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.