Question about diplomacy

[Kuritza]

Hello.

I'd like to know your disposition towards ingame diplomacy in Dominions, namely truces.
In one such game we've struck a long-time NAP with another side (its a team game), but now they are dominating the game in such maneer that there wont be much left to do once our truce is over.
When I told them that since our party is close to its Apocalypse, we dont want to sit idly and watch, and informed them we're going to attack in 3 turns (as if we had a standard NAP 3) - exactly 5 turns before our original treaty expires.

Player in question made a whole show, treatening to name'n'shame me all over the forum if I do such thing. Others claim they'd break the NAP if they were me rather than losing game by not doing anything.

So, I'd like to know players opinions regarding such matters. Your are welcome.

[ano]

I think it's worth clarifying things a bit...
First, the game situation is very far from what Kuritza describes, believe me.
Second, this agreement was proposed by person who now tries to violate it. We've been engaged into constant never-ending war while their team was killing easy targets and fighting nobody in fact. And as they thought they could grow even fatter until turn 60, they suggested a NAP until then. We really had no choice other than to accept it, because we were fighting several other teams at the moment. As usual...
But all this has nothing to do with the poll. The issue of the poll is not "Will you break an agreement under some circumstances?", it is "Do you think it is possible to break an agreement and not keep your word?". In my opinion, no conditions may justify breaking the word you gave. Otherwise your word costs nothing and everyone should now that you can't be trusted. You always have a choice (in game as well as in real life) - you may either keep your word and lose or not keep it and win but don't expect people to trust you ever again.
And I'm rather surprised with the poll results. I wish it was made public so that everyone could see who thinks that violating agreements is normal and acceptable.

[ano]

And, by the way, I didn't and don't threaten you. I just told you that if you break the agreement I will tell the world about it. And will do the same with anybody who acts in this way.

[Zeldor]

ano:

Poll is not surprising when it comes to question. He made it sound like you have just 1 VP needed to win or smth like that :)

[licker]

I think breaking it is justified if you give the nominal warning. I mean NAPs are all fine and well, but if you wind up NAPed into a corner what are you going to do? Personally (even though I don't do much MP) if you want these kinds of NAPs you should play with team mates and treat everything else as temporary.

The question seems to be do you want to try to win. If you don't, then pick who you want to win and just help them win, playing spoiler is all fine and well, but realize at the same time that you're usually only helping someone else along the way, so as long as you're ok with that its all good.

[WraithLord]

Since behind this poll there's also a live real world issue I'd try my best to tread carefully here. So I want to note that I'm just stating my opinions as objectively as possible. And for the record, I'm also playing in the mentioned game and am one of the guys being trounced by ano's team .

All that said I'd like to say that:
A. I think Kuritza has it right. Esp. about the state of the game. ano's team has the forge and earth well up. Are largest nations, very high on research, have SCs, mind hunt squads and beating the two nations facing them currently. Game is on turn 52 and to me it seems that ano's team are very close to victory.

B. While I sympathize with ano (nobody likes almost sure victory taken from them and much less when broken NAP is involved), I can not see how in a scenario when someone is close to victory and don't even have a normal NAP (NAP+3, NAP+5 etc, instead having a NAP until turn 60) I can not see how he can reasonably expect the NAP to be kept.
In a real world scenario agreements are binding both morally and legally. However, this is a game. Games are for fun. What is the fun of signing a NAP until turn 60 and from turn 40 on watch as the game goes away while you can do 0 about it.

C. Players keep NAP b/c its worthwhile to both parties. When NAP is no more in the interest of one party it can be broken. If it can't be broken then what kind of NAP is it?- Its a peace agreement, or a surrender agreement.

So while I personally usually respect NAPs I would break a NAP in such a scenario. If it were a normal NAP, like a NAP+3 then I'd give notice and that's it. If by some rare reason I have signed a NAP until turn XXX and the game is almost lost 20 or 30 turns before XXX then I'd break that NAP w/o a second thought.

[WraithLord]

ano:

Poll is not surprising when it comes to question. He made it sound like you have just 1 VP needed to win or smth like that :)

No VPs. But IMO (as an involved players) its very close to that. You know at the end game there's this point one can reach with his nation of research, income, lands, deployed SCs that from this point on he can not be stopped anymore. Well I think ano's team is very close to this point.

Maybe Kuritza can show some score graphs along with post, though score graphs alone don't reflect SC power so well, still they could prove a good indication of what's going on.

[Hoplosternum]

The whole Dom 3 community usually takes NAPs as binding. In other mp games I have played treaties have been treated with less respect.

But here a NAP really is binding. Both sides should be aware of that when they sign up. It's only a game and if you have been out played in your treaties then you've been out played. No need to become a treaty breaker to stay competitive, just as most of us wouldn't break a house rule just because another player was getting the better of us.

Personally I don't like long term NAPs and would be very suspicious of signing one under any circumstances. Once I signed up for a NAP for the first two game years with a neighbour to my West (I was against the Eastern MAP edge) only to find my NAP partner had already cut off my only expansion route to the south. I should have scouted more, or even just been more suspicious of what I was signing and done more negociating. I didn't break the pact and chalked it up to experience.

[Kuritza]

Situation is just what I described, dont believe him. :)

First off, hydra-happy Pythium was in no way an easy target for Caelum.
Second, when we offered that truce, you were crushing your neighbours without facing any opposition at all.
Third, you keep posting about how you wage a 'never-ending war' but forget to mention that your first opponent fell without even giving you casualties, and you even attacked his teammate (who also fell fast) - kinda proves that you felt very confident.
Fourth, I did not make a poll about "Do you think it is possible to break an agreement and not keep your word?". Stop twisting my words. It *was* about very special circumstances I have described.

>> He made it sound like you have just 1 VP needed to win or smth like that
Yes, it is something like that. :)

[ano]

WraithLord
Understand that it doesn't matter in fact what the agreement is. The main thing to be thought of is that it IS an agreement and both sides thought more than twice before entering it (not even taking into account the fact that it was not our idea at all). It was proposed by Kuritza's team because they thought they could grow very, very fat by the time turn 60 is reached. It was their decision, they thought of it a lot and should be responsible for it.
I don't really distinguish game and "not-game" and see no difference between keeping your word in game and in real life. If someone breaks his word he is not worth trusting anymore in my opinion.
And game situation has nothing to do with it. At all. Breaking an agreement is only possible if both sides agree to it.

[ano]

Second, when we offered that truce, you were crushing your neighbours without facing any opposition at all.
Wow) You're a liar in addition to all the rest)).
Fourth, I did not make a poll about "Do you think it is possible to break an agreement and not keep your word?". Stop twisting my words. It *was* about very special circumstances I have described.
No circumstances (almost) can justify breaking an agreement be it game or real life. It is my point of view.

I won't comment your posts any more. It makes no sense.

[Kuritza]

>> It was proposed by Kuritza's team because they thought they could grow very, very fat by the time turn 60 is reached.
You try to put words in my mouth, dont you? We offered you that truce because we felt f@$cking hopeless. Ask my teammate if you wish. We saw that your opponents fall one by one, we didnt see ANY way we can change that, so we decided - to hell with this game, lets just sign a treaty with them and have some fun against somebody else before its over.

>> Wow) You're a liar in addition to all the rest)).
Personal insults now? I'm no liar, game history proves me right easily.
And you have just disgraced yourself, congratulations.

[Hoplosternum]

If there are other teams still in the game and fighting Ano's team why not send money, gems and equipment to them to slow Ano up instead? Why is breaking the treaty that his team proposed now acceptable?

<?xml:namTo stop Ano winning you may say, but ultimately one team will win. If everyone can break his treaties when one team gets powerful I am not sure you improve the game. The same thing simply happens later when one of victors gets to a similar position. <O:p

Are all Kuritza’s deals considered void once he hits a certain province/power threshold? Maybe that is not a bad house rule to adopt for games but I think those signing up for the game and the treaties should know in advance that is the score. <O:p

PS I suspect I was the ‘Hydra Happy Pythium’ in this game :) I was a fairly easy kill for Caelum who crushed me early fair and square. But then I started the war so can have no complaints.

[ano]

If there are other teams still in the game and fighting Ano's team why not send money, gems and equipment to them to slow Ano up instead? Why is breaking the treaty that his team proposed now acceptable?
Once again, we didn't propose it.
PS I suspect I was the ‘Hydra Happy Pythium’ in this game.
Yes, it were you;)

[Kuritza]

Hehe :) It wasnt easy for us, trust me. We had to test every damn combat many times, experimenting with items and formations.

[Gandalf Parker]

Be careful. Discuss the subject in general terms only please.
If this gets to be about specific people then it will go away.

[Hoplosternum]

Wow! I didn't imagine I had caused you so much trouble :)

Ano - yes that came out wrong. I meant that Kuritza's team had suggested it but it kind of doesn't read that way :p

What I meant was if Kuritza's team want's to help stop you but have a treaty they can't break in place why don't they help your opponents instead? They say they want to break the treaty to help save the game but they can do that without breaking the treaty. Sometimes a NAP stops you from casting direct spells at your treaty partner but rarely who or what you can give away.

Kuritza's proposal helps his team as much as help save the game from Ano's domination while bank rolling the opposition just helps save the game.

[WraithLord]

WraithLord
Understand that it doesn't matter in fact what the agreement is. The main thing to be thought of is that it IS an agreement and both sides thought more than twice before entering it (not even taking into account the fact that it was not our idea at all). It was proposed by Kuritza's team because they thought they could grow very, very fat by the time turn 60 is reached. It was their decision, they thought of it a lot and should be responsible for it.
I don't really distinguish game and "not-game" and see no difference between keeping your word in game and in real life. If someone breaks his word he is not worth trusting anymore in my opinion.
And game situation has nothing to do with it. At all. Breaking an agreement is only possible if both sides agree to it.

Sure, I understand your point of view and I can tell you that to date I have broken zero NAPs. Then again, I haven't usually signed NAPs of the until turn X kind. Still when I think of it I can't help but get the feeling the the dom community is too much honorable. I mean if you have signed a NAP that puts you in a losing position you should be able to break it.
Imagine you have a NAP until turn 70 and on turn 50 the guy has put AN up, what now?- you have played 50 turns for naught.
Its ok to respect NAPs in game but in ridiculous situations it should be possible to break them.

Its an opinion, my opinion. And I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, just that there are other perspectives.

[ano]

Imagine you have a NAP until turn 70 and on turn 50 the guy has put AN up, what now?- you have played 50 turns for naught.
Perhaps you were thinking about something when you were signing such agreement, weren't you? Maybe, you should have stated some conditions which could automatically break the agreement (In our situation condition could be not casting FotA or similar spell). And once again, it was a decision you made and so you and you only should be responsible for it. It was your mistake and if it costs you a game then all you may do is be a bit wiser next time.

[Agema]

There are no hard and fast "rules" regarding NAPs - it's all convention. You can and should be as honourable or treacherous as you like. The trade-off for the advantage of backstabbing is that your reputation, both within the game you're playing and in the general community will suffer. It's up to players to decide whether to take that risk - personally, I think the long term damage is far worse than the short-term gain, but that's me. If players want NAPs to be utterly binding in a game, they should make it a condition of play during the set-up.

The situation listed here is just about the only situation in serious play where I'd think it's not dishonourable to break a NAP. If an opponent is so close to victory that there isn't time to cancel the NAP, by all means launch a sneak attack. You're playing to win, after all. Anyone in the position of being about to win should really be prepared for everyone left to attack at any moment to stop them.

