[PB70 Mjmd] STAND AS ONE!

[Mjmd]

So lets start off by saying I believed it to be a credible threat. It kind of sounds like maybe it wasn't from what you are both hinting at. I could have had 5 galleons roll off the line the turn I finished Astro (again went with 4 because wasn't sure of SD). I had to do this while not whipping too much for suspicion reasons and I whipped NONE the turn I got astro. Scooters threat of several galleons was very plausible to me.

I am willing to put an example to an impartial jury and may do so myself is someone can recommend a random corner of the internet for such a test that isn't reddit. I realize no one will take me up on this because its laughable I wouldn't win. And yes this is a challenge. I think for some reason people are holding NAPs as sacrosanct beyond the law or history. Again, not being an old time player I may be missing something here. But I am very much feeling a double standard.

Lets stick to this example Q. 3 cities or 1/6 IS duress. You can try to alter the scenario (IE set up a strawman), but the actual scenario I believed IS duress. Having studied such things you know you therefore can't win that argument so you are attempting to deflect.

I believed Scooter was ready for war. He may not have been, but I believed it. Again, it sounds like maybe he wasn't, but the mental state is important for law purposes and my mental state believed in the threat and found it credible.

Historically there is a reason the Royal Navy had a home fleet. IE a fleet they kept to defend their home. Their next most important or most important time period dependent was the Mediterranean fleet. They really didn't want people sailing an army to them because they would then lose. During the war of 1812 the US believed that due to the Napoleonic wars and their own hubris they could go to war with Britain. There were points MAYBE they could have succeeded and at the end they did win a big battle, but even with holding a lot of their fleet back Britain had a laughable amount of naval supremacy. Sure US could commerce raid a bit, but they did get their capital razed. After the war of 1812 the US started building a half dozen ship of the line knowing while it couldn't compete in a global sense with Britain they could have a credible defense as Britain couldn't send all their ships against the US. This bought them better leverage in negotiations going forward. US was able to do things like firm up the border in Oregon because of this much easier.

I did not compare myself to indigenous people and nations. I am sorry if anyone took offense. I did use them as obvious example of unfair treaties that no one would blame for violating. I used them as a basic example everyone could empathize with to establish that the base logic is sound.

I want to take the China example as you've all just been educated a little more in naval history and I apologize as I should have seen this flaw in my logic earlier. China was a large empire with lots of resources. If you take away internal issues they EASILY were THE major power in Asia. Again real history is a lot sloppier. However they lacked a specific set of technologies. (sidebar alternate history of if they hadn't gone isolationist would probably have had equal or superior naval technology). While Britain may seem by far stronger I would argue IN the area China was except for said tech. Again, remember your history Britain isn't going to yolo its fleet around the world. So China IS a dominant power, but lacking key technologies to adequately defend itself against a specific type of attack by a technologically superior foe even in the relatively small amounts available in that area. So were the treaties with China unequal because Britain used their technology against overall a superior foe (again locally China could bring far more troops and resources to bear)? Again, I'm walking the logic here.

Ok now lets imagine the Chinese get the American navy of approximately that same time period after China has lost the first war. 6 ship of the line of various rates and a dozen Frigates. Does the second Opium war happen when China tries to go back on that treaty? I am betting China goes back on their treaties without a second Opium war and no one blames China for it.

Now I think it would have been foolish to ask to be attacked by a superior foe. Sure in stories it sounds cool, but again historical examples are not great for people who have gone that route. I think a MUCH fairer question would be should I have negotiated AFTER I got a navy. IE now we both have a gun. How far do you trust someone who pointed a gun at you? Not far enough to turn your gun away.

[Commodore]

I want to take the China example as you've all just been educated a little more in naval history

I'm trying to imagine a more condescending way to phrase this and I keep coming up blank.

[Mjmd]

I realized a flaw in my logic was that maybe people were unaware of how much strength various imperialist powers could bring to bear. In game terms we think nothing of sending an entire fleet over a relatively small distance. People don't necessarily think in terms of months of sailing and actual forces present. China being the primary power in the region (IE equat ish to my situation) and getting forced into treaties is me walking the logic along. I have no doubt an American size navy would have led to them going back on whichever treaties had been signed at time the navy was dropped in (hand waving ability to crew and fight it and hand waving some leader stepping forward that could get all their resources organized, again real life more complicated, but the logic is there).

