When is breaking a truce justifiable?

[Renee_W]

1. You threatened suicide. Such a threat deserved immediate action; quit skirting around this fact. I acted before you could; get over it.

I just noticed this. Your original threat about the bonus carried a built in 1 turn notice, if he took the bonus he knew the truce over.

This sounds like when he tried to deter you with the suicide threat you immediately attacked. Unless you gave him 1 turn warning before attacking that would be a clear violation of the truce by you. I thought this truce ended when he took a bonus after being warned, a clean honorable end. If it ended without warning because you flew off the handle after he threatened you, you have no complaint and no honor. As some have said you can come up with a justification for anything, doesn't make it honorable.

ps. your logic is also deeply flawed.

[oss spy]

You're right, Renee. I'm in the wrong for feeling threatened by him taking a larger bonus and I'm even further in the wrong for feeling threatened when he said he would suicide on me. I'm so glad you could show me the error of my ways! I wish I could be the stone cold bad ass that you are... :'(

[AndyDufresne]

This is what we all us stone cold badasses look like:




--Andy

[Renee_W]

You're right, Renee. I'm in the wrong for feeling threatened by him taking a larger bonus and I'm even further in the wrong for feeling threatened when he said he would suicide on me. I'm so glad you could show me the error of my ways! I wish I could be the stone cold bad ass that you are... :'(

I never said you were wrong for feeling threatened by the large bonus, I said you handled that correctly, you gave warning per your agreement. However a suicide "threat" doesn't nullify a truce or your agreement to give one turn warning. And failing to meet your obligation to give 1 turn notice in order to preemptively strike only guarantees you'll piss off your opponent enough to make good on that threat. A badly wounded opponent can often still bog you down in enough combat to ensure you lose.

[oss spy]

And how might you have handled the situation? Informing him that I was ending the truce would've resulted in him putting most of his troops on our border (and I would be unable to match this) given that there are unlimited reinforcements. I acted in the only way that would preserve my survival.

[Brock]

"I acted in the only way that would preserve my survival. " An absolute lie look at the game History there were two massive armies on my Southern border (Pink & Blue) who decimated me after your undeclared attack! Its evident that you have such a sense of self righteousness that you will never accept criticism or see reason so any attempt at discourse with you is pointless!

[oss spy]

"I acted in the only way that would preserve my survival. " An absolute lie look at the game History there were two massive armies on my Southern border (Pink & Blue) who decimated me after your undeclared attack! Its evident that you have such a sense of self righteousness that you will never accept criticism or see reason so any attempt at discourse with you is pointless!

So you're saying that you're still a threat to me? That's odd; I figured you're no longer a problem. I cannot control that other people took advantage of your weakened state and I will not help it either, and if you want my attacks to stop then you should stop putting troops on our border. I left you alone after my initial strike but you, for some reason, just wouldn't give up. I don't give a flying shit what other people do as they are NOT my concern and are not acting on my orders. I can't help that they jumped at an oppurtunity that you presented in splitting up an already decimated army.

[Brock]

You are a little confused I am responding to the fact you were absolutely under no direct threat when you violated our truce! thanks to your attacking me without notice(There, a pyrrhic victory I removed the term cheat!) I am no threat to anyone in this game and will certainly loose. I don't recall blaming you for this state of affairs!

[Renee_W]

And how might you have handled the situation? Informing him that I was ending the truce would've resulted in him putting most of his troops on our border (and I would be unable to match this) given that there are unlimited reinforcements. I acted in the only way that would preserve my survival.

YOU set the term of one round notice. If you want to be a backstabbing liar no one is stopping you, but don't expect people to agree you made the honorable decision.

Here is how I look at it, this game is just electronic data and pixels with NO value off this site and very little value on this site once over. The kind of person you are affects every aspect of your life. If you're the kind of person that values winning at all costs in an internet game higher than being a decent human... well that says more about you than your win ratio or score ever will.

[oss spy]

And how might you have handled the situation? Informing him that I was ending the truce would've resulted in him putting most of his troops on our border (and I would be unable to match this) given that there are unlimited reinforcements. I acted in the only way that would preserve my survival.

YOU set the term of one round notice. If you want to be a backstabbing liar no one is stopping you, but don't expect people to agree you made the honorable decision.