[Crust]

Don't agree to a NAP you can't live with down the road. Don't break a NAP without being prepared to be known as someone who breaks NAPs.

[Herode]

Huh, I voted "yep!" but after reading this thread, I see that I misunderstood the expression : "to break a NAP".

In my mind, if I have a NAP 5 with a player and if I say : "end of the NAP, I'll attack you in 5 turns", that I called breaking the NAP. Just a normal thing. I voted "yes" with that meaning in mind.

Now, I see that "breaking a NAP" would mean here me telling the guy : "Hello ! We have a NAP 5 but I'll attack you in 2 turns anyway because [whatever]".
Here, my answer is definitely : no, I don't break any NAP because it's useless to make promises if you don't respect your word. If you've been waiting for too long before putting an end to the NAP, then it's your fault and you deserve to loose :smirk:

So : no matter what the context is : a pact has to be respected. If you don't, nobody will trust you later. Period.

And please count -1 yes and +1 no on your poll.
BTW, I am amazed and worried by the number of positive votes...

[Hoplosternum]

BTW, I am amazed and worried by the number of positive votes...

So am I :shock:

[Poopsi]

In general I´d say that word is bond, but a NAP (not an alliance, mind you, a NAP)? in a game where "in the end, there can be only one"?

I´d say in these circumstances a Non Aggression Pact is not as much a guarantee of peace as it is of delayed conflict. Sooner or later someone will break it.

[ano]

Don't agree to a NAP you can't live with down the road. Don't break a NAP without being prepared to be known as someone who breaks NAPs.
I have nothing to add.
BTW, I am amazed and worried by the number of positive votes...
+1

[Ironhawk]

In general, I think that (any roleplaying games aside) a player should stick to all agreements that they make. The single exception is if the other party is going to win the game out from under you. IMO, this is the only justifiable reason to violate an agreement. And even then, it should never be done lightly.

[licker]

I think the difficulty is that people value NAP differently from Alliance.

If you sign an Alliance then that is until the end of days, or until the two parties agree to break it, but honestly it sounds like the people who expect these NAPs to be arbitrarily binding don't want to actually use diplomacy.

Its all fine and well to say 'don't sign a NAP you don't want to keep' but my guess is that unless you want to force rather cumbersome definitions and conditions into your agreements it's not really worth the head ache.

More likely you'd see someone agree to one of these NAPs once, and then realize how utterly ridiculous they are and never agree to them again, so the reputation issue probably isn't as much of a consideration as people here think.

It gets back to why you play the game though, if you think you have a chance to win and realize that your 'partner' (though there are no true partners...) is going to beat you to the goal what are your choices?

If that's your approach just go AI and be done with it.

[thejeff]

There is a difference between being completely untrustworthy where NAPs and other deals have no meaning whatsoever and breaking a pact to avoid losing the game.

Would I trust someone less who did this? Yes. Especially when I started to get too powerful.

Would I never trust them again? No. I have no reason to believe he'd break a deal under normal circumstances. Breaking a deal to keep someone from winning is different than breaking one just to grab some of their land (or whatever.) And he didn't sneak attack, but gave 3 turns of warning.

Personally, I suspect the main lesson is to avoid long-term pacts like this one. The game can change too much, too quickly. I have made deals for peace until a particular enemy is beaten, but that's much more situational.

[konming]

Breaking NAP when the other party grows too powerful reflects either his poor judgement (when signing the NAP) or his poor character. Either way, I personally would not sign anything in good faith with him ever again.


We offered you that truce because we felt f@$cking hopeless. Ask my teammate if you wish. We saw that your opponents fall one by one, we didnt see ANY way we can change that, so we decided - to hell with this game, lets just sign a treaty with them and have some fun against somebody else before its over.


I think this is a good example. One party seems desperate not to be an target and proposed a NAP so the powerful party will attack someone else. When the weaker party became not so desperate (maybe under the protection of said NAP) and maybe even has a chance to win, he finds his previous dealing inconvinient. Well, you be the judge.

[Dedas]

Ah, the good old NAP discussion. Just wanted to say I voted YES. If you want to know why just do a simple search on NAPs. There are plenty to choose from.

[Kuritza]

I think this is a good example. One party seems desperate not to be an target and proposed a NAP so the powerful party will attack someone else. When the weaker party became not so desperate (maybe under the protection of said NAP) and maybe even has a chance to win, he finds his previous dealing inconvinient. Well, you be the judge.

Fail. We were not going to be their next target, absolutely. We just knew they are going to win game, I was worried about Agartha/Tien Chi combination since turn 1, and we wanted to have our share of fun as well. And we had.
But other parties asked me to reconsider the truce, urgently and repeatedly. So I did what I though will be right - proposed to break the NAP that allows them to win this game unchallenged, and even give them 3 turns to prepare as if we had a standard agreement.

Anyway - screw this, I'm waiting for turn 60. Not worth the nerves, I have already been called a liar by a liar in this thread.
Oh, and of course as someone's said, I'm not entering long-term agreements anymore. Something to be learned out of this game.

[Edratman]

I love these MP threads that make it to the main forum. ALWAYS interesting.

I voted No.

You agreed to a set of conditions and they didn't work out in your favor. So what. As you said, "It's just a game".

Learn and go on. It is more honorable to keep your word. And that is life honor, not game honor.

Ask yourself what your thoughts would be if you were on the better side of the agreement. How would you feel if somone proposed to renege on an agreement because it was futile for them to continue?

"It's just a game." I'm guessing here, but I'm willing to bet that the entrance exam at heaven doesn't ask about your won/lost record in Dom3 MP but probably will ask if you ever broke your word.

[Crust]

Its all fine and well to say 'don't sign a NAP you don't want to keep' but my guess is that unless you want to force rather cumbersome definitions and conditions into your agreements it's not really worth the head ache.

Any agreement that lasts a fixed amount of time is dangerous since you don't know what the future brings. If the agreement is for a long time it's pretty much guaranteed it will begin to hurt one party before it ends. I'd avoid such pacts.

[licker]

As would I, but I'm thinking more that there are two camps of people, those who assume NAPs as permanent unbreakable restrictive walls, and those who don't look at the fine print (even when it doesn't exist).

Obviously to get around this you have to either be willing to accept a somewhat underspecified NAP getting broken (so long as reasonable reason is given) or you have to hammer in all the clauses you are worried about.

In the case specified here I would be fine (though unhappy) with the NAP being broken as outlined (with 'fair' warning). Its not as though the breaker is doing a surprise attack.

Diplomacy should be more than just NAP to turn 60 and then stop talking.

[Aapeli]

I think people should include some information about the meaning of naps in the game in to the first post when they post about the game. Meaning that they should tell what naps stand for him, the host, and what everybody should think about them in that game. I tend to think it makes the game more interesting if agreements are nothing but mere words, as in real life. But of course its just my opinion.

[WraithLord]

Enter dominions III the game of high fantasy and bloody wars, Err the game of pen and paper and crafty lawyers :D

Just kidding though it would seem dom community is much too honorable, given that we're talking about a game, and that we're not talking break a NAP+3 or something. We're talking about breaking a long term NAP that gives one side a victory and the other a sure loss.

But anyway, as a player who never broke a NAP in the past I'm probably not a good indication of the un-honorable.

[licker]

Honestly back when I was doing MP Dom2 I don't remember NAPs being this big of a sticking point. Then again it may have just been the group of guys I normally MPed with. NAPs were occasionally broken early, but rarely with a surprise attack, unless the surprise led to an immediate victory (and in that case more power to the winner...).

Seems to me if you rely solely on the NAP to defend yourself and your NAPper can basically crush you out with a coordinated strike that's on you, not him. Of course if all he can do is poach a couple of provinces then its pretty stupid of him to break the NAP.

I don't know, maybe I'm more paranoid than most, but at some point in the game you have to figure everyone who has a chance is going to try to actually win and not just wait around for someone else to do it.

As I said earlier, if that's your expectation play in defined team games, or exercise more care in your diplomatic dealings with your neighbors.

[Darkwind]

I skipped the whole argument which seems to be about the MP situation that preceded this thread and say that yes, if you're about to lose (or think you will) I think you should go for it and break the treaty. They're words, nothing more, and this is not real life but a game. From a role-playing standpoint, no wannabe god is going to let someone (or something) else take his (her, or its) fame. From a game standpoint, well, it's much funner to lose fighting to the bitter end in an epic war full of many SCs, powerful mages, and massive aermies (massive armies optional) then to lose because your enemy could defeat you within a year due to you not having the cojones to break your NAP and save yourself. Not that there's anything wrong with honor; the diplomatic ramifications of breaking an NAP are generally going to be far and wide and possibly involve being steamrolled by elephants within the first year of another game because you broke an NAP once (maybe with someone else).

[JimMorrison]

>> It was proposed by Kuritza's team because they thought they could grow very, very fat by the time turn 60 is reached.
You try to put words in my mouth, dont you? We offered you that truce because we felt f@$cking hopeless. Ask my teammate if you wish. We saw that your opponents fall one by one, we didnt see ANY way we can change that, so we decided - to hell with this game, lets just sign a treaty with them and have some fun against somebody else before its over.


It still begs the question "why make a NAP with someone who sees it like this?".

So, if you had approached Ano, and instead of saying, "Hi, we would like a mutual NAP until turn 60 so we can focus on other people", you had instead said, "OMG please leave us alone until we find the opportune time to kick you in the balls". -- Do you think that he would have accepted.

Erego, if you arbitrarily break the agreement that had a set ending point (this is why people favor ordinary NAP3 BTW, 3 turns notice is given, and honor is preserved), then it becomes harder for others to trust you later. There is a bit of "suspension of disbelief" involved in diplomacy in games like this. It is foolish to claim that anyone thinks they are not benefiting from their diplomacy - even when violently forced, they enter that agreement because it is a more promising option than death. So again, why should anyone spare you from death, if they know you will just strike back from the shadows?


People like to fall back to "RP reasoning" for all of this. It's bullocks. The pretenders would not toss NAPs around like people do, so if you play 3/4 of the game out as a person, with human reasoning, then it's quite unfair to in the late game suddenly say, "But my pretender hates you vile scum, and will do anything to see you perish!". Well, THAT entity likely would never have signed a peace agreement, or vice versa. You just can't have it both ways. Thematically, diplomacy should be almost nonexistent in this game. So by objective reasoning, 90% of all agreements you make, have no basis but your human, gameplaying machinations. So if you break a treaty out of hand, it is you doing it.


So to sum up - if you make a treaty, you bought the results, it was your choice. If you break a treaty, you can also hardly complain about the repercussions, it was your choice.

[ano]

WraithLord
Just kidding though it would seem dom community is much too honorable, given that we're talking about a game, and that we're not talking break a NAP+3 or something. We're talking about breaking a long term NAP that gives one side a victory and the other a sure loss.
I still don't see any difference between these agreements. Once again, it was their suggestion and decision to enter such agreement and if they did enter it they should be responsible for the consequences.
Btw, I understand everything but saying "sure loss" is a bit early and you overestimate our powers. It is only turn 52 now and 13 nations alive. Some are stronger, some are weaker but there's no absolute and unquestionable leader who is higher as all the others. Yes, we have power, yes, we have some sc's but we are not THAT powerful now as you try to describe.

[licker]

I still don't see any difference between these agreements. Once again, it was their suggestion and decision to enter such agreement and if they did enter it they should be responsible for the consequences.


Uhh...

And how are they not being responsible for the consequences?

You can whine about it all you want, but in the end everyone should do what they think they need to do to win right? Or would you just sit there and watch some one else win when you had the ability to stop them?

