Hall of Shame

[Omnirizon]

the whole brinksmanship was an allusion to the underlying mechanics of the topic of this thread. As with all threads like this, it is a general strike out with roots in a specific event.

I actually think brinksmanship is the wrong term though, as that is a deliberate and calculated practice. I think the stink behind this thread is completely un-calculated, and due to simply irrational behavior mistaken for lucid activity. I could also be lucidly irrational behavior. I think they call that psychosis.

As for as the real world politics I employed for the allusion, I am, for the record, an american. born in raised in the south. pure dixie, yeehaw. I just happen to attend a university with lots of transnational students. I'm in a sociology program surrounding by transnational sociologists (who specialize in transnational dynamics!) thats a lot of trannys. If there is anything transnational students like to talk about, it is the reasons for the decline of american hegemony. So I get earfuls of it all the time.

[Tichy]

There should be a hall of shame, but only when it's hilarious.

The point should not be to make a blacklist of players, but an ongoing roast of deluded and spectacularly stupid decisions by would-be Gods. And yes, you can nominate yourself.

Real world wise: I operate under the assumption that nations are generally self-interested entities. Gratitude is rarely, if ever, a motivating factor in decision making, and often an apparently principled stand by a state against, for example, American involvement in the middle east has as much to do with outstanding debts and profitable status quos in the region as it does with moral opposition to US policy. That said, when a regime makes decisions that harm its own nation's interests, alienates longstanding allies, fosters strife and misery in the region it is supposedly aiding, and creates a scenario in which retired generals and peace activists agree in their opposition to those decisions, it rightfully loses credibility, whatever your interpretation is of why those decisions were made.

[Dedas]

To save some time I've already prepared a finished debate. All I do now is add some salt and then bake it in the oven for 15min. Now look at the result:

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...=&fpart=1&vc=1

Yummm! Delicious.

Oh, and on a side note kasnavada pretty much summed up what I think of the whole issue.

[kasnavada]

The point should not be to make a blacklist of players, but an ongoing roast of deluded and spectacularly stupid decisions by would-be Gods. And yes, you can nominate yourself.

Where is the shame in admitting your mistakes ? [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Cold.gif[/img]


I've got nothing against a list of mistakes and wrong judgements, on the contrary. I think it would be a great place for newbies and more experienced players to have a laugh. But the name "hall of shame" for it is wrong. "The biggest mistakes I've done in Dominions" sounds much better !

(ouch, my teeth)

Furthermore, some of the crazy idea you try to put in that list actually work.

[Cerlin]

Ok but then, say you are in a game with a player with a NAP to one side an an Ally on the other, do I just sit and fail? Or attack one? So best case is to let the NAP 3 end then attack, but if I attack fast my honor is destroyed? Hmmm For me im always suspicious of my neighbors in this game. People are a tad to vicious when they dont have NAp to trust them when they DO have one.

[Omnirizon]

we should have a "game of shame"

rules are everyone is REQUIRED to backstab a neighbor.

it would be honor system to ensure everyone is backstabbing, so only the MOST shameful people could apply to play that game.

[otthegreat]

I agree with Tichy and kasnavada, a "hall of shame" is a good idea for hilarious or thoughtless mistakes but it should probably go by another name. I have a feeling I might be on there pretty quickly - Zeldor want to say something about Epikbattel?

[Edi]

I do not have moderation powers in the MP forum, but I'm going to make a public statement about this Hall of Shame idea nonetheless: NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

The reason is simple: It's asking for unnecessary friction, bad blood and general mayhem on the forums, grudges and vendettas being carried over from game to game and thread to thread and generally dividing the board and causing conflict. It would also require more work from the moderating staff. Given that I'm currently the most active moderator here, it's not much of a stretch to imagine I'd get to deal with a lot of that work.

I can guarantee everyone that if someone starts causing any big problems on the forums, they WILL be swiftly, brutally and mercilessly oppressed until they are no longer a problem. Whether the required level of oppression would reach up to the level of a permanent ban would depend on the case and whether the troublemaker was a repeat offender, but people have been permanently banned from these forums for being more trouble than they were worth keeping around for.

So, let this nonsense be buried once and for all. You don't want the mods forcibly solving problems resulting from an idea like this going haywire. You most certainly do NOT want me to be that moderator. You really, REALLY do not want that, trust me.

[IndyPendant]

The fact is that there is no treaty enforcement in this game. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is debatable (I'm solidly in the "bad-thing" camp, myself) but I have to agree with the consensus: the concept of a Hall of Shame is a terrible idea. In part because it's easily abusable (don't like someone? Post on the thread that he broke his word!) in part because it's possible there's a misunderstanding involved (I try to give people benefits of doubts whenever possible) and so on.

However, this is a very small community, and people do tend to gain a reputation. Those that break treaties and/or think it's okay to do so at a whim (or at least, who may be that type of person) are often easily found simply by checking their post history in the forums.

After some emotional reactions to being betrayed that way myself a number of times, I have decided to try a new long-term strategy of using this small-community, easy-rep situation to my advantage. If a player betrays an agreement with me, or doesn't follow through on a promise, I will do *anything and everything* I can to ruin that player's game. Period, no-holds-barred. Scorched Earth tactics? You bet! Ignoring another opponent to focus solely on the one that broke his agreement? Of course! Cripple myself, if it means ensuring the other player can't win? Check. (All of course, assuming I can't just defeat the scum normally. If I can do that, none of those extreme tactics are necessary.)

The way I figure it is, if the scum-sucking lying bastards need a reason to keep to an agreement, other than that they made it...I'll give them one: screw me over, and I'll do my best to screw you over twice as bad, in each and every game we encounter each other in. *shrug* It's what I want to do anyways. ; )

If they violate an agreement with me in one game, and I can't get revenge on them there, I am perfectly willing to wait until I play them again (if I ever do) and go for their throats in that game. I'm quite willing to sacrifice myself in another game to take out someone that has proven (to me, note!) that they are scum-sucking honourless liars, if that's the only option available to me. Don't like that idea? *shrug* Either don't play against me, or honour your agreements with me when you do, and you won't have to deal with it.

And it is very important to note that I am only talking about players that violate stated agreements or promises. If someone gives me a 3-turn warning on our NAP to gang up on me in a war, hey that's fine! You kept your agreement and gave me the promised notice. If I ask for help against a stronger foe, and you refuse to give it...that's fine, we never had an agreement in the first place. We're already at war, and you hand me my butt on a silver platter...hey, good game, excuse me while I go off to lick my wounded ego for a while. And so on, and so forth. No hard feelings.

This attitude of course requires that *I* keep all agreements I make, and I do. If giving three turns' warning before starting a war means I lose the game, then *shrug* I guess I lose. Not giving the warning doesn't necessarily mean I'll win...and becoming the type of scumsucking honourless liar I loathe isn't worth a mere chance of winning a single silly game.

Eventually, if an opponent is tempted to violate the terms of an agreement he signs with me for a short-term goal...then hopefully he'll reconsider doing so, because he knows that I *will* do everything in my power to get revenge for his betrayal. ; )

[otthegreat]

I'd like to clarify my position. I see that this can be a charged topic. In my previous post I was not suggesting a place to attack people who may have backstabbed you once. I was suggesting a place where people can post mistakes THAT THEY MADE THEMSELVES either diplomatically or otherwise so that we can all have a good laugh and learn from each other.