Stormlord, that's twice you have not responded to my post. Making accusations that others are not responding to your argument rings fairly hollow when you do the same yourself.

Thraxle:

I'm being irrational? What do YOU gain for fighting for your truce partner? It costs you the risk of losing and gains you nothing. A irrational move.

You talk about reward and unjust punishment. These obscure concepts have nothing to do with rational play. You have a choice of A or B.

A)1 hit truce partner
GAIN:100% chance at 1st
Cost:Nothing

B)Fight for truce parners position
GAIN:75% chance at 1st
COST:25% risk of 7th

Please explain how B is a rational move for your own self-interest.

Vermont:

You say Ryan says truces are part of the game. I agree cooperation is part of the game. He also says game-to-game favours are not allowed. My arguement is that honouring a truce when it's in your best interest to backstab usually equates to a game-to-game favour.

United States: Germany, we just kicked your ass in France, do you yield?

Germany: Yeah, we yield, you win the war.

Germany: We concede your victory, but we'd like to optimize our position in the world, so we are going to continue to attack Russia and Great Britain, OK?

Great Britain: lol Germany

Russia: nice try Germany

United States: It would be irrational to continue to fight since I've obviously won the war. Do as you please.

Great Britain: are you kidding me? we fucking helped you win this shit!!!

United States: I can risk it guys, sorry.

Russia: This is bullshit you Yankee prick!

Russia: GB, truce?

Great Britain: absolutely, Italy, you in?

Italy: Hell yes.

Russia: alright, let's do this.

United States: Damn, I should have killed Germany...

Germany: this sucks

Storm, you could view it like this:
Honouring your word doesn't have to be a game-to-game favor. Since that would require interaction with a specific player. Rather they could be viewed as actions that enhance your overall image as trustworthy. It's not pga since it's not an alliance with a specific player.

Me, I just keep my word because I'm not a jerk.

My definition of game-to-game favour: any move in your current game for the benefit of a future game. That is what my arguement is based on, maybe Ryan should define what a game-to-game favour is.

Storm, by your statements in this thread you now have the stigma of being an unreliable truce partner. Why should anyone on the entire site offer you a truce since you claim you will backstab them as soon as it's "in your best interest".

Storm, you are encouraging unfair play towards yourself (because if nobody will truce you, I consider that unfair since that gives everyone else the advantage).

The following is MY definition of game-to-game favor:

Any move that is done in a game for a specific player with the expectation of a future concession to made BY THAT SPECIFIC PLAYER in your favor.

Honoring truces is a "playing style". People in general are more likely to truce and help you if you have the reputation of being reliable. This isn't cheating. This isn't unfair. This isn't irrational. It's common sense.

Storm, here's some simple formal logic based on statements from Ryan. Keep in mind both premises are statements made by Ryan. You can search the forum and find them if you don't believe me.

Premise A: Game to game favors are illegal.
Premise B: Making and keeping truces are a legal part of the game.

Conclusion: Making and keeping truces are not a game to game favor.

The logic is sound, so you would need to disagree with one of the premises to disprove the conclusion.

Feel free to disagree with the guy who made the game, but it won't give you much credibility.

""not fighting for your truce partners position IS backstabbing"

Your point? "

just think about it this way. you see an old lady fall on the street, and she cant get up. you don't know her and you would have to use money on calling an ambulance. is calling an ambulance irrational? by your definiton yes.

but on the other hand, if she who you are, and knows some other people (even if they hate her, and would not mind her dieing) that know who you are. then it is rational, not because you will get any positive benefits by calling, but because you would get negative benefits in a later situation if you don't call.

But to me it is just about being a decent guy. backstabbing makes me feel bad, and i don't want to be a backstabber (even if noone knew).

"We can split moves into rational and irrational moves. A rational move will bring you closer to victory, while an irrational move will do the opposite."

Maybe if luck wasn't involved. Ever lose a 5v3? That's a rational move that brought you closer to defeat because you lost it.