Hall of Shame

[kasnavada]

That's called taking responsibility for your actions. How can you be trusted if you make up a brand new identity every game?

I think you should read my other post. I've answered your other points. In general though, you argument is flawed because your pretender god identity is completely disposable. You make a new one for every game, and therefore you essentially have zero accountability for your actions.

Yes, exactly. Zero accountabiliy. For someone that doesn't agree, at least, you have resumed what I said pretty well ! Besides, even quoting only a part, I was answering the "NAP should be done with an out-of character basis" argument, which I should have quoted maybe.

That is the very point of playing a game anyway. And it would seem that most people agree with me... A game identity is disposable. You cut the power ? it disappears. You push delete ? It "dies". And then you start new ones. Anyway, thinking that it's not disposable is wrong anyway. I mean, when I think of dying avatars, I remember this kid in Italy was sent into an hospital because it's tamagochi was dead. It's a bit extreme, but that's what your proposal leads to.

Beside, I don't really enjoy the "ad hominem" argumentation, because, basically, you're saying to all players that since they kill and pillage in a game, they need to take real life responsibility for it ?!? That's some tremendous bull**** I can't agree with, and is a very fine ad hominem attack on its own... Ah, but no, you make a difference, in a game, between betraying a real person and killing game "figures", where I see none.

I'm resuming your post, because, there is nothing but repetition of this in it. What is the point of playing a game if you are yourself ? Their is no responsibility to playing a game, nor should there be. That is what a game is.

Besides, accusing me of "cutting your post up" and doing "ad hominem attacks" while doing the exact same thing in your answer... excuse me while I laugh from the irony of the situation.


After that, my roleplay is what it is. It may sound obscure of self-justification to you, but it's the closest to what a "real" situation may be. If the Dominions world was "real", they would have found out the real behaviour of my avatar through diplomacy, spies or rumors. That's the reason why I give hints. And I try to roleplay my avatars as if the believed that the world they live in is "real". That means that the satyr I send alone to die against a mammoth army has as much importance as the god or goddess of whatever played by another player. After all, there is no way that my avatar could know that !

And for this to work out without my becoming mad, I need to make a clear distinction between reality and roleplay, obviously. And you propose to destroy that distinction ? No way.

[kasnavada]

Finally, my opinion on getting "rules" that should be followed... what is the point ? sooner or later, someone will have to be faced with a situation where he has to break one treaty.

For example : NAP with nation A, and alliance with nation B. A attacks B. That means that either you don't honour the NAP or the alliance. By the rules you propose (unbreakable NAP) basically, you would watch your ally get destroyed before your own eye by fear of becoming a traitor and get the whole map against you ?

Another example : do you need to wait until the NAP is broken to make covert actions ? (dominion kill, spying, nameless spells ?). Do you wait 5 turns of getting your country rampaged by unrest and dominion killed while your armies stand at the border until the NAP delay is finished ? Neither is any fun in my opinion.

By setting strict rules, you basically destroy one of the greatest aspect of some nations : stealth, assassins, a lot of the magic aspect (all those nameless spells), and just make it a straighforward game where everything is known and boring.

[moderation]

Beside, I don't really enjoy the "ad hominem" argumentation, because, basically, you're saying to all players that since they kill and pillage in a game, they need to take real life responsibility for it ?!? That's some tremendous bull**** I can't agree with, and is a very fine ad hominem attack on its own... Ah, but no, you make a difference, in a game, between betraying a real person and killing game "figures", where I see none.

kasnavada: Okay, you still don't seem to understand me. Those imaginary characters in Dom 3 do not exist. The people that you make agreements with in a game do. That is why this Hall of Shame thread exists isn't it?

What I said is not an ad hominem attack unless you think I am comparing you to a mass-murder like Genghis Khan. I assure you that I am doing no such thing. What I am saying is that people are going to attribute your actions in game to you anyway, so you might as well take responsibility for them.

