Login

Daredevil · 11-26-2014, 03:59 AM

Still a little misleading, but not in any way a backstab. You were clear there was no deal. This is the Champions game. Play on. Daredevil has spoken. And some day people might listen.

**Cloud** · 11-26-2014, 04:02 AM

I had meant to bow out and let the conversation run its course, but I guess as long as I'm still being asked questions, I'll answer them. I actually meant there's no real controversy over the definition of the phrase. None of the definitions disagreed. It does not mean thwarting. It means meeting. Obviously, there's controversy here in the forums.

Quote:Your first definition was "to encounter or meet unexpectedly". Was this a chance landing at his capital?

Yes. I had rather hoped it would be a nice neutral I could take quietly. I passed by it on turn 1, sent an emmy and recon'd it on turn 2. The emmy bounced from a GN group and recon revealed it was his cap. So I sent a group. I was not seeking it out. I just happened to find it. Had I known it was his cap, I'd have saved myself the Emmy cost.

**kevindusi** · 11-26-2014, 02:52 PM

I actually think the answer to "Was this a chance landing at his capital?" would be "no", since you had done a recon before sending your group.

Again, it's a game, and people will fight, but that's a stretch for justification in my eyes.

**Cloud** · 11-26-2014, 04:05 PM

Sorry. I thought that the question at hand was - Did I encounter him unexpectedly? The answer to that is yes. On turn 2. The group was sent after.

Ultimately, I've got no beef with the characterization that what I was being technically truthful but inherently dishonest. Anytime you withhold information that you know the other person would like to know, that's dishonesty. I knew I would be expanding in R7 and that we would inevitably cross paths and come into conflict. I nevertheless contend that I did not lie. I did not seek him out and I wouldn't have, but I did know that our meeting was not avoidable.

I absolutely contend that Brogan's characterization of our exchange as meaning that we were 'at peace' and his attempt to frame this as a a 'backstab' are both false and unsupported by the facts. If you agree with him on these issues, I'd be interested to know your thoughts.

Cloud

**Ry Vor** · 11-26-2014, 04:11 PM

I probably should stay out of this, but long time forum members probably know I think there should actually be more uncertainty, I hesitate to use the word deception as that colors things, but I really think players that seek to get multiple NAP's ASAP are cheating the game of what it can be. Just an opinion. I know I am in the minority in this, and my persona certainly doesn't win games, and the top players find it frustrating to deal with that game persona because I don't generally do "game long NAPS". I think its actually a game design weakness that it is so easy to tie up neighbors for the duration with NAP's.

Geez, watch Game of Thrones. Do you think the Lannisters would never take advantage of the Starks because some deal was made? People that made it through the five books (and by the way, the gorgeous new "The World of Ice and Fire" is out) understand the intrigue and uncertainty is what keeps the pages turning. I kind of wish Alamaze was more like that. It has the potential in what the rules allow, but players strip themselves of that all the time.

Just to complete the thought, I also wish players that love to have multiple allies would start Magic (team) games, instead of being in a supposedly individual game and instantly have several allies.

**DuPont** · 11-26-2014, 04:41 PM

I deal with it by not looking to see who is playing what kingdom. I don't want to think, oh, let's not attack him, he's a buddy. More than once I've found myself in a war and only after the fact did I know who I was clashing with. But the end result is that yes, I don't win a lot of games. And it is tough to turn down a NAP because people will assume you are going to attack you. But for reasons like this, I don't use weasel words - it's too much like Bill Clinton or something. People won't parse your words.
This is why I enjoy anonymous so much - you can attack who you wish and don't have to care!

**The Broken** · 11-26-2014, 05:24 PM

Here's what I know. So what.

I had an agreement with a player in a game, and he took me raising my own influence on the HC as a hostile act, hence broke any agreement we had because he felt attacked, most people would think that's silly, he didn't. So in the end ANY player can justify anything about anything. Or as I call it the The Harry O effect.

I'm sure Brogen has done things in a game to cause him to be considered untrustworthy to some, but he thought his actions were "above the Line".

Bottom line, live and learn, I'm not going to not trust Cloud until he does something to me I consider wrong. Stating it on the forum, doesn't sway anyone opinion of the player. So as I have learned why bother bringing it up at all, I won't anymore, Ill just remember who I can trust and who I can't for further games.

11-27-2014, 01:02 AM

I'm with Cloud and Rick here. I'm a bit tired of all of the crying and whining about NAP and NEVER EVER EVER going back on your word or being banned forever from any alliance. This is a freaking game people, a game where conquest is the object. I actually wish there was more backstabbing going on. I've made the analogy before about Diplomacy the game. What makes it such a great game is the backstabbing. History is littered with it, all wars contain it. Give me a break.

That said I have honored all of my commitments but wish that people wouldn't be so black and white.

Cloud was very specific that there was no agreement of any kind. "I'm all full up on peace." If you don't get a reply to an overture of peace, or if someone doesn't specifically agree to an NAP or alliance then prepare for war. If you don't then I hope your capital gets taken and your king hung out to dry.

11-27-2014, 01:07 AM

“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

"Don't ever deceive anyone." - Alamaze Forum Community

**HeadHoncho** · 11-27-2014, 01:10 AM

I'd be interested in playing in a full diplomacy "capital-D Diplomacy" game, where anything goes without regard to forum reputation.

With that said, when I found Alamaze again last year, my strong impression was that the existing player base at that time put heavy weight on NAPs and keeping one's word, so when in Rome, I have meticulously done as the Romans do...