Adjudication on a NAP -edited please comment again

[vfb]

Karlem said:
You treach someone once, your mistake. You treach someone twice, his mistake . (Probably a very bad translation from spanish)

At least I check forums for user IDs and verify his NAP background before really commiting myself.

Doesn't it go like this?

"Treach me once, shame on — shame on you. Treach me — you can't get treached again."

[Hoplosternum]

I am not sure how much of the game Diplomacy you have played - but unless you were playing 'blind' or against people you have never met and would not meeet again reputations were very important. And they did not stop back stabbing or make the game 'nice'.

The whole craft of the game was to gather allies so you could take out enemies without having to worry about all your flanks. Then you turned on one of your allies. But you didn't really need surprise if things were working well. He would be engaged elsewhere and could not fight both you and his current opponent. You could afford to give notice that your agreement was over (although no formal NAPs were involved in games I played) and it was obvious to everyone what was happening a turn or two before that as you repositioned your forces.

In games were people simply lied to each other all the time people tended to simply fall out. Outside of the game to. And I associate such games with very young, immature players.

Most people are understandably upset when they get ganged up on or when their (ex) allies attack them. But if later you can see why it happened and it makes it easier to take. A good stab is rarely a surprise in either Dom3 or Diplomacy. In hindsight while you may not like it you can see why it happened.

Most of us are playing for fun. If you are really desperate to win play single player! Continual lying and duplicity in mp - unless everyone knows that beforehand - will just reduce the enjoyment and skill for most of us. This goes dor Dom 3 and Diplomacy.

I don't think Zenphos had a NAP in this example but I think the general honouring of NAPs here is a good thing. I doubt the mp community would last for long without it. Most of us would have better things to do. I've played a lot of boardgames with Diplomacy as well as Diplomacy and no group of players lasts for long as friends or players in a free for all, say anything, do anything atmosphere.

[fantasma]

The point of backstabbing is that the gain has to be really big and obvious that it will work out. Say you backstab an ally to gain /some/ advantage and are not killing him outright is usually a bad idea because you are sure to make a permanent enemy in the game that will eventually convince others to gang on you.

Therefore, it is usually better to keep your 'honorable' face and rather take advantage of dubious contracts, find some excuses why you had to attack or the like. You should always look like the good guy, even though you plotted your neighbours into fighting each other because you didn't want to attack straight away.

I think it is a good idea to roleplay the pretender god. The more convincing you play, the less out-of-game consequences this will have on your reputation, I think, or at least hope.

[Agema]

I agree reputations are important.

I used to play board games with friends. There was one guy who always, always, betrayed people he agreed an alliance with, more often than not the first turn they'd agreed to ally. Everyone quickly knew never, ever, to make an agreement with him.

This is the real danger. There's a community here, and people play against the player. Experienced players will smash new players because it's easy territory, and players will not form NAPs with untrustworthy players. If you have have a bad reputation, you're stuffed in MP because diplomacy is so important.

Breaking NAPs can be done 'fairly', but I think the justification must be that there is a crisis situtation, such as the guy being about to get unbeatably powerful.

[gowb]

Hoplosternum said:

In games were people simply lied to each other all the time people tended to simply fall out. Outside of the game to. And I associate such games with very young, immature players.

Hahaha, are you serious?? Anyone who would fall out with friends over a game is an idiot. We lied and double-dealt with each other all the time in Diplomacy games in my circle of friends and had no problems separating the game from real life...a problem a bunch of people on this forum have apparently

[zenphos]

Hmmmmmm,

A couple of points I think I should make in response.
1. I like roleplaying and don't want to drop it. Have no problem with inflammatory language if I am about to invade someone and already knew he spoke good english.
2. I am not trying to fix this situation, not interested in resolving it and know what the deal was.
3. I always automatically take offense when someone says, no offense, because generally it means they are about to say something offensive and I find it saves time all around, for instance if I say no offence but the topic of this post is "Adjudication on a NAP" not "Sanctimonious preaching about a NAP" is it then not offensive?. Also I did not want to do better at communicating and was looking for someone to attack so when he did not respond to my PM I figured he would do. If someone stuffs up in a major battle, such as sneaking with stealthy units instead of moving, do I then pull back, unwinding my plans for the last few turns so he can have another go or do I keep going with my plans of invasion. What then is the difference in diplomacy?
Or if I had replied with NAP3 no good for me but I will commit to a NAP4 would that constitute acceptance of the agreement by both parties? Would my opponent then have been bound to an agreement to give me 4 turns warning? And if not then what is the difference when I respond with a NAP2 request?
Sorry for the length of the post, and the slightly inflammatory language, but I do not like being judged or lectured to by someone who is not aware of all the facts.

