Inviolate NAP, First Draft

[Agema]

Originally Posted by licker

You miss my point.

If you are actively engaging in diplomacy (on a daily basis I would imagine) then most of these conditions are irrelevant as you can and should be dealing with them as they arise.

These kinds of agreements seem to be of the 'fire and forget' kind of nature I do not subscribe to. They are too much work upfront for very little payoff eventually, but hey, knock yourselves out with them if you want to, its really no skin off my teeth.

No, I don't miss your point at all.

Firstly, I don't want to have to run lots of stuff I do past everyone I have a NAP with as it arises, potentially on a turn by turn basis. It's a waste of my time, and may reveal some of my capabilities and plans I'd prefer were hidden. Secondly, I'd prefer someone I had a NAP with didn't do something damaging and then I have to complain when I found out. It's both annoying and again a waste of time. I'd rather they just didn't do it in the first place.

I'm in agreement with you that NAPs should not being made inviolable, and that there should be negotiated flexibility in arrangements before and after the NAP is signed. I'm just saying that a basic NAP template can save everyone sweat and possibly tears.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It’s a hard line.. on the one hand it does seem a bit extreme, on the other some of the small items are seen differently by different players

In a current game I have an undefined Nap-X with another player. He has had a global for ages I would like to have cast, but I thought overcastting would be a NAP violation. He has just overcast one of mine, and never considered it to be anything to do with the NAP.

Because I read the NAP to be more restrictive than he did, I was penalised (probably, maybe I would have wasted a bunch of gems trying to overwrite his). A clear definition would have stopped that

While it looks exhaustive, if one or two sets of rules become standard, we'll all know exactly what a NAP means. It doesn't necessitate studying all the points of law each time, unless players want to use a lot of flexibility. Presumably almost all players would agree with about 90% of the OP rules as part of a NAP, and its just a few in contention? (mostly to do with globals and anonymous spells presumably

Lolo's and my drafts *are* very similar, where we differ is on this exact question of non damaging spells and actions, and how do you handle globals such as forge, utterdark, etc.

Under mine, since its called a non-agression pact - you essentially can't take any aggressive actions toward your signator. And you have to negotiate before casting certain globals.

I think *sleeper* naps - where a country for example could sign long term naps with all its neighbors - it allows that country to dedicate everything to research. Which is great - it makes a research game more possible.

But the restrictions I wrote in, prevents a person from being able to win, based on the long term honoring of the nap - ie., you can't stop me from winning because we're napped. At least thats part of the intent.

I don't think there ever will be *one* standard nap. But if these terms are useful enough, perhaps it will become standard to say: Ok.. napL-3, or a napc-3r

[Meursy]

It's interesting, at first I dismissed the idea of these C3PO NAP's as an overzealous and overly worded attempt by some to force others to play by their rules.

But after reading Dragar's recent post on the topic, particularly his point that 90% of the conditions are what most players would consider fair anyway, has made me realise that perhaps such treaties could have a place in the game.

I think the usefulness of further discussion is now limited and the time has come for practical testing!

I predict one of three scenarios will be common:

1. Player A offers a C3PO NAP and Player B refuses (for whatever reason). Player A or B may then propose a 'standard' NAP, and the same basic unease Player A has with 'standard' NAP's will remain.

Nothing has changed.

2. Player A offers a C3PO NAP and Player B accepts (perhaps to avoid any unpleasantness in future dealings with Player A). However, Player B hasn't felt the need to thoroughly read all the terms of the C3PO NAP. As a result a future argument breaks out between Players A and B when one or more terms are breached by Player B. Player A will cite the treaty term\s in question (perhaps a little loftily), while Player B will feel angered and hassled by a treaty they didn't fully understand. Player B will either grumble and comply or will bellow war cries and attack, feeling they have been unjustly done by. Player A will also feel unjustly done by, and will also lack any higher authority to complain to. Forum flaming may result.

Nothing has changed.

3. Player A proposes a C3PO NAP and Player B accepts. Player B is the type of player who would honour an NAP anyway, and likely already agrees with most of the provisions laid out in the thread detailing the C3PO's terms. They will probably read the thread before agreeing to the C3PO.

Nothing has changed.



I'm sure some will disagree with my depiction of the above three scenarios. Go ahead Until we get some feedback from actual games it's only discussion.

And hey, it may not make such a difference anyway!

[Agema]

Yes, but what is a "standard" NAP?

I don't know, and neither does anyone else here, because it doesn't exist.

I always assumed it just meant not packing troops (except scouts) or offensive spells over the border. Yet from these discussions clearly other players have other ideas, such as not casting powerful globals; or a guy who attacked me a turn "early" because we differed on what the 3 turns warning counted as.

[Bwaha]

Hi, what a nap means to me: I won't screw with the other player in any overt way. I won't take provinces that are arranged by treaty. I will talk to him fairly and honestly. Certain players I have played with before have won my trust and I will continue to trust them. That is till they betray our arrangement. I suggest the kiss princible be used. (Keep it simple)

[Meursy]

Yes, a 'standard' NAP as such doesn't exist, when I wrote 'standard' I meant that one person says "NAP 3?" and the other says "ok", and details are worked out as the game goes on.

I think it's reasonably fair to call this standard because most people don't have the time or inclination to lay out every detail before each treaty. Common sense has to substitute for legalese in this case.

I actually think it's not such a bad idea to have specific treaty rules laid out somewhere. But I guess my main point is that it's mostly relevant to people who already exercise common sense anyway, and it isn't really going to stop any disagreements or arguments arising.

I reckon that's because of the nature of the game (ie. there can be only one!).

[GrudgeBringer]

I would Like to add my 2 cents worth for whatever its worth.

I think anyone that has played with me knows I will bend over backwards to keep a NAP and help my 'Nap Mate' if I can.

There seems to be a rift between what IS a Nap supposed to MEAN and DO.

To me (and I am a simple person ) its a LIVING agreement. It reminds me of contracts my Company makes with some clients.

A broad agreement that has a definite start and end with loose terms that can change to meet the needs and wants of both parties. The only thing that CAN'T change is the length of time.

Example: Nation A makes a 10 turn +3 turn Nap with Nation B. The agreement is simply for 10 turns with a 3 turn warning that these nations will not attack each other. There may be other simple agreements included such as no PD over 10 on borders ect, but in essence its still a 10 turn Nap +3.

Later one of the nations may want to cast a global and asks his Nap mate what he thinks. He either gets a thumbs up or a thumbs down (there could be all kinds of stipulations with a thumbs up).

IF its a thumbs up he goes ahead...

If its a thumbs DOWN and he wants to do it he has to wait till the end of the 10th turn, give his notice and do what he wants.

The PROBLEM here as I see it isn't the NAP or the terms (they can be changed from turn to turn if necessary) its the LENGTH that you agree to.

If you want to make a standard NAP then make a resonable STANDARD length that people can live with and still get out of HONORABLY!!!

What I hear is not that different except for the fact that they want to make a STANDARD agreement too long for a game that eventually will pit everyone agianst the other.

I may be over simplifying it but if you read it closer it lIVES and changes and STILL lets you out with Honor and that seems to be what everyone is talking about....HONOR