AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

NTJedi · #1 July 30th, 2007, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Ironhawk said:
Most experienced players know that thier reputation has value and won't risk it just for a slight advantage in one game.

I agree, yet currently all NEW players are stuck playing as blind pigeons for months until they learn the good and bad reputation of others. A website tracking the information would remove this disadvantage for new players.

Gandalf Parker · #2 July 30th, 2007, 05:28 PM

If you want to do a website then go for it. That would seem to solve most of the problems. It would be off of Shrapnel, not directly supported by them or Illwinter. That is after all, the answer for anything that isnt supported by the forum.

Warhammer · #3 July 30th, 2007, 05:38 PM

My .02...

I have no problems with NAPs. Especially in the early going, there is typically no benefit to going to war with someone early while Indies are still available (unless of course you are playing a rush nation).

That said, I think NAPs can be broken. If you don't have forces on the border and I have a fair amount on mine, I might consider moving in, especially if it is something that will hurt you severely.

However, the worst thing a player in any diplomatic game came do is make a move that only benefits him in the short term. If I take province X, and break a NAP, and that does not impact you severely, I am a moron.

Maybe it was my years of playing Diplomacy, but there comes a point in every game in which you need to make a play for the win. If the #1 and #3 players are allied against #2, it might be worth it for #3 to go ahead and stab #1. Why? If their relative strengths do not change, #3 will finish #2 after #2 is knocked off. But, if he stabes #1, he will probably benefit more from an alliance with #2 at that point, etc.

The game itself provides its own penalties and rewards for NAPs and alliances. I have not broken one to date, but I am do not want to be held bound to something that is going to doom me to future defeat. Let's say that in game X, I make a NAP with Caelum. It is for 24 turns, and over the span of those 24 turns, both Caelum and I expand. Eventually my only border is that with Caelum. I still have 10 turns left on my NAP, am I supposed to just sit and wait for the dang thing to expire while he is out expanding elsewhere? (Not withstanding my allowing this situation to develop)

NTJedi · #4 July 30th, 2007, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Gandalf Parker said:
If you want to do a website then go for it. That would seem to solve most of the problems. It would be off of Shrapnel, not directly supported by them or Illwinter. That is after all, the answer for anything that isnt supported by the forum.

Actually those who frequently do hosting of games should vote for an individual to manage the information on a website.
In my multiplayer opinion the website would become quite popular as players from existing games would want to review past treaties from other games regarding current opponents. Also the gamers which host games would be able to organize groups of players together... such as a backstabber game, an honorable treaty game and/or a reliable player game where no one drops out from bad starts/events.

HoneyBadger · #5 July 30th, 2007, 05:34 PM

I recently had to drop out of 2 MP games abruptly because it was either that or have severe personal consequences, and I felt bad about it, because I'd intended to play the games to their conclusion, but the way the game hosts was a major inconvenience that ultimately-and quickly-proved insurmountable.

I made sure to post on that game's thread so that everyone concerned would be very clear that I was quitting the game, though, and why.

To just up and quit a game without even telling anybody, that's just bad behavior.

It would be equally bad, to my way of thinking, to quit one game and continue the other, if you've made an equal commitment to both, and their weren't any other factors, such as one having a replacement standing by.

Archonsod · #6 July 30th, 2007, 05:51 PM

Quote:

HoneyBadger said:
It would be equally bad, to my way of thinking, to quit one game and continue the other, if you've made an equal commitment to both, and their weren't any other factors, such as one having a replacement standing by.

Well, if you know you're going to lose in one game then there's not really that big a problem to calling it quits, unless you own most of the provinces. If the game is at a point where you have two or three large empires and a bunch of smaller six or seven provinces and one of the smaller players would rather concentrate on another game, fair enough, as long as he tells the other players of his intent to quit.
Admittedly, if I were in that situation I'd also secretly promise the same territories to each of those larger players on my last turn. I won't be around to watch the fur fly, but at least I know I'll be gone with a bang

tibbs · #7 July 30th, 2007, 05:50 PM

Quote:

NTJedi said:

Quote:

Ironhawk said:
Most experienced players know that thier reputation has value and won't risk it just for a slight advantage in one game.

