Page 3 of 3

Re: Etiquette Question

PostPosted: 23 Apr 2017, 20:27
by Eleusinian
We could go back and forth with this until the cows come home. :)

tl;dr: People who don't reply to messages in a game that is about, and literally named, Diplomacy, are in my opinion depriving me of the one and only thing that differentiates this game from any other. I personally consider that rude, but of course it's a subjective question.

You are free to define "fun" however you like, and I wasn't trying to define it for you. :) I was merely pointing out that it's inherent but important part of being a game, and that focusing exclusively on the strategic (ie, "I want to win") aspects of the game is to exclude an important aspect of it.

Re: Etiquette Question

PostPosted: 24 Apr 2017, 08:39
by Mr.E
I don't disagree that fun is an important part of playing any game. I'd go as far as to quote what many gambling businesses say in the UK: "When it stops being fun, stop." Except that encourages quitters to quit mid-game which I think is a breach of etiquette.

I wasn't specifically saying you were trying to define fun for me or anyone other than yourself, really, I was trying to be more general. A generalised code of practice - which is what I see etiquette as being in a social game - needs to be as objective as possible, IMO.

I think it's true to say that one of the biggest challenges a diplomat faces in the real world is what to do when another diplomat cuts off communication. The solution is often to go through intermediaries, to find alternative channels or, I suppose, alternative methods. Not easy and probably more difficult in the game.

Which is why I'm taking a point of view here which isn't necessarily reflective or my practice!

Re: Etiquette Question

PostPosted: 24 Apr 2017, 16:09
by Eleusinian
Nibbler wrote:I wasn't specifically saying you were trying to define fun for me or anyone other than yourself, really, I was trying to be more general. A generalised code of practice - which is what I see etiquette as being in a social game - needs to be as objective as possible, IMO.


Perhaps this is the main point of contention. I see etiquette as something to be reached by consensus, not an objective truth. Well, to each their own!

Re: Etiquette Question

PostPosted: 25 Apr 2017, 08:46
by Mr.E
Perhaps that's the way it ought to be but not the way it becomes. As soon as a majority starts saying this is what should be done it soon becomes this is how to behave and the squidgy consensus becomes hardened.

Like a piece of bread. Nice when fresh but easily hardened when left around too long and becomes stale.

Re: Etiquette Question

PostPosted: 28 May 2017, 07:16
by Parabellum
I'm brand new to the game, and I'm going to be honest; I had no idea credibility played a part. I assumed everyone knew everyone lied in this game; is that not true?

Re: Etiquette Question

PostPosted: 28 May 2017, 07:38
by WHSeward
No, that is not true. Try reading this.

Re: Etiquette Question

PostPosted: 28 May 2017, 10:09
by Parabellum
Thanks for the response. This changes the way I think about the game.