Look I get what you're saying about this NAP, but I think all NAPs are meaningless if one side is ready to win the game, of course you can argue all you want about whether or not you have that kind of lead, I don't know, and I don't care.

What matters is what your neighbor thinks, and what gives them a chance. I don't see this as being an outright stab either, he's giving you 3 turns, changing the nature of the NAP on the fly. Big deal? To you it is, since you obviously think it will ruin your chance to win, but that's the whole point of playing the game isn't it?!?!???

You are of course free to carry over hard feelings to the next game, and to try and poison his reputation if you want, but realize that's a double edged sword. The more you slag on him, the less likely others may be to enter agreements with you in other games since they won't want to deal with the possibility that you get bent out of shape and slag them publicaly.

Personally I find all these instances of people taking out their frustrations on other people in OTHER games to be much much worse than someone breaking a NAP in the first place.

[WraithLord]

Since the topic is (or was supposed) to be general I'll try to answer in general terms, that what I state is my opinion. I do think there's a difference between breaking a NAP+3 (bad!) and breaking a NAP+30 or some such b/c you think the other side is on the brink of victory. This is my opinion, I could never exercise it in real game since I'd never accept the latter agreement.

Sure there is an element of he agreed or wanted this NAP let him suck it up but there's also an element that in dynamic game like dominions such long term NAP can put one of the parties in an unreasonable (from a fun game standpoint) point where he must do nothing while losing the game.

A word about our game. I honestly think you're very close to winning. This is my opinion based on all the intel I have. I may be wrong of course, but I'm stating my opinion as I see things, not trying to create a false show. Nothing wrong with you winning, your team plays very well and if other players made mistakes along the way (some of them diplomatic, other passive) well its their problem, and you're free and right to rip the rewards :)

[thejeff]

>> It was proposed by Kuritza's team because they thought they could grow very, very fat by the time turn 60 is reached.
You try to put words in my mouth, dont you? We offered you that truce because we felt f@$cking hopeless. Ask my teammate if you wish. We saw that your opponents fall one by one, we didnt see ANY way we can change that, so we decided - to hell with this game, lets just sign a treaty with them and have some fun against somebody else before its over.

It still begs the question "why make a NAP with someone who sees it like this?".

So, if you had approached Ano, and instead of saying, "Hi, we would like a mutual NAP until turn 60 so we can focus on other people", you had instead said, "OMG please leave us alone until we find the opportune time to kick you in the balls". -- Do you think that he would have accepted.


Do you really see no difference between "the opportune time to kick you in the balls" and "we might as well just go AI, because by the time the treaty is up, you'll be unstoppable"?
(I'm not in this game, so I can't comment on whether they'll be unstoppable by turn 60 or not, so I'm speaking generically.)
The first is obviously bad, the second is what we're disputing. Is it valid to break a deal when that's the only way to keep someone from winning? Or from achieving such dominance they can't be stopped?

And I'd feel fine making a deal with someone who saw things like that. I'd just be wary if I was getting too dominant. But I would still expect him to honor the deal if I was vulnerable because of another war, for example.

[Edi]

Yes, I'd break it. There's being honorable and then there's just being goddamn stupid. I would think less of anyone who actually held to the NAP down into death and defeat if they could have made a fight of it by breaking it.

I would warn the person I was breaking the NAP with to the effect that "Sorry, would have liked to hold it but deal's done because otherwise I have no fighting chance." Doesn't mean I'd automatically break NAPs in future games. I prefer to hold to my word, but anyone who takes NAPs as ironclad restrictions that cannot ever be deviated from even when it's the only viable choice for survival is living in la-la land.

[Crust]

Your word is your word, some will break it if doing that benefits you, some wont.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Since I don't play MP via these forums but with friends, I probably have a very different approach to diplomacy than that which appears, from the statements earlier in the thread, to be the general case here.

Namely the case that diplomacy appears to be about assurances divinely held sacred as if they were a part of the game itself and imposing strict in-game limitations on actions rather than being mutually beneficial agreements that you have to nurture to maintain and, as such, are likely to be broken when one party thinks it is no longer of advantage to itself to follow it and the disadvantages of being known to break an agreement in a particular game are less than the advantages.

I realize I won't change your minds on the NAP issue if what you prefer playing with is a NAP that must be obeyed just as if it was an actual in-game rule (which it is not) - it is a convention of your gameplay, and if that's how you like to play it, that's certainly fair enough, but from a practical perspective it is nothing more than a convention - there's certainly no rational argument for why it should be that way, and there's no reason to expect your opponents to play by such player created rules unless they've agreed to do so.

In fact, diplomacy where verbal or written agreements between players must be kept no matter the circumstances is in general in games considerably less interesting and presents fewer opportunities to excel at the art of diplomacy than games running a more commonly accepted convention in board and card games featuring intrigue and player elimination: Anything that is agreed between players to be done "now" in the current turn must be done, anything that is agreed for the future is enforced solely by the might and diplomatic capabilities of the players involved. (That is again only one convention and not necessarily the one you'll have most fun with, but it makes for considerably more challenging diplomacy and demonstrates one of the core values of real-life diplomacy: false security.)

If I'm playing with my friends and I agree an alliance, a turn limited NAP, a truce, or any other diplomatic relationship lasting more then the current turn, then I expect my great friend and wonderful player, who'm I'll liberally praise while searching for the right place to knife him in the back come the day I need him no longer, to follow it so long as the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages of not doing so and not a moment longer. Of course, there are advantages to "doing the right thing" and being a "man of your word", so betraying somebody has a significant negative impact on your diplomatic abilities long-term in the same game in most cases, which requires an equally significant advantage to make betrayal worth it... but that's just one aspect of the evaluation of whether to break an agreement or not.

I'll regret it publicly when the nasty deed gets done and appeal to world peace, the international order, or the maintenance of the balance of power... should I be the one betrayed... and I'll explain why it was a necessity to break with the untrustworthy ruthless powermongering bastard, who was clearly setting up his game plan for an overwhelming attack on myself, which I only twarted by preempting him at the last possible moment, sacrificing myself for the good of all.... should I be the one doing the betraying. (Actually, to better sell this idea, I'll of course be buttering up the other players who are not directly affected preferably one or two turns in advance - it risks being counter-betrayed or preempted, but establishing the moral high ground and laying the foundations for general acceptance of your actions amongst those who might tip either way is usually very important in game where diplomacy really matters)

Now, THAT is part of what real diplomacy is about in the sort of games I like to play, including Dominions 3 MP, diplomacy that does not force compliance with your words when you no longer intend to honour them - diplomacy where your ability to nurture a strategic relationship is as important as your ability to get somebody to sign an agreement with you in the first place.

....So to answer the poll - in the situation as described, I'd break the agreement in a heartbeat unless I had explicitly agreed to a convention of enforcing agreements regardless of what's happening in the game. :)

Backstab, betray, deceive, and destroy as necessary, aid, selflessly sacrifice, work for the common good when it benefits yourself..... all these make for wonderful moments in diplomacy, even though they do tend to create short-lived bursts of temper.... so long as players don't bring grudges from one game to another or let the actions in one game affect their actions in another. Somebody pulled a clever betrayal of you in one game that you didn't see coming? Good for them, that's a good lesson for you to be more wary in the future and perhaps even more diplomatically aggressive - next time it might be your knife in somebody's back. :)

[Dedas]

Well said!

[Psycho]

Great post, I loved it. That's how real diplomacy works. Where's the fun if not in plotting and scheming.

[Crust]

Is anyone forced to agree to something they won't stick to? What exactly is the problem with telling people someone did not follow an agreement?

After that everyone is free to make up their own mind, and assuming people will act in accordance to their own interest is always a safe bet, assuming you can figure out what they think their interest is.

Consistently sticking to your word is a hindrance unless people know you to do so, in which case it may still be a hindrance since it makes you more predictable.

[chrispedersen]

Since behind this poll there's also a live real world issue I'd try my best to tread carefully here. So I want to note that I'm just stating my opinions as objectively as possible. And for the record, I'm also playing in the mentioned game and am one of the guys being trounced by ano's team .

All that said I'd like to say that:
A. I think Kuritza has it right. Esp. about the state of the game. ano's team has the forge and earth well up. Are largest nations, very high on research, have SCs, mind hunt squads and beating the two nations facing them currently. Game is on turn 52 and to me it seems that ano's team are very close to victory.

B. While I sympathize with ano (nobody likes almost sure victory taken from them and much less when broken NAP is involved), I can not see how in a scenario when someone is close to victory and don't even have a normal NAP (NAP+3, NAP+5 etc, instead having a NAP until turn 60) I can not see how he can reasonably expect the NAP to be kept.
In a real world scenario agreements are binding both morally and legally. However, this is a game. Games are for fun. What is the fun of signing a NAP until turn 60 and from turn 40 on watch as the game goes away while you can do 0 about it.

C. Players keep NAP b/c its worthwhile to both parties. When NAP is no more in the interest of one party it can be broken. If it can't be broken then what kind of NAP is it?- Its a peace agreement, or a surrender agreement.

So while I personally usually respect NAPs I would break a NAP in such a scenario. If it were a normal NAP, like a NAP+3 then I'd give notice and that's it. If by some rare reason I have signed a NAP until turn XXX and the game is almost lost 20 or 30 turns before XXX then I'd break that NAP w/o a second thought.


If you look at my thread about RNap's - this is why I think certain globals should automatically terminate a NAP. Forge is a case in point - a longterm nap with the casting of of forge basically ensures a victory.

LIkewise, if the victory conditions are not complete annihilation, then naps should have an out, when it becomes clear that one party threatens to become dominant.

[chrispedersen]

Great post, I loved it. That's how real diplomacy works. Where's the fun if not in plotting and scheming.

Could not disagree more.
Put me in the 'no' column.

[licker]

If you look at my thread about RNap's - this is why I think certain globals should automatically terminate a NAP. Forge is a case in point - a longterm nap with the casting of of forge basically ensures a victory.

LIkewise, if the victory conditions are not complete annihilation, then naps should have an out, when it becomes clear that one party threatens to become dominant.

Uhh...

So why did you vote no then?

I mean you may not like how peter does things, but clearly you don't think these things are set in stone either.

I think the issue with the NAP under discussion (from the game, not the hypothetical) is that the two parties had different interpretations of what NAP means and what it takes for it to be acceptable to break an underdefined NAP.

Well more's the pity for them if they didn't set up all the caveats up front, but playing with rule lawyers sucks, and it would seem the spirit of the game should ultimately trump anyones hard feelings over this kind of an issue.

And again, the spirit of the game is try to win correct?

[Dedas]

Rule-lawyers suck. Crushing your enemies with a devilish plan and lots of deception rule. That simple.

[GrudgeBringer]

Let me pose a question as I am not in the game and know none of the players.

This actually happened in my first MP game and we all had something to say about it.

I hope it gives a different perspective to your discussion.

Player A was in a 15 turn, 3/turn notice NAP with player B.

Player A was also in a Immediate Mutual defense Treaty with player C.

Well of course player B attacked player C (sigh...who didn't see that coming).

Player A annonced that he had a treaty to help Player C Immediately and was terminating his Long term Nap with player B and was attacking the next turn UNLESS player B ceased his invasion of player C.

(hope you followed all that)

As expected an argument of the same sort that your facing broke out.

Some of us said that an agreement was an agreement and the deciding factor should be which was made first.

Others said that was an excuse and you could always have 2 or 3 of those Immediate Defense Agreements so ANY time you wanted you could break your NAP because someone was ALWAYS starting a war with someone.

As usual there is never a clear right and wrong.

