AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

[Sombre]

I partly agree with Baalz, but I don't think treaties are worthless simply because they are sometimes broken and I don't think it's worth attacking someone based on the idea that since there's no possibility of a NAP they should be your #1 target. If they haven't made a threatening move towards you (they lack a huge army hovering on the border) and they say they don't have any intention of attacking you and on top of that you have other 'friendly' diplomatic relations such as trade, sharing of information or dividing of indy provinces to avoid conflict, then you haven't got much cause to believe they're going to attack you. Perhaps it's a cunning ploy on their part and they're hiding troops, but that sounds like a legitimate strat they're using, so fair play to them. I know I'd be less trusting of glamoured or stealthy nations and be sure to keep a reserve ready to deal with them.

Of course it would be silly to assume they'll never attack you, or they'll announce it before doing so, unless it's been clearly stated that you have a NAP and it cannot be broken, with the punishment being that they'll be kicked, or you'll refuse to play with them ever again.

I think there's plenty of room for meaningful diplomacy where treaties are still broken. You can also add house rules on top if you'd like.

[NTJedi]

Ironhawk said:
Most experienced players know that thier reputation has value and won't risk it just for a slight advantage in one game.

I agree, yet currently all NEW players are stuck playing as blind pigeons for months until they learn the good and bad reputation of others. A website tracking the information would remove this disadvantage for new players.

[Gandalf Parker]

If you want to do a website then go for it. That would seem to solve most of the problems. It would be off of Shrapnel, not directly supported by them or Illwinter. That is after all, the answer for anything that isnt supported by the forum.

[HoneyBadger]

I recently had to drop out of 2 MP games abruptly because it was either that or have severe personal consequences, and I felt bad about it, because I'd intended to play the games to their conclusion, but the way the game hosts was a major inconvenience that ultimately-and quickly-proved insurmountable.

I made sure to post on that game's thread so that everyone concerned would be very clear that I was quitting the game, though, and why.

To just up and quit a game without even telling anybody, that's just bad behavior.

It would be equally bad, to my way of thinking, to quit one game and continue the other, if you've made an equal commitment to both, and their weren't any other factors, such as one having a replacement standing by.

[Warhammer]

My .02...

I have no problems with NAPs. Especially in the early going, there is typically no benefit to going to war with someone early while Indies are still available (unless of course you are playing a rush nation).

That said, I think NAPs can be broken. If you don't have forces on the border and I have a fair amount on mine, I might consider moving in, especially if it is something that will hurt you severely.

However, the worst thing a player in any diplomatic game came do is make a move that only benefits him in the short term. If I take province X, and break a NAP, and that does not impact you severely, I am a moron.

Maybe it was my years of playing Diplomacy, but there comes a point in every game in which you need to make a play for the win. If the #1 and #3 players are allied against #2, it might be worth it for #3 to go ahead and stab #1. Why? If their relative strengths do not change, #3 will finish #2 after #2 is knocked off. But, if he stabes #1, he will probably benefit more from an alliance with #2 at that point, etc.

The game itself provides its own penalties and rewards for NAPs and alliances. I have not broken one to date, but I am do not want to be held bound to something that is going to doom me to future defeat. Let's say that in game X, I make a NAP with Caelum. It is for 24 turns, and over the span of those 24 turns, both Caelum and I expand. Eventually my only border is that with Caelum. I still have 10 turns left on my NAP, am I supposed to just sit and wait for the dang thing to expire while he is out expanding elsewhere? (Not withstanding my allowing this situation to develop)

[NTJedi]

Gandalf Parker said:
If you want to do a website then go for it. That would seem to solve most of the problems. It would be off of Shrapnel, not directly supported by them or Illwinter. That is after all, the answer for anything that isnt supported by the forum.

Actually those who frequently do hosting of games should vote for an individual to manage the information on a website.
In my multiplayer opinion the website would become quite popular as players from existing games would want to review past treaties from other games regarding current opponents. Also the gamers which host games would be able to organize groups of players together... such as a backstabber game, an honorable treaty game and/or a reliable player game where no one drops out from bad starts/events.

[tibbs]

NTJedi said:

I agree, yet currently all NEW players are stuck playing as blind pigeons for months until they learn the good and bad reputation of others. A website tracking the information would remove this disadvantage for new players.

But who's opinion do you base the list on?You can put up a list, but how can you guarantee it's accuracy? There are always two sides to every story.

Take for example myself, the original person accused. He said I broke the NAP, yet he stealthed his army(whose capital is north of me) through my territories and suddenly started taking independant territories south of me and thus causing the collision and annihilation of one of my armies.

In my view, an army of another nation sneaking through my lands and then taking lands that border my nation and causing the destruction of my army voids any pact or peace treaty. Those are definitely aggressive actions.

[Archonsod]

HoneyBadger said:
It would be equally bad, to my way of thinking, to quit one game and continue the other, if you've made an equal commitment to both, and their weren't any other factors, such as one having a replacement standing by.

Well, if you know you're going to lose in one game then there's not really that big a problem to calling it quits, unless you own most of the provinces. If the game is at a point where you have two or three large empires and a bunch of smaller six or seven provinces and one of the smaller players would rather concentrate on another game, fair enough, as long as he tells the other players of his intent to quit.
Admittedly, if I were in that situation I'd also secretly promise the same territories to each of those larger players on my last turn. I won't be around to watch the fur fly, but at least I know I'll be gone with a bang

[Aethyr]

Blaalz, you make some excellent points. To clarify, I was not necessary advocating that NAPs be ignored, nor was there intent to dinegrate those to adhere to them out of their own personal sense of honor (or sheer pragmatism). To further clarify my own position, I will personally avoid entering into NAPs unless I have some confidence they will be upheld by the other player(s), and then (most likely) only for a finite period of time. Why? Because I intend to honor my agreements, but do not wish to limit my future flexibility. That said, am I saying I will absolutely never break an agreement? Probaly not, but under the right set of circumstances, who knows...

Finally, I absolutely concur with your observation that you will carry YOUR past experiences from game to game. On a human plane, this is to be expected to some degree. What I sharply object to is the notion that there should be some sort of "master list" of "violators" presumably to help other (new) players. It would be just as silly to suggest that there be a list of names of those who commonly ally with each other (secretly or not) so the rest of us know who to watch out for.

After all, I'm sure there are many "positive" experiences that are carried over from game as well, yes? Over time, these experiences lead to greater confidence and an increased likelihood of a future alliance, yes? It could be argured that this puts the other players without this benefit at somewhat of a disadvantge, yes? And all the while everyone feels "honorable" about keeping their agreement. So, you protect your backside so as to concentrate your attention on a foe who may not enjoy a simular advantage. Where's the honor in that?

This is a war game premised on world domination. Should there be temporary alliances? Sure, but the concept of a "binding" and permanent NAP seems quite incongruent to me, and keeping some type of global list based on this premise would (further) imbalance play.

[Sandman]

Anonymous attack spells make the idea of a database of trustworthy players pointless. What happens when one player casts a misleading anonymous ritual to dupe another player into attacking a third party? Both dupes will accuse the other of violating their NAP, and to an extent, both will be right.