Hall of Shame

[vfb]

moderation, it's your right to play in games where NAPs are always honored. It sounds like it would be a good idea for you to start some games like that, or at least check that that's a condition of the games that you join.

But I have no idea why you are linking to Sheap's tips in your signature when you seem to disagree with every single point he makes in Tip 1:

Sheap: 1.1) Don't berate the other players
moderation: People who make up flimsy roleplaying excuses for bull**** need not apply.

Sheap: 1.2) Do remember to draw a clear distinction between your in-game (role playing) persona and your out of game self. This is especially important if you are planning on lying and backstabbing.
IndyPendant: Blaming any backstabbing on RP is nothing more than a convenient cop-out.
moderation: Exactly!

Sheap: 1.3) Keep the wall between the game and the forums/real world.
moderation: I believe that diplomatic functions like negotiating NAPs should be done out of character.

Sheap: 1.4) ... Treating other players with fairness might help your nations get along, but nobody has a right to demand or even expect it.
No quote from you for this one, but the general impression I get is that you don't agree.

[moderation]

vfb said:
moderation, it's your right to play in games where NAPs are always honored. It sounds like it would be a good idea for you to start some games like that, or at least check that that's a condition of the games that you join.

But I have no idea why you are linking to Sheap's tips in your signature when you seem to disagree with every single point he makes in Tip 1:

Sheap: 1.1) Don't berate the other players
moderation: People who make up flimsy roleplaying excuses for bull**** need not apply.

I understood what Sheap said as "Don't berate the other players [for something they do in a game]." In any case, this is not a game thread and I reserve the right to call bull when I see it. You may want to read the above posts like #591195 to see why I'm annoyed. I do my best to make clear arguments, but I also reserve the right to get angry with irrelevant ad hominem attacks.

I think the idea of a generally accepted code of conduct to be a good idea. Getting everyone to agree on what those rules should be of course, is more difficult. I adopted Sheap's Tips in the absence of anything else. But after some consideration, I have formulated different opinions for reasons listed above. I just find inappropriate roleplaying more problematic than no roleplaying. I find Tips 2 and 3 to still be useful though.

[Twan]

I find the debate interesting.

Out of RP elements, I think the question is : do dominions is an alliance/betrayal game (like Diplomacy and many other games using simultaneous moves) or do dominions is a pure wargame using simultaneous moves just because it's more convenient for pbems ?

If we are in some kind of med-fan diplomacy, of course noboby has to be honourable ; if we are in a game where strategy and not betrayal is supposed to decide who wins, NAPs and other agreements must be honored.

The fact is, without rules or metagame reputation, the dominions wego system is ultra favorable to traitors. So the tradition of "unbreakable" (without getting a bad reputation) x turns warning NAP is very logical if players don't see dominions as one game of the Diplomacy genre.

Surprise attacks on an ally/NAP-partneer may be seen as an exploitation of the wego system, exactly like not respecting a trade agreement. So another question is, do I have the right to propose you a trade and never pay ? IMO if we consider abusing the wego system for surprise NAP-breaking a valid behaviour, abusing the trade system should be considered one too, after all it's exactly the same : the two things are non-enforceable in the actual system, and an exploitation of the mechanics of simultaneous turn resolution.

Personnally as an old Diplomacy player (first strategy game I've played a lot) I have nothing against Dom-Diplo games, but as I know the community is rather in a Dom-Wargame approach I tend to always respect NAPs, be fair in trades, etc... And dislike players who pretend to ignore that the community usually expect them to respect "artificial laws". It would change of course if I sign to a game someone launch saying we are playing the Diplomacy form.

So I think MP games should more often have a clear philosophy and rules stating what is allowed or not, saying since the beginning if a particular game is Dominions-Diplomacy or Dominions-Wargame or Dominions-RPG or what you want.

For a Dominions-wargame strict ruleset, I would suggest both NAPs and trade agreements to be public (or the publication in the game thread of related PM allowed in case of betrayal). And in case someone is accused of violation and deny there must be a master password ready to be given to someone (not playing) to verify. So no flame war with false accusations, hall of shame, etc... clear rules, a way to enforce them, and if someone don't respect them, he is out of this particular game.

[Dedas]

It seems that some of you are trying to construct some kind of artificial certainties (player made laws) within this game besides the natural ones we already have.

Natural laws are the only real certainties we have inside the game. They are not in any way established by the players. It is Gods (Illwinters) law if you wish. If you put your trust in them you will not be deceived (except when cheated - see below). Examples of natural laws would be:

*If you spend gold on recruiting a unit that unit will show up the next turn if you haven't lost the province and if unrest is under 100.

*If a move a unit into enemy territory a conflict will occur.

If we break any of those rules we are cheating and that should and must be punished severely.


Then there are the artificial laws that the players enforce upon themselves or try to enforce upon others.
They are established on the grounds mutual or solitary interests. They are enforced by mutual interest, fear, power, hatred, love etc.
They should not extend into other games or the outside world as they are created on and within a unique and confined world/universe. Examples of artificial laws would be :

*A NAP

*An alliance

*Trading

Breaking artificial laws can and should only be punished by those who want to uphold the laws, and only within the game itself as they are confined within it. The details of the punishment is up to the players and could be anything except breaking the natural laws and extending the punishment beyond the game world where those laws apply.

To summarize
Natural laws are the certainties on which you should build your empire.

Artificial laws are uncertain and changing. Putting all your trust in them would be folly.