However, One thing I have learned and has worked for me and a number of others is this (and there will be some that think its too open).

When you make a treaty you post it on your individual game forum (I know it screws up 'secret treaties' but I think you all will agree they are screwed up here anyway).

Then when something changes you can post your 3 turn warning and if he doesn't check the board, its his own fault when he's attacked (no PM required).

It also makes Player C think twice before attacking player B if he knows in advance that Player A will go to the defence of his announced Immediate Defense Pact.

Last thought... all of this STILL doesn't work if any of the players are not honorable (I think Honor is what it is all about, but I also know that circumstances DO change) and won't honor anything.

But players know in thier heart what happened and who they agreed with BUT will usually keep that in mind when playing with that person agian.

SORRY for butting into your conversation, just wanted to say how we handled it.

Thanaks

[ano]

As expected an argument of the same sort that your facing broke out.
No, it is a bit different situation. It is the agreement collision and in the situation we're talking about there's only one agreement and thus no collision.
Btw, I find mutual defense agreements a bit strange and worthless but that is only my opinion.

[GrudgeBringer]

LOL...actually I agree, I just said they had one.

I like the idea of posting on the individual game site the agreement when made and when over...there is never a argument unless you can't count to 3 before attacking....

Just my opinion:)

[sector24]

[quote]I find mutual defense agreements a bit strange and worthless but that is only my opinion.

Where were you during WWI? We could've scrapped the whole thing! :p

[GrudgeBringer]

BTW, after reading it agian you are right. It is somewhat different.

You ARE talking about a Collision of thoughts in 1 agreement type.

We had more than 1 agreement type collide,

Different situation

Sorry for butting in gentlemen...:doh:

[JimMorrison]

(.....)


You make good points, that I personally don't feel hold value in a game that happens to involve many strangers, and takes months to unfold. If people want to be evil scheming bastards, in a community such as this, that is their prerogative. However, you will find the community torn into two camps. The first camp, being the "honorable and noble men of their word", who will only only do business with one another, not wanting to negotiate with someone who, as you basically put it, is currently looking for the place in your back where the knife goes. Then the other camp, the "evil scheming bastards", will have no choice but to only negotiate with eachother, because no one whose word is worth a damn is going to want to deal with a liar, a thief, or a backastabber.

I've played in other communities where games took ~2 months, and in one of them, the general convention was that if someone broke a NAP without observing the agreed upon terms, they were generally subject to a game-wide gangbang. Unless people were embroiled in a life-or-death fight at that very moment, they would tend to drop what they were doing, to grab a piece of the one whose word was worth nothing.



Do you really see no difference between "the opportune time to kick you in the balls" and "we might as well just go AI, because by the time the treaty is up, you'll be unstoppable"?
(I'm not in this game, so I can't comment on whether they'll be unstoppable by turn 60 or not, so I'm speaking generically.)
The first is obviously bad, the second is what we're disputing. Is it valid to break a deal when that's the only way to keep someone from winning? Or from achieving such dominance they can't be stopped?

There is a price for every deal made, no exceptions. If no money or goods are exchanged, then the price is the value of your word, and your "honor", so to speak. When the terms of the agreement are fulfilled, you may redeem them for the full purchase price of the "value of your word", plus a small dividend in the value of your word. If you break it early, you will not be compensated by honor, sympathy, or admiration.




Also, this whole situation cracks me up. Such a big stink, about deciding 5 turns before a timed NAP ends, that giving 3 turn notice (that's not part of the agreement), is the answer between failure, and possible victory. I completely fail to see why it's better to attack on turn 58 with 3 turns notice, than to attack on turn 60 with no notice at all. This wasn't a "let's meet back and war ON turn 60" agreement, but merely an agreement not to fight before then. If the other party is hip-deep in another war, then silence is the best option, by far, especially if it only costs an extra 2 turns that can be spent building and preparing.



Obviously the moral here - Don't NAP anyone significantly smaller than you, or they are apparently totally justified in dishonoring that NAP. The converse of course, do not NAP anyone significantly stronger than you, or you will be tempted to break the NAP, and cause a giant piss-storm that could threaten your cornflakes.

[licker]

Or just realize that playing with these iron clad NAPs makes for rather boring games all around.

YMMV

[JimMorrison]

Or just realize that playing with these iron clad NAPs makes for rather boring games all around.

YMMV


Well, one thing I find terribly boring, is to end 60 hours worth of my gaming time, with a lie. Maybe it's just my upbringing. My father backstabbed in a game of MULE when I was 12. I was clearly winning until he did so.

What did I learn from that? Don't betray your friends, because that's f***ed up. I consider the people here (largely) as friends. This is a friendly game here, not high stakes poker. Don't give your word if you don't mean it - it makes people not like you - and who wants to play a game for 3 months with someone that they don't like....?


Trust me, I understand the cutthroat style "logic". I just don't agree that it applies in THIS community.

[Dedas]

It doesn't apply to the community, it applies to the game.

In the game you play to win. To do this you use what means you have at your disposal (except cheating), because that is the goal of the game.

On the forum you make friends and obey the forum rules. To do this you respect your fellow forumites, and that includes being honest and keeping your word - just as you would do in the real world.

A game of Dominions 3 = a tiny universe with its own clearly stated rules (the game code). Here you play someone else (a pretender).

The Forum = Part of the real world with similar rules and laws. Here you are yourself.

Cheers! :)

[WingedDog]

Maybe administrator of the game should post NAP rules in the game thread to avoid such disputes, so those who honor NAP and those who always deceive, backstab, lure into a trap and expect the same from the others play separate games.

[llamabeast]

I think that's really a very good idea. The main reason for the disagreements is that people are working on different assumptions about how honor applies in a game. If, however, people signed up to a game in which it was specified that NAPs should not be broken, I would be very surprised if anyone broke one. In other games, where it was specified that Machiavellian politics should be used, people could hardly be upset if they were backstabbed.

[Kuritza]

By the way, in one of my first games I was approached by another player who offered an alliance against third party. It was a 'nap until the war against Pythium is over'.
Just a few turns later he attacked me, with all my troops at Pythiums border. He explained that he never entered the war against Pythium in the first place, hence his word didnt bind him.
Was I angry? Hell I was. But I understood him. It was wicked, and it was veeeery far-stretched, but such things happen - all is fair in love and war. Of course, words are to be kept - otherwise they wont be believed next time. But sometimes curcumstances do apply, 'all is fair in love and war'.
But of course, when you have a victory almost in your grasp, its hard not to get mad at the one who tries to thwart you.

[Archonsod]

Well more's the pity for them if they didn't set up all the caveats up front,

Bang on. If you want to play with inviolate NAP's or for that matter any other house rule, whether it's no SC's or disallowing certain globals, then you should agree it with the other players beforehand. It takes less than five minutes for the host to list any house rules they want in the game, or for that matter for any number of reasonable players to agree to certain restrictions or a certain style of play, it prevents these situations occurring and usually means a much better time for all concerned. The other advantage of course is that if a player disagrees with particular restrictions they can give up their slot and let someone else play.

With other groups I play with, whether it's board games or computer games, we follow a golden rule that if no house rules or similar restrictions are announced at the start of the game then the only rules applicable are those enforced by the game. Sucks to be on the receiving end of a double cross when you thought you had a binding agreement, but at the same time it's also unfair to the other players to suddenly decide some rule applies halfway through the game (particularly when you're in a strong position).

In this situation I'd be inclined to apply said rule and say the pact can be broken this time. I'd also encourage all parties to seek clarification of such rules BEFORE starting the game next time.

[Poopsi]

Well, one thing I find terribly boring, is to end 60 hours worth of my gaming time, with a lie. Maybe it's just my upbringing. My father backstabbed in a game of MULE when I was 12. I was clearly winning until he did so.

What did I learn from that? Don't betray your friends, because that's f***ed up.
Actually, I´d say the actual lesson to be learned from there is "Trust noone". :p

[Crust]

I don't really see how you can get around the reputation thing no matter what. Even if there are no "house rules" against breaking your word someone known for following agreements will be in a different position when it comes to diplomacy than someone known to backstab at the first opportunity.

[Dedas]

I don't really see how you can get around the reputation thing no matter what. Even if there are no "house rules" against breaking your word someone known for following agreements will be in a different position when it comes to diplomacy than someone known to backstab at the first opportunity.

Then that person probably deserves it because backstabbing at first opportunity doesn't sound like a good strategy. Everything that makes you predictable is bad in that sense.

[Tifone]

Keeping in mind that this is a GAME, I'd break my word without fearing ripercussion on my REAL honour lol - expecially if I find funny to roleplay my race of crazy everburning daemons and I see a small-mid-long term advantage in playing the bastard. And I would find it funny to be betrayed too, shame on me for trusting those slimy lizard ppl ^_^

If *obviously* the house rules permit this, as I would hope ^^

[WingedDog]

I don't really see how you can get around the reputation thing no matter what.

Yep, indeed, thank God not a single guy with bad reputation is smart enough to change his account name.

[Meursy]

This is a very interesting discussion! I'd like to add my two cents :)

After reading the whole thread, I've noticed a number of people on the 'no breaking NAP' side seem to be angry. Read their posts again. I see a lot of serious and emotive language being used, and an overarching implication that anybody who breaks NAP's in game is an inherently bad person in real life.

I don't see this anger from the 'break NAP ok' side.

I'd rather not get angry over a game, it seems to defeat the purpose, and is definitely negative for me as a person. Such a waste of energy!

An early contributor to this thread stated that 'no breaking NAP's' was this community's standard. The following discussion proves this to clearly not be the case! :) The community seems to hold a range of views on the topic, so in the absence of a clear view "backstab possible" must logically be the default stance on this topic.

The suggestion to specify whether NAP's are 100% binding before the start of the game seems very sensible and should end the debate. "Backstab possible" can be the default, "backstab not possible" can be specified before the game is started.

I believe it is incumbent upon people wanting NAPs to be binding to start their own games with this rule (which btw would be a much more effective solution than trying to get unbreakable NAPs coded into the game!)

Any further debate represents a desire by the 'no break' side to impose their will on the entire gaming community. You may be in the moral right, who knows, but don't waste your time guys, it's never going to happen! :)

The 'break ok' side have raised no concerns with people starting 'no break' games, so the solution is clear. (I reckon)


P.S. I wouldn't break an NAP unless the game was about to be lost (reputation is important!), but I feel the default should be 'break NAP ok', so I have sympathies for both sides!

[Meursy]

Re: getting unbreakable NAPs getting coded into the game

Or into the DOM playing population's heads!

[WraithLord]

()


Couldn't agree more.

[Crust]

The issue is pretty simple really. People are free to break agreements and people are free to let others know when that happens. There's no need for any special "NAPs are 100% binding" rules. How would that be enforced anyway? By whom?

[Archonsod]

I don't really see how you can get around the reputation thing no matter what. Even if there are no "house rules" against breaking your word someone known for following agreements will be in a different position when it comes to diplomacy than someone known to backstab at the first opportunity.

Yes, they'll be seen as gullible fools who'll happily let you build up enough force to crush their empire utterly without raising a finger to stop you :p

Depends on the game and the players and whether they can read the relative strength charts. A lot of it is bluffing, politic and social skills though. Whether you stick to agreements or break them with glee isn't as important as how you make it appear. A good player who regularly backstabs and manages to last well into the game will be careful to spin it in such a way that they appear strong enough to do what they like. A bad player needs to be careful to avoid diplomatic isolation or having their opponents believe they are desperate for more territory (and thus probably weaker than themselves)
The same applies to the opposite approach. A good player will convince their opponents that the reason they have long standing alliances is because nobody else dare attack them. Again, if they're not careful it may look like they are seeking stronger allies because they are incapable of fending for themselves.
Reputation across games should never be relied on. A good player will use any pre-conceived notions of how they play against you - switching from one style of play to the other can be useful to gull regular opponents into believing you are stronger than you actually are, or conversely trick them into attacking early because you appear weak.

