NAPs
Moderators: Duke, trewqh, korexus, Egbert
- Egbert
- Commander
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: The Scholars' Library (dusty section)
- Contact:
NAPs
I am sure we have all heard and been involved in our share of arguments over NAP-breaking. The typical argument is over what terms were supposed to be in the NAP, express or implied, and what certain phrases mean. They could mean different things to different people.
Well, although those arguments can be entertaining to read about, I think our World would be a better place if we can come close to eliminating those types of arguments. So, in an effort to do that, I propose the following:
We could create on the main webpage somewhere a certain number of standard types of NAPs, and the exact terms that each NAP would include. That way, if someone is too lazy in an email to lay out for the other person what is or is not included, all they have to do is say something like, "Standard Fixed NAP, 5 turns," or "Restrictive Continuous NAP, no minimum," and the 2 of them will know exactly what is included. I'll elaborate:
(I'll do just WOK4 NAPs for now)
"Standard" would mean no attacking, bombing, or spying on the other person while the NAP is in effect.
"Restrictive" would mean no attacking, bombing, or spying on the other person, and no allowing any other person to come through your lands to attack, bomb, or spy, while the NAP is in effect.
"Fixed" would mean that the NAP ends after a certain number of turns has elapsed, through and including that turn.
"Continuous" would mean that the NAP continues indefinitely, but it can be terminated on 2 turns' notice by either party. If the parties wish, they can say that the "Continuous" NAP must be for a certain minimum number of turns, which would mean that is the number of turns which must elapse before either party can give notice.
So, all WOK4 NAPs would be:
1. Standard or Restrictive
PLUS
2. Fixed or Continuous (with Continuous having a Min.Turn option).
We can tinker with all of the above, but that is the basic idea. So what do you guys and gals think?
Well, although those arguments can be entertaining to read about, I think our World would be a better place if we can come close to eliminating those types of arguments. So, in an effort to do that, I propose the following:
We could create on the main webpage somewhere a certain number of standard types of NAPs, and the exact terms that each NAP would include. That way, if someone is too lazy in an email to lay out for the other person what is or is not included, all they have to do is say something like, "Standard Fixed NAP, 5 turns," or "Restrictive Continuous NAP, no minimum," and the 2 of them will know exactly what is included. I'll elaborate:
(I'll do just WOK4 NAPs for now)
"Standard" would mean no attacking, bombing, or spying on the other person while the NAP is in effect.
"Restrictive" would mean no attacking, bombing, or spying on the other person, and no allowing any other person to come through your lands to attack, bomb, or spy, while the NAP is in effect.
"Fixed" would mean that the NAP ends after a certain number of turns has elapsed, through and including that turn.
"Continuous" would mean that the NAP continues indefinitely, but it can be terminated on 2 turns' notice by either party. If the parties wish, they can say that the "Continuous" NAP must be for a certain minimum number of turns, which would mean that is the number of turns which must elapse before either party can give notice.
So, all WOK4 NAPs would be:
1. Standard or Restrictive
PLUS
2. Fixed or Continuous (with Continuous having a Min.Turn option).
We can tinker with all of the above, but that is the basic idea. So what do you guys and gals think?
"Fairy tales can come true,
They can happen to you,
If you're young at heart."
They can happen to you,
If you're young at heart."
- Underdog
- Commander
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Indiana, USA---Mercenary(for now)
- Contact:
-
- Trooper
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 7:00 am
- Contact:
Egbert, I see what you are trying to do, but I think that is all part of playing, negotiating, and sometimes even seeing what you can get extra out of any deal you make.
I personally would rather keep working with others, and if they screw me over then deal with it and know who you can work with and who you can't.
Massielita
I personally would rather keep working with others, and if they screw me over then deal with it and know who you can work with and who you can't.
Massielita
Mathematician is someone who knows that if three people walk into an empty room and five people walk out, then two more people need to walk in to the room to make it empty again.
- Saladin
- Moderator
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Although i agree with Eg, i think that there are players/clans who like to keep their wording vague so they can stab somebody in the back when it suits them. So i don't think that you'll see them use this.
BTW if i have a continuous nap with a 2 round cancelation period and a 6 round minimum, that means that the nap can be canceled after 4 rounds and attacks can begin after round six. So a slightly different way of looking at things, which i guess can lead to misunderstandings.
So it would be good to have some standards set, of course people (read: TFF) don't have to use them, but for the others i could be quite useful.
BTW if i have a continuous nap with a 2 round cancelation period and a 6 round minimum, that means that the nap can be canceled after 4 rounds and attacks can begin after round six. So a slightly different way of looking at things, which i guess can lead to misunderstandings.
So it would be good to have some standards set, of course people (read: TFF) don't have to use them, but for the others i could be quite useful.
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."
- Allister Fiend
- Commander
- Posts: 598
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Where you see smoke.....:-) The First Family
KMart(cheap) shot eh?Saladin wrote:So it would be good to have some standards set, of course people (read: TFF) don't have to use them, but for the others i could be quite useful.
Please explain in detail if you can.......
Last edited by Allister Fiend on Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Oh no!!! I'm out of those important papers.......
- gm_al
- Creator
- Posts: 1479
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Vienna, Austria
The basic idea to provide players a set of NAPs to use is a good one. I will talk to Chris and Rune how we possibly could integrate something in this sense into WOKON. I imagine something like an overview at the end of a Turn report (or on a separate link) that states your relation with the other players, maybe looking like:
Relation to Player X: NAP
NAP terms agreed:
- no attacking
- no spying
...
There would be no check if the terms are met, but it could be a good reminder to the players. A tool to offer NAPs and change terms would also be provided.
