POLL: Backstabbing

[tesco samoa]

The game within a game... Its what makes a game.

I follow the game and the RP and my Races set up.

If the race is not a backstabbing race... Then I will not do it.

But if it is a race that can do it... or the circumstances in the game force it. Then yes as it is part of RP.

[tesco samoa]

Example

your Partnered with A
You have T&R's with B , C , D , E
You have a MA with F

B , c , d are Partners

A is on your right boarder

B is on your left boarder

C is on your top boarder

D is inbetween B and C

A and C are at war

C is Partnered with B and E

E and F have a MA

C and B begin attacking D

You break treaty and attack b on the same turn... with giving reasons and break treaty with C

You are not backstabbing b
As you are honouring your Partnership with A who is at war with C who is partnered with B and E

Where the interesting stuff happens is between E and F... Which way does that one swing.

This is the game within a game.

The Political ramifications of treaties and agreements are fun to play in games.

And there only for that game.

[Stone Mill]

There are some actions which are quite deplorable, however; like:

secret pre-arranged alliances before the game

Something else I find hard to forgive is purposefully exploiting some weaknesses of the game engine with deception, like agreeing to a tech trade (against humans) for tech you do not actually possess, in return for tech. The game will let you do it... but I won't generally trust that player again. I consider that pretty dirty. But it's acceptable.

[DavidG]

Breaking a Partnership or an MA for any reason is stab in the back in my book. That's why I rarely make them and even rarer make one with more than one race. By itself breaking a TR treaty is not backstabing. Everyone knows that quite often they are just temporary.

[tbontob]

I think it may be a good idea to have have a clear idea of what backstabbing is.

1) You have the honest upfront player who intends to keep his agreements and will do whatever he can to keep them even if it means losing the game.

2) You have the honest upfront player who intends to keep his agreements and will do whatever he can to keep them with the proviso that if there is legitimate evidence that a player is betraying him then all deals are off with that player.

3) You have the player who phrases his words in such a way that he knows the other player is likely to misinterpret them to his detriment. For example, Player A and Player B agree not to attack each other until 10 turns have elapsed after giving notice. Player A then parks his ships over a planet owned by B and gives the 10 turn notice. If B breaks the treaty and attacks A, then it is B who has broken the agreement. This type of player often relies upon technicalities rather than the spirit of the agreement.

4) A player misuses what is normally understood to be part of an agreement. For example, a treaty normally assumes that no hostile act will be done against another player who is party to the treaty. Player A mines player B's planets as his ships pass over them.

5) A player outright lies and makes promises he has no intention of keeping.

6) A player cheats.

Players 3 to 5 will often try to pass themselves off as player type 1 and 2. They have to if they want to take advantage of them.

It should be noted that styles 1 to 5 are a valid and integral part of the game. It a matter of playing style.

That being said, it is understandable why disagreements occur. The fewest difficulties will occur between players of style 1 and 2. They want the terms to be clearly defined so that there will be no future misunderstanding. Players 3 to 5 will often accuse players 1 and 2 of being "legalistic" because they ask questions to clarify matters and make sure there is a complete understanding of all the terms of the agreement.

Players 3 to 5 do not want the terms clearly understood as it limits their ability to maneuveur. If there is written documentation proving that a player 3 to 5 is clearly in the wrong, it means they may have to fulfill their part of the agreement or risk exposure for the type of player they are.

Problems arise when the upfront honest player believes a player who is playing one of the alternate styles. And unless there is adequate documentation proving the agreement, there will be a lot of ducking and weaving by the player of the alternate styles as he doesn't want it to be known that he misrepresents things and lies to achieve his ends.

[ June 06, 2003, 06:39: Message edited by: tbontob ]

[tesco samoa]

Ummm...

Then two turns go by and you release that b is really partnered with G who has TA's with everyone.

Oppps.

Perhaps this should go in a different thread.

I just did a major screw up.

[DavidG]

The definition of backstabbing need not be so complex. If you take actions to convince another player you are allies or friends and then attack him or assist others in attacking him then you just backstabbed him.