Posts: 8,244
Threads: 30
Joined: Jun 2004
Beamup Wrote:Let me restructure this argument a bit. Suppose that you and I have an agreed NAP until turn 250. On turn 200, I inform you that I will attack unless you give me three of your cities. You refuse and I attack. I expect that you would rightly consider me to have broken the NAP. But the argument you're making here would apply to that case equally well - I warned you, you knew what not giving me those cities would trigger, so whining that I declared war and so broke the NAP is idiotic. You were warned and should act accordingly.
Sorry but NAP means Non Agression Pact. Demanding 3 cities is in itself an act of agression so your demand is already breaking the NAP.
Not to mention that the huge difference between 'I stay at peace with you but if you attack c I have to attack you' and 'Give me xyz or I attack' shouldn't be so hard to recognize.
Posts: 102
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2010
Rowain Wrote:Sorry but NAP means Non Agression Pact. Demanding 3 cities is in itself an act of agression so your demand is already breaking the NAP.
Not to mention that the huge difference between 'I stay at peace with you but if you attack c I have to attack you' and 'Give me xyz or I attack' shouldn't be so hard to recognize. Morally, there's a difference, sure. But functionally there is none whatsoever - it's an arbitrary modification of the terms of the agreement by a single one of the parties involved.
It would be quite reasonable to apply different consequences (i.e. trust me not at all vs. trust DMOC/Nakor/Whosit less than before), but if one is breaking the NAP, the other necessarily is as well.
Posts: 4,138
Threads: 54
Joined: Dec 2009
Wish I could post this in Spulla thread too but probably not worth the aggro!
Its just a game for christ's sake!!!! Why so serious...?
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
Posts: 8,244
Threads: 30
Joined: Jun 2004
Beamup Wrote:Morally, there's a difference, sure. But functionally there is none whatsoever - it's an arbitrary modification of the terms of the agreement by a single one of the parties involved.
Here you err. The demand in itself is an act of agression thats the breaking of the NAP not your later attacking. You are not modificating the agreement you are breaking it.
Note that it does not matter if you go through with the attack or not or if you just wanted to see how much you can extort. No matter what ayou get out of it you have alread broken the NAP.
Posts: 102
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2010
Rowain Wrote:You are not modificating the agreement you are breaking it. This is, in fact, exactly my point. "If you give me three cities we have an NAP" is a perfectly legitimate agreement. In my hypothetical, I'm "modifying" the agreement from "we have an NAP" to "if you give me three cities we have an NAP". As you correctly note, that is not modifying the agreement, it's breaking it.
"Modifying" an agreement "we have an NAP" to "we have an NAP as long as you don't declare on X" is, in exactly the same way, BREAKING the agreement, because there is no such thing as a unilateral modification of an agreement.
Posts: 8,834
Threads: 75
Joined: Apr 2006
One could argue that declaring war on a friend is an act of aggression.
Darrell
Posts: 17,738
Threads: 82
Joined: Nov 2005
darrelljs Wrote:One could argue that declaring war on a friend is an act of aggression.
Darrell
Isn't that what makes diplomacy so fun? Not the agreements or the letter, but watching players maneuver the words with their own interpretations. And the only guage of effectiveness is how many in-game players take your side. Completely subjective! And quite entertaining 
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
Posts: 8,244
Threads: 30
Joined: Jun 2004
Beamup Wrote:This is, in fact, exactly my point. "If you give me three cities we have an NAP" is a perfectly legitimate agreement. In my hypothetical, I'm "modifying" the agreement from "we have an NAP" to "if you give me three cities we have an NAP". As you correctly note, that is not modifying the agreement, it's breaking it.
No it is not your point what you apperntly don't get is this :
If you have already a NAP your threatening is the breaking of the NAP not the altering. The act of agression you do with your demand is the breaking of the NAP.
Beamup Wrote:"Modifying" an agreement "we have an NAP" to "we have an NAP as long as you don't declare on X" is, in exactly the same way, BREAKING the agreement, because there is no such thing as a unilateral modification of an agreement.
They did not change the agreement. It is still a 'we have a NAP'. Nothing changed there. With the MDP they only clarified what they view as an agressive act. The NAP's signed here are not very specific about what is considered an agressive move or not so there is enough room for clarifications.
Posts: 8,834
Threads: 75
Joined: Apr 2006
pindicator Wrote:Isn't that what makes diplomacy so fun? Not the agreements or the letter, but watching players maneuver the words with their own interpretations. And the only guage of effectiveness is how many in-game players take your side. Completely subjective! And quite entertaining
I wholeheartedly agree . If we had a hard definition for a NAP things would be a lot less interesting.
Darrell
Posts: 102
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2010
Fine, then I'll restate my hypothetical to:
We agree to an NAP. I tell you that I will declare war if you settle north of a given line (modifying the agreement to include a settling division). You settle north of the line, I declare war. Did I break the NAP?
Edit: I could also mention such things as "I will declare war if you trade with X" or "I will declare war if you start to research Civil Service". ANYTHING can be considered an aggressive act looked at the right way, so allowing either party to arbitrarily redefine what constitutes an aggressive act makes the NAP completely meaningless.
|
