AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

[Dedas]

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]

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]

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]

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

[llamabeast]

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]

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.

[Nightblade]

For me it is rather simple, i only play games with friends, either the ones from real life(tm) or the people i met and befriended with over the internet.

When i play with my friends, we always establish rules in our games.

Until now none ever betrayed anybody, has double crossed anyone in an alliance, unless it was an -agreed by everyone- part of those rules we create for our specific game.

This way everyone has fun.
I believe agreed by every players pre-games rules are the way to go to avoid a game to be unfunny in the end for some players.

Now for the case of playing with people you don't know, if they don't resepct some agreed pre-games rules, they are not worth playing with, just play with someone else.

[Warhammer]

Taqwus said:

*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.

Austria had lots of fun in both those games. Best move in EiA was to just go with Charles based in Vienna so he could react to any ally's, I mean enemy moves.