Here is how I look at it, this game is just electronic data and pixels with NO value off this site and very little value on this site once over. The kind of person you are affects every aspect of your life. If you're the kind of person that values winning at all costs in an internet game higher than being a decent human... well that says more about you than your win ratio or score ever will.

Your liberal use of ad hominems are quite nice, but you're not responding to my question: how else could I have handled the situation in such a way that would ensure my survival? I've noticed that you refused to answer my question and instead question my morality. The funny thing is that anyone would launch a pre-emptive strike if someone threatened to devastate them and had the means to act on that threat, but yet you refuse to acknowledge this. Why is that? You really should stop ranting about my morality and focus on the issue at hand. Ad hominems will get you nowhere.

You are a little confused I am responding to the fact you were absolutely under no direct threat when you violated our truce! thanks to your attacking me without notice(There, a pyrrhic victory I removed the term cheat!)

You weren't a direct threat, I will admit, but the most dangerous threats are the ones that are indirect. I can guarantee that you were going to grow unopposed and would eventually turn on me. Further, you had the means and the willpower to carry out your threat. Nice try avoiding the fact that you threatened me, but you have yet to answer for this. Please do so in a timely manner.

I am no threat to anyone in this game and will certainly loose. I don't recall blaming you for this state of affairs!

Not any more, you mean. You were, but I resolved that issue, didn't I?

[Renee_W]

Your liberal use of ad hominems are quite nice, but you're not responding to my question: how else could I have handled the situation in such a way that would ensure my survival? I've noticed that you refused to answer my question and instead question my morality. The funny thing is that anyone would launch a pre-emptive strike if someone threatened to devastate them and had the means to act on that threat, but yet you refuse to acknowledge this. Why is that? You really should stop ranting about my morality and focus on the issue at hand. Ad hominems will get you nowhere.

How do I put this bluntly... You can't both ensure survival and have honor in this case. The issue at hand is your morality. Can breaking your word in a game be justified? The answer depends on your integrity nothing else. Integrity comes at a cost sometimes. The cost doesn't get smaller than in a computer game, if you don't value your word enough to pay the cost of maybe losing a game, the entire issue is your personal morality.

[JBlombier]

I somehow enjoy reading this thread, but I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's the fact that I agree with all people here, except for the one that wants to be a decent human being and think that a game site reflects your real life decency. That is by far the most hilarious statement of this thread. But the one stating that, isn't in the game we're talking about.

Keep going, guys. I think you're getting somewhere...

[oss spy]

How do I put this bluntly... You can't both ensure survival and have honor in this case. The issue at hand is your morality. Can breaking your word in a game be justified? The answer depends on your integrity nothing else. Integrity comes at a cost sometimes. The cost doesn't get smaller than in a computer game, if you don't value your word enough to pay the cost of maybe losing a game, the entire issue is your personal morality.

Allow me to use a list and make an analogy to life:

1. Life's goal is to live, which is interpreted to mean that life's job is to survive.
2. Life will achieve its goal by any means necessary, as survival is life's top priority.
3. Morality is important, but morality is difficult when you're dead.
4. Life takes a higher priority than morality.
5. Life will do what it takes to survive, even if it means breaking a promise. Period.

This discussion is not about morality; I wish you would stop brining in things that are irrelevant and unrelated. As my goal is to survive, I refuse to allow someone to gain an advantage over me. My first step was to inform them what would happen if they continued going against my will. However, I was forced to act when I was further threatened. I faced a direct and indirect threat- I would lose the game immediately or in the long run. Given that I want to survive (in this situation, win), I decided to eliminate this threat.

You've completely ignored my statements and instead have argued against a point that was not presented. Do I care about morality? Nope. That's not the issue, and therefore you should not act like it is. You're welcome to continue using ad hominems but you're only going to show your own ignorance and inability to respond to what has been presented by an opponent in a debate.

Now then. Would you like to continue this debate and actually respond to my points or are you going to ignore me and focus on something completely unrelated (and thus show you're unable to refute my points)? It's your call.

[oss spy]

It seems as though Renee has no answer

[Renee_W]

It seems as though Renee has no answer

I answered many times, if you want to rationalize you can find a way. I have no interest in parsing your rationalizations. If keeping your word has no value to you there is nothing to discuss.

[oss spy]

It seems as though Renee has no answer

I answered many times, if you want to rationalize you can find a way. I have no interest in parsing your rationalizations. If keeping your word has no value to you there is nothing to discuss.

