Home World Forum: The Bar » Defining "standard" NAP

Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Defining "standard" NAP

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Defining "standard" NAP

Tue, 28 February 2012 13:53

iztok

Commander

Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe

Hi!

Giving the recent thread about NAP-breaking was unfortunately not the first one, it's IMO time to put it down clearly but hopefully in short terms, what in our comunity the Non-Aggresion Pact actualy means.

What we need to define is:

teritory that is protected by NAP and how to expand it
what actions can be taken inside and outside of that teritory
what actions will break the NAP (maybe something around damage done compared to total player economy)
conditions about when termination clause is to be respected and when it's immediately null and void (if we actually agree to allow this)
obligations of sides entering the NAP (like mandatory notification of involved sides about diplomatic changes with non-involved players)
reparations for "minor" breakings of NAP (like destroying scouts)
...

Anybody willing to participate?

BR, Iztok

[Updated on: Tue, 28 February 2012 13:59]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Defining "standard" NAP

Tue, 28 February 2012 13:58

nmid

Commander

Messages: 1608
Registered: January 2011
Location: GMT +5.5

I don't mind and will actually look forward to it.

For starters, things to also consider,
the minimum non-cancel able period after signing an NAP...
Disclosure of alliances with the nap parties/players
Extention of the certain basic aspects of the nap with allies
Non availability of resources to allies in case of a proxy war
If the ally is attacking the other nap party, the first nap player should inform any fleet movements on the border planets?

I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Defining "standard" NAP

Tue, 28 February 2012 14:12

sprocket

Chief Warrant Officer 1

Messages: 138
Registered: November 2002
Location: Illinois US

It has been my experience (in many games online and off) that rigidly defining an NAP only leads to unscrupulous lawyering for loopholes. Some basic principles are certainly desirable, I hope you can achieve that.

It seems that the Slimdragoon scandal was entirely the result of him sending an expeditionary force into a third parties territory and Mac1 not knowing how to set the attack orders.

Perhaps agreeing to keep each other at neutral and have battle orders that only attack enemies.

Dieter of sprockets

Report message to a moderator

Re: Defining "standard" NAP

Tue, 28 February 2012 14:15

nmid

Commander

Messages: 1608
Registered: January 2011
Location: GMT +5.5

Not wanting to rehash an old topic, so without taking names, the aggrieved party did set the correct battle orders, but as he fired on the middle party, the eventual aggressor got involved due to the stars battle engine system.

I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Defining "standard" NAP

Wed, 29 February 2012 01:12

Eagle of Fire

Lt. Commander

Messages: 809
Registered: December 2008
Location: GMT -5

Basic NAP?

My basic NAP only cover the fact that both party agree not to attack eachother. Nothing more.

STARS! Wiki
STARS! Wiki Français
I am on a hot streak... Literally.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Defining "standard" NAP

Wed, 29 February 2012 03:29

Anonymous Coward

Eagle of Fire wrote on Wed, 29 February 2012 07:12

Basic NAP?

My basic NAP only cover the fact that both party agree not to attack eachother. Nothing more.

Seconded. And that means under any circumstances.

If the other party makes an action that is hostile to me and has not been agreed upon beforehand - even accidentally - he's broken the NAP and will face consequences thereof.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Defining "standard" NAP

Wed, 29 February 2012 03:32

nmid

Commander

Messages: 1608
Registered: January 2011
Location: GMT +5.5

Consequences?
What's the max one can do?
Call him names and attack him.

However the point of the nap is that one doesn't require to have a full alert defence fleet. It's in this situation that the other party takes advantage and decides to "tweak/push" the nap.
They can take the aggressive action in game while you are not fully prepared to block their actions and to deflect RL name calling, go into legalese and clause lawyering of the nap.

Edit - split sentence into two.

[Updated on: Wed, 29 February 2012 11:46]

I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Defining "standard" NAP

Wed, 29 February 2012 10:31

vonKreedon

Lieutenant

Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA

I disagree with the need or desirability of setting community standards for NAPs. Negotiate, watch and verify, win.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Defining "standard" NAP

Wed, 29 February 2012 11:34

Eagle of Fire

Lt. Commander

Messages: 809
Registered: December 2008
Location: GMT -5

Quote:

If the other party makes an action that is hostile to me and has not been agreed upon beforehand - even accidentally - he's broken the NAP and will face consequences thereof.

This of course include the situation in which the other party sending ships in my way in the sole purpose to break the NAP without using the exit clause... Which mean they break the NAP. Rolling Eyes

STARS! Wiki
STARS! Wiki Français
I am on a hot streak... Literally.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Defining "standard" NAP

Wed, 29 February 2012 23:17

m.a@stars

Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left

It would seem the real problem lies not so much in what the "standard" NAP should say, but in deciding when an hostile action should be answered in kind. Sherlock

Those who pretend that anything they do is just right should of course find themselves on the receiving end of such tactics. Twisted Evil

So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	Dosbox stars fix...
Next Topic:	NAP Breaker or not?

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

Current Time: Tue Apr 30 02:40:33 EDT 2024