Relation to Player X: NAP
NAP terms agreed:
- no attacking
- no spying
...
There would be no check if the terms are met, but it could be a good reminder to the players. A tool to offer NAPs and change terms would also be provided.
- TK
- Trooper
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 7:00 am
- Saladin
- Moderator
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: The Netherlands
- Dameon
- Moderator
- Posts: 1056
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Valn Ohtar Chapterhouse
Meh, I personally don't care either way. I doubt if an actual form existed I'd use it. Honestly, I haven't had problems with NAP breaking for ages, not since TK. Now that TK sticks to stabbing his allies in the back instead, there's not really anybody out there that I believe is a NAP breaker.
"A Knight is sworn to valor, his heart knows only virtue, his blade defends the helpless, his might upholds the weak, his word speaks only truth, his wrath outdoes the wicked."
- Undertaker
- Commander
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: The Back Room (behind Sharky's place)
- Contact:
yawn!!!!!!Saladin wrote: So it would be good to have some standards set, of course people (read: TFF) don't have to use them, but for the others i could be quite useful.
"That's a good question. Let me see...In my case, you know, I hate to advocate drugs or liquor, violence, insanity to anyone. But in my case it's worked." Hunter S. Thompson
- Donut
- Warlord
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:00 am
- Location: Brew Town, WI; USA - BoV
- Contact:
- Lardmaster
- Commander
- Posts: 690
- Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 8:00 am
- Location: The Big Smoke
I guess I know where this has come from and I have learned the hard way from it. (Check out Vals S.America game). There was a huge e-mail exchange and/or thread regarding A dispute between Raw and Hannibal in the aforementioned game. I stood as go between for part of it and have realised that some of the advice I gave doesn't always work.
Basically my philosophy has always been to be very careful regarding naps with people I haven't played regularly with or are new or what I would call "untrustworthy" but with other people I nap regularly with I am often lax in the terms at least initially sometimes the whole game. A phrase I use a lot is "no nasty stuff". This means what it says in that anything which can be construed as bad, missiles, spies, letting people through your territory etc. and I have never had a problem through it. For instance I have a nap with Duke in a game at the moment and we haven't set any terms at all but I know he won't attack me or allow anyone else to do via his lands.
Now in Vals game I am napped with Raw who I have napped with a billion squillion times with the same terms and no problems. However this game is now down to the three of us, me Eg and Raw. (Raw egg yuck). Raw has cut me off from Eg to protect Eg from me while Raw and my nap expired. Eg came through Raw's provinces and attacked me, with me safe in the knowledge that he couldn't and the two Scholars surprised at my total lack of defences at such an obviosu ploy. Now I technically could take my bat and ball home like severeal other players would have or just shrug and say "well next time bozo you'll know to spell it out" even if it has cost me the game.
I should have explained what I meant and Raw should have asked though neitehr of us felt we needed to.
I don't think set nap terms will work tbh, didn't we have a nap form at some point that no-one used?
Basically my philosophy has always been to be very careful regarding naps with people I haven't played regularly with or are new or what I would call "untrustworthy" but with other people I nap regularly with I am often lax in the terms at least initially sometimes the whole game. A phrase I use a lot is "no nasty stuff". This means what it says in that anything which can be construed as bad, missiles, spies, letting people through your territory etc. and I have never had a problem through it. For instance I have a nap with Duke in a game at the moment and we haven't set any terms at all but I know he won't attack me or allow anyone else to do via his lands.
Now in Vals game I am napped with Raw who I have napped with a billion squillion times with the same terms and no problems. However this game is now down to the three of us, me Eg and Raw. (Raw egg yuck). Raw has cut me off from Eg to protect Eg from me while Raw and my nap expired. Eg came through Raw's provinces and attacked me, with me safe in the knowledge that he couldn't and the two Scholars surprised at my total lack of defences at such an obviosu ploy. Now I technically could take my bat and ball home like severeal other players would have or just shrug and say "well next time bozo you'll know to spell it out" even if it has cost me the game.
I should have explained what I meant and Raw should have asked though neitehr of us felt we needed to.
I don't think set nap terms will work tbh, didn't we have a nap form at some point that no-one used?
Question everything.
- Undertaker
- Commander
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: The Back Room (behind Sharky's place)
- Contact:
It's a "brilliant" tactic they like to employ. In fact, it's because Eggy once pulled that crap in a game, that I now include "no letting others through" in every NAP I make. You wouldn't think it would be necessary, but it is.Lardmaster wrote: A phrase I use a lot is "no nasty stuff". This means what it says in that anything which can be construed as bad, missiles, spies, letting people through your territory etc.
Now in Vals game I am napped with Raw who I have napped with a billion squillion times with the same terms and no problems. However this game is now down to the three of us, me Eg and Raw. (Raw egg yuck). Raw has cut me off from Eg to protect Eg from me while Raw and my nap expired. Eg came through Raw's provinces and attacked me, with me safe in the knowledge that he couldn't and the two Scholars surprised at my total lack of defences at such an obviosu ploy.
"That's a good question. Let me see...In my case, you know, I hate to advocate drugs or liquor, violence, insanity to anyone. But in my case it's worked." Hunter S. Thompson
- Raw
- Commander
- Posts: 769
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Minneapolis, MN USA
- Contact:
- Allister Fiend
- Commander
- Posts: 598
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Where you see smoke.....:-) The First Family
- Raw
- Commander
- Posts: 769
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Minneapolis, MN USA
- Contact:
- Lardmaster
- Commander
- Posts: 690
- Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 8:00 am
- Location: The Big Smoke