Do you really think that you're fooling anyone?

[sum1lost]

thejeff said:
So you think a 3-turn agreement should be considered a permanent truce?

A 3 turn NAP is an agreement against surprise attacks. Nothing more. If you want more cooperation, or longer deals, negotiate for it.

It's a war game. In the end only one pretender can become God. You will fight eventually. (Though us humans may give up on the game before the bitter end.)

Of course not. I'm really not sure why people seem to think that I believe this (that a 3-turn NAP signifies more than 3 turns). It wasn't the time that I took issue with - it was simply that I realized what to expect from an NAP with that player- and that what I can expect does not serve my needs as well as most other things I could have chosen.
I created the opportunity because I relied on the NAP and the possiblity of retaliation to protect me. The NAP did not suffice, as the player did not appear to think I would be able to fight back within three turns. Therefore, I intend to show that I can, indeed, fight back. I also intend not to make the same opportunity with the same player again. I'm not sure why he considers this being a sore loser- that would seem to be more in the realm of smearing his name on the boards, etc. I didn't give out his name, or anything along those lines- simply how that NAP turned out to be useless for my purposes.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

I apologize if i gave the mistaken impression. I really don't have any idea what went on in the game you're describing. I haven't been watching that one.

So, could you clarify... Do you intend not to have any NAP with that same player in the future, or simply have a more restrictive NAP?

[sum1lost]

Simply to be more careful about accepting NAPs in the future- and making sure they are somewhat more of an impediment to attack.

Specifically, when accepting NAPs from certain players, to make it very clear what that NAP means to both of us.