183 Full Diplo w/ SVC

[Lord Thanatos]

Not sure about now but in the past after turn 12 standbys were not done.  It would be the individuals task to find a replacement

Now . . .  they apparently allow it since there is a new UN player added as standby in this contest on turn 18.

I have nothing against the new standby player [in fact, I like him quite a bit ], but it is incredibly frustrating to have an entirely new dynamic at this point in the contest and is a horrible precedent to do things contrary to the players' expectations at the time the contest was started.

How would players like to nearly defeat a kingdom and then have one of our Iron Willed players placed into that position? To say nothing of the relative skill of the dropped player v. the added player.  Not to mention any existing agreement between the players do not necessarily carry over to the new player and, in fact, the new player may very well make new agreements.  After the initial turns, say 12[?], it is as disruptive to add a standby player as it is to have a player drop (and for every one of the same reasons).

For every reason why a player might believe it is a positive thing for a standby to be placed late in the game those are the identical reasons why a different player might believe it is a negative thing for a standby to be placed late in the game.

We should have simply stuck to the 12 turn rule as that is what players have come to expect . . .

[HeadHoncho]

I mentioned this very issue in the "dropping all games" thread.

As usual, disclosure and communication would be very helpful, I believe, in avoiding misunderstandings and grievances with respect to stuff like this.

[Rogal]

Oh I forgot, the Trolls are looking for donations to fund their Contra clandestine decentralized Cossack like  operations against foreign invaders in the west.  I might only take up a few of some empires orders, but it could be a few orders not heading to your kingdom.   Any and all  aid is welcome, even from the lowly Rangers who think they are better then everyone with things like horses and clothing.  The Trolls can only keep aggro in the west from multiple empires for so long, so the longer you want issues in the west, help feed the Trolls.

[Lord Thanatos]

The witchlord can be reached at calste28@gmail.com

Sinestro wrote:

"See I am willing to agree to some sort of NAP, except, if you control 3 regions, the NAP will have to be off....would you agree to that? And if you were to go back down to 2 regions or less, then the NAP would be back on. If that makes any sense. If you cant agree to that, I understand.


I have created too many NAPs with people and I will end up having few places to go if you keep on your reign of terror."


I replied:

"Yes. That is agreeable. If either of us controls three regions the NAP is suspended until neither of us controls three regions.

Which artifact do you need location of, my partner in peace?

LT"

Back to the present:
Sinestro, you need never again send an email to me.  Your word is worthless and shall never be relied upon by me again.

This is the reason I prefer anonymous games!!!

Why would people outright lie in a game?  Is their integrity worth so little?   I once told a colleague that "you can only sell your integrity once."

So Sinestro, what was the price for your integrity? [I realize that I traded two useful artifacts to you for a single artifact which I told you I valued as worthless; I also used the Oracle to divine the location of Gem of Planes for you; I also offered to retrieve it without any further compensation.]  Somebody else gets to win the game instead of me?  How little some people value their reputation!

I realize that I can only control my own behavior and not some other worthless scum sucking piece of detritus' behavior; that is why I merely indicate that you need not waste your time sending me messages in the future.  You have taught me a clear lesson which I shall not forget.

The lesson: "Sinestro is a cur and never again to be trusted!"

Now I have to determine whether Sinestro and I are in other diplomacy contests together. . . I doubt it since my games are mostly comprised of formats like 2014 Warlords Championship, Primeval Championship, and Invitation Only Championship.  A player can keep his word and still be successful in Alamaze!!!

A fellow player I greatly respect once made an error in recalling an agreement he made as to whether it ended after turn 10 or after turn 12.  Because his error put another agreement he had made in jeopardy he dropped the contest rather than become a liar to one of the two people he would have ended up lying to.  I guess I shall see how Sinestro responds . . .

Now I shall return to reading my turn results since I stopped reading at the point where a WI group successfully cast 171 on my pc on turn 19.

P.S.  Other players feel the same way as I do because your intended treachery was tipped off to me with assurances from the tipster that the agreements with me across multiple games were all secure and I need never worry about relying upon those agreements.

[Ry Vor]

Lord Thanatos is too great a community member to delete this post, but we will be deleting posts on the forum that are personal attacks.  I just don't see them as constructive.  In general, the receptiveness and friendliness of our community is a strength.  I and many others have been distressed at some recent attacks, either at the enterprise, or at individual players.  Its not what we are about, and doesn't add to the intrigue, the fun, the expectation, the unknown that is what Alamaze is about.

