NAP Breach?

[K]

Xietor said:
As someone who will be an attorney one day K, my advice is to pay attention and abide by the language of the contract. The precise words of a contract usually trump the elusive "spirit" of the agreement.

When a lawyer shows up in court trying to rely on the "spirit" of the contract, rather than the plain words written on paper, you know he is in trouble. Unless the lawyer goes fishing with the Judge on weekends.

Show me the wording of the NAP agreement, and I'll argue the precise wording. Considering that most players' agreements consist of "wanna NAP-3?", we have to address what is "Aggression."

Let's take a vote. Which ones do people consider aggression?

-Taking provinces behind a third party's attack, so that regardless of whether an attacker is successful or not in his attack, you have lost provinces.

-Cutting off your attack on an aggressor by taking enemy provinces in your way, blocking your attack or movement.

-Attacking Bogus if he pops in your provinces.

-Dropping ritual spells onto provinces you are likely to enter.

-Giving gems, gold, or items to your enemy.

-Dropping anonymous spells into your provinces.

-Sending stealthy SCs through your territory to be "caught"

-teleporting in an army into a province you suspect they will enter.

-casting a global that injures you.

-pushing their potentially harmful dominion into yours by
A. Temples
B. Sacrifices/prophets
C. Stealth preachers/stealth heretics

-holding large armies next to your border.

[Foodstamp]

A NAP is what you and the person you make the agreement with perceive it to be. If you both have different views on what it is, that is great stuff because that means it is going to lead to conflict. Dominions is not a game of obtaining world peace.

Last night I introduced three of my buddies to the game through a demo game blitz. None of them had ever been to this forum and not a one of them could tell you what a NAP is. Consequently, they attacked anyone and everyone that did not have the same flag as them . In the end everyone had a blast, and it reminded me of how fun this game can be when there are no player created restraints.

[Tyrant]

I would consider it a NAP breach if it were done without communication. Whether i would actually do anything about it depends on the rest of the situation.

[Foodstamp]

Chad and Sudan would be the experts on:

[vfb]

Foodstamp said:
Chad and Sudan would be the experts on: 3 Turn NAP

Man, every time I look at your Chad and Sudan 3-turn NAP image, I crack up laughing. Then I feel terribly guilty.

[Foodstamp]

vfb said:

Man, every time I look at your Chad and Sudan 3-turn NAP image, I crack up laughing. Then I feel terribly guilty.

Don't feel guilty, this is not the same Sudanese situation you read about in the media, although it does trigger the peace/war cycle between the two nations.

[PyroStock]

Maybe others know/believe A will ultimately lose to C (the attacker) unless they attack C. In addition, C loses the units/gold/gems/logistic capabilities those provinces provide that could be used against A. It's easy to say "I could have stopped C on my own eventually", but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

That aside, I would expect some veterans and more powerful nations to try to dictate/manipulate others with what they want/expect, but not by telepathic means. Since it's obvious everyone has a different interpretation of the "spirit of the NAP" one cannot assume their own interpretation is universal... especially with new players coming from different backgrounds and experiences in other games/communities.

Next time, you could always ask him if he's planning on taking the province back from the indies.

Or next time maybe A should have said something during the NAP discussions so this would have been less of a problem for A. If it is such a big deal for A then A should have something about it before the issue arises.