Inviolate NAP, First Draft

[sector24]

You definitely need to spell that out in your first post then. I guess 17a should say something like: He has made an agreement with another nation without informing me, is this a violation of the NAP? Yes (apparently)

Again, something I would never agree to but good for people to look at and reflect upon.

[LoloMo]

Originally Posted by sector24

You definitely need to spell that out in your first post then. I guess 17a should say something like: He has made an agreement with another nation without informing me, is this a violation of the NAP? Yes (apparently)

Again, something I would never agree to but good for people to look at and reflect upon.

The Inviolate NAP is a NAP between PLAYERS in good faith. The spirit of NAP is quite apparent from the example situations in the first post. It would be quite difficult for me to spell out every single situation, and would take a book to write it out.

If the NAP can be superceded by any NAP with another nation afterwards, no NAP would have any value in this context. For example I have a NAP with Niefelheim. But I want to be dastardly and attack Niefelheim now. Can I just then forge an alliance with say Ermor and tell Niefelheim "Oh by the way, I've just made an alliance with Ermor, and he is going to attack you now, so that's why I just dropped an army onto your capital"?

But it is good that you brought it up, so that it can be clarified. Unfortunately, I can't edit the first post, but this is a good and constructive discussion.

[GrudgeBringer]

Don't you think that it would be simpler to post ALL agreements in that particular game forum.

I have a Mutual Defense Pact with Nation A turn 9

I have a 10 Turn Nap with Nation C on turn 14

Nation C attacks nation A on turn 18.

I give Nation C a notice that I have the Mutual Defense Pact with Nation A that I made previous to the NAP. Unless Nation C ceases the attack on Nation A immediately, then the pact I made on turn 9 would with Nation A supercedes all other agreements and I will attack Nation C.

AND....its all in the game forum for reference and there can be no arguments.

Convuluted, Maybe....effective, Absoulutely


Just my 2 cents worth but if you take all the secrecy out then there is no argument.

Of course, secrecy can be whats fun about this game....and in that case all this doesn't matter anyway!!!!!!

[sector24]

Your theoretical situation is not the same as mine though. In yours, the player is intentionally trying to screw over Niefelheim with sneaky diplomacy. In my example, they playing honorably and it just turns out that Niefelheim and Ermor put them in an impossible situation through no fault of your own.

I'm not saying you have to do anything, but there is a severe loophole in #17 that you have filled with an undocumented assumption. I came to a completely different conclusion than you did concerning the facts, so if the goal of the NAP template is to be inviolate and comprehensive it fails in that regard. Besides, what's the difference between 25 and 26 talking points?

[LoloMo]

Originally Posted by GrudgeBringer

Don't you think that it would be simpler to post ALL agreements in that particular game forum.

I have a Mutual Defense Pact with Nation A turn 9

I have a 10 Turn Nap with Nation C on turn 14

Nation C attacks nation A on turn 18.

I give Nation C a notice that I have the Mutual Defense Pact with Nation A that I made previous to the NAP. Unless Nation C ceases the attack on Nation A immediately, then the pact I made on turn 9 would with Nation A supercedes all other agreements and I will attack Nation C.

AND....its all in the game forum for reference and there can be no arguments.

Convuluted, Maybe....effective, Absoulutely


Just my 2 cents worth but if you take all the secrecy out then there is no argument.

Of course, secrecy can be whats fun about this game....and in that case all this doesn't matter anyway!!!!!!

Haha, I don't make that many NAPs. But posting on the forums is definitely not the answer, as secrecy is important. The standard practise in my experience is that NAPs of any kind have precedence over any mutual defense treaties.

[LoloMo]

Originally Posted by sector24

Your theoretical situation is not the same as mine though. In yours, the player is intentionally trying to screw over Niefelheim with sneaky diplomacy. In my example, they playing honorably and it just turns out that Niefelheim and Ermor put them in an impossible situation through no fault of your own.

I'm not saying you have to do anything, but there is a severe loophole in #17 that you have filled with an undocumented assumption. I came to a completely different conclusion than you did concerning the facts, so if the goal of the NAP template is to be inviolate and comprehensive it fails in that regard. Besides, what's the difference between 25 and 26 talking points?