Let's remember why we play the game.   And we won't win every game, or even finish high.  But we compete, and enjoy the competition.  Perge' (press on).

[Sinestro]

I deleted my original post. I wanted to say something but just figured, whatever. Like Ry Vor said. We won't win every game.

[Sinestro]

Look, you wanted to win turn 20. I wasn't ready for the game to end.

This is just a game, how people are on here is not the same way they are in life. Maybe for some people.

Understand why I'm doing this. I said I was dropping the game after this game is over. Do you think I want to try and have fun or just let you win.

And excuse me about keeping a NAP, please have the GN get on here and post your original NAP and how you broke that. And how about what you said to him about defending his region?

I hope people learn. Never make game long NAPs, you did it with almost every player. If I would have known that, I wouldn't have made a NAP with you.

I do appreciate the artifacts even though one is pointless.

And the artifact I gave you, it seems not so worthless to me. You sure are using it.

[Lord Thanatos]

GN wrote:
"RA:

I didn't think of this until I saw that you declared the UN an enemy this turn. I went back and looked over my emails with the UN and I have an agreement with him to defend R7. If this nullifies our agreement let me know, as I can't go back on my word with the UN as ours was established on turn 1.

GN"

I wrote:
"I just declared everyone an enemy because I had extra orders and not enough gold in the Summer.

I don't "nullify" agreements.  I just don't ever make agreements again with someone who "nullifies" them.

I really don't think it will be a problem this game.

Good Hunting!

LT"

GN wrote:
"RA:

I thought there wasn't going to be a problem...but you're in R7 now.

GN"

I wrote:
"So what do you think I should have done?

You made peace with me and then said, "Oh by the way, if you come into R7 I have to oppose you."

I made game-long peace with you without any further qualifiers and/or stipulations.  Since you did not tell me about your R7 mutual defense pact I entered into an agreement with you expecting you to keep your word with me.  We shall see?

You should have told me about your R7 defense pact BEFORE you and I agreed upon game-long peace.

Now it appears you have to either break your word with me or break your word with the UN.  You put yourself in that position.

If you do break your word with me, I shall understand but shall remember that in our future dealings.

If you break your word with UN, then that is up to him as to how he takes it.

Morgan Kane found himself in a similar situation when he thought a NAP expired on turn 10 when he had actually agreed to turn 12.  He dropped the game rather than break his word to either me or Gray Mouser.

It appears to me that you have only been a vassal to UN this contest.  He somehow got you to agree to cede control of R7 to him when Runnimede goes to GN almost every game because GN has quite the advantage over UN in the initial phases of the game.  And even if GN doesn't have all the advantages, the advances to the GN kingdom are easier to complete during conflict than are the advances to the UN (due to scarcity of orders when UN is in conflict).

Anyhow, I was not going to tip my hand to you when you told me about your mutual defense pact AFTER our agreement was concluded.

LT"

I also wrote:
"You and I don't have an agreement either. I considered it cancelled when you added qualifiers.  I am happy to work out something new with you though.

LT"


I have no problem with the GN player.  He found himself in a difficult position and was upfront about how there was a potential conflict between his agreements and left me the option to back out.  This anticipatory breach is not ideal but I can deal with it.

You simply broke your word because you no longer cared about your community reputation!  I will never again reach an agreement with you!

[Rogal]

The Trolls will be willing to handle these issues.  Please contact us to set up payments of 50,000 gold for all parties that might be involved in this issue.  All gold will be held in an Escrow account and could be returned in the final tuns of the game, but no earlier then turn 36. The trolls will also request the locations of all parties land holdings to be kept in control of the Trolls until the dispute can be resolved.  25% of each region should be enough until all issues are resolved.  Again as before, all of these population centers will be held and might be returned but not before turn 36.  We Trolls believe that a piece plan like this should be implemented as soon as possible so a proper balance between the different empires can be established.

[Lord Thanatos]

The Trolls will be willing to handle these issues.  Please contact us to set up payments of 50,000 gold for all parties that might be involved in this issue.  All gold will be held in an Escrow account and could be returned in the final tuns of the game, but no earlier then turn 36. The trolls will also request the locations of all parties land holdings to be kept in control of the Trolls until the dispute can be resolved.  25% of each region should be enough until all issues are resolved.  Again as before, all of these population centers will be held and might be returned but not before turn 36.  We Trolls believe that a piece plan like this should be implemented as soon as possible so a proper balance between the different empires can be established.

A "piece plan" is congruent to, but not actually eqivalent to, a "peace plan", correct?