[PB70 Mjmd] STAND AS ONE!

[greenline]

You keep mentioning logic. There is a limit to using logic to define ethical debates like this, but here you go.

People at RB, and even most other Civ MP forums, put a stigma on breaking diplomatic agreements. This is seen as dishonorable and rude. Threatening and bullying an opponent into signing a deal is seen as rude, but less so. So breaking an agreement, even if one felt bullied into signing it, would be seen as more rude and more distasteful. The decision to sign the NAP and break the NAP was up to you every step of the way. Scooter has gotten criticized in a past game for having bully-ish diplomacy that didn't even have diplo, but he did not break any NAPs there. They are separate things.

Note how this logic makes no mention of Qing China or historical events. Those are entirely irrelevant to this scenario. If one was doing a philosophical proof like P = P, historical analogies would make no sense to include.

[Mjmd]

I was not around for past diplo games, so yes I was unaware of that unwritten stigma. I am now VERY aware.

They are a comparison. It is a way to get readers who are more familiar with history than legal theory. If people want legal theory though I'm all for it. But for instance a good comparison for unwritten moral code is actually some naval combat traditions in the 1800s. There was a whole unwritten moral code that most captains followed when dealing with an enemy. If I was plopped in as a captain during that time frame I 100% would break a moral code I was unware of using only the logic and history I knew. See I compared two situations there that aren't exactly the same, but yet maybe people can now understand. Should I be judged based on an unwritten stigma I wasn't aware of or on following what I knew?

[greenline]

If your defense this whole time had just been ignorance of the code, I imagine you would not be scrutinized quite so harshly. But your earlier posts make little mention of being ignorant of this code, and instead use the analogies and your emotional state to explain why the code around NAPs does not apply to your particular situation. That gives people the impression you understand the code well enough, as most people do on this website who have read Sulla's PB2 report at least once.

[Mjmd]

I've been comparing NAPs to a contract or treaty, which is what thought they were in essence and my arguments have been based off of. I certainly wasn't aware of an unwritten code of invincibility around them.

I've read the PB2 report, but its been A WHILE ago. From memory he gets ganged up on and there was a situation where Rome clicked into his territory without declaring war that was pretty key to him surviving. For the record I've opposed a reload that happened similar to this and did not ask for a reload when I've done (which again has actually happened recently).

[xist10]

Yes. I can’t trust any diplomatic pact with you anymore.
You say (simplified): If I’m in a (perceived) weaker position during the time, I agreed to a pact, I‘m allowed to break the pact.

[greenline]

When I referred to PB2, I wasn't talking about the reload. That game had several public and well documented instances of breaking agreements. Nakor broke a NAP and promise to invade Dantski when they joined the dogpile on Speaker/Sullla. Later, Athlete broke an agreement to use slaze's army against Sullla and invaded slaze with the gifted units. The latter in particularly was seen as very scummy, and would have poisoned Athlete's reputation for ages if he had bothered playing that many more games after that (I think there was PB3, and some PBEM?). But when you read that report, it's very clear that agreements are treated as something upheld on an honor code, not like treaties at all. The Apolyton Demogame report similarly describes the large debate in whether breaking the NAP to backstab Imperio was honorable or not.

[Mjmd]

Xist didn't you accept a whole empire recently in a mockery of what a fair game should be? Again, different moral codes.

Again please don't use the word "perceived". I had someone directly threatening me.

I've never broken a fish for fish I've made (10 turns is the normal time) and I don't expect to again. I've made these in all kinds of different circumstances both as the strong and as the weak, but again communication is a lot fuzzier in AI diplo mode. Most people just attack you rather than threaten as its much harder to clearly communicate.