[Twan]

By setting strict rules, you basically destroy one of the greatest aspect of some nations : stealth, assassins, a lot of the magic aspect (all those nameless spells), and just make it a straighforward game where everything is known and boring.

This only shows that "artificial laws" may have to be precised for some cases.

Personnally I usually assume that :
- all undercover (stealthy scouting/anonymous spells) operations are always allowed
- finding a simple scout in your realm has no consequence
- being attacked by an assassin or finding a spy in a province where unrest is growing allows immediate NAP breaking against the owner

Don't know if all players have exactly the same view. So it's the kind of things that need to be cleared if a strict ruleset is to be made for some games.

[kasnavada]

kasnavada: Okay, you still don't seem to understand me. Those imaginary characters in Dom 3 do not exist. The people that you make agreements with in a game do. That is why this Hall of Shame thread exists isn't it?

I understand you, but obviously, you do not. In a game, I do not make agreements with a player.

My avatar makes an agreement with another avatar. None of which exist.

That is called : separating something real from something that is not.

About those rules : I have about the same, and I think most people have... That doesn't prevent me from breaking them or upholding more strict ones depending on the avatar I'm playing. For example : I see no problem with breaking a NAP in one game and mutually deciding that discovering a scout in this other territory means war in another.

That's why MP is fun, at least for me.

[moderation]

Twan said:
This only shows that "artificial laws" may have to be precised for some cases.

Personnally I usually assume that :
- all undercover (stealthy scouting/anonymous spells) operations are always allowed
- finding a simple scout in your realm has no consequence
- being attacked by an assassin or finding a spy in a province where unrest is growing allows immediate NAP breaking against the owner

Don't know if all players have exactly the same view. So it's the kind of things that need to be cleared if a strict ruleset is to be made for some games.

I also think it would be useful to have some kind of common ruleset so everyone has a common understanding of what agreements mean. For starters maybe, maybe in the future there will be a clearly written out NAP form letter to make things clearer. Similar to how the GPL has multiple versions, there could be multiple NAP versions. Therefore you could just request a NAP version 3 with you neighbor and they would understand exactly what the terms are. Ideally, this will help prevent great gnashing of teeth and rending of garments down the line.

[Dedas]

I agree Twan.

My view:

The rights of players

- It is the right of every player by natural law to break any artificial law.

- It is the right of every players to punish the violation of any artificial law to any extent unless breaking natural law and/or meta-gaming (unless made natural law by common consent).

- It is the right of players to, within the same game, transform any artificial law to natural law. But only within that same game and only if every player within that game agrees.


The duties of players

- To not break natural law (cheating).

- To not meta-game unless that is made natural law within a game.




The definitions of natural law and artificial law can be found in my above posts.

[gowb]

Hm, no I respectfully disagree Moderation, I don't think it'd be a good idea to codify a set of laws for all players to obey. The solution is simply to make the terms of the NAP clear to whoever you are making it with, and make sure they understand and agree.

The real definition of a non-aggression pact is that you simply won't attack, not that you'll give warning before you attack. So in my definition a 3 turn NAP means I won't attack for three turns, and then anything goes. And there's nothing wrong with spies and scouts and such, long as they don't get caught, heh heh heh.

[Karlem]

Interesting point... I never make "in game" agreements, they are always "out of game". There is no history behind the agreements, no reasoning, nothing like that. What I mean is that I make agreements with the players, but big question is: how many people makes "in game" agreements as Kasnavada?

Funny thing is that anyone that makes an "in game" agreement seems to be more prone to treason. He does not risk anything, after the game finishes any backstab dissapears into oblivion...

And lets be realistic, who would make an "in game" NAP with Ryleh, they are alliens and mad.... or with Ermor...

[Twan]

gowb said:The real definition of a non-aggression pact is that you simply won't attack, not that you'll give warning before you attack. So in my definition a 3 turn NAP means I won't attack for three turns, and then anything goes.

It's why there is a need to clarify common definitions. If you don't know what is a "3t NAP" for the community, and rather use your own idea of what it should mean, you may transform some game threads into flame wars the day you break one.