Hall of Shame

[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.