"Spoken like a true robotic idiot. Working with a truce partner ensures in the *current* game that you have a) one less person attacking you, and b) can concentrate your attacks on few people. It's completely rational."

I didn't say working with your truce partner, I said fighting for him (ie. truce>flag).
For arguements sake you can 1 hit him and the game will end.

lol storm lord you're quite the idiot

its just common sense that if you screw over your truce one game they will remember your name and not respect your truce or flag in a future game... humans are creatures of habit and also of passion. you screw someone they will screw you. this isn't "pga" its common sense. The way you play, you will get tons of people wanting to 'pge' you... which is a perfectly legal part of kdice.

"
This is the first i've ever heard of Ryan doing this, and if he has it kinda sucks. The only in-game rule is that of game-to-game favours which ironically this kind of behaviour from Ryan only supports. If he doesn't want backstabbing/liars he should implement diplomacy into the game mechanics."

not fighting for your truce partners position IS backstabbing

Wow twice i've been called an idiot. Yet, i'm the only one putting a logical arguement across.

"its just common sense that if you screw over your truce one game they will remember your name and not respect your truce or flag in a future game... "

My definition of a a game-to-game favour is any move in your current game for the benefit of a future game. How does that not fit this definition?

"not fighting for your truce partners position IS backstabbing"

Your point?

Stormlord, if nothing else, you should consider the fact that your position on trucing runs counter to what the creator of the game believes. That alone should make it clear you are missing something.

"If he doesn't want backstabbing/liars he should implement diplomacy into the game mechanics."

He has implemented diplomacy into the game, that's why the chatbox is present.


If I am in a position to win a game in which a truce partner helped me to acheive that goal, how is it fair in THAT game to punish him simply because somebody else flagged for 2nd, 3rd, etc.? I achieved my position based on the help I received from that truce and I should do everything I can to reciprocate that help. That is a completely rational way to treat a player that has helped you in THAT game.

You said working with a truce partner is rational. Yes, forming a truce and cooperating may be rational. Honouring the truce is the irrational bit had you not took into account future games (my definition of a game-to-game favour).

"He has implemented diplomacy into the game, that's why the chatbox is present. "

I said game mechanics. Have the ability to form truces recognized by the game which prevents you from attacking each other.

"If I am in a position to win a game in which a truce partner helped me to acheive that goal, how is it fair in THAT game to punish him simply because somebody else flagged for 2nd, 3rd, etc.?"

I'm not talking about fairness.

"I achieved my position based on the help I received from that truce and I should do everything I can to reciprocate that help."

You should? It's your choice, but it's an irrational move, you're risking your own position to secure someone elses.

I'm not taking into account anything in the future. I just earned first because my truce partner spent the game helping me, and according to you as soon as somebody throws up a flag for 2nd I should stop advancing on them and allow them to battle my truce without my assitance. Even though my truce helped me earn MY position I shouldn't help him earn his position.

Your "rationality" is flawed storm. Flags do not equal immunity and they do not dissolve your previous agreements in the game. Leaving your partner out to dry is irrational since they helped YOU acheive your position. Not honoring your truce is unjust punishment.