Quote:

No empire or country has ever went to war because they found a spy in their mists.

Only World War II.

Quote:

Seventy years ago, World War II began. Or, more precisely, a German spy created the pretext for Hitler’s premeditated invasion of Poland.

Report message to a moderator

That was an elaborated plot. And World War II didn't start with Poland. It was only the first attack which led to it.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Tue, 09 August 2011 19:14

The war is generally accepted to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany

It is also generally accepted that Germany had been busy preparing for war long before that.

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Tue, 09 August 2011 23:53]

Report message to a moderator

That has absolutely nothing to do with spies though. Some players are very aggressive against intel gathering ships, some don't mind at all.

It is just like in games, some players are very aggressive from the very start... And this has a lot to do with their race build. A -F Warmonger would be a fool not to attack at least before the second decade. Might as well not play even...

Beside, I played in All Quiet too. The Ellurids were SS. No wonder they were paranoid about intel or scouts.

You need to be able to see between the lines to understand the true meaning of something. And by that, I pretty much mean understand the motives or the reasons of what preceded to what you are analysing.

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

Quote:

Again in my opinion if someone doesn't mention that an unarmed ship sent to one of their planets is aggression it is not, especially if the NAP has no outline of any kind.

I had quite a thought along that line. Writing the outline for that, and then for something else, and for next 500 something elses would at the end lead to running a law office, not playing Stars! I don't want that, so I usually try to avoid exact specifications, because there's always some thing you didn't specify and the other party will misuse that, adhering to the letter of agreement, but breaking its spirit.

So what I do in disputed cass is I always return the favor: he "pings" my planet, I ping a dozen of his. Now who's got more info? When things get out of proportions I break the NAP. Why bother? Let HIM bother, and "pay" for excesses.

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

iztok wrote on Wed, 10 August 2011 12:22

I usually try to avoid exact specifications, because there's always some thing you didn't specify and the other party will misuse that, adhering to the letter of agreement, but breaking its spirit.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Wed, 10 August 2011 14:23

That has absolutely nothing to do with spies though. Some players are very aggressive against intel gathering ships, some don't mind at all.

What are spies if not intel gathering ships? What are intel gathering ships if not spies?

Report message to a moderator

magic9mushroom wrote on Wed, 10 August 2011 16:42

What are spies if not intel gathering ships? What are intel gathering ships if not spies?

To me, a spy implies a level of cloak-and-dagger type of operation, where the enemy is attempting to hide the spy. Sending a ship to ping a starbase isn't spying - you're making it clear that you're there, for heaven's sake. That's like sending a solder up to to the fort and knocking on the front door. Of course he's going to get killed, but (1) he'll be able to send intel back before he dies (which is a little odd, to be honest) and (2) both parties know he's there.

I think the trouble is attributing spying to pinging. To me, they're not the same. Spying is having a 98% cloaked pen scan a few ly from a planet.

Cheers,
Void

Report message to a moderator

Void wrote on Thu, 11 August 2011 13:20

magic9mushroom wrote on Wed, 10 August 2011 16:42 What are spies if not intel gathering ships? What are intel gathering ships if not spies? To me, a spy implies a level of cloak-and-dagger type of operation, where the enemy is attempting to hide the spy. Sending a ship to ping a starbase isn't spying - you're making it clear that you're there, for heaven's sake. That's like sending a solder up to to the fort and knocking on the front door. Of course he's going to get killed, but (1) he'll be able to send intel back before he dies (which is a little odd, to be honest) and (2) both parties know he's there. I think the trouble is attributing spying to pinging. To me, they're not the same. Spying is having a 98% cloaked pen scan a few ly from a planet. Cheers, Void

If people are willing to declare war over a few uncloaked scouts, then surely they would also do so over a few cloaked scouts. My point stands.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

Quote:

1) The [other race] and [my race] will not deliberately attack

But then you need to define attack, like in the first post. Was an unarmed scout an attack or not? Then you need to define damage done, and info gathered and ...

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

vonKreedon wrote on Wed, 10 August 2011 16:55

1) The [other race] and [my race] will not deliberately attack each other's ships, orbitals, planets, sweeping MFs that don't include any of your race's planets without prior permission, or packets (taking the minerals from a packet is considered an attack unless the packet is targetting a planet you occupy).

The other 2 are fine and precise enough, but this one is where all the loopholes can be found (and abused)

What about "unintentional" mishaps, such as colonization conflict, or "accidental" popdrops?

What about getting another ally and helping [them] to attack [you]?

I have seen NAPs written as "white lists" of expressly allowed actions, and I tend to like them more.

Report message to a moderator

joseph wrote on Sat, 06 August 2011 16:42

He said this was an attack and against the terms of the NAP and was genuinely put out by it - claiming I did it to get to know his ship designs.

I still think that. Yes, I was put out by it, but I am over it now.
I was only put out because I expected better behavior from you.
I was disappointed.

Quote:

Anyway this got me thinking, what is exceptable behaviour when exiting a NAP?

