AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

Dedas · #1 July 30th, 2007, 01:23 PM

If Parcelt and Tibbs had been cheating (breaking game rules) I too would have been angry. But apparently this didn't happen. They just broke an in-game mutual agreement called "NAP" by some people. Not covered by any rules, not default ones or rules tied to just this game, agreed upon by every participant before the game started.
So end of story.

Everything could have been all different of course. But it wasn't... so no need point fingers on anyone or start constructing "top-ten-wanted-dishonest-people-who-played-fair-by-the rules-but-cheated-me-anyways-somehow" lists. That is just playing silly, not Dominions.

Lazy_Perfectionist · #2 July 30th, 2007, 01:39 PM

If we're going to draw parallels from history, nations have had peace followed by war followed by peace, even when individuals such as kings and queens are involved. Or three years between every battle.

You could interpret pretenders as either closely involved with their people (Fertility god), or rather careless (God of Death)- an assault against your nation isn't always an assault against your pretender, personally, though sometimes it may be. One could argue that a pretender would be more likely to view their people as 'chess pieces', disposable when its to their advantage.

Aethyr · #3 July 30th, 2007, 02:34 PM

I would argue that a callus pretender who sees their people as "chess pieces" would more likely view those people as the source of their power. Therefore, any attack on those people (or the precious land they occupy)would be considered to be a direct threat to his/her power base.

Baalz · #4 July 30th, 2007, 03:47 PM

I'm kinda surprised that so many people are so quick to ignore a NAP, and deride those who honor them as playing at a disadvantage. I see it the other way, knowing full well that I'll likely be playing future games with the same people I think wantonly backstabbing other players puts you at a pretty severe disadvantage. It's not about carrying grudges from game to game, it's just human nature that players who you backstabbed will (rightly so) be very slow to trust you, even in another game. You can talk about roleplaying all you want, but I know that if a player backstabbed me before there is a non-negligble chance it'll happen again, whereas there are other players are a much better risk investment to build friendly relations with.

The very notion of a non-binding NAP is an oxymoron, if the assumption is that you'll be attacked whenever it's in the attacker's advantage why bother saying anything? Someone who has shown me that this is their view of NAP has shown me that they don't think NAP exist at all, and thus will never have a NAP with me in any other game. Consequently they'll be high on my list of targets to attack sooner rather than later, assuming I can secure NAPs with my other neighbors. Again, not about a grudge, it's simple pragmaticisim to not ignore a de-facto threatening neighbor who I've always got to worry about an imminent attack from. I have to assume many players feel the same way, even if they don't rationalize it consciously, so the more you backstab people, the more you get screwed. Particularly since the people you're most likely see in multiple games are also generally going to be the most dangerous players.

tromper · #5 July 30th, 2007, 04:08 PM

Well said, Baatz. Those who've broken NAPs with me in the past are on a personal list of mine - and they will lose the chance in the future. Probably to my quick demise, but oh well. There's no ire or hatred or anything. And sharing this info with friends, perhaps, is fine. And they can make their own decisions. But on the public forum - that's rather inappropriate.

That list of game 'rules' is bogus, however. If I'm not entitled to have my personal list *based upon previous experience* with a player from a past game, as that would break some sort of arbitrary rule-set, please don't allow me to join your game(s).

NTJedi · #6 July 30th, 2007, 04:36 PM

Quote:

tromper said:
Well said, Baatz. Those who've broken NAPs with me in the past are on a personal list of mine - and they will lose the chance in the future. Probably to my quick demise, but oh well. There's no ire or hatred or anything. And sharing this info with friends, perhaps, is fine. And they can make their own decisions. But on the public forum - that's rather inappropriate.

That list of game 'rules' is bogus, however. If I'm not entitled to have my personal list *based upon previous experience* with a player from a past game, as that would break some sort of arbitrary rule-set, please don't allow me to join your game(s).

I also agree with Baalz

Lazy_Perfectionist · #7 July 30th, 2007, 04:50 PM

If the game doesn't specify anything, I'm all for keeping your standards- it's one reason why I haven't broken a pact yet. Keep your private lists - I don't intend to get on them, and I can't stop you from making them if I wanted to.

However, occasionally I do want to be treacherous. So, I will have a game with that arbitrary rule-set, and you won't be invited. No ill-feelings, I'll still be okay playing with you in a regular game- but I will maintain the right to an 'evil-backstabbing game' rule-set, just like 'king of the hill', or any other arbitary rule-set.

For me, NAPs do exist, and that's why I haven't blighted your capital yet.

Sombre · #8 July 30th, 2007, 05:16 PM

I partly agree with Baalz, but I don't think treaties are worthless simply because they are sometimes broken and I don't think it's worth attacking someone based on the idea that since there's no possibility of a NAP they should be your #1 target. If they haven't made a threatening move towards you (they lack a huge army hovering on the border) and they say they don't have any intention of attacking you and on top of that you have other 'friendly' diplomatic relations such as trade, sharing of information or dividing of indy provinces to avoid conflict, then you haven't got much cause to believe they're going to attack you. Perhaps it's a cunning ploy on their part and they're hiding troops, but that sounds like a legitimate strat they're using, so fair play to them. I know I'd be less trusting of glamoured or stealthy nations and be sure to keep a reserve ready to deal with them.

Of course it would be silly to assume they'll never attack you, or they'll announce it before doing so, unless it's been clearly stated that you have a NAP and it cannot be broken, with the punishment being that they'll be kicked, or you'll refuse to play with them ever again.

I think there's plenty of room for meaningful diplomacy where treaties are still broken. You can also add house rules on top if you'd like.

Salamander8 · #9 July 30th, 2007, 04:50 PM

I gotta agree with Baalz as well.

Aethyr · #10 July 30th, 2007, 05:56 PM

Blaalz, you make some excellent points. To clarify, I was not necessary advocating that NAPs be ignored, nor was there intent to dinegrate those to adhere to them out of their own personal sense of honor (or sheer pragmatism). To further clarify my own position, I will personally avoid entering into NAPs unless I have some confidence they will be upheld by the other player(s), and then (most likely) only for a finite period of time. Why? Because I intend to honor my agreements, but do not wish to limit my future flexibility. That said, am I saying I will absolutely never break an agreement? Probaly not, but under the right set of circumstances, who knows...

Finally, I absolutely concur with your observation that you will carry YOUR past experiences from game to game. On a human plane, this is to be expected to some degree. What I sharply object to is the notion that there should be some sort of "master list" of "violators" presumably to help other (new) players. It would be just as silly to suggest that there be a list of names of those who commonly ally with each other (secretly or not) so the rest of us know who to watch out for.

After all, I'm sure there are many "positive" experiences that are carried over from game as well, yes? Over time, these experiences lead to greater confidence and an increased likelihood of a future alliance, yes? It could be argured that this puts the other players without this benefit at somewhat of a disadvantge, yes? And all the while everyone feels "honorable" about keeping their agreement. So, you protect your backside so as to concentrate your attention on a foe who may not enjoy a simular advantage. Where's the honor in that?

This is a war game premised on world domination. Should there be temporary alliances? Sure, but the concept of a "binding" and permanent NAP seems quite incongruent to me, and keeping some type of global list based on this premise would (further) imbalance play.