Hall of Shame

[Dedas]

I agree Twan.

My view:

The rights of players

- It is the right of every player by natural law to break any artificial law.

- It is the right of every players to punish the violation of any artificial law to any extent unless breaking natural law and/or meta-gaming (unless made natural law by common consent).

- It is the right of players to, within the same game, transform any artificial law to natural law. But only within that same game and only if every player within that game agrees.


The duties of players

- To not break natural law (cheating).

- To not meta-game unless that is made natural law within a game.




The definitions of natural law and artificial law can be found in my above posts.

[gowb]

Hm, no I respectfully disagree Moderation, I don't think it'd be a good idea to codify a set of laws for all players to obey. The solution is simply to make the terms of the NAP clear to whoever you are making it with, and make sure they understand and agree.

The real definition of a non-aggression pact is that you simply won't attack, not that you'll give warning before you attack. So in my definition a 3 turn NAP means I won't attack for three turns, and then anything goes. And there's nothing wrong with spies and scouts and such, long as they don't get caught, heh heh heh.

[Twan]

gowb said:The real definition of a non-aggression pact is that you simply won't attack, not that you'll give warning before you attack. So in my definition a 3 turn NAP means I won't attack for three turns, and then anything goes.

It's why there is a need to clarify common definitions. If you don't know what is a "3t NAP" for the community, and rather use your own idea of what it should mean, you may transform some game threads into flame wars the day you break one.