The NAP doesn't end till the final year.
There is no "new" conditional NAP after the exit warning.
You either have a NAP, or you do not.
If you haven't forced combat at a world before the "End of NAP" declaration, then it is NOT OK to do it until the NAP is officially over.
Same with mine sweeping completely down to my planet orbits.
Complete rubbish to argue otherwise.

It comes down to honoring ones commitments. There are no rules to enforce honor, but people do take note of these sorts of actions, for future reference.

Report message to a moderator

Ah and that is where we have the difference
A) Having something in the NAP where we both agree not to do a certain action
B) Not doing a certain action because - as we have a NAP - there is no need

I would sugest that there are actions in category B)
To give examples from the game
A) Purely defensive, during our NAP I had no need to have a fleet of scouts orbiting worlds near our border.
When you said "Our NAP ends in 5 years" I built and launched scouts to detect any cloaked fleets you might have
B) Pinging worlds that are within 1 years travel of my worlds - again when not expecting an attack there is no need.
Not pinging when a fleet that might be there now WILL (if it is there) attack you next turn would be foolish

You can make similar arguments about laying and clearing minefields.

There is clearly a difference between HOW you act when in a NAP and HOW you act when in the exit period
(note how many people said - build ships and defences and prepare to fight)

There shouldnt be a change in the actual rules of the NAP when you enter the exit period.


I can honestly say that I would consider pinging worlds to be acceptable in most NAPs. I would remove my scouts from an area IF the other person requested it.
I would not sign a NAP that required me not to be able to check worlds for big fleets near my border. I would also activate the exit clause of any NAP I was in if someone tried to insist that was part of the deal when I was in the NAP.
(possible exception - massive empire says sign this NAP or die, I would think about it).

Ah - guess what, I was checking my emails to see what we signed up to and

Quote:

Tabini to Me As far as our NAP goes, and hammering out the details, I would suggest that: 1. No trimming of minefields of each other, unless it is to clear around your own planets or routes, within reason. 2. No ships in orbit of each others planets. 3. No destruction of each others property, including my spy ships that will need to go north. 4. I can pass on any information that I see of ??? fleet movement, or if you want to request specific stuff. I might ask you for info too.

Should have paid more attention when signing. I can only say sorry and offer the excuse that agreement was 4 months ago and I have no memory of drawing up details.

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Tue, 09 August 2011 12:10

Quote: No empire or country has ever went to war because they found a spy in their mists. Only World War II. Quote: Seventy years ago, World War II began. Or, more precisely, a German spy created the pretext for Hitler’s premeditated invasion of Poland.

It was the fact the spy lied his tail off not because someone sent a spy. In stars game no chaff ship is going to make a false war.

There is no reason to say "Hey lets have a NAP with a 5 year exit time". Then not say "you cant scout my planets" and then the next year the player gets scouted and cries it was aggressive to start War before the exit clause time.

Most reasons would be idiocy at least dishonorable.

iztok wrote on Wed, 10 August 2011 06:22

Hi! Quote: Again in my opinion if someone doesn't mention that an unarmed ship sent to one of their planets is aggression it is not, especially if the NAP has no outline of any kind. I had quite a thought along that line. Writing the outline for that, and then for something else, and for next 500 something elses would at the end lead to running a law office, not playing Stars! I don't want that, so I usually try to avoid exact specifications, because there's always some thing you didn't specify and the other party will misuse that, adhering to the letter of agreement, but breaking its spirit. So what I do in disputed cass is I always return the favor: he "pings" my planet, I ping a dozen of his. Now who's got more info? When things get out of proportions I break the NAP. Why bother? Let HIM bother, and "pay" for excesses. BR, Iztok

What you really seem to mean to me is you like to not have details so that NAPs can be abused.

No one is saying write 500 lines of details for a NAP. You only need to specify what is most important to you.
If you want someone to stay out of your border then specify your borders to keep out. If not then they will come and go as they please.

Seems silly to not write in a NAP you don't like scouts at your planets and then go to war over one scout because you did not tell them it was aggressive towards you.


My last NAP consisted of 10 rules that did not take 3 of us long to make because we added what is most important to us. And all 3 of us are on good terms.

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

Seems silly to not write in a NAP you don't like scouts at your planets and then go to war over one scout because you did not tell them it was aggressive towards you.

Seems like a perfect "diplomatic" way to start a war to me, without looking like the aggressor to the eyes of others.

There is usually always a reason behind everything as far as politics are concerned.

[Updated on: Fri, 12 August 2011 21:45]

Report message to a moderator

joseph wrote on Fri, 12 August 2011 11:44

Should have paid more attention when signing. I can only say sorry and offer the excuse that agreement was 4 months ago and I have no memory of drawing up details.

Apology accepted. I consider the matter closed now.

If others want to continue speculating about motive and ethics, please continue to do so. I certainly appreciate all the free information to categorize possible future opponents.

Report message to a moderator