Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
March to Steel
#71
(03-18-2021, 12:45 PM)Ruingurth Wrote:
(03-18-2021, 12:27 PM)Ry Vor Wrote: There are a lot more cons than pros to having private diplomacy.  Also a lot more two on one or three on ones that happen kind of simultaneously.   I would like to say forum only is the standard, but to also allow a private forum message (personal message) only in response to an agreed upon trade and only concerning that trade, or to provide a specific name and/or location, the parameters to which were discussed on the open forum.

For example, on the forum the DW says to the UN, "I would like to purchase the Plow of the Prophet for 40,000 gold, as we discussed.  See my personal message to exchange the particulars."

These personal messages should therefore not be more than about 10 words and discuss only specifics of something agreed to on the open forum.  If you have doubts about whether a personal message complies with the one topic rule, err on the side of not doing it.

When over the 35 years of Alamaze we have lost players, the leading cause is dispute over player actions against another, usually related to a perceived NAP or a coordinated attack.

Again, we will have full alliance games, and likely games where each kingdom can have one ally that can change during the game, perhaps even with a time limit, but the default is no alliances and no NAPS and no trades lasting beyond three turns.

Sounds good to me PM just the short names and locations only. But Trades are Limited. First month of the season only.

Ruingruth

Thank you for the clarification. 
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)