Adjudication on a NAP -edited please comment again

[Saulot]

Speaking of Global slots, how does everyone feel about it being raised to say, 10? Or possibly having it set up under game options?

It's been at 5 since at least Dom2, and that obviously made sense, but nowadays you can have some pretty large games with many many nations.

[Sombre]

I'd love for it to be set in game options. More options here is almost always a good thing.

[Agrajag]

I'd love for it to be set in game options as well, but if that's not gonna happen, then at least let it be raised to 10 or some other number >5.

[Cerlin]

For me I think the hardest part is juggling your boarders so you have enemies to fight. In a recent game I was a second rate power that was hemmed in on all sides by either allies, NAP, or people I couldnt attack. Sometimes at that point I want to ask someone to kill me! considering the fact it would come back to bite me on the forums if I break agreements. And even if you break the NAP or agreement honestly, many people seem to take it personally "You're attacking ME?!?!" This may just be my experience but too many layers of NAP can be dangerous.

[Karlem]

Even based on the new information I think that without a confirmaton message you do not have a NAP. It's like having an unsigned treaty, just worthless paper.

Of course there was a misunderstanding, one side though that he had a NAP and the other side was waiting for a confirmation (that never arrived) but one thing is a misunderstanding and other thing a backstab.

And about the explaining what a NAP is, well I try to say it allways to avoid misunderstandings. I had that problem once with Meister Miagi but was solved with mutual agreement and since them I always specify as much as possible.

[Saxon]

The situation is more muddy when both sides are presented, but it is good that you have. If I may, I would like to make a couple of points.

One, drop the role playing as soon as there is a real argument that is moving beyond the game. Reduce the potential for confusion and get rid of potentially inflammatory language. Tied to this, check if you both share a common language that you can discuss in.

Two, when trying to fix a situation like this, focus on the deal. Don’t try to figure out what the other guy is thinking or why he is doing it. That strategic thinking is fine when negotiating, but once you are trying to resolve this sort of conflict, focus on the actual deal and the actual words.

Three, no offense, but both sides should have done better at communicating. One should have accepted the offer, while the other should have followed up for a response. The deal was obviously in both sides’ interest at the time, so they both should have “sealed the deal.” Given the importance of NAP to most people, the minute it will take to write a message is very acceptable. You spend more time each turn figuring out how to spend your gold and gems, so there is no excuse for not confirming a critical strategic point. The symbolic shaking of hands needed to take place and would have avoided all of this.

As such, no one is covered in glory in this exchange and we can all learn from it. You would do well to consider apologizing to each other and asking if you can still be friends. Sort something out in the game for a few turns and then have fun trying to killing each other. There can only be one, and all NAP will end one day.

You will note I am not giving a final opinion on the NAP. This won't be resolved by one side being right or the other wrong. You two need to talk this over.

[gowb]

Hoplosternum said:

In games were people simply lied to each other all the time people tended to simply fall out. Outside of the game to. And I associate such games with very young, immature players.

Hahaha, are you serious?? Anyone who would fall out with friends over a game is an idiot. We lied and double-dealt with each other all the time in Diplomacy games in my circle of friends and had no problems separating the game from real life...a problem a bunch of people on this forum have apparently

[zenphos]

Hmmmmmm,

A couple of points I think I should make in response.
1. I like roleplaying and don't want to drop it. Have no problem with inflammatory language if I am about to invade someone and already knew he spoke good english.
2. I am not trying to fix this situation, not interested in resolving it and know what the deal was.
3. I always automatically take offense when someone says, no offense, because generally it means they are about to say something offensive and I find it saves time all around, for instance if I say no offence but the topic of this post is "Adjudication on a NAP" not "Sanctimonious preaching about a NAP" is it then not offensive?. Also I did not want to do better at communicating and was looking for someone to attack so when he did not respond to my PM I figured he would do. If someone stuffs up in a major battle, such as sneaking with stealthy units instead of moving, do I then pull back, unwinding my plans for the last few turns so he can have another go or do I keep going with my plans of invasion. What then is the difference in diplomacy?
Or if I had replied with NAP3 no good for me but I will commit to a NAP4 would that constitute acceptance of the agreement by both parties? Would my opponent then have been bound to an agreement to give me 4 turns warning? And if not then what is the difference when I respond with a NAP2 request?
Sorry for the length of the post, and the slightly inflammatory language, but I do not like being judged or lectured to by someone who is not aware of all the facts.

[Endoperez]

While roleplaying is generally good, few out-of-character sentences don't hurt anyone, and can be enough to assert the situation to both parties. I think that's what Saxon was saying, and that's a very good rule of thumb IMO.

[Ironhawk]

zenphos said:
for instance if I say no offence but the topic of this post is "Adjudication on a NAP" not "Sanctimonious preaching about a NAP" is it then not offensive?

Actually... its not. And, no offense its foolish for you to think so. While the OP definitely colored the language of the post to put himself in a better light, he also made clear and (so it would seem now) effective efforts to get your opinion into the mix. That does not qualify as sanctimonious, IMO.

Edit:
It does appear that I was confused as to who was speaking above. However after reviewing the post and the OP I am still confused as to who said what so I have no real idea how to reword this