I agree, yet currently all NEW players are stuck playing as blind pigeons for months until they learn the good and bad reputation of others. A website tracking the information would remove this disadvantage for new players.

But who's opinion do you base the list on?You can put up a list, but how can you guarantee it's accuracy? There are always two sides to every story.

Take for example myself, the original person accused. He said I broke the NAP, yet he stealthed his army(whose capital is north of me) through my territories and suddenly started taking independant territories south of me and thus causing the collision and annihilation of one of my armies.

In my view, an army of another nation sneaking through my lands and then taking lands that border my nation and causing the destruction of my army voids any pact or peace treaty. Those are definitely aggressive actions.

NTJedi · #8 July 30th, 2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

tibbs said:
But who's opinion do you base the list on?You can put up a list, but how can you guarantee it's accuracy? There are always two sides to every story.

Ideally the original treaty should be created, sent and signed on the website where only those individuals involved have access until the game has been finished. Each individual should be allowed an optional brief comment. The games current method of communication has no way to review messages, treaties or trades.
Any individual which is part of the treaty can mark the treaty as being violated or honored then the host of the game should be allowed to vote an opinion as well.

Quote:

tibbs said:
He said I broke the NAP, yet he stealthed his army(whose capital is north of me) through my territories and suddenly started taking independant armies and thus causing the collision and annihilation of one of my armies.

In my view, an army of another nation sneaking through my lands and then taking lands that border my nation and causing the destruction of my army voids any pact or peace treaty.

NAP's should be updated to include "NO SNEAKING ARMIES or SCOUTS without PERMISSION on specified provinces" otherwise the sneaking army could be caught by local milita and/or patrollers thus being a violation. I'd definitely recommend everyone including this for future NAPs otherwise face the possible consequences of a loophole.

jutetrea · #9 July 30th, 2007, 07:01 PM

I'm failing to understand a lot of the angst here with non-violate NAPs. Usually its just a delay as you dissolve the nap, wait 3 (or however many) and then attack.

That sneak thing with Tibbs I wouldn't consider a breach of NAP. Everyone has to expand, running into someone elses army and getting annihilated sucks but its not like he purposefully attacked you. IMO the better thing for him to do would have been to apologize and possibly reimburse you for some of your troop costs, or give up the province, or share the revenue of the province for x turns. If he didn't offer I would ask, if he says no and it really annoyed me I'd dissolve the NAP and then attack.

Now, if it was a blocking move and it would hem you in, that's a different story. I'd just assume he was being a jerk and dissolve the NAP. Leave it to him to convince you otherwise.

Now my question is, what really consitutes a NAP if every little thing isn't laid out.
- obviously direct military contact
- map spells? I would assume so, but I know others differ
- preaching?
- Aggressively (subjective) spreading dominion?
- Instigating others to map bomb you? Probably, but i'm guilty of this one once. (Didn't break the letter of the law, but bent the heart a bit) The other party didn't believe me ,were goaded into attacking me and losing.
- Targeting for someone else's map spells?
- Giving away priveleged info?
- Troop buildups?
- Border fortresses?
- Forum badmouthing?
- Anything else?

Lazy_Perfectionist · #10 July 30th, 2007, 07:19 PM

Anybody worth keeping a NAP with would be willing to discuss, or inform you if direct military conflict is/may become a problem. I feel you get out of NAP what you put in- though it may be less than an alliance.

I'm less annoyed with the person I signed a NAP, left them alone a year, and then they surpise attack me than I am with a person I've been sharing non-critical information/trades, or communicating with every turn - who then backstabs me. If they break an alliance without warning, then I'm going to have issues. But the less involved, the less I care.