[Endoperez]

While roleplaying is generally good, few out-of-character sentences don't hurt anyone, and can be enough to assert the situation to both parties. I think that's what Saxon was saying, and that's a very good rule of thumb IMO.

[Ironhawk]

zenphos said:
for instance if I say no offence but the topic of this post is "Adjudication on a NAP" not "Sanctimonious preaching about a NAP" is it then not offensive?

Actually... its not. And, no offense its foolish for you to think so. While the OP definitely colored the language of the post to put himself in a better light, he also made clear and (so it would seem now) effective efforts to get your opinion into the mix. That does not qualify as sanctimonious, IMO.

Edit:
It does appear that I was confused as to who was speaking above. However after reviewing the post and the OP I am still confused as to who said what so I have no real idea how to reword this

[Saxon]

The nature of the internet leads to a couple of problems, which we all need to be cognizant of while writing. First, we are almost all role playing, all the time, to a certain extent. Why do I post as Saxon instead of Dave? Why make up a false name and then post under it? I am role playing. I might be unaware of the fact, but that does not change it. If I compound that by taking on another role in a game, I am moving another step away from my true self and another step into fiction.

Throw in a dispute and mix in two layers of unclear identity and the situation is more prone to problems. The deeper you go into fiction, the farther you are from facts. If you really want to solve a dispute, stop role playing. If you are not that worried about the dispute, keep role playing and accept the cost.

Another thing about the internet is that there is no body language or tone of voice. In real life, you use those things when you want to say something you suspect will not be received well or thought of as uncouth. When posting, you have to do something else, like put a smiley or say things like “no offense.” These methods are the social grease that keep us from fighting, in real life or on the more civilized forums. They don’t happen so much in the school playground or less civilized forums, so they dissolve into wresting matches and flame wars. It is a choice. Goofy sounding posts or flame wars.

Zenphos, I won’t start with “no offense” this time, since you would like it straight.

You have asked for an adjudication, but said you do not want to be judged. The root of the word adjudication is judgment, so you can not have one without the other. When you put yourself out on the boards asking for opinions, expect to get them and expect you won’t like them all. Also, don’t complain that I have judged you without all the facts. You have presented the facts and provided a fair opportunity for your opponent to present the facts. I just worked with what you two gave me.

I agree with you, technically, there was no NAP. However, that you feel the need to clear your good name is because your actions were less than ideal. I am not surprised your opponent is complaining about your behavior and won’t be surprised if other players do not trust you or want to play with you in the future. I also suspect he is going to get more support and sympathy than either you or me.

As for my sanctimoniousness, you are right again. I often am. However, I wager that while some players will see me as a pain in the butt, they will trust my NAP and negotiations.

[zenphos]

Hah,

Well actually I did realise adjudication meant judgment, but I wanted a situation judged, not me or my actions.
I did not feel the need to clear my name but instead thought it would be an interesting exercise to see what people thought and whether there was an agreement in place and if the forum had agreed there was then I would have withdrawn my armies.
Although now I am thinking I would have been better off not bothering, wiped him out and moved on.
As for my opponent, he was at the time the leaderboard nation.
He had most of the mercenaries, the most forts, the most provinces and the biggest armies. All of which he either is still at the top of or very close to the top.
He mercilessly crushed some guy early in the game with a cheesy mercenary rush which I found to be pretty harsh in a newbie game. I mean if an experienced player falls for it then that is their fault but to merc rush a newbie is in pretty poor spirit I thought and sign of a guy without a lot of mercy when it comes to his dealings with other players.
He also had an army of 250 men a turn away from my border when I attacked so he is not in a hopeless situation with all his armies 4 or 5 turns away. And I am pretty confident he has another 200 men 2 turns away.
3 forts he can recruit from plenty of money coming in and I am guessing by now he has shored up some allies on his other borders so he can focus everything he has on me.

So I guess this is what I meant when I said not in possession of all the facts. Basically I thought some merciless, cold blooded newbie rusher was in the process of preparing an invasion of my lands with 250 men and some elephants. Turns out he wasn't but I didn't know that at the time.