Question about diplomacy - Page 15

licker · #1 September 5th, 2008, 11:12 PM

Ahh you misunderstand. You can hold the grudge, but taking action against that player in an already running game is what I would find offensive, obviously you may change your opinion of them, and react accordingly. Point is, you're in 2 games with this player, and in the 2nd you start ripping him for breaking the NAP in the 1st game. Not relevant to me as a player in that 2nd game, and not a reason to change my approach to that 2nd game. Assume you had NAPs with him in both games, would you assume they were both void if one were broken?

I am not against a NAP breaker list other than for the fact that it will only lead to arguments and grief. Keep one for yourself though if you want to.

I don't define facts as anything other than what you stated. I just don't think his breaking of the NAP is as horrible as you do, for the reasons he gave, and for the FACT that it wasn't a complete back stab (essentially changed the terms to NAP+3).

Again he is going to suffer the consequences of the action (if he actually took it) and everyone would hopefully just move on after making whatever personal decision they want to.

Crust · #2 September 6th, 2008, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by licker

Ahh you misunderstand. You can hold the grudge, but taking action against that player in an already running game is what I would find offensive, obviously you may change your opinion of them, and react accordingly. Point is, you're in 2 games with this player, and in the 2nd you start ripping him for breaking the NAP in the 1st game. Not relevant to me as a player in that 2nd game, and not a reason to change my approach to that 2nd game. Assume you had NAPs with him in both games, would you assume they were both void if one were broken

Of course it's relevant if I have first hand experience that someone does not follow agreements when it suits him. Strategy will have to reflect the devaluation of the NAP. What that would mean exactly would depend on the exact circumstances of the game.

WingedDog · #3 September 6th, 2008, 01:51 AM

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.

chrispedersen · #4 September 7th, 2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

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.

llamabeast · #5 September 6th, 2008, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Yes, and if not for consequences in other games, no one will stick to NAPs.

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.

konming · #6 September 6th, 2008, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Quote:

Yes, and if not for consequences in other games, no one will stick to NAPs.

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.

WingedDog · #7 September 6th, 2008, 05:15 AM

Value of alliance is mutual interests, or some levers one can push on another.

Edratman · #8 September 6th, 2008, 05:18 AM

A thought has occured to me while following this interesting thread.

This thread was initiated on the main forum because the potential NAP breaker knew it was wrong to break the NAP, and was looking for permission/validation to justify his actions.

My 5 cents.

Tifone · #9 September 6th, 2008, 05:20 AM

Excuse me chris, your idea of how this "NAP breakers" list (which i personally abhor in first place) should work seem crazy to me. A list where the only one who posts is judge and jury? no right to even say "but i thought he was plotting against me because this or that" or "we were in a machiavellian politics match"? I find all this quite tyrannical and Big-Brother style

Tifone · #10 September 6th, 2008, 05:24 AM

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