known backstabbers

[Gregstrom]

This is pretty much why the thread should never have been started.

yeah, I shouldn't have been so brash with my statements, there are better ways to defend one's rep.

[elmokki]

Labelling anyone as a backstabber if he backstabs you in a non-binding diplomacy game is just retarded. In a game like that, everyone is expected to backstab you anyway, and if you get backstabbed unexpectedly, you should either consider yourself dumb for trusting him or congratulate him for playing his cards well.

Then again, all a list does is make players who don't understand machivellian diplomacy be scared of people who do. I would like to congratulate the two people named in the first post for playing the game well.

Naturally if someone breaks the rules of the game in a game with binding diplomacy, that's a different case.

[Squirrelloid]

I'm all for individuals remembering who backstabbed them from game to game. Conditioned expectations are fine.

I'm not ok with people publicly sharing such information. Each backstab is unique, dictated by the circumstances involved, and the idea of this thread reduces any backstab to just another 'player X stabs' without any regard to context.

Basically, acquire your own data, because then you have context for every stab. You cannot appreciate the context for a stab in a game you did not participate in, so other people's data is inherently suspect.

[Juffos]

There can only be one. Every player is a backstabber. Guild wins. Others lose. Spears of light in the darkness.

[llamabeast]

I think it's great that everyone has posted here to say this isn't a good idea - I agree that it really isn't a good idea. Thinking along the same lines as Edi, I won't lock it now, in case there is more useful debate to be had. But such a list is never going to work well.

militarist, I think it would be great if you removed the names of the two players from the first post, since it is clear that there are at least two sides to the story and having them there is quite harsh.

[Verjigorm]

The problem with a thread like this is the He Said/She Said BS (or He Said/He Said or She Said/She Said if you prefer).... You can't necessarily believe anything..

As far as NAP Crap goes...

Some people forge NAPs and then use the NAP as a weapon. That's one of the points of the NAP. Just because a contract was made doesn't mean that it's beneficial to both parties. Thus, in order to continue the game in an appropriate manner, someone must necessarily break said arrangement.

There are many reasons to break arrangements. I think you're just miffed because you lost or are losing a game. Just relax.

[Edi]

Didn't mean to say that naming people was okay, but more along the lines of how this sort of threads have been dealt in the past. IIRC I have promised all sorts of death, destruction and rocks falling from the sky on people who cause too much trouble with things like this. The administrators are aware of the issue.

[Annette]

We had a list like this come up recently in another area of the forums. Labeling other players with a specific style of play falls under invasion of privacy. Including them in a list with the purpose of negatively adding to their reputation is defamatory. Under 'moral conduct" of our forum rules, you'll find these are not allowed. It's great to see so many of you chime in to say that publicly hosting a list such as this can be disastrous. And who wants more disasters right now? I agree that it's okay to keep your list, militarist, just keep in your head.

Here's a quote from a couple of years ago on how the game's designers view backstabbing (thanks, Calahan, for the finding the thread with this post by Kristoffer):

It is fun to betray, and it is fun to be betrayed. Frustrating, yes, but all the more fun when you strike back with righteous vengence! Or die trying to It is also more fun to play when you might expect a backstab from one of your neighbours at any time.

[Gandalf Parker]

Usually the best Non-Aggression Pacts have an out clause. Something like "dont attack for 5 turns" or "allied with a 3 turn notification before aggression". I would think that there is a difference between properly breaking a NAP vs using one to get someone to empty their border so you can rush in and attack (which I would consider to be backstabbing). The problem is that we just hear continual back and forth about the two sides of the story, or people saying the game should be played that way anyway. And the purpose of such a list rings false. It comes off more as a whine. The person posting might THINK its a service.

But if someone is that concerned about someone you have an agreement with then there is usually a thread here in the forum and the person you are wondering about has posted. Just click on their name to get a nice menu of options including "Find all Posts by" which can be much more informative than someone posting their name to a list. Check and see if arguments have popped up in other games and why. Sometimes you can learn that its a simple counting error. To quote a line from many movies.. "WAIT. Do we go on 3? or is it 1,2,3 then go?" Knowing thatcan go a long way to avoiding problems.