AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

[jimkehn]

I agree with Edi, Llamabeast and Methel. This is a game!!! We are dealing with diplomacy, war, and intrigue. Guess what?? That happens in real life?? Remember the Russo-German Pact in 1939??? And how it was broken in 1941???? Someone above mentioned that in one game a player may be roleplaying a nation as a disingenuous thug, and the next as a knight-hearted benevolent. I never carry a grudge from one game to another (although I can think of at least one person who may think I do...8^).....) I think threads like this tend to take away the intent of the game.......to have fun; and to encourage unintentional results......take the game too seriously.

[Gandalf Parker]

We have removed people from the forums for carrying vendettas too far into other threads. Im afraid that it will be up to each person to read about NAP complaints. A blacklist definetly does not fit the desired feel for Shrapnels forums.

On the OTHER hand...
people should realize that reputations DO follow you. I understand saying "how I play my god in THIS game is not how I play my god in the next game" but Im afraid that it just doesnt tend to hold true. The RPGers would like full creativity for each new god but the Strategists tend to keep score across games (and lists).

We have sometimes discussed ways to have completely anonymous games. So far we can achieve about a 90% anon if someone wants to set up such a game.

[Kristoffer O]

> To be fair a dominions convention is that NAPs are meant to be inviolable, but many players don't know that yet (it isn't true in a lot of other turn-based games).

Huh? I didn't know that.

I have never played a game of strategy and diplomacy in wich pacts are not expected to be broken.

I'm not very fond of NAP's as it seems people expect anyone who breaks them to be a bastard. I will unvariably attack an opponent when I assume my gains will be the greatest (including diplomatic ones).

There should be no unbreakable pacts, and if players use the term 'NAP' to mean 'a pact that makes you a bastard if you break it' I think the diplomatic traditions of this game has been broken somewhere

It is fun to betray, and it is fun to be betrayed. Frustrating, yes, but all the more fun when you strike back with righteous vengence! Or die trying to It is also more fun to play when you might expect a backstab from one of your neighbours at any time.

[Yucky]

Gandalf Parker said:
people should realize that reputations DO follow you. I understand saying "how I play my god in THIS game is not how I play my god in the next game" but Im afraid that it just doesnt tend to hold true.

I agree. Someone would be a fool to let another player betray them twice.

[Sleet]

I do not think this a good idea. Even if NAPS were a holy right and a sin to break, having a thread to start the flame-wars and vendettas for them is a recipe for disaster.

I will not be checking or posting in this thread at all again.

Salute.

[DrPraetorious]

I think that the game has the reverse problem - people keep their agreements even when it's crazy, from an in-game standpoint, to do so.

They do so in order to avoid being regarded as treaty breakers, for the classic game theory reasons, as well as personal ethics. This has the effect of making everyone (including, I must say, myself) too honorable.

The other problem is that the game has no long-term message memory. If you have longterm diplomatic arrangements of some kind with someone, and they offer an NAP, and you ignore that but continue to coordinate strategically, they *invariably* think that you agreed to the NAP. But you can't call up the messages in question and demonstrate that you didn't actually agree to the NAP.

[Ubercat]

Evernight, a web based fantasy wargame that I used to play (evernightgame.com) has a good system for diplomacy. Everything I know about NAP's I learned from them.

They have a good message log, which would be very helpful in DOM3 MP for many reasons beyond keeping people honest. There's also a setup where you can rate other players on a scale for various things like honor, communication, skill, etc. and type up a blurb about your experiences with them for other players to read.

Could be useful here if it were implementable.

-Ubercat

[Morkilus]

The only use for this thread is to compile a list of whiners. I hope we don't see this sort of thing very often. Individual game threads are for reputation-bashing, and it should all be in-character.

Color me disgusted.

[Jazzepi]

What's the color of disgusted anyways? Brown?

I dislike this sort of thread as from a practical standpoint it's extremely unwieldy.

1. It doesn't really help anyone, because there's no way to verify if the entries are accurate.

2. People who are on the list can just make a new name if they really care.

3. People who don't deserve to be on the list have no method of appeal.

4. It's silly, it's a game you play to win. If you don't expect people to break treaties then you shouldn't be playing. I, personally, like to try to stay on the straight and narrow, but sometimes circumstances dictate otherwise.

Jazzepi

[Tuidjy]

I like peace treaties and stick to mine. But then, I avoid 'evil' nations,
always take a life domain, and won't touch blood magic. This probably says
something about me, and probably it is not good.

I have had a few treaties broken on me, usually because I have grown too strong,
and once because I was too weak. I do not think I have been often surprised.
The only time I am really bothered is when the player has been role-playing
before that, and all of a sudden breaks a treaty for purely 'play to win' reasons.

For example, Pythium betraying Ulm when their alliance against Ermor had just
started turning the undead tide. This was the first time I was betrayed, and
I still remember it. The real lesson from that game was 'Ulm sucks' though.

My personal view is - you do not have to make treaties and alliances. If you
choose to make them, you better stick by it. If you break them, I will not
attack you in the next game, but I sure as Hell will not make a treaty with you.
I will conduct diplomacy to prove that "you do not want to eat me, you want to
eat my brother", but that's it.

As for this thread, I like that people can talk about their views on treaties,
but I dislike the naming of offenders. Hard to clear a reputation once it is
besmirched, and I am only human. I happen to have two treaties with people
named in this thread, and all of sudden, I am worried.