Diplomacy ethics

[militarist]

If you acheive agreement with Nation1 to declare WAR together to nation2. You declare, and your ally says it declared it as well. At the end you realize that Nation1 never canceled NAP with nation2 and don't going to, and doesn't go to war at all. For me learning of it was quite late for obvious reasons.

In RL I understand everything but direct lie to my eyes. As for game community ethics, I'm just trying to understand the borders - where is the border between something which is a "strong dimoplacy skill" and creating a situation similar for me to attacking me ignoring NAP.

Is there some kind of a reputation list, where newbie player can learn about reputation of other players? Or reputation and dimoplacy are dead here? Or work only for a few elite players who afraid only to break work given to each others?

[rdonj]

This is actually the most complicated question to answer of the ones you've posted so far. First, it depends on the kind of game that you've joined. Often in the first post of a game thread, the game host will state outright whether diplomacy should be machiavellian (nothing you say to another player matters, and you don't have to respect any agreements/whatever that you make with them), or that diplomacy is binding. In a diplo is binding game, breaking agreements with other players is frowned upon and could hurt your reputation. Many of the more experienced players are quite trustworthy in such games, but there are also those who feel that if it is to their advantage to break a deal with another player, that it is their right to do so.

There is no active tracking of people who break agreements... only your own memory, and the memories of those who hear about such things. So if you want to find out whether someone is trustworthy you have to play a game with them, look up other games they've been in, or ask around and see what other people have to say about them.

For the record, in my personal experience most people do not break treaties in the diplo is binding sort of games. If you are worried about playing with trustworthy players, joining only those sorts of games is probably sufficient to avoid being backstabbed.

[Squirrelloid]

Fact:
Every player develops a relationship and reputation with other players as to how 'honorable' he is, how sneaky, and so on.

Opinion:
There is a difference between misleading and outright lying. For example:

"So are you going to attack me next turn?"
"No, I'm not."

vs.

"So, are you going to attack me next turn?"
"You aren't nearly as good a target as [Nation A] is."

In the first example, if an attack did occur, it would be a direct lie and should impact reputation. In the latter example the responder misdirected, and never actually claimed they weren't going to attack, merely suggested an alternative course of action without committing to anything. In that case I'd say an attack is merely sneaky, and shouldn't impact reputation (or rather, shouldn't impact your reputation for honor. It should improve your reputation for craftiness).

[vfb]

Militarist, it's impossible to judge the situation, given that you are only providing the story of one party in a larger tale.

The responsibility of each nation is to its own welfare, and it would be distressing to say the least for your presumed ally to join in the war as he had agreed to, if between making the agreement with you and the time to go to war, events conspired to make joining in this gankfest disadvantageous to your intended ally.

I do agree that if you had made some sort of payment to him, in return for him joining you in the war, it would be unfair for him not to return that payment, if he has changed his mind.

It's not exactly like ganging up on a nation 2-to-1 is an honourable enterprise in the first place, unless you intended target was as strong as the two of you.

[Nasser]

There can be only one.

[rdonj]

Originally Posted by vfb

Militarist, it's impossible to judge the situation, given that you are only providing the story of one party in a larger tale.

Yeah, I tried to answer fairly generally, but really it depends a lot on the specific situation. And is a very sticky sort of question in a game like this.

[WingedDog]

My recommendation is to choose games which suits you.
If you honor the NAP and expect everyone to do so - join games with unbreakable NAPS.
If you think NAP is crap and all means are good for victory - join Machiavellian games.
If you prefer no diplomacy at all - join RAND games.

If administrator of the game didn't state any diplomacy rules in the OP - ask him to specify, or else it would be a stumbling block later on.

And you can certainly create your own game with your own rules.

[militarist]

It's written: "Standard rules regarding diplomacy" .. and that's all we have..
As for specific situation - after coming to agreement and my question which turn he will declare war, I've got:
"I'm declaring war on this move.
Cheers,"

Quite strightforward. I understand the difference between beign evasive in answers, ans open lie, Squirrelloid, and I've read Machiavelli , all book I've managed to find, though, thanks anyway. It's the same in life. We can dislike people who are evasive and canny, but we never deal with a person who openly lied at least once.


Thanks all for advice. I see It's a complicated issue.

[militarist]

And the guy who broke the deal, avoided war against him in this way. I was thinking to attack him and questioned our NAP (he did something, I would say, evasive before all this situation), and tell that he should free the province or we should reconsider our NAP (he was made in dependence of some borders agreement, which was ignored by him.). So I proposed to remove his army or fight with me against the closest enemy to this my border. He choose second..and that's result. I'm not complaining just trying to understand the spirit here and what to expect from this "diplomacy".

[militarist]

Dominions coul learn a lot from Civilization game - diplomacy and morale punishment for attacking much weaker player.