Truces

[Q]

I was involved in the game to which wolf is referring, and my only question was one of honoring the truce, and having the understanding that anyone I make a truce with can count on me keeping said truce without question.

I sacrificed that game because wolf made such demands on the other player to dishonor the truce. I did not want the player I was in truce with to think that I was trying to "take advantage of the situation". I felt that my giving the game up was the only way that my ally could see that it was wolf that was being dishonorable, and not Me.

Samurai code. Honor before points....... hahahaha ,")


Most sincerely,,,,,,,,,,,,

Q

p.s:don't you guys always expect me to be so understanding..... If a guy makes a truce, I expect him to stand by it, and I have been involved in many games where truces were expected to be broken. Badd Badd MOJO there.

If I make one, I WILL KEEP IT,,,,,,,,,,, no matter what

[tahitiwahini]

Game 265544

Having read through the game chat I have to disagree with kwolff that there is an unwritten rule that all truces terminate when there are only three players left in the game. I've never heard of such a rule. A truce terminates when the terminatiition condition of the truce is satisfied. It was really difficult to determine what the terminating condition of the truce was in that game. But it's pretty clear to me that just because it became a three-player game is not a reason in and of itself to terminate a truce.

More formality to these truces would benefit everyone. State what the truce is clearly. Agree to it clearly. Restate it after both parties have agreed to it. Specify a termination condition. You would avoid a lot of problems by just doing these things. If it's important enough to honor then it's important enough to state clearly what its terms are.

I don't think truces are any better or worse in a 3-player game than they are in a more than 3-player game.

A truce should be honored scrupulously, which is why they should not be entered into lightly. Always think about how the truce will end. What, if any, notice is required, etc.

[kwolff]

Well it was not the only condition I was arguing under. The game had acouple of circumstances involved.

A. Yellow would eliminate pink and blue would do the same to me.

B. I eliminated blues main attack force before he could eliminate me.

C.If the truce they had in place (which I felt was dependent on blue taking me out and now he couldnt) the game was basically decided.


But as I said I remeber a time on the site when a majority of players that you went against felt it was a very bad play to have a truce with three people left. Now if there is a dominant player of course the other two will work togeather to fight that opponent. But I think that is survival or should I say commen sense and no official truce would need to be announced.


I just wanted to get a feel of how players thought about truces when there are three players left thats all.

[Huckleberryhound]

If there's three players left, and one is winning by a lot, not to truce would be suicidal......yes i would truce, and no i wouldn't give a rats ass what anyone thought about it.

War is war, loser

[KomradeKloininov]

Truces with 3 players should only be used when there is one particularly strong adversary who needs to be taken down. The problem arises, and it has really screwed me hard before, when after the strongest player is levelled out, they are continued to be attacked till they are too weak to contend with the other 2 or are killed outright. This is not fair to that player at all because it is entirely from the fact that they were strong that they died, not from playing poorly.

[Q]

I am taken aback by the fact the arguing points in all these posts has nothing to do with honoring a truce made, but whether when it is ok to break it. There were very clear points to the truce I made in this game, and I repeatedly requested an understanding of the nature of the truce from the player with whom I made the truce.

I even went to the point of telling him that it was no time to be unclear. I would not make a truce that was disadvantageous to me. I would not dishonor one that turned out to be less advantageous than I thought it would be at the time of its agreement.

The time for determining a truce's termination is at the time of its consideration..... The time for considering a truce's consequences is at the time of its consideration... The time for ending a truce is at the time agreed upon by those involved in the truce.

We must look several turns ahead when considering any turn that we take in this game. Should we be able to go back, and take back that attack that cost us a 25 to 5 loss???????,,,,, I think not. Nor should we be able to go back on a truce that doesn't work out the way we wanted.

I make a truce with an implicit determination to see it to its end. I made this truce hopeing that there would be three players left before its end. It was very advantageous to me. This "unspoken rule" that some seem to be using to break truces should be made a formal rule on the site if it is going to be their official excuse for slideing their honor to the wayside.

I consider the consequences of making a truce before I make it. Others should do the same, and not invent game circumstances that give them a means to excuse themselves from the obligation of carrying out an agrrement that they made before the circumstances turned against them.

WE MUST HAVE HONOR, IF NOTHING ELSE!!!!!

[tahitiwahini]

I am taken aback by the fact the arguing points in all these posts has nothing to do with honoring a truce made, but whether when it is ok to break it.

Maybe you missed my post?

I was just arguing for clarity in the agreement. Granted the terms of an agreement have to be negotiated in game chat, but when agreement is reached it would be nice to concisely state the agreed upon terms so that misunderstanding is kept to a minimum.

As I stated previously I think players must scrupulously honor the terms of any treaty they enter into. That is why I try to make any agreement I enter into as clear to all the parties (and non-parties) as possible. I also make sure the agreement has a termination condition. I would also argue that one will have less problems with agreements that are of relatively short duration or that include a clause wherein they may be terminated with notification before the non-terminating player's turn starts. Most of the problems I see with agreements is that the terms are vague in general and there's no explicit procedure for terminating the agreement.

[b.k. barunt]

Which is why tacit is best.