[Crust]

I don't really see how you can get around the reputation thing no matter what. Even if there are no "house rules" against breaking your word someone known for following agreements will be in a different position when it comes to diplomacy than someone known to backstab at the first opportunity.

Yes, they'll be seen as gullible fools who'll happily let you build up enough force to crush their empire utterly without raising a finger to stop you :p

The position will be different, not necessarily better. I'm not saying I think NAPs should be binding in the sense that they would be enforced in any way, the point is that one should not complain if breaking your word affects how others value it in the future.

[chrispedersen]

This is a very interesting discussion! I'd like to add my two cents :)

After reading the whole thread, I've noticed a number of people on the 'no breaking NAP' side seem to be angry. Read their posts again. I see a lot of serious and emotive language being used, and an overarching implication that anybody who breaks NAP's in game is an inherently bad person in real life.

I don't see this anger from the 'break NAP ok' side.

I'd rather not get angry over a game, it seems to defeat the purpose, and is definitely negative for me as a person. Such a waste of energy!

An early contributor to this thread stated that 'no breaking NAP's' was this community's standard. The following discussion proves this to clearly not be the case! :) The community seems to hold a range of views on the topic, so in the absence of a clear view "backstab possible" must logically be the default stance on this topic.

The suggestion to specify whether NAP's are 100% binding before the start of the game seems very sensible and should end the debate. "Backstab possible" can be the default, "backstab not possible" can be specified before the game is started.

I believe it is incumbent upon people wanting NAPs to be binding to start their own games with this rule (which btw would be a much more effective solution than trying to get unbreakable NAPs coded into the game!)

Any further debate represents a desire by the 'no break' side to impose their will on the entire gaming community. You may be in the moral right, who knows, but don't waste your time guys, it's never going to happen! :)

The 'break ok' side have raised no concerns with people starting 'no break' games, so the solution is clear. (I reckon)


P.S. I wouldn't break an NAP unless the game was about to be lost (reputation is important!), but I feel the default should be 'break NAP ok', so I have sympathies for both sides!

I'm in the 'no break' side. I haven't advocated for getting naps enforced in the game; probably cause I haven't thought of it.

There are a whole bunch of things I WOULD like to see.
It would be cool, if you could walk across an 'allies' lands.
It would be cool if you could detach units and send them to an ally.
It would be cool if you could trade spell research (but only on individual spells, levels are too huge).

As for anger, well thats a whole can of worms right there.

I would say that its probably because a "no break" napper has been stabbed in the back once, twice, or possibly *every* game they have played by a *ho hum I'm bored* napper.

The "no break" napper puts a lot of time and energy into one of these games, hoping to get a good ally, or at least a reliable neutral. And then is usually snuck attacked. Even if the attack does not succeed, it leaves such a taste in ones mouth, he really doesn't want to play the game.

People that are "hohum" nappers have written about how much fun it is looking for the right opportunity to backstab. Great. Fun for you. Not at *ALL* fun for a lot of us.

Look, "hohum" nappers have a tactical advantage in the game - but I think they should at least be willing to meet the "no break" nappers half way. Just say up front in the game I'm a hohum napper.

I would say the anger is compounded because efforts to compile a list of either "ho hum" nappers or "no break" nappers have been disallowed (aka threads frozen).

As for "Any further debate represents a desire by the 'no break' side to impose their will on the entire gaming community." I find that really offensive. Enough so I wrote this lengthy post. Last I heard, God only gave the commandments once; - the purpose of these boards is discussion of ideas. Me offering *my opinion* for whatever reason - is just as valid as you posting yours.

I don't want Nap or No Nap games - I just want to know what standards OTHER people are playing under.

Your lofty "hohum" nappers don't have any anger is .. condescending - what do "ho-hum" nappers have to be angry about?
And why do they flame threads where their breaking a nap is documented?

As for setting up games "hohum" or "nobreak" nap - its too difficult to set up games as it is - dealing with naps or no naps is just way too much headache.

Sorry that there *were* some emotive words in there. I've actually never been backstabbed by someone with whom I have a Nap

But seriously, what is wrong with a sticky thread where handles are registered something like

1: will break a nap in a heartbeat.
3: Will break a nap in duress
4: Will break a nap to prevent game loss
5: Won't break a Nap


So then all that would be necessary would be to rate -

SnowWhite 4
Gurmpy - 5
GlointheDark 1

Or declare it at the beginning of the game. I'm gloin in the dark, I'm a hohum napper and I'd like lanka please.

[licker]

It all boils down to how well you hammer out the terms of the NAP upfront. Personally I would never agree to a nonbreakable NAP, so its really not an issue for me, but I sense that alot of this debate isn't about what a NAP is, but how people interpret the unbreakableness of underdefined NAPs. The example is you simply ask for a 'NAP' with some neighbor and never really specify anything, or the specifications are somewhat nebulous (and 'NAP to turn 60' is nebulous in my opinion, not that I'd agree to it anyway, but whatever).

Protect yourself as much as you can upfront to avoid these 'misunderstandings', and if you feel you were taken advantage of feel free to hold the grudge, no one can stop you from doing so anyway.

You have to be in diplomatic contact with your NAP partners constantly anyway (well you should be...) otherwise play team games with no NAPs and you don't have to worry about it.

Of course collusion will always be an issue in any MP arena, but I don't get the feeling its a huge issue in this community.

[konming]

There is nothing wrong to break a NAP, it is human nature and human nature is dark by nature. :doh:

Besides, unless specified in game setup, there are no punishment for breaking a NAP. :)

Now if you break a NAP, others will note it and play with you (or not) accordingly. This information is also useful for anyone who may considering playing with you (or not). :eek:

So this "I broke NAP for a thousand reasons and I believe I am right so you do not tell others about me or you are angry and sissy" attitude from "NAP is for losers to stick to" camp is quite disturbing to me. I see whole lot of justifying in breaking NAP, but for what? You do what you want to do, but a thousand excuses still do not make you as trustworthy (in the game anyway).

Without trust, there is no point in NAP whatsoever. You showed your excuses, you even convinced yourself, now let's move on. No you cannot change other's perception of you by finding even convincing excuses.

[WingedDog]

The "no break" napper puts a lot of time and energy into one of these games

If by "time and energy" you mean buying a lot of province defence, sending scouts everywhere, putting effort in magic intelligence, studying the scoregraphs to know what's going on in the world, and having a plan B (C,D,E,F, etc) if something goes wrong - YES, seems like a PERFECT target to me. Try to backstab someone with this description, I'm sure you succeed.


hoping to get a good ally, or at least a reliable neutral.

Oh, the victory condition was to find a good ally? Why didn't anyone told me about that? So much time down the drain...

Even if the attack does not succeed, it leaves such a taste in ones mouth, he really doesn't want to play the game.

Thats the spirit wars are usually won with!


People that are "hohum" nappers have written about how much fun it is looking for the right opportunity to backstab. Great. Fun for you. Not at *ALL* fun for a lot of us.

Don't say a word, it's really upsetting when someone strikes on you in the wargame with "destroy them all" objective.



I don't want Nap or No Nap games - I just want to know what standards OTHER people are playing under.

But seriously, what is wrong with a sticky thread where handles are registered something like

1: will break a nap in a heartbeat.
3: Will break a nap in duress
4: Will break a nap to prevent game loss
5: Won't break a Nap


So then all that would be necessary would be to rate -

SnowWhite 4
Gurmpy - 5
GlointheDark 1



A good suggestion indeed. I would also suggest to add a special victory condition for nations played by people with tag 5: "Build a spaceship and fly to Alpha Centauri".

Just play and consider everyone is tag 1, it would save you some nerve.

[Dedas]

Just how I feel WingedDog.

Please stop this silliness that we all should obey your rules when the game (yes, it is a game) says otherwise.

Oh, and if anyone wants to play a game with different objectives than the default ones, that is fine by me, just state it before the game starts so that everyone can agree upon it.

[konming]

Well, no one is forcing you to obey "their" rules. There likely is nothing they can do in game for your liberal breaching of NAP. The real silly thing is, there are those who breach NAPs and then hate other people for talking about it.

The real funny thing is, despite all the excuses, no one in this thread is acknowledging he will freely break NAP when it suits him. After all the "intrigue" talk that is quite a strange thing.

[chrispedersen]

Just how I feel WingedDog.

Please stop this silliness that we all should obey your rules when the game (yes, it is a game) says otherwise.


Both you and winged dog have just demonstrated the attitude and sarcasm I spoke about in the original post.

Almost half of the shrapnel community feels differently than you do: rather than respecting their opinion and agreeing to disagree you deride it as "silliness".

My suggestion would increase the enjoyment of about half the people - and do nothing to impede the satisfaction of the other half, and take little effort.

Your suggestion leaves a sizeable perentage of the population unhappy.

Look: Case in point. I picked up a position in Jotunland, where the original player was in contention for either the first or second place.

He was backstabbed by Winged - when he thought he had a NAP. It upset him so much that he dropped out of the game.

Now, everyone in the game loses, as they had to find a sub, and the sub had to get familiar with the position, and probably played inferior to the original player.

And no, I don't think its silly to try to avoid situations like this arising.

Lastly, just to correct an error of fact...

"Please stop this silliness that we all should obey your rules when the game (yes, it is a game) says otherwise"

The game does not say otherwise - the game is silent on the question of what is socially acceptable, and what is not. Indeed, there has been considerable discussion about what constitutes cheating; what constitutes an exploit; what should and should not be allowed in a game.

That consensus was formed here. Its why things like MoD mods were made; while copying Bogus's order is usually banned; etc.
And its a significant issue enough that I think it probably should be part of the game setup for every game - just like bug exploits.

[licker]

Well the 'back stabber' crowd (though I think that's an inaccurate description, but whatever) wants you to do exactly what you are seemingly trying to do.

That is come up with all the rules and regulation *YOU* expect in your NAPs before anyone has to agree to something which you (generally, not personally) then decide later isn't what you thought everyone understood it to be.

Its simple, make the caveats in your NAPs iron clad, or accept the fact that they simply are tools of temporary convenience. I would imagine it is rare for someone to sign a NAP with the full intention of breaking it, rather as events transpire in the game which forces them to have to reconsider the value of the NAP they make their decision as to whether or not its worth 'breaking'.

Again, all of this is rendered moot by not agreeing to these ultraridiculous limiting NAPs in the first place, and yes, that means that even if you want that kind of NAP you need to be sure that the other party understands exactly what you think he's getting into.

But yes, there is always a price to be paid if you break any agreement, no one disputes that, however, the notion of some master list of who's a 'good' player and who's a 'bad' player is going to be so completely subjective and fraught with arguments over who broke what when that I think it would be more distraction and hard feelings than its worth.

[Dedas]

@chrispedersen
The only part of the community I do not respect is the part that tries to force their social rules down everyone's throat. If you want to add social rules to the game rules you are free to do that (as I've wrote above) and if I join such a game I will of course respect those rules. But don't try to tell me that specific social rules is needed to play the game "right". The game has its own rules and boundaries clearly stated by the code. Breaking those rules however, is not acceptable and is to be considered cheating.

On this forum there are social rules, we are not "in-game" here if not otherwise stated.

