AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

[Sleet]

I do not think this a good idea. Even if NAPS were a holy right and a sin to break, having a thread to start the flame-wars and vendettas for them is a recipe for disaster.

I will not be checking or posting in this thread at all again.

Salute.

[DrPraetorious]

I think that the game has the reverse problem - people keep their agreements even when it's crazy, from an in-game standpoint, to do so.

They do so in order to avoid being regarded as treaty breakers, for the classic game theory reasons, as well as personal ethics. This has the effect of making everyone (including, I must say, myself) too honorable.

The other problem is that the game has no long-term message memory. If you have longterm diplomatic arrangements of some kind with someone, and they offer an NAP, and you ignore that but continue to coordinate strategically, they *invariably* think that you agreed to the NAP. But you can't call up the messages in question and demonstrate that you didn't actually agree to the NAP.

[Ubercat]

Evernight, a web based fantasy wargame that I used to play (evernightgame.com) has a good system for diplomacy. Everything I know about NAP's I learned from them.

They have a good message log, which would be very helpful in DOM3 MP for many reasons beyond keeping people honest. There's also a setup where you can rate other players on a scale for various things like honor, communication, skill, etc. and type up a blurb about your experiences with them for other players to read.

Could be useful here if it were implementable.

-Ubercat

[Morkilus]

The only use for this thread is to compile a list of whiners. I hope we don't see this sort of thing very often. Individual game threads are for reputation-bashing, and it should all be in-character.

Color me disgusted.

[Jazzepi]

What's the color of disgusted anyways? Brown?

I dislike this sort of thread as from a practical standpoint it's extremely unwieldy.

1. It doesn't really help anyone, because there's no way to verify if the entries are accurate.

2. People who are on the list can just make a new name if they really care.

3. People who don't deserve to be on the list have no method of appeal.

4. It's silly, it's a game you play to win. If you don't expect people to break treaties then you shouldn't be playing. I, personally, like to try to stay on the straight and narrow, but sometimes circumstances dictate otherwise.

Jazzepi

[Tuidjy]

I like peace treaties and stick to mine. But then, I avoid 'evil' nations,
always take a life domain, and won't touch blood magic. This probably says
something about me, and probably it is not good.

I have had a few treaties broken on me, usually because I have grown too strong,
and once because I was too weak. I do not think I have been often surprised.
The only time I am really bothered is when the player has been role-playing
before that, and all of a sudden breaks a treaty for purely 'play to win' reasons.

For example, Pythium betraying Ulm when their alliance against Ermor had just
started turning the undead tide. This was the first time I was betrayed, and
I still remember it. The real lesson from that game was 'Ulm sucks' though.

My personal view is - you do not have to make treaties and alliances. If you
choose to make them, you better stick by it. If you break them, I will not
attack you in the next game, but I sure as Hell will not make a treaty with you.
I will conduct diplomacy to prove that "you do not want to eat me, you want to
eat my brother", but that's it.

As for this thread, I like that people can talk about their views on treaties,
but I dislike the naming of offenders. Hard to clear a reputation once it is
besmirched, and I am only human. I happen to have two treaties with people
named in this thread, and all of sudden, I am worried.

[NTJedi]

I've brought up this topic and similar topics in the past yet requested a website be used instead to chart how players behave during a game.

Actions to be recorded of players:

1A) Treaties player has broken without warning:
1B) Treaties player has broken with proper warning:
*each treaty will have to be given a unique name for agreed reference

2A) Game Turn and remaining provinces when a player abandoned the game, thus scrounging for replacement or switched to AI:
2B) Games where the player has played to the bitter end:
*useful to know when searching for brave allies on future games

3A) Games where player has been proven to have cheated or attempted cheating:


((Let me know if I missed any... and we can always add more later.))


This type of website would allow players to more easily identify the character of players, otherwise it could take months for new players to painfully learn this information. On the same token this information can be used by those hosting a game to find specific types of players. For example a game where all players are known as backstabbers or some other game where all players are known to stay strong with treaties.

------------

Another idea is this website can eventually provide a personal login/password for each gamer where each treaty can be created and signed on the website. Only those individuals which have been offered and signed the treaty will be able to view the treaty... until the game has officially ended. Much easier to remember all the treaties if the details of each treaty can be viewed by both individuals at any time, instead of logging the information in notepad or written on a notebook.

[WraithLord]

DrPraetorious said:
I think that the game has the reverse problem - people keep their agreements even when it's crazy, from an in-game standpoint, to do so.

They do so in order to avoid being regarded as treaty breakers, for the classic game theory reasons, as well as personal ethics. This has the effect of making everyone (including, I must say, myself) too honorable.

The other problem is that the game has no long-term message memory. If you have longterm diplomatic arrangements of some kind with someone, and they offer an NAP, and you ignore that but continue to coordinate strategically, they *invariably* think that you agreed to the NAP. But you can't call up the messages in question and demonstrate that you didn't actually agree to the NAP.

I agree with DrP. that's why I really like the "no diplomacy" games. Somehow they end up as the most exciting one.

I also agree that its part of the fun in the game to break treaties and since this is only a game it doesn't say anything about the player's morals in real life. In a way its kind of childish to keep track of "treaty" breakers. I'm not for that.

[Shovah32]

Lets just say im a much more trust-worthy person in game that in real life .
Im not really a strong supporter of either side of this arguement but im interested to see how it turns out.

[Dedas]

I'm just popping up to tell you that I fully agree with DrP and WraithLord on this this.

This is a game and it should be played by its rules, and I can't find a rule that says that you can't break a NAP or should be the subject of public punishment on an online forum if you do. However, you are of course free to make new rules on top of the default ones, but don't expect that everyone will follow them or agree on them.

Happy gaming!