Question about diplomacy

[Tifone]

I agree with llama. In WWI and WWII (not to think about the medieval ages) almost everybody betrayed everybody else and switched alliances. Still we have today the EU and treaties of peace between nations all over the globe, even after everybody proved to be "unreliable" or "NAP breakers" lol. So seems real politics and diplomacy are on this side - one can play the bastard on a game, and be a nice person in real life, in the forum and in the future matches. I mean, we pretend to be blood-thirsty molochs... XD

[Aapeli]

Originally Posted by Dedas

I believe there was a game some time back where it wasn't revealed what nation everyone played until after the game was over. I think that was a great way to separate your forum person from your game person.

I actually almost never keep track on whos who in games. The nation matters more alltough sometimes its good to know if your bordering experienced players. If I have to pm to my neighbour (in game messaging is slow) then I look it up on the first post.

[capnq]

Originally Posted by licker

I'm thinking that you run the risk of turning players away from certain games by how you define the NAP restrictions up front. Maybe that's the point? But I don't know if you want to create this kind of schism amongst the smallish community.

Judging from the poll results, the "schism" is already there. As I see it, the problem is that some people are convinced that there is a "consensus", and react with outrage when their illusions are shattered.

[Archonsod]

Originally Posted by licker

I'm thinking that you run the risk of turning players away from certain games by how you define the NAP restrictions up front. Maybe that's the point? But I don't know if you want to create this kind of schism amongst the smallish community.

Definitely, but I think you're exaggerating the effects. We're not making a life choice here; simply because you use inviolate NAPS in one game doesn't mean you're next game can't be a free for all political fray It's no different from choosing a map, era or mod for the game. Some players won't play simply because they're not in the mood for that particular choice at the time, others will join because it's exactly what they're looking for. Either way, it's basic courtesy to inform them beforehand so they can decide for themselves. I'm more than willing to believe that the average player is capable of distinguishing between a game where NAPS are expected to be inviolate and one in which they aren't, and modify their behaviour accordingly.
It's also why I think a NAP list is unnecessary. To me, if the players have already agreed NAPS should be inviolate in the game and someone breaks that then they are cheating, and should be treat accordingly (kicked from the game). Like I said though, without specifying at the start of the game that diplomacy was going to be fixed then it's unfair to suddenly decide they apply mid-way through the game.

And to go back to a bit:

Because there is no way to tell whether you are currently playing the sneaky weasel Moloch or the honorable dragon in the current game. For all I know, you could be playing the sneaky weasel dragon all the time.

That's the point. The idea is that you try and work out from current behaviour what his strategy is and plan accordingly. Referring to an external list of past behaviour is the same as using spoilers though :P
It's back to what I said above. If the host had already stated no backstabbing then I'm pretty sure Llamabeast is capable of following that rule even if he has just played a treacherous hag in his previous game. If the host has decided he wants the politicking to make Machiavelli look naive then judging whether a player can be trusted or not is part of the strategy, and thinking a player is going to stick to the same strategy in every such game is probably a fatal mistake ...

[Edi]

Every now and then someone who got burned by a broken NAP in some MP game either posts a thread where the intent is to list "known NAP-breakers" or asks the mods about posting such. This is not the first or second or third time it comes up in a discussion.

The reason such threads have been and will be quashed on sight is that they are nothing but useless flamebait. Broken NAPs are an issue within the specific game (as exemplified by llamabeasts post above with the moloch/dragon example) and discussion of specific NAPs and specific games belong in the appropriate threads. Taking those issues out of the game threads and bringing them out to the wider forum in an attempt to either "warn everyone else" or to just get even amounts to a vendetta against the targeted user and is against the forum rules.

If allowed, the only thing they would do is divide the community into mutually hostile groups and once you were seen to fall into one camp or the other, it would not be long before there would be flaming across group lines even in unrelated discussions. I've seen things like that happen on other forums, so it's useless to try to argue with me that it wouldn't happen here. At my most charitable, I'd consider it ignorant bleating.

So while discussion of NAPs and how binding they should be and when is okay on a general level (such as this thread), any attempted listings of NAP-breakers are not. That kind of trouble will be nipped in the bud, so any such lists people may wish to post they can do on their own web pages, which obviously are not subject to the Shrapnel Forum community rules.

[Jazzepi]

Personally I think this whole discussion is hilarious. Ano's position that some how backstabbing someone IN A GAME is equivalent to real life back stabbing is ridiculous.

I mean, come on, are you going to make an alliance in RISK and then get all pissy because someone backed out on it?

Jazzepi

[Gandalf Parker]

You also cannot have a public list of NAP breakers because the subject has come up a number of times before, and Shrapnel has passed judgement on it.

Gandalf Parker

[konming]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

I don't think this is right. Because in real life, no-one enforces diplomacy. And yet most nations, most of the time, stick roughly to the alliances they've made. Certainly in real life alliances and treaties have some value.

I respectfully disagree.

First, in this game, no one enforces diplomacy either. But people stick to diplomacy acts because breaking them will have consequences in other game. I would like to consider each war roughly equivilant to a dominions game. What you did in last war is surely rememebered in other wars.

No, you cannot compare whole history to a dominions game. Since you do not "backstab and win outrightly". You do not (as of yet) destroy all other countries so you "win" and they are all history and who cares who they think.

[Poopsi]

Yes, I agree. And in fact, you should avoid counterstriking, to show the other party that even if they that dont respect NAPs, you abide by your word

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by WingedDog

You are fighting the windmills, Chris. I don't think ANY of those who breake the NAP really care about being posted. Scoregraphs is your best ingame friend, not the list of untrustworthy players.

You miss the point Wing.. its target isn't the nap breakers - the intended audience are people wanting to know about the person they are going to enter an nap with.


Anyway - I own a couple of domains. If someone wants to develop the page, I don't mind hosting it.