Old Forum - webDiplomacy

Start a new discussion in the public forum

Post a new thread

If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID# of the game.
We get a lot of feature requests. If your feature request isn't already on our issue tracker, then the best place to ask is the forum. This will help us gauge support for your ideas, before we add it to the todo list.
If you are posting a question please check the FAQ before posting.
If your message is long you may need to write a summary message, and add the full message as a reply.

johnsmith177693 (124

)
11 Feb 17 UTC

New Game Idea: No Lying

See below

Page 2 of 2

johnsmith177693 (124 )
12 Feb 17 UTC

Roster:
1. johnsmith177693
2. Clownie
3. DemonOverlord
4. Balduran
5. WolfpackCorey
6. dargorygel
7. Hauta
8. slypups (alternate)
9. Kararroto (alternate available 18 Feb)

Proposed rules:
- 2 day turns, full press, rulebook press, public draw votes, draw size scoring

- The words "proposal" and "agreement" have special meanings in this game. A "proposal" is something that is being discussed but is not binding. If all involved parties "agree" to a "proposal", then an "agreement" has been made. Any party can "propose" to break an "agreement", but unless all involved parties "agree" to break it then the "agreement" cannot be broken.

- Agreements do not necessarily make permanent alliances. For example, consider Clownie's scenario (which I assume is for 1901): "I am Germany. I tell France I'll support him to Belgium, and share this news with England, while prompting England to make a southern opening and informing him that I'll support HIM to Belgium if he manages to land in Picardie." Germany is free to tell England what agreement he has made with France. Germany's agreement with England is also valid. As written, Germany never agreed with France to not, in the future, help England against France. Once Germany helped France take Picardie, the German-French agreement has been fulfilled. France could have negotiated a stronger, more explicit agreement with Germany.

- You cannot enter into multiple agreements if it is impossible to honor them all. For example, for 1901 Germany cannot agree to support both England and France into Belgium.

- All agreements made in '01 through '03 expire 2 years after they were made. All agreements made in '04 through '06 expire 3 years after they were made. All agreements in '07 or beyond do not expire. Agreements can be renewed before they expire to "reset the clock". (My logic here is to prevent parties from in Spring '01 saying "let's be allies forever" and acting as a de facto superpower. Without this I fear the game would quickly turn into EF vs GIA vs RT). Agreements can also be made with shorter expiration times, if all parties agree.

- You must vote for a draw if and only if you have agreed to a set of agreements that never expire and prevent you from taking hostile action against any other country.

Thoughts? Does anybody see any loopholes or changes that they want made?

Durga (3609 )
12 Feb 17 UTC

My suggestions: Hidden Draw-Votes and no rulebook press.
I can compromise on the rulebook press but I probably won't play without HDV.

Balduran (119 )
12 Feb 17 UTC

With the part about 01-03 and 04-06 agreements, does that just mean agreements last three years if they're made before 07?
If not, then what's the shelf life of an 02 agreement, for example?

Durga (3609 )
12 Feb 17 UTC

Actually - on another note. Given this game is all about not lying... Yeah okay, no HDV.

Hauta (1618 )
12 Feb 17 UTC

A lie is manifested only when submitted moves differ from promised moves. So, instead of making it all complicated, why not just prohibit that specific thing? Multi-year agreements can exist when each round's moves are confirmed.

MajorMitchell (1874 )
12 Feb 17 UTC
(+1)

Ho hum, Dipbro Brainbomb and I have been playing this way for years in just about all our games...our promises are either the truth, or a form of Trumptruth

dargorygel (2596 )
12 Feb 17 UTC

thanks! This game sounds great! Has it been formed yet, for joining? Or is it still in the planning stage...

johnsmith177693 (124 )
13 Feb 17 UTC

@DemonOverlord I recognize your request for no rulebook press. Does anyone else have strong feelings about it?

@Balduran under my proposed rules an agreement made in Spring 02 would expire after Fall 03, an agreement made in Spring 05 would expire after Fall 07. But see below, we may be getting rid of this rule entirely.

@Hauta I think you're right about just prohibiting submitted moves differing from promised moves. I think this would remove the need for the the "expiration date" rule. One thing that we would have to clarify, regarding multi-phase agreements, is what to do if moves fail to succeed in the first phase and make it impossible to honor the agreed moves for the second phase. The only unambiguous option I see is to void the entire agreement.

@dargorygel still planning. Once we finalize the rules I'll create the game and send out the PW.

Balduran (119 )
13 Feb 17 UTC

Does the Hauta change mean lying about non-moves would then be allowed? Or is it still all-truth (to the extent it can be enforced by the honor rule)? (I prefer all-truth)

johnsmith177693 (124 )
13 Feb 17 UTC

^ this is the tricky part and I'm not sure. Can you give an example of lying about non-moves?

Biojay (112 )
13 Feb 17 UTC

Interesting. What will you folks do during retreat phases if the only viable retreat is to an ally occupied territory? Do you force your ally to disband their unit?

Hauta (1618 )
13 Feb 17 UTC

The "Hauta change" is simple. Just ask the other guy what every one of his pieces (of interest) is doing, regardless of whether it is hold, move, or support. If he omits instructions for a unit, that is your indication (probably) that its instruction is hostile.

slypups (1889 )
13 Feb 17 UTC

@MajorMitchell - "...been playing this way for years in just about all our games...our promises are either the truth, or a form of Trumptruth."

So either truth or lying where you believe your own lies at the time?