[Szumo]

My question is, why did you even warn the other team you were going to break the NAP? If you're going to, go ahead and backstab them fully so you get the most advantage out of it.

[Agema]

It's a middle way.

Respecting or breaking NAPs is about a scale with honourable conduct and good reputation at one end, and game effectiveness at the other. Cutting short a NAP but still giving some warning trades off some of the effectiveness to recover some of the damage to reputation. Obviously, you'd need a long (5+ turns) NAP to make a middle way viable, which is a position most players wouldn't be in.

[Archonsod]

Look, "hohum" nappers have a tactical advantage in the game - but I think they should at least be willing to meet the "no break" nappers half way. Just say up front in the game I'm a hohum napper.

You could apply the same to the no break nappers. Again though, it's all about setting out the expectations for the game before you start playing. If I'm in a game where NAP's are unbreakable then I'm going to have a different criteria for signing a NAP than I am in a game where I'm free to break a NAP at any point, for obvious reasons. It's no fun for any player to suddenly find out the rules are different to what they thought mid-way through the game.

I would say the anger is compounded because efforts to compile a list of either "ho hum" nappers or "no break" nappers have been disallowed (aka threads frozen).

If nobody has stated beforehand that NAPS are unbreakable then you can't blame a player for thinking otherwise; after all there's no recognition in the game for diplomacy. The same applies in reverse naturally. In both cases the fault isn't necessarily with the player, it's the fault of all players involved in the game for not agreeing beforehand how diplomacy would be handled. Of course, in a case where the rules have been agreed and a player still breaks them then the host should take action, but I'm not sure that would be a matter for the forum.

But seriously, what is wrong with a sticky thread

Too much bait for flaming. We can't verify whether someone should be pilloried for breaking a nap or whether it's a case of sour grapes or a simple misunderstanding. You'd have nothing but arguments and accusations as a result of it.

A better solution would simply be to ask the person hosting or looking to get the game together to state in the description what level of political intrigue is expected. As long as everyone is aware when joining the game whether to expect NAPS to be broken, permanent or not then they have no cause to complain.

[llamabeast]

I've never broken an NAP, and probably never will. Nevertheless, I'm not sure it's really fair to get angry at NAP-breakers when it's never been explicitly stated that people have to stick to agreements made.

I expect that last statement will annoy people - surely you don't have to have it explicitly stated that you'll stick to agreements? That should be a part of normal human decency, you'd say. Well, you have to view this in the context of a couple of points:

1) This is essentially a role-playing game. You're role-playing a power-hungry god (or perhaps a benevolent god, or perhaps an insane god). Such a god might well make agreements and then break them. Not all players play in character, but you have to have respect for those that do, not least because they generally contribute a lot of fun to the game.

2) Almost all other wargames take it as read that agreements may be freely broken. In some games, like Diplomacy, the constant threat of back-stabbing is an integral part of the game. Many players come here from those other games and have no idea about the unusual conventions that exist here. They may well break an NAP, and then be startled and upset when people get angry at them.

KO himself was quite surprised to hear that NAPs are often considered inviolable in Dominions. When he found out, he commented, as I remember, that he didn't think it was a very good convention.

Now, I must admit that I don't really mind either way between games where NAPs must be adhered to, and there's where there is no such requirement. Well, probably I prefer the ones where NAPs are binding. However, I think it's very important that people start stating explicitly what kind of game each game is going to be. If it wasn't stated in the first post that NAPs were binding, I'm not sure it's fair to get angry if you are backstabbed.

So people, next time you join an MP game, make sure to ask what the NAP policy is if it hasn't already been stated. This way, everyone can play in games of the type they like and there'll be no more need for any upset.

[llamabeast]

I'd just like to say that I'm not disrespecting the feelings of those who have been backstabbed and have been upset by it. If they had the understanding that backstabbing was not allowed, I can easily see that it would ruin the game for them. That's why I think it's important we make NAP policies explicit from now on.

I will add a bit to the FAQ about starting LlamaServer games.

[llamabeast]

I added this to the LlamaServer FAQ text on organising games:

"- Make sure that you state what the game's policy towards treaties and non-aggression pacts is. Should they be inviolable, as many players prefer, or should they be mere words, as in real life? The choice is yours but it's important the players know the ground rules."

I hope people will consider that helpful.

[Psycho]

@chrispedersen:
I always considered this the defaults:
1) No MoD (well at least before 3.20)
2) Don't copy Bogus orders
3) Whether you respect a NAP is your own decision, but be aware that it can have consequences on your reputation

[Hoplosternum]

If nobody has stated beforehand that NAPS are unbreakable then you can't blame a player for thinking otherwise; <O:p
<O:p</O:p
<O:p
This is the heart of the issue though, this is exactly what some of us believe and have been led to believe. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p
I have played a few different mp games apart from Dom3 and few have had any binding agreements. I.e. in most games you would be able and expected in some cases to ‘stab in the back’ an ally and do some double dealing in diplomacy. The boardgame Diplomacy would be one, the Pitboss Civ4 community another (although there is no ‘NAP’ convention there).
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
However from following threads here I was led to believe that NAPs here were to be honoured. If you sign up for one you keep it. There are plenty of threads (often quickly closed due to the flames!) with people moaning about betrayals of NAPs. Often people back off to and agree to back off for a couple of turns if they are revealed to have broken their word.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

From that I assumed that the community took these NAPs as binding. I didn’t think they were binding because I blindly trust people on the internet :p But because the community gave me that impression and seemed to police this. There have been and are plenty of occasions when it would have been in my (and that games' longevity) that I stab rather than give the required warning but have always refrained from doing so as I believed and have been led to believe that doing otherwise would be the equivalent of cheating.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

But if they are not they are not. I can play either way. It is just that I don’t think you can happily have half the people thinking they are binding and the other half thinking they can be broken.
<O:p</O:p

So I am all for making it clear which way it is at the start of the game.
<O:p</O:p

It is not obvious that NAPs can be broken. There are conventions in this game as there are in nearly all games.
<O:p</O:p

For example I was very surprised when I started playing that in most if not all none team games on these boards only one person wins rather than the players forming teams/alliance blocks in the game and declaring joint or three / four way wins as happens say in your standard game of the boardgame Diplomacy. Where at the start of the game does the game creator say these are not allowed? Yet most people won’t accept these joint wins and most people use diplomacy to break up such blocks using the arguments ‘only one of you can win’ to encourage part of the alliance to attack the other.
<O:p</O:p

People don’t play the game like that by convention. Just as I thought they didn’t break NAPs. You can play it either way with both. But everyone should know at the start.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

[llamabeast]

The "only one person can win" thing kind of comes from the game itself. I think KO and JK were keen to emphasize that one of you is going to be the new god. There can only be one.

I think that's a good thing, because it means all alliances are ultimately temporary, which I think makes the diplomacy more interesting.

[Meursy]

These comments are intended for chrispedersen primarily, but relate to the discussion as a whole too.

First of all I agree that being 'betrayed', in a game feels bad (hey, so does getting eliminated!), and I agree that people who have broken agreements do get angry when someone attempts to make their treaty-break public. So fair enough, it's not all one way!


What was most interesting in chrispedersen's reply was that he rejected the proposal to start games as "break NAP ok" or "break NAP not ok", saying that: "its too difficult to set up games as it is - dealing with naps or no naps is just way too much headache."

However his alternative solution, to set up a sticky thread which rates each person in the entire community with a number between 1 and 5, indicating their attitude to NAPs, seems like a chain-reaction migraine in comparison!

For starters, who determines these numbers?!?! I think a few quiet moments are enough to realise that bird ain't gonna fly!


chrispedersen also mentions that: "I would say the anger is compounded because efforts to compile a list of either "ho hum" nappers or "no break" nappers have been disallowed (aka threads frozen)."

Have a think about why that is.


One more: "I don't want Nap or No Nap games - I just want to know what standards OTHER people are playing under."

Chris, I respect your opinions, and with hindsight I regret some of the more extreme comments I made in my last post. I mean no offense mate.

But this is just an impossible dream! People won't do it! It's a computer game!


P.S. I get the feeling this discussion is taking place between 'no break NAPers' and 'no break NAPers who nevertheless believe in the right of others to break NAPs"...the filthy rotten no NAP respect kids are just ignoring this and sending wave after wave of their own men at us :)

[Meursy]

Oh yeah and word up for llamabeast for taking appropriate action to address this issue in his FAQ...just another touch of class from the dashing Lord Warden of this Dominions 3 community!

[Dedas]

Yes, it is fortunate that we have the Llamabeast around to solve a situation like this. Thank you! :)

[thejeff]

A part of the problem is that I can't imagine even bothering to make a NAP in a game specifically labeled "Breaking NAPs is fine." -- the "hohum napper" strawman. If betrayal is that encouraged by the nature of the game, what's the point in diplomacy at all. Maybe really short-term deals.

But it doesn't seem like anyone's really for that. Even those here who are arguing that NAPs shouldn't be inviolable seem to be claiming they'd do so rarely, when doing so is likely win the game (or not doing so, lose it) not just on a casual whim or for a momentary advantage.

[Dedas]

A part of the problem is that I can't imagine even bothering to make a NAP in a game specifically labeled "Breaking NAPs is fine." -- the "hohum napper" strawman. If betrayal is that encouraged by the nature of the game, what's the point in diplomacy at all. Maybe really short-term deals.

But it doesn't seem like anyone's really for that. Even those here who are arguing that NAPs shouldn't be inviolable seem to be claiming they'd do so rarely, when doing so is likely win the game (or not doing so, lose it) not just on a casual whim or for a momentary advantage.

Very simple. Two or more people sign a NAP when they all believe they have something to gain from it. When one or more of them feel that isn't the case anymore the NAP agreement should not be considered very solid anymore. That is why you have to keep a close eye on your surroundings by putting time and resources into intelligence. Just one of the things that makes real diplomacy so interesting.

[licker]

A part of the problem is that I can't imagine even bothering to make a NAP in a game specifically labeled "Breaking NAPs is fine." -- the "hohum napper" strawman. If betrayal is that encouraged by the nature of the game, what's the point in diplomacy at all. Maybe really short-term deals.

But it doesn't seem like anyone's really for that. Even those here who are arguing that NAPs shouldn't be inviolable seem to be claiming they'd do so rarely, when doing so is likely win the game (or not doing so, lose it) not just on a casual whim or for a momentary advantage.

Indeed.

The issue to me is one of clarity in the NAP and of expectation for the game.

As most of us 'back stabbers' have been saying, we wouldn't sign up for these ultrarestrictive NAPs in the first place (perhaps short of pure role playing vassalage or some such...), so its difficult to really understand the point of them.

But they do get put in place apparently, so people will have hard feelings about them when they don't work as planned.

My personal perspective on the matter is really no matter what the NAP stipulates if the breaker can outright win the game by breaking the NAP (in the case of VPs usually) then more power to them, and less power to you for not recognizing the fact that everyone should be trying to actually win, other wise just play against AIs.

Or, if the player may not be able to win immediately, but if they can essentially (or completely) remove you from the game with one deft stroke, more power to them. I find it unreasonable to think that outside of team games you should ever think that you have a safe border with someone, of course you may take that gamble and commit all your forces elsewhere, but if you leave yourself so open to them they are kinda fools for not removing you. Of course they have to realize how open you are...

This is why you actually have to use diplomacy, not just these relatively artificial and often pointlessly restrictive NAP agreements.

