Ahhh, Frank, you give me a headache. This is precisely where I did not want to go. For anyone in this game that does not enjoy reading pedantic and litigious posts, I suggest skipping this one (I only wish I could skip writing it!).
My primary intent on referencing Sheap's Rules of Diplomacy was to keep the game thread and our in-forum conduct civil - obviously we're not achieving that effect at the moment. Before I get into the details of this circumstance I want to go into a bit of background on my ideas of what's reasonable in MP gaming. Frank, I don't want to insult your intelligence (and I say again, it is evident that you are a very bright guy), but I don't know your background in gaming.
My most basic reference for behaviour in MP gaming is the old Avalon Hill board game
Diplomacy. Without going into great detail, in
Diplomacy the art of the backstab is everything. There are absolutely no rules enforcing any agreements, and any player that plays with integrity will be at a serious handicap. For many, many gamers this game has provide an enormous amount of fun.
However, a fundamental requirement to enjoyment of this game is that all players must be ready to believe that their fellow players are good people (no matter what backstabs occurred in game), after the game is over.
Now, imo, all MP games have to one degree or another some element of
Diplomacy in them. In my personal play of Dominions 3 in this community, I don't go for the backstab in the same way that I would in a
Diplomacy game, but I make that choice mainly because I don't see that same attitude or approach to the game that I would find in a group of experienced (and yes, mature) group of
Diplomacy players.
Should I encounter players that do lie and backstab in-game, I consider that part of the game, and just roll with it.
Most importantly, I do not take that experience
outside the game (into the forums or into other games).
Now, having described my approach to MP gaming and Dominions 3, I'll move on to Frank's post:
Quote:
FrankTrollman said:
Quote:
Here we are definitely violating Sheap's Rules of Diplomacy by talking about game crossover effects (and here's the link again, for reference)
|
No. That's completely absurd.
Dishonesty is, in the darkness of a single interaction, advantageous. ...
Quote:
4) If you agree to a trade that requires several steps to complete or is otherwise more than simple gems or gold, you are obligated to complete the transaction once it has begun, even if you change your mind later. If something intervenes (a third party invades the province you were supposed to give away, for instance) you must make a good faith effort to come up with a mutually agreeable settlement.
|
So the fact that no hammers are coming my way means that Meglobob is in violation of those very hallowed rules. That's worth getting upset about. That's crossing the line between shrewd negotiations and being a tool that others need to be warned about.
-Frank
|
OK, Frank I get your point, however I think you are blowing this
way out of proportion. Yes, Sheap's 4th rule is one case where (unlike
Diplomacy) there is a specific restriction on what kind of backstabbing one may or may not do. But personally, I simply do not regard this rule as being anywhere near as important as Sheap's other rules (the one's where he emphasizes the division between games and between in-game conduct vs forum/RL conduct). Even if Meglobob did all that you accuse him of, it is not worth the damage that you are doing to the game and to your relationship with other players in this community. If I were in your shoes, I would simply let it slide. I would likely advertise the backstab to other players, but I would be careful to do so only via in-game characters and only in an in-game fashion.
Nonetheless, let's assume for the moment that Meglobob
did violate Sheap's Rules of Diplomacy #4 (and please note that Meglobob does
not stipulate this point). How much heartache should this really cause? My problem as game host is that enforcing this rule is problematic as it would require seeing in-game messages and transactions, and that's messy and impractical. In fairness, you are not requesting that I enforce anything, instead you are advertising broadly that Meglobob is a "pact breaker". But this behaviour is violating what I regard as the most important rules out of Sheap's Diplomacy that being Tip 1 - rules 2&3:
Quote:
2) Do remember to draw a clear distinction between your in-game (role playing) persona and your out of game self. This is especially important if you are planning on lying and backstabbing.
3) Keep the wall between the game and the forums/real world. Someone can be a colossal jerk in the game without being one in reality. As long as they follow rule #2, this is perfectly fine.
|
Frank, your current signature is as direct a violation of these rules as I can imagine. I suggest you change that ASAP.
Meglobob, the text you included in all caps regarding banning Frank is likewise a direct violation these rules. It is an escalation and makes matters worse, please refrain from such posts in the future.
Now moving on to the specific question of whether Meglobob did or did not violate Sheaps Tip 2, Rule 4, as I read that rule, if either Meglobob or Frank shipped some amount of resource (gold, gems or items) to the other player, then that rule is in effect, and the other player is obligated to keep the trade. I can offer the two of you my assistance in resolving this question peacably, but if we are going to continue to debate the question, I
strongly prefer to take the discussion
out of this thread (ideally, I would like to do it an 3-way email, both of you can email or PM me your email address, if we need to get that discussion going).
OK, can we now cease and desist this conversation (in-thread, at least)?
- Hellboy
Re: A great big party.
Linear Mode
