AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

[Aethyr]

I would argue that a callus pretender who sees their people as "chess pieces" would more likely view those people as the source of their power. Therefore, any attack on those people (or the precious land they occupy)would be considered to be a direct threat to his/her power base.

[NTJedi]

Aethyr said:
NT--

I completely disagree with almost everything you have said. However, we do agree on two very important points:

1) Those who "trust" will always be at a disadvantage (potentially) in WAR.

2) "There can be only one" (unless he/she allows a weaker ally, a respected/feared opponent, or an obedient lackey to survive).

I think both new and old players should keep these things in mind, and defend themselves accordingly, or be prepared to suffer a "hurtful" experience.

My point was there's no need for NEW players to go thru the hassles of learning who can be trusted and who cannot be trusted. And gamers new with hosting a new game shouldn't have the pains of learning which gamers are known for dropping out early.

Tibbs, I didn't mean "emotionally" hurtful... I meant "game time lost" hurtful as it could take months to identify the known backstabbers compared to those known to be honorable to the treaties.

[Baalz]

I'm kinda surprised that so many people are so quick to ignore a NAP, and deride those who honor them as playing at a disadvantage. I see it the other way, knowing full well that I'll likely be playing future games with the same people I think wantonly backstabbing other players puts you at a pretty severe disadvantage. It's not about carrying grudges from game to game, it's just human nature that players who you backstabbed will (rightly so) be very slow to trust you, even in another game. You can talk about roleplaying all you want, but I know that if a player backstabbed me before there is a non-negligble chance it'll happen again, whereas there are other players are a much better risk investment to build friendly relations with.

The very notion of a non-binding NAP is an oxymoron, if the assumption is that you'll be attacked whenever it's in the attacker's advantage why bother saying anything? Someone who has shown me that this is their view of NAP has shown me that they don't think NAP exist at all, and thus will never have a NAP with me in any other game. Consequently they'll be high on my list of targets to attack sooner rather than later, assuming I can secure NAPs with my other neighbors. Again, not about a grudge, it's simple pragmaticisim to not ignore a de-facto threatening neighbor who I've always got to worry about an imminent attack from. I have to assume many players feel the same way, even if they don't rationalize it consciously, so the more you backstab people, the more you get screwed. Particularly since the people you're most likely see in multiple games are also generally going to be the most dangerous players.

[tromper]

Well said, Baatz. Those who've broken NAPs with me in the past are on a personal list of mine - and they will lose the chance in the future. Probably to my quick demise, but oh well. There's no ire or hatred or anything. And sharing this info with friends, perhaps, is fine. And they can make their own decisions. But on the public forum - that's rather inappropriate.

That list of game 'rules' is bogus, however. If I'm not entitled to have my personal list *based upon previous experience* with a player from a past game, as that would break some sort of arbitrary rule-set, please don't allow me to join your game(s).

[NTJedi]

tromper said:
Well said, Baatz. Those who've broken NAPs with me in the past are on a personal list of mine - and they will lose the chance in the future. Probably to my quick demise, but oh well. There's no ire or hatred or anything. And sharing this info with friends, perhaps, is fine. And they can make their own decisions. But on the public forum - that's rather inappropriate.

That list of game 'rules' is bogus, however. If I'm not entitled to have my personal list *based upon previous experience* with a player from a past game, as that would break some sort of arbitrary rule-set, please don't allow me to join your game(s).

I also agree with Baalz

[Salamander8]

I gotta agree with Baalz as well.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

If the game doesn't specify anything, I'm all for keeping your standards- it's one reason why I haven't broken a pact yet. Keep your private lists - I don't intend to get on them, and I can't stop you from making them if I wanted to.

However, occasionally I do want to be treacherous. So, I will have a game with that arbitrary rule-set, and you won't be invited. No ill-feelings, I'll still be okay playing with you in a regular game- but I will maintain the right to an 'evil-backstabbing game' rule-set, just like 'king of the hill', or any other arbitary rule-set.

For me, NAPs do exist, and that's why I haven't blighted your capital yet.

[Archonsod]

NTJedi said:
I agree players should be allowed to violate NAPs or even quit playing when they don't like the way the game is proceeding. However, all this information should be logged on a website for others to review.

Quitting the game because you're losing is just being a bad sport, or impolite. Again though it depends, if the player gives advance warning or otherwise states that they're going to leave fair enough. Sometimes RL does get in the way, sometimes you'd rather bow out gracefully than see things through to the bitter end.
As for diplomacy, would it not in fact be easier for people to simply state, when getting the game together, what kind of diplomacy they want. Whether they want a political type game or if NAP's should be inviolate, or even if anyone forming an agreement has to wear their pants on their head for the duration. That way people know from the outset how they're expected to behave. If they get kicked out of the game for breaking a NAP they can't complain if the host stated NAPS were inviolate, similarly if someone gets backstabbed and the host mentioned the game was going to be an experiment in machevellian politics there's no grounds to complain about someone being dishonest.

To weigh in on the opinionated side of the debate, I actually wouldn't play a multiplayer game if diplomatic moves were expected to be binding. I play multiplayer for the political aspect, backstabbing, manipulation and sabotage are all par for the course. Without that aspect, I'd have no reason not to stick to singleplayer.

As far as the phrasing of a NAP goes, if someone does send me a "NAP for 3 turns" message I usually need to hold back from sending a four letter reply. If one is going to use diplomacy in the game, you should at least do it properly. In character posts are nice, as is giving me a reason not to crush you like an ant In most games I play, diplomacy is used as simply another tool - form an alliance or NAP with two fighting players, equip both sides (but not too much) then crush the victor when they least expect it? I think so.

@ Gandalf - the reason I'd like to see a menu driven/hard coded diplomacy is not so much to have it enforced by the game, but more to have it recognised by the game. It would give more options if you could move your troops through allied territory for example (one of which being nullifying your alliance and siezing any provinces your army was currently 'aiding the defence' in )

[Ironhawk]

Guys....

I have to say I am terribly disappointed with you all...

Here I see this thread title and I expect to see a massive flame war! But instead it was just logical conversations. Come on guys - this was supposed to be my entertainment for the afternoon!!! Hehehehe.

But seriously I am glad to see that people are discussing things so reasonably tho. I agree with the general sentiment that violating NAPs should only be treated on a game-by-game basis. IMO, there really isnt a need for a blacklist or honor-ranking system in dom because there just isnt enough treaty breaking to warrant it. Most experienced players know that thier reputation has value and won't risk it just for a slight advantage in one game.

[Gandalf Parker]

It is one of the advantages of having the gaming community tied so directly into the forum. You forum ID is your reputation.

And by the way, its not as easy to change as someone might think. These boards do not allow multiple IDs and they report multiple logins on the same IP to the moderators. Yes, of course you can change IPs also but its not like you can easily do it anytime you get a black mark on your login here.