What you say: "I answered you."
What you did: "I'm not focusing on the issue at hand."

The issue is not morality. The issue is survival. If survival has no value to you, then we truly have nothing to discuss.

[Gillipig]

When is breaking a truce justifiable?

Whenever you feel like it. And don't worry, I don't play games anymore .

[Homo Erectus]

Bumping a bit of an old thread I know, but what do people think of breaking a truce to stop the player meeting the victory conditions? By breaking I mean actually breaking and not something like giving prior warning, eg attacking immediately even though there's an agreed set turn notice for example

[Gillipig]

Homo, do you want to swap usernames?

[AndyDufresne]

Bumping a bit of an old thread I know, but what do people think of breaking a truce to stop the player meeting the victory conditions? By breaking I mean actually breaking and not something like giving prior warning, eg attacking immediately even though there's an agreed set turn notice for example

For me personally, the goal of any game is to end up the victor. If you (as in the general collective you) aren't playing to end up as the victor, and give a game away because you signed a deal that turned out to give more benefit to an opponent of yours, it is almost like not like giving it your all, which I would want of all my opponents!

However, there are some others out there I think that play a more meta-game, and see their diplomacy or win/loss in any game as only a part of their whole philosophy of gaming. Thus, honoring a truce or diplomatic agreement in their eyes might be acceptable loss in the grand scheme of their games.


--Andy

[Gillipig]

Bumping a bit of an old thread I know, but what do people think of breaking a truce to stop the player meeting the victory conditions? By breaking I mean actually breaking and not something like giving prior warning, eg attacking immediately even though there's an agreed set turn notice for example

For me personally, the goal of any game is to end up the victor. If you (as in the general collective you) aren't playing to end up as the victor, and give a game away because you signed a deal that turned out to give more benefit to an opponent of yours, it is almost like not like giving it your all, which I would want of all my opponents!

However, there are some others out there I think that play a more meta-game, and see their diplomacy or win/loss in any game as only a part of their whole philosophy of gaming. Thus, honoring a truce or diplomatic agreement in their eyes might be acceptable loss in the grand scheme of their games.


--Andy

This is especially true for players that play a lot of large freestyle games on difficult maps against each other. The group of players that play 8 player freestyle on Third Crusade for example is very limited. Not more than like 20 are regulars. They play one another so often that breaking a truce to win the game is frowned upon. It's not considered smart. Someone who does that will be at a disadvantage from the start in the other games he'll play against them. A large freestyle game on Third Crusade is pure diplomatic warfare.

[AndyDufresne]

Surely, it makes sense to taking into account the size or pool of players you are playing with, and how your actions might affect current and future games.


--Andy

[KoolBak]

You want opinions?

Making truces / alliances is such a miserably spineless action in the first place that the entire question of breaking one is moot. No worse than entering into one in the first place.

Every player I've ever seen offer / make an alliance has been targeted and foed......in fact, that's how I met ol' Wacicha 6 years ago because be BOTH reacted the same way.....with honor....lol. And THAT'S why I love our group because there's at least 100 people that play with honor. Cowboy up.....win and lose like you got a pair. You wanna play teams, play teams.

[kentington]

You want opinions?

Making truces / alliances is such a miserably spineless action in the first place that the entire question of breaking one is moot. No worse than entering into one in the first place.

Every player I've ever seen offer / make an alliance has been targeted and foed......in fact, that's how I met ol' Wacicha 6 years ago because be BOTH reacted the same way.....with honor....lol. And THAT'S why I love our group because there's at least 100 people that play with honor. Cowboy up.....win and lose like you got a pair. You wanna play teams, play teams.

I agree with this.
If one opponent is getting to large the other opponents should naturally target the large one. But I wouldn't take troops away from the border with the small opponent. That is just asking to be attacked.

[Viceroy63]

The way that I understand it, a truce is a sort of temporary cease fire. So if it is a truce that we are discussing here then there is no breaking a truce but simply when does the truce end? If it is a temporary cease fire then it should be for a predetermined amout of time and that is when it ends according to any agreement with the parties involved in the truce.

Truce:
1. A temporary cessation or suspension of hostilities by agreement of the opposing sides; an armistice.
2. A respite from a disagreeable state of affairs.

Online dictionary