AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

llamabeast · #1 July 29th, 2007, 07:27 AM

AWIY, if you are going to do this at all do it in your own head. A strong principle of dominions diplomacy is that you have to see the player as separate from the nation, and carrying grudges/friendships from one game to another really isn't okay. Remember that many people roleplay their nations, so they may just be roleplaying as a dishonest backstabbing nation in one game, and an honest one in the next. To be fair a dominions convention is that NAPs are meant to be inviolable, but many players don't know that yet (it isn't true in a lot of other turn-based games).

If someone betrays you in a game then by all means make a fuss about it in that thread - say "Ermor betrayed me! Kill him!", but saying "llamabeast is a bad person! Everyone should attack him in all games" completely ruins the role-playing spirit and is just not very nice. (incidentally this situation's never arisen!)

I have to say I think this thread is quite unpleasant and inflammatory, and players in question are likely to find it quite hurtful. I'm sure you meant well, but I think if we have this kind of thing in the forums it could really lower the tone of the community. Those who read the forums a lot will know that I am almost never critical, so I don't make these comments lightly.

llamabeast · #2 July 29th, 2007, 07:30 AM

This is very worthwhile to read.

Methel · #3 July 29th, 2007, 09:13 AM

Im behind the llama on this.

I find this thread offencive.

Edi · #4 July 29th, 2007, 11:34 AM

I also find this thread offensive. However, I'm not going to lock it for the time being. The thing to remember here is that a particular game is distinct from a particular player, someone who was your staunch ally in one game may stab you in the back in the next one. Besides that, as long as there is not a set of commonly agreed-upon rules about notification of attack being mandatory in a given game, this sort of thread will come across as whining about nothing.

Further, this sort of thread is a prime breeding ground for vendettas, which are something that will absolutely not be tolerated. If you have a problem with somebody's in-game conduct, keep it to PM, email or the particular thread dedicated to that game. If you start making lists where you add up everyone who ever got the better of you in a game, even if it was through backstabbing, fine, but keep them to yourself. The moment you start airing vendetta lists on the public forum, YOU get on the moderators' watch list. If it spirals out of control, the proverbial ton of bricks is liable to fall mostly on the person seen as the instigator of any trouble.

Try to keep that in mind.

With the limited Dominions MP experience that I have (just 2 games of Dom2 long ago), I remember being backstabbed and doing some backstabbing myself and we all had a good laugh about it afterward.

jimkehn · #5 July 29th, 2007, 11:49 AM

I agree with Edi, Llamabeast and Methel. This is a game!!! We are dealing with diplomacy, war, and intrigue. Guess what?? That happens in real life?? Remember the Russo-German Pact in 1939??? And how it was broken in 1941???? Someone above mentioned that in one game a player may be roleplaying a nation as a disingenuous thug, and the next as a knight-hearted benevolent. I never carry a grudge from one game to another (although I can think of at least one person who may think I do...8^).....) I think threads like this tend to take away the intent of the game.......to have fun; and to encourage unintentional results......take the game too seriously.

Gandalf Parker · #6 July 29th, 2007, 11:53 AM

We have removed people from the forums for carrying vendettas too far into other threads. Im afraid that it will be up to each person to read about NAP complaints. A blacklist definetly does not fit the desired feel for Shrapnels forums.

On the OTHER hand...
people should realize that reputations DO follow you. I understand saying "how I play my god in THIS game is not how I play my god in the next game" but Im afraid that it just doesnt tend to hold true. The RPGers would like full creativity for each new god but the Strategists tend to keep score across games (and lists).

We have sometimes discussed ways to have completely anonymous games. So far we can achieve about a 90% anon if someone wants to set up such a game.

Yucky · #7 July 29th, 2007, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Gandalf Parker said:
people should realize that reputations DO follow you. I understand saying "how I play my god in THIS game is not how I play my god in the next game" but Im afraid that it just doesnt tend to hold true.

I agree. Someone would be a fool to let another player betray them twice.

Sleet · #8 July 29th, 2007, 12:34 PM

I do not think this a good idea. Even if NAPS were a holy right and a sin to break, having a thread to start the flame-wars and vendettas for them is a recipe for disaster.

I will not be checking or posting in this thread at all again.

Salute.

Kristoffer O · #9 July 29th, 2007, 11:59 AM

> To be fair a dominions convention is that NAPs are meant to be inviolable, but many players don't know that yet (it isn't true in a lot of other turn-based games).

Huh? I didn't know that.

I have never played a game of strategy and diplomacy in wich pacts are not expected to be broken.

I'm not very fond of NAP's as it seems people expect anyone who breaks them to be a bastard. I will unvariably attack an opponent when I assume my gains will be the greatest (including diplomatic ones).

There should be no unbreakable pacts, and if players use the term 'NAP' to mean 'a pact that makes you a bastard if you break it' I think the diplomatic traditions of this game has been broken somewhere

It is fun to betray, and it is fun to be betrayed. Frustrating, yes, but all the more fun when you strike back with righteous vengence! Or die trying to

It is also more fun to play when you might expect a backstab from one of your neighbours at any time.

Chris_Byler · #10 July 29th, 2007, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Kristoffer O said:
> To be fair a dominions convention is that NAPs are meant to be inviolable, but many players don't know that yet (it isn't true in a lot of other turn-based games).

Huh? I didn't know that.

I have never played a game of strategy and diplomacy in wich pacts are not expected to be broken.

Hear, hear. One of the prototypical games of diplomacy is Diplomacy itself, and as the manual for that game states, "These discussions and written agreements, however, do not bind a player to anything he/she may say. Deciding whom to trust as situations arise is an important part of the game." I feel that Dominions should be played the same way.

Many times in history and mythology, rulers have decided that a treaty wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. The deeds of gods are not recorded in history (reliably anyway), but in mythology many are treacherous bastards. It is both a better fit with the game-world and more fun to allow treachery without restriction (other than the *in-game* revenge of the betrayed).

Treason never prospers: what's the reason?
Because if it prospers, none dare call it treason.