there.

Your Idea is sound and as an Honorable player I would like in a perfect world to see a template.

I just could not ever agree that one kind of treaty (call it what you like) superceded another kind of agreement no matter WHEN they where made.

That is the one point that I personally could not ever agree on.

If I made an agreement with YOU first and wanted to make another agreement with another player and then tell you that our agreement only works if something else DOESN'T happen.

I would expect you to never trust me agian...

I guess that is what I want...a template that works for all agreements and none are MORE important than others..yiu just have to decide which ones work with which player and then NOT get yourself into a fix by making too many to start with.

[LoloMo]

Originally Posted by GrudgeBringer

Well, as usual in a election year sometimes people want the same thing but just can't agree how to get there.

Your Idea is sound and as an Honorable player I would like in a perfect world to see a template.

I just could not ever agree that one kind of treaty (call it what you like) superceded another kind of agreement no matter WHEN they where made.

That is the one point that I personally could not ever agree on.

If I made an agreement with YOU first and wanted to make another agreement with another player and then tell you that our agreement only works if something else DOESN'T happen.

I would expect you to never trust me agian...

I guess that is what I want...a template that works for all agreements and none are MORE important than others..yiu just have to decide which ones work with which player and then NOT get yourself into a fix by making too many to start with.

You can always say, "Let's agree to an Inviolate NAP-3, with the provision that #17 does not apply".

[namad]

this INAP doesn't have to acknowledge the existance of possible other forms of treaties.... if you sign this agreement with everyone in the game there is no contradiction anywhere...

mutual defense pacts are ALWAYS a tricky subject... and a person can use them to attempt to lie without lying...


niefelheim signs a nap6 with ermor.... ten turns later he decides he'd like to instantly begin attacking ermor... so he looks around and notices that caelum is at war with ermor... niefelheim signs an alliance with caelum.... then neifelheim attacks ermor... niefelheim is now an ******* :-p

it's pretty clear that even if you have a defensive agreement that going to war would simply mean giving notice on the peace treaty that it is going to expire..... simply giving notice will worry the other nation and force them to draw resources away from other fronts to prepare for you... this is enough to satisfy the defensive agreement generally

also alliances and defensive agreements are fairly shakey in a game with one winner and no allied victories allowed...