[Mjmd]

When I referred to PB2, I wasn't talking about the reload. That game had several public and well documented instances of breaking agreements. Nakor broke a NAP and promise to invade Dantski when they joined the dogpile on Speaker/Sullla. Later, Athlete broke an agreement to use slaze's army against Sullla and invaded slaze with the gifted units. The latter in particularly was seen as very scummy, and would have poisoned Athlete's reputation for ages if he had bothered playing that many more games after that (I think there was PB3, and some PBEM?). But when you read that report, it's very clear that agreements are treated as something upheld on an honor code, not like treaties at all. The Apolyton Demogame report similarly describes the large debate in whether breaking the NAP to backstab Imperio was honorable or not.

I literally remember none of this. I read this LONG before I started playing multiplayer, so I mainly remember the early epic struggle for survival. Now that you mention it I do remember the invading with gifted units. Mainly what I remembered when I started playing multiplayer was to never gift units though (although its been banned until this game).

[Kaiser]

I um was not happy about this; to put it mildly. Now I've never gone back on a deal in my multiplayer civ history. Typically if you send me fish for fish and I send back / accept you count on that for at least 10 turns.

That being said contracts signed under duress........ Well legally you don't have to honor them. Historically gunboat diplomacy lasts just as long as the gunboats stay / the threat is still there.

I was already preparing prior to Scooters "negotiations" for a war as I just kind of assumed why else would he want ships at breakneck speed. Its not like he couldn't' have popped a GA gone into org religion, and built monk buildings instead..... Oh wait he totally could have.

I therefore already had a descent mace based army and units in queue. I then started some various diplo deception. I announced my outrage and declared a trade embargo that I had negotiated with SD (letting SD know I didn't care what he did). I'm somewhat known for hot temper, so me doing SOMETHING was kind of expected, check that box off. The real reason of course was to get his and Charrius scouts out of my territory temporally. The next part was to carefully decide when to whip. I tried to combine a few single pop whips to mixed success (showed up as 2 and 1 instead of the 3 pop I wanted in pbspy, but overall I showed 3 whips one turn, 1 whip two turns ago, and then 0 whips this last turn. This was important as I had no clue if Charriu had let him know I was following naval path / would tell him I had gotten Astro. Also, Scooter was asking about my rising power (again lots of stuff in queue some of which had been whipped a while ago for overflow purposes starting to come out, but a lot in general timed for this period). I also was unsure about SD. Now I was 90% sure about SD, but you never know, so I didn't tell him plans, didn't produce a galleon in our border city even though I had it set up. I tried verifying with Bing that SD had warned him (which would show him intent), but Bing didn't respond so I went ahead and played the turn unsure. Bing did respond that SD had warned him to whip and pbspy had showed he had started whipping. I told him to stop (again to lure them in) and set up for this next turn. I had also not told Bing until last turn (which was a condition of the deal and I wanted to make sure Bing acted naturally).

So ya I had 4 galleons out turn I got astro loaded with 16 maces. Now only 3 of those are in range. The 4th COULD have been, but against because I wasn't sure of SD at the time I was an idiot (turn order it didn't matter if SD knew or not). So some mixed success pulling this off.

You willingly decided to sign a NAP with scooter with no intention to fulfill it.
Actually you were already preparing a counterstrike (which btw was impressively well thought through with the faked trade embargo to get spies out and all) and used the faked NAP to get the first strike instead of possbily being first striked the other way around.

This is a diplomacy game, there were many different paths to take, you took the one with one a profitable and low risk outcome for you. I get your logic, this was among the best plays for your civ and for your winning chances (I believe), but you should not be surprised that people will be less trustful of your diplomacy in the futur as a result.

I also want to point out that there are no repercussions in any way outside of a possible ruined trust base for future/other games.
There will be people who respect this decision you took as a show of strength even, as an indicator that you were able to execute the rutheless play to increase your chances of winning the game.

[Mjmd]

I was threatened into signing a treaty. I took poorly to being threatened. That I will except.

I actually don't think what I did was the best path to victory. As pointed out either back stabbing Charriu or stabbing Scooter while his army and more importantly navy were away in Bing land would have been better.