In my dom2 MP I never had issues keeping NAPs though, its not as though I tried to use them to set people up to be back stabbed, but I also understood that no matter what the initial agreement was there was room for it to be negotiated, and short of breaking a NAP to poach a couple of border territories (which is pointless, but it happens) as long as the breaker gave the breakee some sort of warning and chance to counter offer the terms I really saw it as a positive to being able to conduct meaningful diplomacy.

[llamabeast]

A part of the problem is that I can't imagine even bothering to make a NAP in a game specifically labeled "Breaking NAPs is fine." -- the "hohum napper" strawman. If betrayal is that encouraged by the nature of the game, what's the point in diplomacy at all. Maybe really short-term deals.

"NAPs are breakable" simply describes real life. In real life, people still form alliances.

[thejeff]

Of course, but whats the point of the deal? Sure I can talk to someone and suggest it'd be better for both of us to expand against indies than fight each other, or join together to attack a 3rd party, but if it's fine to break a deal at any time, why actually put terms on it?
More specifically, what's the point in the usual NAP with 3 turns of warning? If there are not even any diplomatic consequences, since that's the point of this game variant, why would I ever give 3 turns of warning instead of a surprise attack?

[Meursy]

Of course, but whats the point of the deal? Sure I can talk to someone and suggest it'd be better for both of us to expand against indies than fight each other, or join together to attack a 3rd party, but if it's fine to break a deal at any time, why actually put terms on it?
More specifically, what's the point in the usual NAP with 3 turns of warning? If there are not even any diplomatic consequences, since that's the point of this game variant, why would I ever give 3 turns of warning instead of a surprise attack?

Easy. To legitimise the initial deal beyond a mere "ok don't attack me I won't attack you", which makes the deal more attractive and believable to both sides at the time of signing.

And "fine to break a deal at any time" is relative. There are diplomatic consequences. If a former ally of mine tells me he's breaking the NAP 3 and gives me the three turns, I say "jolly good old sport", or something similar, have a ring-ding fight, and if something changes and we decide later we may want peace, we can do so because prior diplomacy has left this door open.

If someone has unceremoniously blindsided me, ok too, but I am less likely to be open to any deals later on.

And apparently people keep lists here...

[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.

I think you're better served by reminding everyone that they need to take particular care in the individual NAPs they set up during the game. I see this as a federal vs. state issue, where the host is the fed and the players are the states, and personally, I'm not that interested in having my rights dictated unnecessarily to me :)

[thejeff]

All of which is why I actually like the current set up, where NAPs are respected but not guaranteed. You can't rely 100% on your deal, so it's best if you do some diplomacy and try to make sure no one's upset enough to break a deal (or even give notice on a NAP), but there's a high threshold for doing so. People remember and it's likely to be publicized.

To me, that's better than either a "all agreements must be kept to the letter or you'll be AI'd" game or a "Diplomacy, backstabbing encouraged" game.

We can debate about exactly where the balance lies now, or about just how many wild accusations are justified by any breach of a deal, but that's OK.

[Psycho]

I couldn't agree more

[Tifone]

I think the "people keeping lists" thing is quite sick... I mean, as Dedas cleverly said, this is a game and every match is a close universe itself. I think it would be a very bad point to reach, the one you start becoming paranoic and writing down on a piece of paper all the people you can't trust for the game, and looking around with possessed eyes ^_^ And if so, ppl could start keeping the list of the blind men who would not break a NAP no matter what, to make "alliances" with them and prepare a bad trick behind their back the whole match ^^

[Edi]

Hell, During the one MP game I took part in, I was practically backstabbed (indirectly, as there was some confusion) in a manner that ultimately led to me being knocked out of the game (I'd been reduced to my capital, a few mages, pretender and under siege). At that point I went AI, but at least I had managed to weaken my opponent enough that ultimately the person who had been the most helpful to me won the game. And he wasn't even my official ally.

There was some pretty intense plotting going on at times even while there were all kinds of supposed alliances going on. That part of the game was actually great fun. :D

I don't hold any grudges from that game and I'd play with them again any day, aside from the one person who went AI at the first setback when it was nowhere near crippling.

[thejeff]

On the other hand, while every game is a closed universe unto itself, I'd still not expect to betray some in several games and then have them treat me as a completely blank slate. People don't work that way.

I think lists go to far, especially since there is often debate about whether a certain action was actually a violation. It would just lead to flame wars about being put on the list.
I think posting about people breaking deals is good, that's part of the disincentive to do so. Probably best to keep the ranting down to a minimal level, though. The accused can also give their side of the story...

[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.

[Ironhawk]

I added this to the LlamaServer FAQ text on organising games:

"- Make sure that you state what the game's policy towards treaties and non-aggression pacts is. Should they be inviolable, as many players prefer, or should they be mere words, as in real life? The choice is yours but it's important the players know the ground rules."

LLama, "many players" infers a majority. Might be better to restate it as "some players" to be more general.

[konming]

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.

Yes, but that game also forbids diplomacy of any kind. So I do not see your point here.

Also, most people here are mature enough to separate forum person from game person. If you are untrustworthy in game, you will be dealt with game consequences, like no deal with you or even not playing with you. There are however no forum consequences, your questions will still be answered and help will still be provided. Where is your example of people mixing forum person and game person?

[Crust]

I'm curious as to how inviolable treaties could be enforced? How could the host or admin or whoever know what actually happened between 2 players?

[konming]

It is not inviolable in any sense in most games, unlike some people would like you to believe. The only consequences are that people will trust you less, and are less inclined to enter treaties with you, in this game or in other games. It is not really a big deal.

[Crust]

But if it's only that there is no difference between games with inviolable treaties and those without.

[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.

Yes, but that game also forbids diplomacy of any kind. So I do not see your point here.

Also, most people here are mature enough to separate forum person from game person. If you are untrustworthy in game, you will be dealt with game consequences, like no deal with you or even not playing with you. There are however no forum consequences, your questions will still be answered and help will still be provided. Where is your example of people mixing forum person and game person?

But that is not what the no break NAP under any circumstances crowd is saying. One or two of them even want a list of people that break NAPs on the forum. Please read the whole thread before answering.

As for the game I said it was a long time ago. Apparently I don't remember the details, but that doesn't matter. My point is still valid: you should try to separate your forum person from your game person. An "anonymous" game is one way to do that.

[llamabeast]

LLama, "many players" infers a majority. Might be better to restate it as "some players" to be more general.

I was trying to ensure I was being fair to the inviolable-NAPs group, who I felt I was in danger of offending. I'll consider a mild rewording.

I think posting about people breaking deals is good, that's part of the disincentive to do so.

So long as it's only within that game, I definitely agree. If people try to slur the name of that player more widely, I think that's most distasteful*. Particularly if it's a game where NAPs are not considered inviolable, reputation should be local to that game. That encourages role-playing. I'd love to play a sneaky weasel Moloch one game, and an honourable dragon the next, with no-one distrusting my dragon any the less because of my moloch's naughty behaviour.

* - I am assuming that the NAP breaker was not aware he was doing anything wrong, which is, I think, almost always the case, since few people here are immature enough to deliberately break rules.

[konming]

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.

Yes, but that game also forbids diplomacy of any kind. So I do not see your point here.

Also, most people here are mature enough to separate forum person from game person. If you are untrustworthy in game, you will be dealt with game consequences, like no deal with you or even not playing with you. There are however no forum consequences, your questions will still be answered and help will still be provided. Where is your example of people mixing forum person and game person?

But that is not what the no break NAP under any circumstances crowd is saying. One or two of them even want a list of people that break NAPs on the forum. Please read the whole thread before answering.

As for the game I said it was a long time ago. Apparently I don't remember the details, but that doesn't matter. My point is still valid: you should try to separate your forum person from your game person. An "anonymous" game is one way to do that.

I fail to see how "no break NAP under any circumstances crowd" is trying to mix forum and game person. Did they ask for banning a user from forum when he or she regularly "backstab" in game? Never responding to that person's thread? Or doing other nasty stuff to his or her forum reputation?

If they merely say this is what this guy did in this game and how he should not be trusted IN GAME, I believe it is perfectly clear seperation of forum and game person. I do not see a problem with list either as long as the list only consists of facts, like how someone breached NAP and what's his or her excuse for it. After all, one's game person reputation is not connected to his forum behavior, much less real life reputation. But it is invaluable when someone needs to make a IN GAME decision about diplomacy.

[LoloMo]

LLama, "many players" infers a majority. Might be better to restate it as "some players" to be more general.

I was trying to ensure I was being fair to the inviolable-NAPs group, who I felt I was in danger of offending. I'll consider a mild rewording.

I think posting about people breaking deals is good, that's part of the disincentive to do so.

So long as it's only within that game, I definitely agree. If people try to slur the name of that player more widely, I think that's most distasteful*. Particularly if it's a game where NAPs are not considered inviolable, reputation should be local to that game. That encourages role-playing. I'd love to play a sneaky weasel Moloch one game, and an honourable dragon the next, with no-one distrusting my dragon any the less because of my moloch's naughty behaviour.

* - I am assuming that the NAP breaker was not aware he was doing anything wrong, which is, I think, almost always the case, since few people here are immature enough to deliberately break rules.

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.

[licker]

Sigh...

And this is why if you USE diplomacy even when you break a NAP these issues are not as severe as people want to make them.

Sure if someone just breaks the NAP and sends you 'PWNED u n00b!@!!' then of course you're going to not bother taking them seriously in another game.

If they actually give you a reasonable reason for their actions (even as much as an apology, not that it matters...) you are probably going to understand their position, even if you disagree with it.

As I've been saying, it seems as though the 'honorable' crowd is both incredibly lazy and touchy when it comes to diplomacy, and guess what... that sword cuts both ways as well.

[konming]

Yes, and if not for consequences in other games, no one will stick to NAPs. The whole point of "backstabbing" is trying to knock someone out of the game, otherwise you gain nothing but a vengeful enemy.

[konming]

Sigh...

And this is why if you USE diplomacy even when you break a NAP these issues are not as severe as people want to make them.

Sure if someone just breaks the NAP and sends you 'PWNED u n00b!@!!' then of course you're going to not bother taking them seriously in another game.

If they actually give you a reasonable reason for their actions (even as much as an apology, not that it matters...) you are probably going to understand their position, even if you disagree with it.

As I've been saying, it seems as though the 'honorable' crowd is both incredibly lazy and touchy when it comes to diplomacy, and guess what... that sword cuts both ways as well.

Well, from the reading here I do not see how the "honorable" crowd is expecting NAPs to be invioable (the lazy part). They just want the facts out and consequences in.

It is the "consequences" that bothers the "backstab" crowd. They want "backstab" with no "consequences". It appears that they hate anyone who even remotely suggest "consequences". I frankly do not understand this, isn't "consequences" taught from elementary school?

[LoloMo]

I would not break NAPs, and all the top players I know do not break NAPs. And the fact that they don't break NAPs I believe is an important part of their strategy.

Many people view NAPs as an out of character agreement, just like trading items or gems. I am one of those. There is not much roleplaying in most of the games I have played. And the NAP breakers I have spotted do not roleplay.

As a player who does not break NAPs, I believe I can play more strategically, as I have to be careful who I make NAPs with. By making NAPs with a player who does not break NAPs, my back is protected to the extent of the NAP. I would not make NAPs with a NAP breaker, as that would put me at a severe disadvantage, as I don't break NAPs.

In my experience, NAP breakers are very few. If you consider only players who have played more than 5 MP games on these boards, the list is even fewer.

For me, the scheming and plotting comes before the NAPs are signed. You fake strength, cajole, threaten, bribe others to sign the NAP. My diplomatic energy is spent there, not on trying to convince others why breaking that NAP is justified.

