Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NAP Agreements
#21
To me, NAPs are an agreement between two players. While I would certainly be upset if I was on the receiving end of the scenario outlined by Kalrex, I don't think the rules should change to enforce someone keeping their word. With the small Alamaze community, word gets around quickly, and it could become harder for those breaking NAPs to find them in the future. But this does bring up something I've always been curious about (sorta).

In the old rules, and still on our Status of Kingdom Relationships, we have a reference to Marriages of State. What was the original intent of that, and will it be available at some point?
Keeope
 
Reply
#22
(06-26-2013, 01:29 PM)Keeope Wrote: To me, NAPs are an agreement between two players. While I would certainly be upset if I was on the receiving end of the scenario outlined by Kalrex, I don't think the rules should change to enforce someone keeping their word. With the small Alamaze community, word gets around quickly, and it could become harder for those breaking NAPs to find them in the future. But this does bring up something I've always been curious about (sorta).

In the old rules, and still on our Status of Kingdom Relationships, we have a reference to Marriages of State. What was the original intent of that, and will it be available at some point?

Good question, and I am falling back on maybe a 22 year past memory of a design issue that I probably didn't complete before Phil took over Alamaze. I recollect that since we had introduced gender, I wanted to make more of it, and as historically marriages have been so important to strong alliances, that it would be like a forever-ally that could only be broken in the event of the death of either partner. I'm not sure its as worthy an idea to pursue as are other ones.
Reply
#23
(06-26-2013, 01:37 PM)Ry Vor Wrote:
(06-26-2013, 01:29 PM)Keeope Wrote: To me, NAPs are an agreement between two players. While I would certainly be upset if I was on the receiving end of the scenario outlined by Kalrex, I don't think the rules should change to enforce someone keeping their word. With the small Alamaze community, word gets around quickly, and it could become harder for those breaking NAPs to find them in the future. But this does bring up something I've always been curious about (sorta).

In the old rules, and still on our Status of Kingdom Relationships, we have a reference to Marriages of State. What was the original intent of that, and will it be available at some point?

Good question, and I am falling back on maybe a 22 year past memory of a design issue that I probably didn't complete before Phil took over Alamaze. I recollect that since we had introduced gender, I wanted to make more of it, and as historically marriages have been so important to strong alliances, that it would be like a forever-ally that could only be broken in the event of the death of either partner. I'm not sure its as worthy an idea to pursue as are other ones.

I actually like that idea. A forced alliance between kingdoms that agree to the marriage, which is instantly dissolved at the death of one of the entrants.

I can imagine agents all around the world attempting to close alliances.. even on their own kingdoms... That would be a great twist.
Keeope
 
Reply
#24
I'd like to play the UN in the first game where Marriages of State are allowed....
Keeope
 
Reply
#25
To me, NAPs can be anything from an agreed border with no further implied friendship, up to a warm-up for an alliance. That is to say, the definition is vague and broad. Anything else required from the agreement should be discussed explicitly, otherwise it would be fair to expect nothing else but a border for your groups and emmys.

The definition is in the term: Non Aggression Pact. Invasion of a region is aggression. Usurping with an emmy or group is aggression. Sleep/theft/battles are aggression. Supplying your NAP's enemy with intel and resources is not an act of aggression - it isn't a friendly act and it is most certainly underhanded, but I don't see it as an aggressive one.

If you want to agree to treat each other in a friendly manner, or you want an NAP to include not helping each other's enemies, then what you are talking about is an alliance. There is a separate definition for that in the game and out of it. You can have public alliances affecting the game status, or private ones where you make a secret arrangement but don't declare it.

Ultimately, you can be generous or mean within the definitions of any NAP or alliance, without actually being a liar. Obviously liars will carry their legacy with them into future games but it's also up to the wider community to remember which honest players were better or worse at holding up their end of the bargain. This also means knowing who to believe when accusations are made; and that's a whole other question, of course Smile
Nitnux
?? in game 116
SO in game 105
Reply
#26
I'm a newbie to Alamaze and Fall of Rome and this may be why I feel this way, but I think that the conversation is a good one and one that I appreciate.