Am I also slightly frustrated that Scooter can threaten me into treaties in a diplo game but for some reason I can't respond in a way that makes sense? YES. Evidently the lurkers think I'm in the wrong, but no one has logically been able to touch my arguments. Q keeps trying to set up strawmen or attack me ad hominen and you Commodore just keep making snippet comments. If there is some ancient honor code I'm unaware of that a NAP can't be violated no matter what, let me know.

Again, someone point me to a neutral corner of the internet and we can test this logic out. I'm willing to abide by whatever conditions lurkers wish if I'm proven wrong.

[greenline]

If there is some ancient honor code I'm unaware of that a NAP can't be violated no matter what, let me know.

It's never been written anywhere, but people go into diplo games with the assumption that you honor agreements, and you will piss people off if you break them without good reason. This tends to make sense because these are computer games people do in their spare time and not actual battles between empires.

[Mjmd]

I would argue a good reason is I was threatened into it. Again, I was pissed when I was threatened, but it is a diplo game. I responded in a way that makes sense and again it is a diplo game, its what you sign up for.  Why is Scooter threatening me ok but me not responding in a logical way to that threat not. Again, I see this a clear double standard being applied.

Edit: Hell even responding in a non logical way but emotional way I think would be valid in a diplo game, but no one has yet touched my logic.

[greenline]

There is no double standard. You broke an agreement, scooter did not. If you had responded emotionally to the threat by going full war mode without breaking a NAP, no one would have blinked an eye. That happens all the time in AI diplo games.

[Mjmd]

Scooter threatened me into it. Why are lurkers just hand waving this? It matters.

I mean again there was emotion. There were some other paths that I could have taken. The most plausible honorable would have been to negotiate after I had a navy, but I was both in my right to break but also yes I was pissed and I didn't trust him.

[Kaiser]

If winning is your goal, a logical way to increase your chances would be checking other players threads for information advantage. I DO NOT WANT TO IMPLY THAT YOU DID IN ANY SENSE CHEAT! (Sorry for caps) but show that your actions being logical not necessarily means they are the right thing to do.

You acted the way you did and came out with what looks like to be advantage. I think that your actions strongly smell like deception. While this is within the rules of the game (and arguably even purpose of a diplomacy game), this will stick as people now know that you negotiated contracts with the purpose of deceiving your opponent(counterpart) and the explicit intent of breaking them at any opportune moment.

The most logical thing would probably have been to wait for Ginger to commit to the Bing war, but then there was the risk of being exposed.

[Mjmd]

Ah but I willingly agreed to a code of conduct when I signed up for a game. That was a willing deal I was not threatened into. Willingly joining a contract is different, and I've been happily (or not so happily) blind sided many times. Again, I could have held the turn this game to increase my chance of winning, but you are supposed to pyft and I did. I could have double played a turn in a recent game defensively which is 100% legally allowed under rules. I did not because my opponent had been diligently playing his turn early in the order and that felt bad and I had a key city razed because of it.

Again, did I stand proudly forth and go "come burn my cities" No. Reread Scooters diplomacy. There were two choices. Go along with his deal or get boated. This was not a willing agreement.

I could have just delayed the tech to decrease risk of exposure and set up more prod chains; do 1-2 whips a turn like I had been. But again, you may not think I have morals, but leaving someone hanging who had helped me would not have been the right thing to do.

Lets say this. Everyone has their own moral code. No one has really been able to logically explain why mine is wrong, but I'll except that sometimes things "feel" different. And they feel different to different people. For those curious PB66 explores the idea of morality and flawed humans a little bit by looking at a certain John Paul Jones. It also explores how people perceived him and how that perception has changed (edit first couple pages of thread is all you really need and I don't go into it quite as in depth as maybe I could have).

[Mjmd]

I also want to note I've actively tried changing things in the code of conduct when I felt they weren't fair. Or since I don't get much traction there I put them in voting spreadsheets that I make for games I play in. So if you play in my games you have to vote on things like settling races and if teleport tricks are allowed. Those were things that to me FELT wrong, but I abided by (at times very unwillingly) because that was the contract I had willingly entered into, but now hopefully we will have better games because of. Next diplo game feel free to add a voting option "you can't violate NAPs no matter the circumstances".