Hauta (1618 )
13 Feb 17 UTC
(+1)

Blojay, if you're concerned about such a situation, get a commitment for that contingency prior to the round.

johnsmith177693 (124 )
14 Feb 17 UTC

The "Hauta change" does significantly simplify the rules. We could remove the 4th proposed rule, and the "Hauta change" is extremely easy to understand.

@Balduran, can you provide an example of lying about non-moves so that we can discuss that?

johnsmith177693 (124 )
15 Feb 17 UTC

Given that there were no objections to the "Hauta change", I'm finalizing the rules for the game:

- 2 day turns, full press, NOT rulebook press, public draw votes, draw size scoring

- The words "proposal" and "agreement" have special meanings in this game. A "proposal" is something that is being discussed but is not binding. If all involved parties "agree" to a "proposal", then an "agreement" has been made. Any party can "propose" to break an "agreement", but unless all involved parties "agree" to break it then the "agreement" cannot be broken.

- Proposals and agreements can only involve a specific set of moves, not general alliances or plans.

- If it becomes impossible to honor a multi-year agreement because previous moves do not succeed with no fault due to of any parties of the agreement, then the entire agreement is void.

- Agreements do not necessarily make permanent alliances. For example, consider Clownie's scenario (which I assume is for 1901): "I am Germany. I tell France I'll support him to Belgium, and share this news with England, while prompting England to make a southern opening and informing him that I'll support HIM to Belgium if he manages to land in Picardie." Germany is free to tell England what agreement he has made with France. Germany's agreement with England is also valid. As written, Germany never agreed with France to not, in the future, help England against France. Once Germany helped France take Picardie, the German-French agreement has been fulfilled. France could have negotiated a stronger, more explicit agreement with Germany.

- You cannot enter into multiple agreements if it is impossible to honor them all. For example, for 1901 Germany cannot agree to support both England and France into Belgium.

Last 24 hour call for objections, and then I will form the game.

Durga (3609 )
15 Feb 17 UTC

Actually I'm going to have to opt out of this. Somehow I've committed to way too many fp games for me to handle on top of mafia. Replace me with slypups

Hauta (1618 )
15 Feb 17 UTC

"Objection" - With the exception of multi-year moves, all of the proposed rules seem like they can be boiled down to the "Hauta" change. For example, because your rules allows "impossibility" to excuse performance of the contract, it is likely that multi-year agreements will never be performed.

Remember, the OP was about a game with honesty, not a game about preserving multi-year agreements. If you deny my objection, I'll still play. I'm just saying that the "Hauta" change is so damn simple and easily understood that you should consider making it the only rule.

johnsmith177693 (124 )
15 Feb 17 UTC

@DO okay thanks, I'll ask slypups.

@Hauta I agree that your rule is extremely simple and easy to use. I tried to boil down the rules but I guess I didn't do a great job of it. So I think it's now clear that the last two rules can be scratched. Maybe it would be easier to just ban multi-phase agreements, and then we could nix the third to last rule as well.

Balduran (119 )
15 Feb 17 UTC

Yeah, I signed up for a game about honesty, not "can't go against my proposed moves." I'll play regardless, but I thought we'd be fine with just the honor rule/calling them out publicly to keep people in line.

johnsmith177693 (124 )
15 Feb 17 UTC

@Balduran the problem with the "honor rule" is that there may be different interpretations of what is honest or not. I agree that this wasn't what the OP described, but I think it is necessary to remove any ambiguity.

Also, before DO dropped out he brought up a good point via PM. Should the game be anon? Unless people feel strongly either way, I think it should be anon.

slypups (1889 )
15 Feb 17 UTC

I'm in.

I don't have strong feelings either way about anon vs non-anon.

Too bad about nixing multi-phase agreements, because the "I help you into X and then you help me into Y next phase" is a pretty standard negotiation. Although allowing excuse by impossibility might encourage player A to negotiate a deal with player B and then negotiate moves by other players to make Player A's obligations under his deal with player B impossible to fulfill, thus excusing him of his obligations and providing an out. I'd be inclined to allow this, as that's a pretty skillful set of negotiated moves.

johnsmith177693 (124 )
15 Feb 17 UTC

@slypups that's the reason I want to keep multi-phase agreements. The only issue is that it leads to the "impossibility" issue.

slypups (1889 )
16 Feb 17 UTC

I suggest keeping the multi-phase agreements, and just allowing the impossibility issue to exist - players will know to look for it, and it takes deft diplomacy to set it up intentionally anyway.

johnsmith177693 (124 )
16 Feb 17 UTC

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=191944
PW is being sent out

Here are the final rules:

- 2 day turns, full press, NOT rulebook press, public draw votes, draw size scoring, anon

- The words "proposal" and "agreement" have special meanings in this game. A "proposal" is something that is being discussed but is not binding. If all involved parties "agree" to a "proposal", then an "agreement" has been made. Any party can "propose" to break an "agreement", but unless all involved parties "agree" to break it then the "agreement" cannot be broken.

- Proposals and agreements can only involve a specific set of moves, not general alliances or plans.

- If it becomes impossible to honor a multi-phase agreement because previous moves do not succeed due to the actions of non-parties to the agreement, then the entire agreement is void.

55 replies

Matticus13 (2844

)
16 Feb 17 UTC

Alternative French Openings

I'm not a huge fan of playing as France. To be honest, it bores me compared to Germany or Austria. We just had a solid thread on Italian strategy, specifically unexpected opening strategies. What opening(s) have you tried that varied from the norm, and what was the result?

14 replies