[PB70] Lurking under the tables

[Hitru]

Looks like M made right move in stabbing Scooter who after few turns of fuming actually gave peace to M. So whatever one feels morally about the move ( I personally feel like all bets are off in diplo, it's a game based on deception like werewolf. But in possible future diplo games NAP with M does not mean as much as before this game) looks like it worked out nicely.

[Tarkeel]

Looks like M made right move in stabbing Scooter who after few turns of fuming actually gave peace to M. So whatever one feels morally about the move ( I personally feel like all bets are off in diplo, it's a game based on deception like werewolf. But in possible future diplo games NAP with M does not mean as much as before this game) looks like it worked out nicely.

Based mainly on scooter's reporting, it feels like Mjmd made a mistake in accepting peace. He could have pushed harder and possibly sealed up a win here.

As for the whole NAP-stab, the whole point of a formal NAP is that it's an oath upon your honor, and breaking it will tarnish that.

[Qgqqqqq]

I don't think anyone questioned that it was a good move to win the game. Obviously if another player is your main competitor, and has left a flank open because they've relied on your word of honour, then stabbing them will gain you a tremendous advantage.

Some things are worth more than that, though.

[El Grillo]

I think the Galleon lend/lease proposal would have been a bit problematic, since we seem to be okay with upfront gold purchases of units at a reasonable price, or exchanging roughly equivalent value of units, and not okay with unit gifting, especially in large quantities, and this would be in a bit of a gray area, depending on the duration of the deal. It would be pretty easy to lend some Galleons for 20 turns and have the game end during that time, which is effectively a gift.

[Magic Science]

:2cents:.

Mjmd did nothing morally wrong. It was just in-game treachery, which is perfectly fine.


I think this whole argument is just an overblown attempt by Mjmd to avoid paying the cost of committing betrayal. The cost is that players will not be nearly as willing to make deals with him that leave them vulnerable to similar betrayal, so he does not get to make nearly as many mutually beneficial deals as before, because those deals depend on vulnerability to work.
Mjmd is trying to avoid paying the cost by arguing that he only betrayed Scooter under this special, specific circumstance of "duress" that Scooter put him under. He argues that if future diplomatic partners simply don't put him under "duress", then he is still perfectly trustworthy. Easy!

Except "duress" isn't simple! What does it even mean? I think the concept basically doesn't make much sense at all in Civ IV, a violent game in which everyone is always inevitably scheming against everyone else, and only the stupidest players would fail to constantly consider the balance of military power. If "duress" means anything, then it is a constant. Every deal is made under duress!
And Mjmd is not making a compelling case for a precise different definition of the concept either. Apparently, you can be under treachery-justifying duress from a player when you are the game leader and are in position to inflict a devastating attack on that player merely 2 turns later. What about when he razed Charriu's city earlier and immediately opened negotiations? Was that not duress for Charriu? Did Mjmd really negotiate when he believed Charriu had no obligation to honor any agreement made? How does this translate to True AI Diplomacy? If a player has been fighting with Mjmd in a Classic Mjmd Border Dispute (CMBD), and then they try to diplomatically deescalate, can that player trust a de-escalation deal to be honored, or might that be duress? Maybe a city has been razed, and the threat is that if the de-escalation deal doesn't happen, there will be more fighting, right?
Duress doesn't work like Mjmd wants it to work, as an excuse that applies in this specific case and obviously only in this specific case. It is ambiguous and means all future deals he professes to agree to can only be trusted if you know what he is thinking, a notoriously difficult thing to do in these games, and know if he thinks the situation counts as "duress" for him or not. That is a crazy hoop to jump through, and really just means Fish for Fish and so on can't be trusted.
(Also, I get the impression that Scooter's real crime was being gauche and hinting too strongly that "yes, the relative balance of military power IS a factor in consideration in these negotiations, because OF COURSE it is")

That was fun to consider, but, on some level, all that only applies if Mjmd really did betray Scooter as a principled reaction to his crazy "duress" concept.
I hate to suspect players of lying in their own spoiler threads, because why would you lie to lurkers, but betrayal and reputation is a meta-game thing. Mjmd's communication in his thread is actually not with lurkers, but with other players, except it's with other players of future games that have not started yet. And tricking lurkers is useless but tricking players is a normal part of the game. So maybe it's just a trick. Maybe "duress" is a nonsense excuse, and the real reason was a typical combination of being pissed off and seeing an opportunity to engineer a devastating betrayal. And that's the textbook reason to never trust someone ever again.

:2cents:.


But we will see what effect this controversy actually has on future games with Mjmd.

[El Grillo]

It has been fun waiting to see which way superdeath would decide to go in the end, now let's see if the coalition can stick together long enough to bring the game back into contention or not.

[Magic Science]

It has been fun waiting to see which way superdeath would decide to go in the end, now let's see if the coalition can stick together long enough to bring the game back into contention or not.

In Discord Superdeath was communicating a lot more with Scooter than with Mjmd. That was a good sign that he truly was planning to join the dogpile as promised.
Though I trust Scooter’s judgement and his Power graph screenshot that Mjmd will crush this dogpile and win shortly anyway.

[Magic Science]

It is interesting that in this game the usual complaining about how stupid and wrong the other player was for going to war with you can occur where the other player can read it too, so it might influence their actions. Mjmd was trying that against all 3 dogpilers.

[Tarkeel]

Regarding Scooter's reload request:

The market "missing" city is Kikura, which the log shows was just captured by Mjmd. I'm not sold that it *has* to be this one; capturing it alone would remove scooter's vision on it, but it's a reasonable guess.

More importantly, the event log shows there were no war and peace, so the trade as it was accepted is illegal and should be reloaded.

[Thoth]

If there was no war/peace and that is the rule they agreed on then yes, the trade is against the rules and a reload should be made.

I don't see how what city was traded makes a difference?