AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

Kristoffer O · #1 July 29th, 2007, 09:20 PM

A need to agree here might not be needed.

Now people knows that there are different ways to percieve NAP's and it is possible to decide if a new game will be one way or the other.

Seems there is enough players of each kind to accomodate games for both. And I suppose most people dont have a big issue with either kind, just as long as they know what they are getting into. I personally prefer not to play with strict NAP's, but I wouldn't mind playing that way if I knew beforehand that everyone in the game had the same view on NAP's.

It should not be too difficult to post:

New game: Gemet
Map: Aran
Graphs: On
NAP's: yes
Mods:

etc

LoloMo · #2 July 29th, 2007, 09:27 PM

I would suggest that differentiation in the next game I play. Although I think the default assumption is that NAPs are unbreakable.

Perhaps we can establish a set of NAP rules that can be adopted per game, so that it is very clear. We can just say, we will be using NAP Ruleset Number 3 for this game.

I for one would like a rule set where if you terminate an existing NAP, you are bound by the 3 turn peace announcement clause, but the nation you terminated the NAP with is allowed to decide if war will start immediately, at his discretion. It makes much more sense that way.

Lazy_Perfectionist · #3 July 29th, 2007, 09:29 PM

Heh. That reminds me of my "Las Vegas" style game idea. I'm going to start one up once I lighten my current game load. I'm pretty full at the moment.

New Game: Ministry of Truth
Map: Aran
Graphs: Off
NAP, secret alliances: yes
Treachery: Optional, but encouraged.
Mods: Worthy heroes.
Joining: Public.
Out of game reputation- Unchanged because...
What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.

Kristoffer O · #4 July 29th, 2007, 09:32 PM

Nice

Shovah32 · #5 July 29th, 2007, 09:34 PM

Very nice, looks like alot of fun

.

Lazy_Perfectionist · #6 July 29th, 2007, 09:50 PM

Unfortunately, my load won't be light enough for a while. I'm currently involved in five games, though I'm currently threatened by extinction via R'lyeh in two of them.

HoneyBadger · #7 July 29th, 2007, 11:19 PM

I'd just like to state that I can act one way in a given game, and completely switch in another game.

In the first game I can be utterly loyal, honest, and incorruptible, even to the point of losing a game unnecessarily over a point of honor.

In the second, I can be an utter bastard, a snake, perfectly courteous, perfectly oily. I can plant not one but three daggers in your back, poison your food, poison your mind, adulter your wife and sell your kids, and make you not only thank me, but love me for it.

It's called "role-playing", and over the years, it's given me amounts of pleasure only greatly-and only sometimes- overshadowed by sex.

Stryke11 · #8 July 29th, 2007, 11:39 PM

A list of bad guys will just cause more trouble than it's worth, for all the reasons stated above.

Still I am horrified at the number of people who find the intent of the OP "offensive." That's kind of like tolerating the criminals and loathing the sheriff, or OK, perhaps vigilante. It makes me kind of uneasy getting involved in games with them. Like it or not, game or real life, actions have consequences. We learn this when we are children. You think just because you play LA Ermor that you can do whatever you want and then say "I was *roleplaying* guys!" Well, perhaps if you're playing with close friends, but if I was in that game, I would remember everything you did.

Nevertheless, it's my opinion, once bitten twice shy and all that. I don't think posting a wanted list is the way to go. If you act honorably, you will gain a reputation as such, informally, and if you behave dishonorably, you will gain a reputation for that as well.