Inviolate NAP, First Draft

[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.

[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]

Let me clarify that we are not discussing "punishment" or "consequences" or the merits and demerits of "NAP breaking", or making a list of NAP breakers. This is just a template for like minded players who wish to have some clarity for NAPs. Anyone can use the template and modify it however they wish. This is a very standard set of "guidelines" that "non-roleplaying" players have been using. Different players may have slightly different views, but much of the spirit of the this NAP is already being followed. I myself have adhered to this code, and I actually impose stricter rules on myself in my agreements.

Most problems occur when you make say NAP-20. So the experienced players mostly make NAP-3 only, sometimes NAP-6. There is no need to violate NAPs when you can attack in just 3 short turns.

Even if you have "conflicting" NAPs, if you only have NAP-3 or even NAP-6, why can't both mutual defense treaty and NAP be served by waiting 3 turns to attack?

[licker]

Originally Posted by LoloMo

Most problems occur when you make say NAP-20. So the experienced players mostly make NAP-3 only, sometimes NAP-6. There is no need to violate NAPs when you can attack in just 3 short turns.

Even if you have "conflicting" NAPs, if you only have NAP-3 or even NAP-6, why can't both mutual defense treaty and NAP be served by waiting 3 turns to attack?

Indeed, which is why I find most of these discussions to be nearly pointless. Rule lawyering sucks, and yet, it seems that's what people actually want...

Well so be it, but I don't quite see the need for the insane level of detail being proposed, *if* you simply bother to talk to your partners regularly enough.

Again, how often are people actually back stabbed as opposed to notified that the agreed upon NAP needs revision? Or do you not see a distinction?

[LoloMo]

Originally Posted by licker

Indeed, which is why I find most of these discussions to be nearly pointless. Rule lawyering sucks, and yet, it seems that's what people actually want...

Well so be it, but I don't quite see the need for the insane level of detail being proposed, *if* you simply bother to talk to your partners regularly enough.

Again, how often are people actually back stabbed as opposed to notified that the agreed upon NAP needs revision? Or do you not see a distinction?

A distinction between what? If both parties agree to the revision, then of course there's no problem. What if one party disagrees? Then I propose that this template heads off most of the perceived problems before they arise.

The insane amount of detail is just a collection of actual situations that I have encountered which have been resolved in that way with both parties agreeing. And if you are infering this is a NAP template for lazy players who can't find the time to talk everyday with their NAP partners... you are right!

[Ballbarian]

Can anyone recommend a good lawyer?
I was considering taking up multiplayer here on the forums.

Thanks in advance.

(Just having a little fun LoloMo. It is actually an interesting discussion. )

[Tifone]

I dunno, I like to separate real life from game. You know, I really like all you guys, really really, even through the game debates and the wind and the rain... but I would not like having personal argumentswith ya! a match is a match, I'd take it with more ease

P.S @ Ballbarian: I'm a good law student, I can recommend you several great lawyers or help you myself... LET'S SUE EVERY NAP BREAKER FOR MILLION DOLLARS!!! XD

[Archonsod]

Originally Posted by LoloMo

This NAP is an Inviolate NAP, in that I treat it as an “Out of Character” NAP, and NOT an “In Character” or “Roleplaying NAP”.

Surely that depends on whatever rules regarding diplomacy has been set by the host rather than anything else?

Other than that, it's a pretty good effort but I think there's a little too much specifics to make it useful generally. What might be better is to come up with a basic definition of a Non-Aggression Pact, i.e. the 'core rules' of a NAP. This would seem to do the trick:

This NAP restricts both parties from making any Military attacks or IDENTIFIABLE spell attacks on each other.

As far as globals go, I wouldn't list specific spells. If you were playing in a game where you could claim an allied victory then you may well want your team mate to cast certain globals if it allowed your team to claim victory. On top of that, there may also be occasions when the casting of certain detrimental globals would affect you less than other players, or otherwise leave you in a stronger position.
To that end, I'd simplify it to a clause regarding hostile spells. Since you already have one however it may simply be enough to state that globals are covered by the "identifiable spell attack" clause if they harm your nation in some way. This covers you against the more nasty globals, while still leaving room to take it on a game by game basis when deciding on specific spells either player would consider an act of aggression.
The timing and notice periods are a bit lengthy and complex. What I'd suggest is giving a simple statement of clauses (NAP +X means it expires after a notice period of Y for example). Rather than worry about out of game timing, I'd alter the section to state that any notice should be provided both in the form the NAP was signed and confirmed by an in-game message. You then don't need to worry about missing the notice (which I assume is your objective) since if the player has played that turn then they should have received the message. What you might want to think about is a clause to cover staled players in the case that they miss a turn covered by the notice period.
Clarifications seem to mostly re-tread the bulk of the NAP as is. Since you've pretty much included any aggressive spell type in the definition then questions regarding spells killing your units etc should be self evident. Rather than list possible trades with opponents and the like, if you find it used enough then it might be worth adding an optional clause that may be invoked, however it's possibly best to treat these areas on a case by case basis.
What you might want to include is something stating how disagreements should be handled rather than a specific Q&A since this would extend over possibly unforseen circumstances as well as those you list. I'd suggest something along the lines of both players having X turns to resolve the dispute from it being made known to both players before the NAP is considered dissolved.

[Sombre]

I would never agree to this NAP. It's far too restrictive.

[Epaminondas]

Originally Posted by Sombre

I would never agree to this NAP. It's far too restrictive.

And too detailed. Who would read 3-plus pages of legalese to play a damn game? Jesus...