Diplomacy ethics

[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by Foodstamp

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I have a hard time letting a back stabber live long in the next game I play with them.

A guy broke a NAP with me once, and we met again the very next game I joined with me playing Pangaea and him playing Agartha. We bumped into each other around turn 6 both going for the same independent province. It was an accidental slaughter, but it led to me systematically following his province trail back to his capital and putting him out shortly after.

You know because of that reason I'm afraid of people who I backstabbed in another game, and make naps with everyone else so I can focus on the guy who must be coming after me now, and then when I find out he isn't and my ally is becoming to strong I have to backstab him. It's a vicious circle.

As a side note while I do not like artificially enforced diplomacy I'd love if there where some games that enforce some cooler diplo then trying to fight on the most uneven terms.
In reality alliances would not be completely random, but determined by economic and social facts. Like a power would automatically have an interest to protect a military weak country it is trading with or Christians will stick together (to some extent) against Muslims and vice versa.
But since all your income is just transfered to your treasury and equally and randomly dispersed and everyone is a heretic...

[Squirrelloid]

I think Machiavellian just means 'caveat emptor', which would be the 'by reputation' option.

Treachery encouraged is certainly permissive of machiavellian play, but there are fewer consequences, so a stab doesn't even need to pay off by as much to be worthwhile. Basically, you're altering the penalty and reward metric, not the nature of the decision making.

[Psycho]

"By reputation" would definitely be the default option of diplomacy. Machiavellian games came into popularity recently and encouraged treacherous play which should not affect reputation.

Altering the penalty and reward metric directly alters the nature of the decision making. It would be sub-optimal not to backstab someone you have an opportunity to do given it would provide you benefit. In a normal game you would think twice before doing it. Machiavellian makes the decision a no-brainer. NAPs don't really have any meaning. If you guard your border closely another player will probably pick another target regardless whether you have a NAP with them or not.

Another thing - why does everyone thinks drama is inherently a bad thing and should be removed? It adds to the experience. We are all human beings with emotions after all. And please don't give me "it's just a game" answer.

[Squirrelloid]

Psycho: the nature of the decision making is cost-benefit analysis. Its the same in either case. Its just the costs are different, so the results don't agree, ie the output can be different given the same benefits.

[vfb]

Good drama is in character, and I appreciate it greatly. For example, posts like this:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...738#post725738

Bad drama is getting pissed off because you were backstabbed, and insulting other players out of character. For example:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...701#post720701

[Psycho]

I knew what example you were going to bring up. You can't expect everyone to react the way you like. You can't expect everyone to be a good sport or to take losing well. It's part of the human nature. We are all different, and take this game more or less seriously. It's all part of the game.

[vfb]

Originally Posted by Psycho

I knew what example you were going to bring up. You can't expect everyone to react the way you like.

I don't see the point you are trying to make here.

Originally Posted by Psycho

You can't expect everyone to be a good sport or to take losing well.

I think I'll add that to the OP of games I start. "I expect everyone to be a good sport and to take losing well." Seriously. If someone can't, because they're still 9 years old or something, well, they should get off the computer and go play outside or something.

Originally Posted by Psycho

It's part of the human nature. We are all different, and take this game more or less seriously.

Okay, now it sounds like you are trolling. If we are all different, then we don't all take this game seriously.

[GrudgeBringer]

I don't take this game any more seriously than I take a Rugby game, once I walk off the field and the score is posted.

I won't have a 'dustup' with the guy that gave me a cheap shot, but I will dang sure watch for him the next game.

What does your comment about being "nine years old" have to do with taking the game more or less seriously?

[vfb]

Originally Posted by GrudgeBringer

... What does your comment about being "nine years old" have to do with taking the game more or less seriously?

This commend wasn't about taking the game seriously, it was in response to Psycho's comment: "You can't expect everyone to be a good sport or to take losing well."

I've got a kid who's 6. He's a pretty good kid, but if he plays a game and loses, sometimes he gets upset and cries. He hasn't learned to be a good sport yet. I don't expect that he should be a good sport about losing at only 6 years old, and I think a few more more years will pass before he has gradually learned to be a gracious loser (and winner).

I'd expect anyone old enough to be playing dominions would be mature enough to be a good sport.

[GrudgeBringer]

Yes Sir, that I agree with completely!!!