Diplomacy Question

[SciencePro]

Lets say you are playing a multiplayer game and a nation, lets call them "empire A," agrees to a NAP-3 with you. At the time you happen to be at war with Empire B. Empire B asks Empire A to make a trade where Empire B gets items or gems and Empire A casts some anonymous remote attack or assassination spells against you. You don't know what happend at first, but you ask about it and both players tell you what happened.

My question is:

Has empire A violated the terms of your NAP-3?

[Frozen Lama]

i would say no. others might disagree, but i would think no IMO

[chrispedersen]

Lets say you are playing a multiplayer game and a nation, lets call them "empire A," agrees to a NAP-3 with you. At the time you happen to be at war with Empire B. Empire B asks Empire A to make a trade where Empire B gets items or gems and Empire A casts some anonymous remote attack or assassination spells against you. You don't know what happend at first, but you ask about it and both players tell you what happened.

My question is:

Has empire A violated the terms of your NAP-3?

Science,

I would suggest you search for the NAP thread awhile ago where this was significantly discussed.

Usually, remote attack spells are not considered to be a violation of a NAP, because it is impossible to prove authorship.

However, in the clear cut case where the author has admitted that he did then yes I would say that you are freed of any NAP obligation.

[Fantomen]

I say a situation like this should be roleplayed, and that you may choose yourself how to handle it.

I think you definately have the right to consider the NAP broken.

[SciencePro]

hmmm anyone got a link to the "NAP thread?"

[Trumanator]

I would say that if you have incontrovertible proof (like the admission) that your NAP mate has cast remote attacks at you then you can consider it broken. However, this is extremely hard to do, and your NAP mate was foolish to admit it to you. At the very least, your mate should have no right to cry about it if you attack him w/out bothering to cancel.

[Zeldor]

Remotes are anonymous, so while hostile, they cannot be linked really. After all it could be the enemy casting it instead of buying it. But if someone admits it's clear NAP violation. But I cannot get why would anyone simply admit.

[Ironhawk]

It is odd that he would admit it. Either he doesnt think its illegal or he's just dumb.

Anyway - I would absolutely consider empire A to be in violation of the NAP. Whether you want to attack him is up to you. Two front wars are bad. You might be better of giving him a stern lecture and then trying to bribe him not to accept requests from your enemy anymore.

[chrispedersen]

Name & shame....

[Illuminated One]

I'd say it's a grey area, like many things concerning NAPs.
A NAP is nothing more than an oral (laugh at me if that's a wrong translation) contract with noone to enforce it in game and can be interpreted however you like - just like real life contract between nations. So your country was hit by Missiles manufactured by your long-term ally?
=> It's up to you wether to cancel all agreements, seek a diplomatic sollution, or just focus on killing the guy who can pay for the missiles.

If there are specific game rules you can ask the admin to enforce it, because of this it is good to ask about game NAP rules before you enter one.

[Stavis_L]

...nothing more than an oral (laugh at me if that's a wrong translation) contract...

FYI --> "verbal contract". Although there's nothing technically wrong with using oral, verbal is the normal phrasing in this context.