AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

Aethyr · #1 July 30th, 2007, 10:42 PM

Sigh...LB, I really don't like the direction this is taking. Frankly, I'm a lot more concerned about NAPs resulting in a single nation be ganged up on, but it seems I'm in the minority?

Anyway, if you really feel the need to proceed along this course, you might want to consider some type of "cap" on the number of turns a "unbreakable" NAP can cover. After that, it's month-to-month...

Dedas · #2 July 31st, 2007, 04:56 AM

To be honest I think that we all are taking this a bit too seriously for our own good. Maybe if we relaxed some we would actually enjoy the fine nature of this game; which actually happens to be (amongst other things) backstabbing and treachery.

If it happens in the game! Let it stay - in the game.

To elaborate:
A game is an alternative world with its own rules and morals. We shouldn't be playing ourselves, taking everything personally. Instead we should take this opportunity to pretend to be someone or something else. It is a kind of freedom.

And finally:
Have we all forgot to relax and just play along? Yes I'm asking you.

Velusion · #3 July 31st, 2007, 05:31 AM

I think everyone knows this sort of list is DOA.

I agree with Baalz - NAPs are a part of MP Dom3 whether you like it or not. Part of the strategy is the diplomacy of working within that artificial limit to get the best deal.

If a nation won't form a NAP with me I assume we are at war and act accordingly.

However - there can only be one winner. I do think that people that honor NAPs to the point of denying themselves the win are silly. If breaking a NAP gives me a reasonably good shot at completely clinching the win, I'll probably do it. Otherwise, with your reputation on the line, it's almost never worth it.

I will admit enjoying reading about the fallout in games were a "secure" pact is broken.

llamabeast · #4 July 31st, 2007, 05:50 AM

Okay then, following objections I will not specify diplomacy in future games and I'll leave it in it's current slightly ambiguous state, which mostly works pretty well.

I do think a no-holds-barred 'Vegas' game sometime would be good for a change though.

Aethyr · #5 July 31st, 2007, 06:00 AM

I do agree with Dedas and Velusion. This works for me.

llamabeast · #6 July 31st, 2007, 06:04 AM

Yeah, I agree with Dedas too. Problems arise when people take things too seriously. And I also agree with Velusion, although personally I'd find it quite hard to break a pact. Probably why I always sucked at the Diplomacy board game!

Taqwus · #7 July 31st, 2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

llamabeast said:
Yeah, I agree with Dedas too. Problems arise when people take things too seriously. And I also agree with Velusion, although personally I'd find it quite hard to break a pact. Probably why I always sucked at the Diplomacy board game!

*snort*

When I was hanging around with fairly active board gamers -- playing games like Diplomacy or Empires in Arms -- it was generally accepted that baring your throat, even to a nominal ally, was fatal if it was clearly advantageous for the other. Diplomacy was most reliable when coordinating the violent dismantling of third parties to the obvious advantage of both.