Question about diplomacy

[thejeff]

All of which is why I actually like the current set up, where NAPs are respected but not guaranteed. You can't rely 100% on your deal, so it's best if you do some diplomacy and try to make sure no one's upset enough to break a deal (or even give notice on a NAP), but there's a high threshold for doing so. People remember and it's likely to be publicized.

To me, that's better than either a "all agreements must be kept to the letter or you'll be AI'd" game or a "Diplomacy, backstabbing encouraged" game.

We can debate about exactly where the balance lies now, or about just how many wild accusations are justified by any breach of a deal, but that's OK.

[Psycho]

I couldn't agree more

[Tifone]

I think the "people keeping lists" thing is quite sick... I mean, as Dedas cleverly said, this is a game and every match is a close universe itself. I think it would be a very bad point to reach, the one you start becoming paranoic and writing down on a piece of paper all the people you can't trust for the game, and looking around with possessed eyes ^_^ And if so, ppl could start keeping the list of the blind men who would not break a NAP no matter what, to make "alliances" with them and prepare a bad trick behind their back the whole match ^^

[Edi]

Hell, During the one MP game I took part in, I was practically backstabbed (indirectly, as there was some confusion) in a manner that ultimately led to me being knocked out of the game (I'd been reduced to my capital, a few mages, pretender and under siege). At that point I went AI, but at least I had managed to weaken my opponent enough that ultimately the person who had been the most helpful to me won the game. And he wasn't even my official ally.

There was some pretty intense plotting going on at times even while there were all kinds of supposed alliances going on. That part of the game was actually great fun.

I don't hold any grudges from that game and I'd play with them again any day, aside from the one person who went AI at the first setback when it was nowhere near crippling.

[thejeff]

On the other hand, while every game is a closed universe unto itself, I'd still not expect to betray some in several games and then have them treat me as a completely blank slate. People don't work that way.

I think lists go to far, especially since there is often debate about whether a certain action was actually a violation. It would just lead to flame wars about being put on the list.
I think posting about people breaking deals is good, that's part of the disincentive to do so. Probably best to keep the ranting down to a minimal level, though. The accused can also give their side of the story...

[Dedas]

I believe there was a game some time back where it wasn't revealed what nation everyone played until after the game was over. I think that was a great way to separate your forum person from your game person.

[konming]

Originally Posted by Dedas

I believe there was a game some time back where it wasn't revealed what nation everyone played until after the game was over. I think that was a great way to separate your forum person from your game person.

Yes, but that game also forbids diplomacy of any kind. So I do not see your point here.

Also, most people here are mature enough to separate forum person from game person. If you are untrustworthy in game, you will be dealt with game consequences, like no deal with you or even not playing with you. There are however no forum consequences, your questions will still be answered and help will still be provided. Where is your example of people mixing forum person and game person?

[Dedas]

Originally Posted by konming

Yes, but that game also forbids diplomacy of any kind. So I do not see your point here.

Also, most people here are mature enough to separate forum person from game person. If you are untrustworthy in game, you will be dealt with game consequences, like no deal with you or even not playing with you. There are however no forum consequences, your questions will still be answered and help will still be provided. Where is your example of people mixing forum person and game person?

But that is not what the no break NAP under any circumstances crowd is saying. One or two of them even want a list of people that break NAPs on the forum. Please read the whole thread before answering.

As for the game I said it was a long time ago. Apparently I don't remember the details, but that doesn't matter. My point is still valid: you should try to separate your forum person from your game person. An "anonymous" game is one way to do that.

[konming]

Originally Posted by Dedas

But that is not what the no break NAP under any circumstances crowd is saying. One or two of them even want a list of people that break NAPs on the forum. Please read the whole thread before answering.

As for the game I said it was a long time ago. Apparently I don't remember the details, but that doesn't matter. My point is still valid: you should try to separate your forum person from your game person. An "anonymous" game is one way to do that.

I fail to see how "no break NAP under any circumstances crowd" is trying to mix forum and game person. Did they ask for banning a user from forum when he or she regularly "backstab" in game? Never responding to that person's thread? Or doing other nasty stuff to his or her forum reputation?

If they merely say this is what this guy did in this game and how he should not be trusted IN GAME, I believe it is perfectly clear seperation of forum and game person. I do not see a problem with list either as long as the list only consists of facts, like how someone breached NAP and what's his or her excuse for it. After all, one's game person reputation is not connected to his forum behavior, much less real life reputation. But it is invaluable when someone needs to make a IN GAME decision about diplomacy.

[Dedas]

Originally Posted by konming

I fail to see how "no break NAP under any circumstances crowd" is trying to mix forum and game person. Did they ask for banning a user from forum when he or she regularly "backstab" in game? Never responding to that person's thread? Or doing other nasty stuff to his or her forum reputation?

If they merely say this is what this guy did in this game and how he should not be trusted IN GAME, I believe it is perfectly clear seperation of forum and game person. I do not see a problem with list either as long as the list only consists of facts, like how someone breached NAP and what's his or her excuse for it. After all, one's game person reputation is not connected to his forum behavior, much less real life reputation. But it is invaluable when someone needs to make a IN GAME decision about diplomacy.

But if you are to separate in game person from forum person that list should only contain pretender names, because that is what you are playing - in game. Anything else mixes this world with the different game worlds. And the point to not do that is so that you should be allowed to play several in game persons in several games with the consequences in one game staying put in that game. Everything else is meta gaming.

If you want a list of NAP breakers forum names posted on the forum you are logically mixing the game worlds with the forum world. The result of this is that one game will leak into another.