Adjudication on a NAP -edited please comment again

[Aezeal]

Well let me say it like this:

The way you tell it IMHO there would be no NAP, without the confirmation you waited for and did not get I wouldn't consider it a NAP. In my last games there have always been conformations back and forth so everyone knew there was a NAP adn I consider that normal.

The point is that he has interpreted it otherwise and might say the facts are slightly different too. It's hard to give an opinion on the story of only one of the parties and unless his story is identical it will be hard to when he had his say since it will be your word against his.

If you roleplay a very honourable nation you should give him the turn I guess since there is some room for doubt.

Personally I'd never let roleplaying interfer with the results of my game.

NAP breaking isn't forbidden btw, you won't get expelled, it's another part of the game. Personally I'd not do it but..

[zenphos]

I have tried to give as accurate account of the details as I could, and I have PM'ed my opponent with a link to this post and have asked him to give his own version of events.
I can't see how he can dispute the key point though, that is the lack of a confirmation of the renegotiated NAP.
Guess I will wait and see if he responds.
By the way thanks for the input so far.

[Karlem]

At least for me if there isn't a confirmation message there isn't NAP. That's something quite importante you (or him)need to have somehitng to quote and say: this is what I said and here is his agreemnt. Until then nobody has broken a NAP.

I also do not consider that you have to give him another turn: you informed him even without having a NAP (from your point) why should you give him another turn? You are honorable, not stupid .

[Sombre]

I think you had a NAP. He offered a 3 turn NAP and you replied you wanted a 2 turn NAP. Obviously if he is willing to go for a 3 turn NAP he's willing to go for a 2 turn one.

You aren't an 'oathbreaker' though. You made no promises.

People who say stuff like '3 turn NAP?' and assume that you will know exactly what they mean deserve to end up in situations like this though.

[Aezeal]

well Sombre it was clarified later on.

PS Karlem do we have an official NAP in vampirebat? If not we should talk about it

edit: we have a 5 turn NAP I could find in our messages..

[K]

No oaths made, in my opinion.

[Ironhawk]

Yeah I dont consider this NAP to be binding. Sombre makes a good point that if he was willing for a 3-turn, it makes logical sense that he would probably accept a 2-turn. But the key word is probably. You cant know with complete assurance what someone else is thinking unless they tell you explicitly. So if you recieved no message of the nature "I agree to these terms" then there is no agreement.

[Saxon]

I agree, both Diplomacy and Dominions do and should shift on the larger power issues. Once should expect and understand that allies will change and stabs will happen. A good stab will make sense and people will see it coming. Hopefully, a turn after it is too late! However, not all stabs will be good or successful, which is also part of the game. I had expected more of this, a kind of agreement to disagree. Diplomacy is very transparent, while Dominions is not, so I would expect a higher level of deception, as there are more tools to do so.

What I am more concerned about is the perception, largely on the forums, that any breaking of a NAP should result in your name being blacklisted. Creating a second identity is an option, but is a real deceit. I would rather accept that deceit will happen within the game, but that people understand and accept some degree of it. When you trust someone, there is a risk.

A certain level of trust is needed for NAP, but there are ways to generate that in game. Scouts in your neighbor’s territory, messages that armies will be moving in a certain way at a certain time, frequent discussions, hostage provinces. All those build trust that a NAP is being upheld. Sure, it is more work, but isn’t it worth the assurance? Isn’t it also more “realistic?” You can gauge your level of risk.

In any case, it is interesting to discuss this point, as it does reflect on a fundamental part of the game, but one that is not in the code or the manual.

On the role playing side, I am personally biased. If a game is role playing, great, you should all go for it. Just agree on the rules. Remember that not everyone agrees who is good and evil. There was a poll on this recently, which suggested that this is a muddy area. Further, you have to deal with the real person, the forum person and the role playing pretender, so be ready for some confusion. Am I Dave, Saxon or The Unhappy One? What if I slip up?

If it is not role playing, don’t expect anyone to do anything based on their nation. It is simpler.

Finally, on Hoplosternum’s point about winning. People who really want to win come in at least two sizes. Some will be happy beating the AI, even though there is no challenge. Others recognize that SP is the third division and will only be happy if they win in the premiership. They are two very different personality types with two very different motivations. I hope that the second type will have the thoughtfulness to realize that they need to ensure they are playing exactly the game they want to be in and leave the less hard core to our games. That way they can be fully satisfied when they win and the rest of us are fully satisfied with our games.

[Agrajag]

The Shrapnel Board Rules state:

8) MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS:
Registering and using multiple accounts is not allowed. If we determine that you have more than one account (by matching IPs, etc), all accounts will lose their posting privileges. If you have some reason for why you would like to make a new account and close your old one, please write to an admin. If you have some legitimate reason for needing a second account (although we don’t know why you would) please discuss your case with an admin.

So using another username to play certain MP games and another to post is against the rules.