Believablity of a MAD doctrine?

[osric_athanasius]

Greetings,

I am curious as to a general opinions about if you would believe someone stating that they had a MAD doctrine on betrayal?

I define a MAD doctrine to one that:
1) Is publicly stated before alliances.
2) Is one that should the Player A be betrayed in an alliance that Player A would then attempt to destroy the other player without regard for the victory conditions of the game.

In essence, you cross me then we both die.
The public statement is what converts this to a diplomatic strategy based on threat compared to just revenge.

If you saw a statement like this, would you believe the player making it will follow through on it?

[Senlac]

Believe it? Yes.
Exploit it? Definitely.

[Octavious]

Greetings,

I am curious as to a general opinions about if you would believe someone stating that they had a MAD doctrine on betrayal?

I define a MAD doctrine to one that:
1) Is publicly stated before alliances.
2) Is one that should the Player A be betrayed in an alliance that Player A would then attempt to destroy the other player without regard for the victory conditions of the game.

In essence, you cross me then we both die.
The public statement is what converts this to a diplomatic strategy based on threat compared to just revenge.

If you saw a statement like this, would you believe the player making it will follow through on it?

Why does a public declaration prior to an alliance change anything?

Treat all allies as potential MAD players. As you get to know them evaluate how likely you imagine this response to be. A public declaration will be part of the evidence in your evaluation, but on its own I wouldn't give it much weight. Much like some painful insects have black and yellow stripes to advertise their sting, and other harmless insects have the same stripes to pretend they have a sting.

Of course whether the insect has a sting or not is irrelevant if you hit it hard enough.

[Claesar]

If two players would declare this, I'd email the mods [email protected] to investigate whether they're metagaming.

[Puddle]

I'm more inclined to Octavious' response than yours Claesar. Why would this be meta-gaming and not just normal diplomacy behavior/communication?

[Senlac]

I’d be more inclined to suspect multiaccounting, than metagaming. After all what are the odds of two players in one game having identical clumsy diplomatic approaches?