Breaking of NAPs

[Hamlet]

In Game 128, Harry O is breaking a very clear NAP in writing. When I joined this community, I was sure the forum said breaking NAPs was not done here. I am including the entire email chain below. The first email is just before Turn 8, NAP was agreed on Turn 9, and the RA breaking of the NAP is on Turn 10 just after the Black moved ems and armies out because of the NAP. I guess I need player feedback. Does my taking his town on Turn 3 really mean that he can pretend to enter a NAP later with no intention of actually agreeing to it? I have entered numerous NAPs after blood was spilled and those NAPs were honored on both sides. The below email exchange represents every word we ever exchanged, so no history between us. If NAPs don't count in this game, that would be good information for me to know.

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 12:31 AM, Kevin (BL) wrote:
Hello Rangers:
Heard a rumor that the RA was about to go to war with my beautiful black dragons. Any truth to that?
Hamlet

Harry O (Rangers)
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Mike Drapeau
I'm not sure where you heard about war. I didn't appreciate you taking my town in 10 though.

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:51 PM, Kevin Michaels wrote:
Stalwart Ranger:

I hope you are enjoying 128 as much as I am. Taking out the Giant capitol for the 3rd time in a row this turn. Now that is fun.

I declared you an enemy as a defensive measure since you did not really answer as to whether we were about to go to war. Then you declared me one. That all works. But now we have a decision to make.

I am done in Amberland this turn. My preference would be to make a NAP with you and go to the Troll capitol. That should benefit you. If you and I have a NAP, I can afford to go that far away. If we don't, I have to come home to defend or attack as a defensive move. I am fine either way, but I think it works better for both of us if I go fight the Troll and help the Gnome. The troll is about to take a second region.

So, my proposal is that we have a NAP through Turn 20 and I then go fight your natural enemy, starting with his capitol asap. If we do not have a NAP, I will have to come your way. This is not a threat, just the way I need to defend the southeast area.

Please let me know as soon as you can as I may be leaving Amberland as early as this turn.

Thanks,
Kevin of the Black

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Mike Drapeau wrote:
I want my town.

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 9:07 PM, Kevin Michaels wrote:
Lol, that sounds fair. Take your town at WR back any time you want. In fact, if you tell me what turn you can take it, I can have my emissary turn it neutral.
But this only works if we have a NAP through Turn 20. Please let me know.

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Mike Drapeau wrote:
Sure NAP to turn 20. I'll move an emmy in this comming turn.

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:09 PM, Kevin Michaels wrote:
In your last communication, you agreed to a NAP to turn 20. But then you moved into a town of mine at VX and showed up with an army at your old town (which I did turn neutral for you as agreed). I need to hear from you, as we have a NAP to turn 20, but you are showing up at too many pop centers. I will take defensive action if I don't hear over the weekend. Breaking NAPs is never a good practice.

On Mar 22, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Mike Drapeau wrote:
Thieves should understand the time for NAP was turn 3.

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:25 PM, Kevin wrote:
So you are breaking the nap you signed?

From: Mike Drapeau
Date: March 22, 2014 at 7:33:06 PM

Does the concept of property rights mean nothing to you? When someone steals from you nothing agreed to after matters. It's clear your a product of the moral relativism pushed lately. The concept of property rights mean nothing to you and you fell entitled to bargain for that exact property after it was stolen. Stop wasting my time with you nonsense. Go back to school forget the morality the the deparment of education foisted on you and relearn morality.

[Jumpingfist]

To take a town without an agreement is basically an act of war. I see where Mike(RA) is coming from he views you at war with him and waited for his time to strike, now you want to talk about a town you took without provocation after owning for 7 turns your only willing to give it back. I personally would not have accepted the nap then attacked the next turn and would also be a little upset he attacked the next turn. But really is he suppose to just say hey sorry my troops are in route and let you pull your army group off of OP to come strike back. If he attack three turns from now then that would be a completely different argument.

My next question is will the Axis of Evil respond the same way as they did last time a friend was under attack and just let him fall from the tree while he sends them food. And yes you are the Axis of Evil how could DE, RD, BL, SO, WI, GN(RIP) be anything else. You may have recruited a new little Dwarven pet to replace your lost Gnome still Evil thru and thru. What happened to my(WA) and GI quick death we were promised. I have owned Avalon since T3 one would think giving a Wizards a cities income for going on 8 turns now may not be the best way to kill him.

[Acererak]

I for one, would like to endorse all backstabbing. There's not enough of it in the world.

Yours Truly,

Underworld.

[VballMichael]

Are two players seriously defending the breaking of a clear and written NAP? Is this how our community responds? Of course the taking of a town was an act of war, and a war response would have been fine. But to pretend to a NAP and then come in and attack? That is not how our Forum described NAPs when I signed up....
Harry O. Stand up and abide by your NAP. You are just showing the community that nobody can trust your NAPs.

[DuPont]

Kind of a grey area to me. The one trouble I have with NAPs is it's one thing when they are signed early when people are not entangled. When the hammer is about to fall, asking for a NAP sometimes seems to me to be a cheap way of getting your opponent to declare his intentions and rob him of the element of surprise. It seems clear that's how the RA player felt here (I must say that I don't think I have ever spoken to him, certainly not in this game where he is my Natural Enemy). The NAP was given so grudgingly and in such curt tones, I don't think I would have trusted it myself. I have certainly been in cases on both sides when a last minute NAP (or even alliance) was signed, but the communication usually looks different to this. Here you had two declared enemies, one with a grudge.
I have been in situations before when I felt that people didn't honor agreements. At the end of the day, it's just a game and I realize that people have different ideas about honor and rules thereof. This is all self-enforced - I just take that information going forward - I don't carry grudges from game-to-game, but I am aware of who honors things to the letter and who finds loopholes. In this game, were I the BL, I would probably dedicate the rest of the game to pounding the RA position (and I say that not because I would benefit) to make him pay for what my kingdom would have perceived as a breach of treaty. I would have made this post in the game 128 thread, though, not the general forum.

