AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

[Edratman]

I read the first two posts and decided that the purpose of this thread is offensive to me and I do not believe it is consistent with the tenor of the forum.

There is probably a place for this thread, but not here.

I write this from my perspective as a contender for both the oldest player (56) and longest tenure as a computer game player. (I'm sure someone will top me in both categories.) I started playing text-only computer games, with a cassette (that is correct, a cassette identical to the pre-CD music cassettes) as the storage medium way back in 1980 or 81.

I've seen this start before many times, and it has never boded well.

[lch]

Edratman said:
I write this from my perspective as a contender for both the oldest player (56) and longest tenure as a computer game player.

Quick, gather around here, someone is challenging Gandalf Parker. :O

[sum1lost]

There's a 62 y/o in the legion arena forums, and a handful more who are over 40...

[Sombre]

I was personally pretty surprised to see how seriously people take NAPs - everyone seemed to mention them and they appear to basically be the only kind of treaty used in dom3. Yet they aren't in the manual, that I can see, and they aren't any more supported by the game than any oter kind of diplomacy. They're just something some people like to use.

I personally would never agree to a NAP, because if I want to attack you, I will. At any moment. That's how diplomacy works in reality - the punishment for breaking treaties and generally behaving like a bastard is that it can come back to haunt you, but I don't think it should carry across from game to game, following a player. It probably will, to some extent, but given the number of people who like to roleplay their nation a little, it does seem a bit silly.

I think the main problem here is that there's a lack of communication. Person A says "NAP for 10 turns, agree?" to person B. To them, if B agrees, that's like a law or rule in the game for the next tne turns and they will observe it strictly. But to B, perhaps when they agreed to that "NAP for 10 turns" they were under the impression it was just like diplomacy in most games, where treaty breaking does happen but can backfire spectacularly. If both players assume the other is thinking the same thing, all you get is:

A: NAP for 10 turns?
B: Yes.

Not much of a discussion there, but the two players meant very different things. Perhaps if A had said "Non Agression Pact for the next 10 turns? Please note if you agree, I will take this as a promise from you as a player of the game and if you break it I will not play with you again." then B would never have agreed, since it isn't nice for people to be playing the game according to different rules (the reason I'd never agree to a NAP, ever).