Artificial laws could however be great and powerful tools in capable hands, as constructs by the players to enhance their natural power within the game world. Although the creators of such laws must not forget that the laws existence is dependent upon not only her own interests and power, but on every player's own agenda within that universe. And as every player has her own agenda and goals (winning is not everyones goal) that creates the need to know that agenda. Knowledge is the power you have to stabilize such artificial laws

One last thing: if you ever want and feel the need to put your trust in artificial laws, make sure that you have your own natural power to fall back upon when your fortune and friends turn their back on you.

[moderation]

Dedas, I hope you're not trying to make a connection between what you refer to as "natural law" and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-law_argument because that would just be too complicated. In any case, Illwinter Gamer Design is a cool company, but I can assure you that it is not God.

You make it sound like I am trying to build a flying machine circa 1800. By your definition, even simple team games defy the laws of gravity because team games are not coded in by Illwinter and therefore defy "natural law" because they are only held together by spit and player agreements.

As far as I'm concerned, any set of rules that a group of people mutually agree to as conditions for playing a game is fine if they like it that way. The problem here is that there is some ambiguity about whether people mean what they say when they say it, which leads to disagreements such as this.

[kasnavada]

That's called taking responsibility for your actions. How can you be trusted if you make up a brand new identity every game?

I think you should read my other post. I've answered your other points. In general though, you argument is flawed because your pretender god identity is completely disposable. You make a new one for every game, and therefore you essentially have zero accountability for your actions.

Yes, exactly. Zero accountabiliy. For someone that doesn't agree, at least, you have resumed what I said pretty well ! Besides, even quoting only a part, I was answering the "NAP should be done with an out-of character basis" argument, which I should have quoted maybe.

That is the very point of playing a game anyway. And it would seem that most people agree with me... A game identity is disposable. You cut the power ? it disappears. You push delete ? It "dies". And then you start new ones. Anyway, thinking that it's not disposable is wrong anyway. I mean, when I think of dying avatars, I remember this kid in Italy was sent into an hospital because it's tamagochi was dead. It's a bit extreme, but that's what your proposal leads to.

Beside, I don't really enjoy the "ad hominem" argumentation, because, basically, you're saying to all players that since they kill and pillage in a game, they need to take real life responsibility for it ?!? That's some tremendous bull**** I can't agree with, and is a very fine ad hominem attack on its own... Ah, but no, you make a difference, in a game, between betraying a real person and killing game "figures", where I see none.

I'm resuming your post, because, there is nothing but repetition of this in it. What is the point of playing a game if you are yourself ? Their is no responsibility to playing a game, nor should there be. That is what a game is.

Besides, accusing me of "cutting your post up" and doing "ad hominem attacks" while doing the exact same thing in your answer... excuse me while I laugh from the irony of the situation.


After that, my roleplay is what it is. It may sound obscure of self-justification to you, but it's the closest to what a "real" situation may be. If the Dominions world was "real", they would have found out the real behaviour of my avatar through diplomacy, spies or rumors. That's the reason why I give hints. And I try to roleplay my avatars as if the believed that the world they live in is "real". That means that the satyr I send alone to die against a mammoth army has as much importance as the god or goddess of whatever played by another player. After all, there is no way that my avatar could know that !

And for this to work out without my becoming mad, I need to make a clear distinction between reality and roleplay, obviously. And you propose to destroy that distinction ? No way.

[kasnavada]

Finally, my opinion on getting "rules" that should be followed... what is the point ? sooner or later, someone will have to be faced with a situation where he has to break one treaty.

For example : NAP with nation A, and alliance with nation B. A attacks B. That means that either you don't honour the NAP or the alliance. By the rules you propose (unbreakable NAP) basically, you would watch your ally get destroyed before your own eye by fear of becoming a traitor and get the whole map against you ?

Another example : do you need to wait until the NAP is broken to make covert actions ? (dominion kill, spying, nameless spells ?). Do you wait 5 turns of getting your country rampaged by unrest and dominion killed while your armies stand at the border until the NAP delay is finished ? Neither is any fun in my opinion.

By setting strict rules, you basically destroy one of the greatest aspect of some nations : stealth, assassins, a lot of the magic aspect (all those nameless spells), and just make it a straighforward game where everything is known and boring.

[moderation]

Beside, I don't really enjoy the "ad hominem" argumentation, because, basically, you're saying to all players that since they kill and pillage in a game, they need to take real life responsibility for it ?!? That's some tremendous bull**** I can't agree with, and is a very fine ad hominem attack on its own... Ah, but no, you make a difference, in a game, between betraying a real person and killing game "figures", where I see none.

kasnavada: Okay, you still don't seem to understand me. Those imaginary characters in Dom 3 do not exist. The people that you make agreements with in a game do. That is why this Hall of Shame thread exists isn't it?

What I said is not an ad hominem attack unless you think I am comparing you to a mass-murder like Genghis Khan. I assure you that I am doing no such thing. What I am saying is that people are going to attribute your actions in game to you anyway, so you might as well take responsibility for them.

[Twan]

By setting strict rules, you basically destroy one of the greatest aspect of some nations : stealth, assassins, a lot of the magic aspect (all those nameless spells), and just make it a straighforward game where everything is known and boring.

This only shows that "artificial laws" may have to be precised for some cases.

Personnally I usually assume that :
- all undercover (stealthy scouting/anonymous spells) operations are always allowed
- finding a simple scout in your realm has no consequence
- being attacked by an assassin or finding a spy in a province where unrest is growing allows immediate NAP breaking against the owner

Don't know if all players have exactly the same view. So it's the kind of things that need to be cleared if a strict ruleset is to be made for some games.