[paway]

It seems very clear cut.

Both players agreed to a non-aggression pact until turn 20. One player agreed to return a town to the other player, and aided the transfer by making it neutral.

Harry O is clearly in the wrong on two fronts. He should not have broken his word and he should not have make it personal by deriding his fellow player for trying to hold him to that agreement.

[The Gray Mouser]

Just my opinion:

1. There are way too many NAP's in general. Most players feel they need several naps in place to do anything;
2. They are made way too early, like T0, instead of letting the game develop;
3. They are way too broad and so lead to lots of gray area;
4. They are sometimes used to cement a path to, or victory itself when the other side doesn't know the other ramifications of his agreement;
5. Clever players really exploit the conditions of the NAP (like "Thanks, by your agreement I just cut you off from Amberland and secured it for myself");
6. A NAP is not enforceable and there are two sides to every story, everyone has a who-shot-who;
7. Early NAPS lead directly to the poorest part of game play - the organized 3 v 1.

I wish players would say "No" to the constant, "Do you want a game long NAP?" offered on turn 0. Come up with something more creative. In my opinion, a NAP should be a short term treaty, subject to renewal, and subject to limitations. Something like, "While I cannot agree to your game long NAP, I would agree to an arrangement that through Turn 6, my groups and nobles will not enter Region X for your similar promise regarding Region Y. As the campaign progresses, we can look to extend, modify, or cancel our agreement. Agreed?"

[Lord Thanatos]

Not a grey area at all.

If your intention - for any damn reason whatsoever - is to agree to a NAP and then break it... Then (within the confines of our gaming community) you are untrustworthy forever!

Misunderstandings do happen. But to agree to a NAP, break it, and then essentially say you intended to break it all along - no grey at all. The NAP was entered into with duplicitous intent and such a player should never again be trusted.

Simply refuse to enter into the agreement. Remember, you play with these same players over and over and over and over and over again in the Alamaze community.

While I do not carry events from one game over to another game.... I would be a fool not to have a mental list of players that cannot be trusted to keep their word. I try not to be a fool.

I am in about 7 games right now. Some of the players who are my allies in one game are my enemies in another game. Same with players who are neutral in one game and then allies or enemies in other games. This is the spirit of good, competitive gaming. There is no place for outright lies!

You want deception? Do so within the confines of the game. There are myriad ways of utilizing the game orders to deceive one's opponents. To sacrifice one's integrity on the alter of expediency is short-sighted.

You can only sell your integrity once!

[Lord Thanatos]

Just my opinion:

1. There are way too many NAP's in general. Most players feel they need several naps in place to do anything;
2. They are made way too early, like T0, instead of letting the game develop;
3. They are way too broad and so lead to lots of gray area;
4. They are sometimes used to cement a path to, or victory itself when the other side doesn't know the other ramifications of his agreement;
5. Clever players really exploit the conditions of the NAP (like "Thanks, by your agreement I just cut you off from Amberland and secured it for myself");
6. A NAP is not enforceable and there are two sides to every story, everyone has a who-shot-who;
7. Early NAPS lead directly to the poorest part of game play - the organized 3 v 1.

I wish players would say "No" to the constant, "Do you want a game long NAP?" offered on turn 0. Come up with something more creative. In my opinion, a NAP should be a short term treaty, subject to renewal, and subject to limitations. Something like, "While I cannot agree to your game long NAP, I would agree to an arrangement that through Turn 6, my groups and nobles will not enter Region X for your similar promise regarding Region Y. As the campaign progresses, we can look to extend, modify, or cancel our agreement. Agreed?"

While your point may be accurate, it is not what is being discussed in this thread.

If a player writes, "Yes, we have an agreement," breaks the agreement, and then writes, "That is your just desserts for taking my town" he has made it clear he never intended to abide by the agreement - whatever the terms were. That is a clear lie! Liars are remembered.

I, at least, remember.

[Thalion]

... I was sure the forum said breaking NAPs was not done here...

I wouldn't think this was the case. I expect that agreements will continue to be broken as games progress, but the forum is a good way to publish grievances. Some players take this more seriously than others, and that - like how far to trust any given player - is likely only to be learned over time with play and commentary from other players. Learning which players mark others for future games v those that limit behavior types to individual games may also require some time and work.

The facts, as laid out, appear to be clear cut deceit, and I find it funny that some type of lecture against moral relativism is trotted out in response to a complaint about being lied to. I would say lying and being deceitful is just as immoral as theft. I wonder what sort of education system foisted that upon the writer?

Attacking pop centers is central to the game, and to be expected. I doubt anyone really expects to be notified that their resources are going to be targeted, so having a PC taken shouldn't surprise anyone - unless they've made an agreement that would preclude that type of attack.

Any agreement after the loss of a PC would necessarily take that occurrence into account, especially here as it was singularly called out.

Clearly a dishonest endeavor by the player, but I'm not convinced that makes the player forever dishonest. Similar behavior would likely seal that deal, but then again, there's no reason not to play and make deals with that type of player - just be sure that you know what they want and try to always offer a better advantage than they would gain from going back on a future deal...