I'd say that there is no such a thing as a universal non aggression pact, and that it's important to specify the details with each individual you are contacting. Both on time limits and scope. If the term NAP is all that was used I'd agree with Nitnux, that the underhanded supplying of resources and intel to an enemy is not a violation of a NAP without further conversation or strengthening of the language to, say, an (unofficial) alliance. After all, you could have a NAP with one person, tell another person about it and though it may seem innocuous, it's really actionable intel for everybody else who finds out about it. The levels of grey are infinite, but non-aggresssion is definitely not the same thing as an alliance (official or not).
Reply
#27
To set the record straight, I agree with Kalrex that the Elves got a raw deal. Memories should be long. And, that is appropriate.

NAPs have no universal, one-shoe size fits all agreement for all scenarios.

While some players will chagrin to the more contemporary analogy to FoR in the context of Alamaze, the issue of the "NAP" was one of the most derisive and debilitating subjects that sent some players out of the game ... in the FoR1 era. This was and continues to be incredibly unfortunate for such a great game.

We have to find a delicate balance of driving accountability (long term) in this small community vs. some allowance for some gray areas based upon what I refer to the human condition. This is not a text book - this is the hardest element of the game.

In any case, unless you have been playing with a persona for years and know his nuances and have implicit trust with the simple utterance (or writing of) let's have a "NAP" (as Cipher said, a relationship built upon trust), then you are quite simply a fool to sign up to a "NAP" that has no parameters. For the record, there are a good number of personas in FoR wherein I have this implied trust with the simple word, "NAP." But, this has been earned with blood.

With an unknown quantity (read persona) where there is no context to a NAP that has no qualifications, then you are either rolling the dice or blindly trusting that all permutations will factor in your favor. The unqualified (in the non-accounting term) NAP is entirely subjective - even for personas you casually know because one cannot be held accountable for perceived aggressions that may or may not be directly or indirectly attributable to the aggressee or aggressor.

While I am a veteran of FoR and a newbie to Alamaze, I am very selective in establishing a NAP. I subscribe the concept of laying out precisely what you want out of an agreement if you want a NAP. Otherwise it is just an adventure of good communications to see where it goes.

I am excited about the new personas I have encountered in Alamaze thus far. I have met incredible people and done (learned) some great things in the first three games where I have played already without using the term NAP in most of my conversations. I would like to think that due to the unique and complex subtleties of Alamaze (compared to FoR) that the concept of a NAP could almost go away. There are so many more opportunities for collaboration and partnership in Alamaze that the concept of a NAP should arguably go away.

Valtteri (Sancus)
Reply
#28
Was there ever an Alamaze game that was in "private" mode where no one knew who the other players were?

All messages through the game would be prevented so no one could pass along their contact information to each other. Players can only sign up for a new game by submitting a request to the signup email address and Rick would be the only one that updated the forum on which positions were still open.

It may make for an interesting game format without any possibility of NAPs or marriages getting in the way.

Also this format would prevent any unfair teaming which some have complained that they are ganged up on early in the game.

Running a private mode game would solve all these issues and may make for an interesting experience. It's kinda similar to adding a real fog-of-war element to the game where everyone is on their own without any alliances to see if they can survive.

I would sign up for this kinda game just for the variety of gameplay Smile
Reply
#29
(06-26-2013, 10:20 PM)unclemike Wrote: Was there ever an Alamaze game that was in "private" mode where no one knew who the other players were?

All messages through the game would be prevented so no one could pass along their contact information to each other. Players can only sign up for a new game by submitting a request to the signup email address and Rick would be the only one that updated the forum on which positions were still open.

It may make for an interesting game format without any possibility of NAPs or marriages getting in the way.

Also this format would prevent any unfair teaming which some have complained that they are ganged up on early in the game.

Running a private mode game would solve all these issues and may make for an interesting experience. It's kinda similar to adding a real fog-of-war element to the game where everyone is on their own without any alliances to see if they can survive.

I would sign up for this kinda game just for the variety of gameplay Smile

I think this variant would be really fun and less time consuming because the communication and diplomacy take so much time in the game.

However, I think avid players would slowly figure out who is who by word of mouth and communication would start up.

Also it would make winter very hard on some kingdoms w/o anyone to trade with for food.
Reply
#30
I think it would be an interesting format as well. I'd sign up for that if it was a one week turn around.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)