Right, haha. If there is a second draft, I may change that clause to read that the NAP has priority over Mutual Defense Treaties.

[chrispedersen]

I suggest you call this an INap.
I applaud the effort. Its similar to what I have proposed on NapII's and Rnaps... but much more specific. I disagree on a few points, but if you don't mind I'd like to use yours as a template to define mine.

[GrudgeBringer]

So...you take offense that Sector 24 laughed at one of your many 'rules' (#17), but your first words written are "ha ha"?

It just shows that like everything else in this world AND the world of D3 there are many takes and sides to an issue.

IF you want people to NOT take advantage of loopholes (as THEY see it) then you need to make it public so it is somewhat enforceable.

IF you want secrecy, then don't whine when someone makes 5 agreements and HAS to honor one over the other (usually in his own self intrest) and states what the terms where/are in HIS opinion.

You have a full page of rules that you want players to abide by and what looks like sign an oath to obey.

For the most part I agree with you but there are several that seem to make no sense to me.

Not becaue they are bad, stupid, or wrong....But because they conflict with each other and saying that one agreement made because its a certain type (NAP) supercedes all others no matter WHEN it is made and (now this is what I mean ) in MY mind ridiculous.

You did a lot of work and I think if you where to prepare a game that you had to state that you would abide by those rules before joining, then I would think it would be GREAT.

But to propose that this be universal is just like secrecy...no one REALLY knows what was agreed to.

[LoloMo]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I suggest you call this an INap.
I applaud the effort. Its similar to what I have proposed on NapII's and Rnaps... but much more specific. I disagree on a few points, but if you don't mind I'd like to use yours as a template to define mine.

Yup you can definitely use this as your template. Regarding the name of INAP, let's see if it takes. I personally like the name Inviolate NAP, as it is quite descriptive, but the community will shorten it as it sees fit.

[LoloMo]

Originally Posted by GrudgeBringer

So...you take offense that Sector 24 laughed at one of your many 'rules' (#17), but your first words written are "ha ha"?

It just shows that like everything else in this world AND the world of D3 there are many takes and sides to an issue.

IF you want people to NOT take advantage of loopholes (as THEY see it) then you need to make it public so it is somewhat enforceable.

IF you want secrecy, then don't whine when someone makes 5 agreements and HAS to honor one over the other (usually in his own self intrest) and states what the terms where/are in HIS opinion.

You have a full page of rules that you want players to abide by and what looks like sign an oath to obey.

For the most part I agree with you but there are several that seem to make no sense to me.

Not becaue they are bad, stupid, or wrong....But because they conflict with each other and saying that one agreement made because its a certain type (NAP) supercedes all others no matter WHEN it is made and (now this is what I mean ) in MY mind ridiculous.

You did a lot of work and I think if you where to prepare a game that you had to state that you would abide by those rules before joining, then I would think it would be GREAT.

But to propose that this be universal is just like secrecy...no one REALLY knows what was agreed to.

I don't take offense at all to Sector 24's comments on the NAP rules. These are just the rules I have found to be fair in general, and that I would use in the future so that I don't have to spell out every detail whenever I make a NAP. If others would like to use it, I'm happy. If they would like to modify it, go ahead. If they want to have their own NAPs very vague so that they can have an advantage, they are quite free to do so. If your policy is to make a bunch of NAPs and follow only the ones that are advantageous to you, that is of course your style of playing. But if you agree with the points on this particular style of NAP, then it would make it a lot easier to just say " I agree to Inviolate NAP-3", and that would carry a certain meaning.

Again, I am not imposing at all any rule on anybody. If they find these set of rules useful, then good, and just specify it. If the name Inviolate NAP carries a negative connotation to anyone, then just say Lolomo's NAP-3. Or just say Lolomo's NAP-3 but let's make it non-inviolate

If someone proposes a different kind of NAP to me, I'll sign it based on its merits, though it may take a while to iron out all the details.