Adjudication on a NAP -edited please comment again

[Ironhawk]

Yeah I dont consider this NAP to be binding. Sombre makes a good point that if he was willing for a 3-turn, it makes logical sense that he would probably accept a 2-turn. But the key word is probably. You cant know with complete assurance what someone else is thinking unless they tell you explicitly. So if you recieved no message of the nature "I agree to these terms" then there is no agreement.

[Baalz]

Yep, I generally don't consider an agreement reached unless one party accepts a proposal from the other without modification.

[triqui]

Ironhawk said:
Yeah I dont consider this NAP to be binding. Sombre makes a good point that if he was willing for a 3-turn, it makes logical sense that he would probably accept a 2-turn. But the key word is probably. You cant know with complete assurance what someone else is thinking unless they tell you explicitly. So if you recieved no message of the nature "I agree to these terms" then there is no agreement.

By the same logic, if he was willing for a 3-turn and you proposed a 5-turn he "probably" would accept as well. However, a Nap2, Nap3 and Nap5 are completelly diferent kind of diplomatical agreements, and sometimes you want to accept a Nap3, but you wont accept a Nap5 or Nap2.

I think this nap is not binding as well

[Loren]

No agreement, no NAP.

I can see his thinking there was, though. He made a proposal, you gave a counterproposal he found acceptable and he went with it. He just goofed in not telling you it was accepted.

[Saxon]

If a counter proposal is made, it is a nice way of saying “no to your proposal. Here is my proposal”. The other person in the negotiation must reply confirming their assent or rejection of the new proposal. If they don’t there is no agreement, just an unfinished negotiation. You are within your rights to attack, there was no NAP.

If I may, in my very limited MP experience, I would like to say that I am rather surprised at how this issue is generally handled. I had expected a lot more rough and tumble real politic and have found instead a real focus on honour. I am undecided about this. It means that I must always play it straight or I will never be able to make a deal in another game. It takes the potential of betrayal and back stabbing out of things. The game of Diplomacy turns on this very issue and I am not convinced that efforts to remove that element from Dominions are all positive. It is nice to know you have an ally you can count on, but it does take some of the tension and gamble out of the game.

[Karlem]

If you want to backstab just do it however use another account to join future games

That's metagame in a "small" comunity. Whatever you do know comes back in future, search function using one user name can give lots of information, probably too much information .

[Aezeal]

I don't think the potential for backstabbing is gone.. I doubt it would be held against you in a new game unless you did it all the time

[Karlem]

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.

[Chris_Byler]

I think Saxon has a point. Part of the player culture of Diplomacy is that lying and treachery are part of the game, just like part of the culture of poker is that bluffing is part of the game. Nobody would refuse to play poker against someone who lied about his cards, and only an idiot would refuse to play Diplomacy against someone who lied about his plans.

Dominions' current MP scene doesn't have that dimension and I think that diminishes it. The presence of multi-game reputations and grudges and players who would rather preserve their "honor" than get ahead in the game they are actually playing right now changes the nature of the game, and IMO, not for the better.

[Aezeal]

btw you can always play under another name