And I love these threads, I visit them from time to time, especially when I'm offered a NAP by someone whom I have never played against before :p

[konming]

From the "intrigue" point of view, shouldn't breaking NAPs deliberately and sending "'PWNED u n00b!@!!" be more skillful than those with "reasonable" reasons? If you subscribe to "lively diplomacy" and not "lazy" diplomacy, shouldn't the first action more commendable? It is deliberately and masterfully excuted instead of being forced, isn't it?

[licker]

From the "intrigue" point of view, shouldn't breaking NAPs deliberately and sending "'PWNED u n00b!@!!" be more skillful than those with "reasonable" reasons? If you subscribe to "lively diplomacy" and not "lazy" diplomacy, shouldn't the first action more commendable? It is deliberately and masterfully excuted instead of being forced, isn't it?

Sorry you lost me, I don't understand a thing you said.

As I've said, I don't think I'd agree to too many NAPs where breaking them would be an issue, since I wouldn't accept these inviolate type NAPs in the first place. But my point is that even if I wound up in a NAP I felt I *had* to break (and again, this would not be done lightly, and only if it essentially allowed me to win basically immediately) I would provide my rational for doing so. It would not just be 'sucks to be you' and 'GG'.

Of course breaking NAPs has consequences, no one has disputed this, but as far as I am concerned there's a reasonable way to break a NAP and an unreasonable way.

[konming]

May I guess that reasonable or unreasonable is from your point of view? If so, why shouldn't others have a different opinion from their point of view? In the end, the only thing for sure is that you broke NAPs in a certain way. So let's just present the facts, and let everyone make up his or her own mind, OK?

[licker]

May I guess that reasonable or unreasonable is from your point of view? If so, why shouldn't others have a different opinion from their point of view? In the end, the only thing for sure is that you broke NAPs in a certain way. So let's just present the facts, and let everyone make up his or her own mind, OK?

Which is what I've been saying all along isn't it?

If you don't make it clear up front in whatever you agree to then be prepared for whatever nonsense will follow.

I don't know what 'facts' you're talking about anyway.

[konming]

My personal perspective on the matter is really no matter what the NAP stipulates if the breaker can outright win the game by breaking the NAP (in the case of VPs usually) then more power to them...


Personally I find all these instances of people taking out their frustrations on other people in OTHER games to be much much worse than someone breaking a NAP in the first place.

I don't know, this is what you were saying right? It's Ok to break a NAP if it leads to outright win (and by defination, no recourse in the same game), but it is not OK to remember that in another game. Ok, what happened to the "consequences" thing when the only "consequence" is not OK?

Also many of you stated disgust for a NAP breaker list idea. Well, if what I said was what you were saying all along, why do you object to a venue that people can list past NAP breaches so others can read the facts and make up their minds?

As for the facts, I personally think it is simple. When and how you break a NAP (like in this case, NAP is signed until a certain turn but he likes to terminate it early, anyone dispute that?) and why (he cannot let the other party just win). I wonder how else do you define facts in this case?

[LoloMo]

You can not have a public list of NAP breakers because whether a NAP is broken or not is subject to oppossing interpretations. Such a list would be bad for the community because of the abuse and conflict that it would generate. You can of course tell someone you play with privately what you think of the other players in your game.

[sector24]

From the "intrigue" point of view, shouldn't breaking NAPs deliberately and sending "'PWNED u n00b!@!!" be more skillful than those with "reasonable" reasons? If you subscribe to "lively diplomacy" and not "lazy" diplomacy, shouldn't the first action more commendable? It is deliberately and masterfully excuted instead of being forced, isn't it?

I believe the skillful way to handle it is to claim that you were informed by a 3rd party that they were going to break the NAP and sneak attack you, so you just did it first. Impossible to disprove, egg on everyone's face, entertaining all around. ;)

[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?

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]

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.

[chrispedersen]

You can not have a public list of NAP breakers because whether a NAP is broken or not is subject to oppossing interpretations. Such a list would be bad for the community because of the abuse and conflict that it would generate. You can of course tell someone you play with privately what you think of the other players in your game.

Your contention that its bad for the community is not supported by evidence. Ebay's seller rating is essentially the same thing - and last I checked they had a market capitalization rating in the billions of dollars. Seems to work for them.

Personally, I *don't* think facts should be given. No opinions nothing.

There should just be a list, maintained alphebetically, soemthing like this:

Violators name : Game : Reported By.

Grumpy FruitBat SnowWhite
Grumpy Pimpin' Caravaggio
Grumpy Veritas Joe DiMaggio
Heliotrop Standardds Grumpy
SunTzu KingMaker X the unknown.

No opinion, no verification. No arguments, no flames.
IF you wanted to get fancy, you could do the same thing for people that get caught cheating or using exploits.

Norbert KingMaker Hacking game files GlointheDark.
SlickWilly Veritas Bogus Violation JoeDimaggio

etc.

[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.

[Dedas]

Yes, but that game also forbids diplomacy of any kind. So I do not see your point here.

Also, most people here are mature enough to separate forum person from game person. If you are untrustworthy in game, you will be dealt with game consequences, like no deal with you or even not playing with you. There are however no forum consequences, your questions will still be answered and help will still be provided. Where is your example of people mixing forum person and game person?

But that is not what the no break NAP under any circumstances crowd is saying. One or two of them even want a list of people that break NAPs on the forum. Please read the whole thread before answering.

As for the game I said it was a long time ago. Apparently I don't remember the details, but that doesn't matter. My point is still valid: you should try to separate your forum person from your game person. An "anonymous" game is one way to do that.

I fail to see how "no break NAP under any circumstances crowd" is trying to mix forum and game person. Did they ask for banning a user from forum when he or she regularly "backstab" in game? Never responding to that person's thread? Or doing other nasty stuff to his or her forum reputation?

If they merely say this is what this guy did in this game and how he should not be trusted IN GAME, I believe it is perfectly clear seperation of forum and game person. I do not see a problem with list either as long as the list only consists of facts, like how someone breached NAP and what's his or her excuse for it. After all, one's game person reputation is not connected to his forum behavior, much less real life reputation. But it is invaluable when someone needs to make a IN GAME decision about diplomacy.

But if you are to separate in game person from forum person that list should only contain pretender names, because that is what you are playing - in game. Anything else mixes this world with the different game worlds. And the point to not do that is so that you should be allowed to play several in game persons in several games with the consequences in one game staying put in that game. Everything else is meta gaming.

If you want a list of NAP breakers forum names posted on the forum you are logically mixing the game worlds with the forum world. The result of this is that one game will leak into another.

[llamabeast]

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.

[WingedDog]

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

[Edratman]

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]

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 :o

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[chrispedersen]

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.

"useless flame bait"
"vendetta"
"ignorant bleating"

Edi - its difficult to tell here if your opinion is as a user, or as a moderator. Which is a bit unfair.

However your colorization of the issue *is* against the very shrapnel rules you are quoting. I think its great to explain that these kinds of posts will be nipped.

While I may disagree with the decision - you are just presenting the actual policy. However, calling it 'ignorant bleating' goes over the line.

"Trolling is prohibited. Trolling is whenever someone is clearly, deliberately posting in a manner for the purpose of angering and/or insulting the other participants of the board. Trolling could be directed towards one user or a group of users. Trolling DOES NOT encourage further discussion, it only encourages personal attacks (if left unchecked) and will not be tolerated."

Also "Flaming, humiliating, ridiculing, or belittling other members will not be tolerated."

Which applies to users and *groups of users*

Also, respectfully, I have reviewed the forum rules, in their entirety, several times. Again, I accept the decision as made, but I see nothing in the rules that says what you says it does,
aka

"posting a list of game actions or events is against the forum rules."

Rather, I believe the moderators have made a decision they believe in the best interests of the board. I support that. I just don't support saying that posting a list of nap breakers is against forum policy, when its not.

Respectfully

[chrispedersen]

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.

No one I know believes there is consensus on this issue. No one on the "no break" side has reacted with outrage that people have the ability to break naps.

Quite the contrary - the no break side has been subject to quite a bit of ridicule. "imbecilic, ridiculous, idiotic" - and quite a few more.

I'm not asking the thread be frozen - but I do think if you check back recent threads, that your post is not factually accurate, and I do think more civility is in order on all sides.

[llamabeast]

Respectfully, I am entirely with Edi. That sentence about "ignorant bleating" may indeed be a bit harsh, but otherwise I think his post is very sensible and reasonable.

[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.

"useless flame bait"
"vendetta"
"ignorant bleating"

Edi - its difficult to tell here if your opinion is as a user, or as a moderator. Which is a bit unfair.

However your colorization of the issue *is* against the very shrapnel rules you are quoting. I think its great to explain that these kinds of posts will be nipped.

While I may disagree with the decision - you are just presenting the actual policy. However, calling it 'ignorant bleating' goes over the line.

"Trolling is prohibited. Trolling is whenever someone is clearly, deliberately posting in a manner for the purpose of angering and/or insulting the other participants of the board. Trolling could be directed towards one user or a group of users. Trolling DOES NOT encourage further discussion, it only encourages personal attacks (if left unchecked) and will not be tolerated."

Also "Flaming, humiliating, ridiculing, or belittling other members will not be tolerated."

Which applies to users and *groups of users*

Also, respectfully, I have reviewed the forum rules, in their entirety, several times. Again, I accept the decision as made, but I see nothing in the rules that says what you says it does,
aka

"posting a list of game actions or events is against the forum rules."

Rather, I believe the moderators have made a decision they believe in the best interests of the board. I support that. I just don't support saying that posting a list of nap breakers is against forum policy, when its not.

Respectfully

Chris. this reply to you is not made in a capacity as a moderator, even though it touches the reasoning of the previous post. As I am an active participant in our discussion, I cannot moderate it without a conflict of interest, so I will not.

The characterization of NAP-brekaer list threads as useless flamebait arises out of the fact that they always devolve into flamewars. The few times they went on for some time before being locked, they became flamewars in short order. Flamewars do not serve the community in any capacity, hence they are useless.

The vendetta part: Taking things out of a game thread and separating them out of the context of the game where they happened can appear to be a vendetta if that action would lead to provoking the target. That has also happened in the past, things taken out of threads to pursue private arguments in public and flaming on all sides. It has even led to some users being banned here. In general, when I use the term vendetta in relation to online forums, it means having a grudge with a person rather than a person's arguments and pursuing that grudge even in threads unrelated to the one where the disagreement first arose. It is not a derogatory term or used in a loaded fashion. I have no idea what you read into that word.

The ignorant bleating part: The wording is harsh, yes. It was perhaps a bit unwise to use that exact phrase. Doesn't change the fact that I have seen situations like the ones it refers to spiraling out of control and dividing communities. Having seen that, there are no arguments that would persuade me otherwise and I would consider the person making them to be speaking out of ignorance. If they were to insist on repeating those arguments, then perhaps the harsher wording would be justified. I'm sorry if you took it as a personal insult, but it was not meant as one. My post was general in nature, not addressed to anyone specifically.

It's part of the forum rules that things disruptive to the community are not to be posted and there is some latitude given to moderators on what topics can be considered such. For the reasons mentioned above, the publication of the kind of lists as have been discussed here are considered that and thus not allowed.

If there is more disagreement about this, please take the issue up with the other moderators or the administrators in private instead of pursuing it here.

[Gandalf Parker]

There is always two sides. I dont remember too many alleged NAP breakers who agreed that they broke a nap. So such a list would only be a list of people that someone claims has broken a nap. I think that even I, who tends to play stupidly paladin, might end up on such a list eventually.