Definitions for Alliance, non-alliance and NAP agreements

[theAdmin]

I have been asked multiple times what the definitions are for these types of agreements so to that end I would like to post a strawman proposal of my definitions and open it up for comments and revision. At the end of this discussion I will post the official definitions.

Alliance: An alliance can be a full exchange of information, materials, ships, planets, whatever. It falls into the category of “whatever is mine is yours”. Players may choose to limit what is actually exchanged but nothing is considered out-of-bounds.

Non-Alliance: A non-alliance is no exchange of  materials, ships, planets, nothing. This includes exchanging information about races, the game map. etc. The only exception to this is the exchange of specific planet names and locations as required to define the boundaries of a NAP. The exchange of information beyond name and location will be considered a violation. For purposes of defining a cheat, violation of the non-alliance criteria is considered cheating and will result in a player being banned from theStarbase.

Non-aggression pact (NAP): A NAP is an agreement not to be aggressive against the player you have an agreement with. The key word here is ‘aggressive’. The taking of planets within a NAP (an aggressive act) is a clear violation of a NAP. The exploration of another’s territory is not an aggressive act hence not a violation. A NAP is equivalent to a Cold War Agreement and there should be a lot of communication between the two factions in order to avoid misunderstandings.
(Note that the violation of a NAP is a violation against the other party and not a violation against theStarbase hence the violation of a NAP is not considered a cheat.)

[Warped Board]

The whole NAP/exploration part is always a sticky one for me... some might say it IS aggressive to go flying your scouts (or even larger ships) through another's territory, even if you don't attack. I suppose then it's a case of "fine, do it, but don't blame me if you get caught in a minefield" & the likes; perhaps more of a finer point to be worked out with each NAP. As you say, NAP breaking is more of an honor issue than it is out-right cheating, so in theory someone who habitually does it will get a reputation to match.

[BANE]

Alliances:
Range from Full RST exchange down to ffx ship vision.
PHost has the various alliance switches which are really nice.
Behavior within alliances depends on the players.
Only limits I would put on Alliance behavior is game specific rules and cheating.

NAPs:
No hostile action and no espionage.
A NAP'd player with me that sends a scout into my space is in violation.
Cloaked or Not, my space is off limits in a NAP.

Trading Partner:
Untethered exchange of assets of some sort.
ie:  
Ship exchange
Cash exchange
Mineral exchange
Planet exchange
Information exchange

Say I come upon a situation where I find Player A fighting Player B
and I would rather Player A win that fight.  I happen to have an
item that would greatly assist Player A.  I make him an offer to sell
Player A item X with no commitment beyond that deal.

No further strings attached except for the items exchanged.

ie:  I sell the Bots a Loki for 300 fighters.

Non-Alliance/Neutral:
This is a grey area.
If I don't have a NAP or an alliance, Non-Ally would be to me an enemy.

A Neutral would be party C that is unwilling to get involved in a conflict
between A & B.



However, I'd have a hard time making site based rules regarding player
behavior outside of cheating.

Define what is cheating and violations of that are where a Site Admin can
get involved. 

Political dealings within the game should remain within the game.

[Warped Board]

True enough... I'd venture that the only definition that be made is a broad one for the no-alliance, only because it's a specific style of some of the games (Half-Pint IV, for instance) & involved action by the host. Put simply, exchange of anything beyond what everyone can see on the map is right out.

The rest... Strix makes a good point, if you have to have someone tell you, there's probably a problem already. And nailing down one definition (as evidenced already by my prior post) is a bit subjective, up to the whims of the players in a given instance. However, a general overview (good one, btw, BANE -- just saw it come up) isn't a bad thing if not regulatory, more for newer players who might have no clue what a "NAP" is or what kind of diplomacy options are often practiced.

[Adama]

BANE lay out a fair guide line, and Strix also is on track. Any alliance that is formed needs to
be worked out by the players to set the boundaries as to what is acceptable.

Only the NO-Alliance setting is set in stone. Which I think is the main point that Strix is making
while talking about cheaters. However even if you do not have an alliance, you do not have to
be in combat with other races.

As for me, if I make an alliance I generally trade RSTs and every aspect of my space. If I make
a NAP or friendly boarder, you stay in your area and I will stay in mine, unless there is communication
requesting passage. Everyone else is an enemy. I might not fight all of them at the same time, but
before the game is over I will.

[Dark Helmet]

I have been asked multiple times what the definitions are for these types of agreements so to that end I would like to post a strawman proposal of my definitions and open it up for comments and revision. At the end of this discussion I will post the official definitions.

Alliance: An alliance can be a full exchange of information, materials, ships, planets, whatever. It falls into the category of “whatever is mine is yours”. Players may choose to limit what is actually exchanged but nothing is considered out-of-bounds.

Non-Alliance: A non-alliance is no exchange of  materials, ships, planets, nothing. This includes exchanging information about races, the game map. etc. The only exception to this is the exchange of specific planet names and locations as required to define the boundaries of a NAP. The exchange of information beyond name and location will be considered a violation. For purposes of defining a cheat, violation of the non-alliance criteria is considered cheating and will result in a player being banned from theStarbase.

Non-aggression pact (NAP): A NAP is an agreement not to be aggressive against the player you have an agreement with. The key word here is ‘aggressive’. The taking of planets within a NAP (an aggressive act) is a clear violation of a NAP. The exploration of another’s territory is not an aggressive act hence not a violation. A NAP is equivalent to a Cold War Agreement and there should be a lot of communication between the two factions in order to avoid misunderstandings.
(Note that the violation of a NAP is a violation against the other party and not a violation against theStarbase hence the violation of a NAP is not considered a cheat.)

I'm glad to see a clearer opnion from the Admin, I had asked for a definition back on 6-25-07 in advance of the start of HP-IV based on what was clearly a violation in HP-III and which divided the site between two opinions. Here was your response then......

Quote from: Dark Helmet on 06/25/07
The "no Alliance" should be defined....[snip]

Let me start by any stating any rule is only good as its ability to be caught and enforced. That said:

In this game there should be no sharing of information, materials or ships. Warriors can agree on a line-of-death (do not cross!) and not to attach each other. That is about the limit of what I will define. At the end of the game I ask all warriors to award their fellow warriors Sportsmanship Points which ultimately show up as ribbons. If you feel someone has not played in a sportsman-like manner you don't award them any points. If someone can be shown to have violated the spirit of non-alliance then sportsman points could be stripped from them.

I've yet to hear anyone challenge anyone for breaking the rules of non alliance in HP-IV. However, I must point out As I did in the that previous discussion,that if the host leaves it up to the players and all they will suffer is a few sportsmanship points from maybe 1/2 of the players.......you are going to have people ally. Any player that plays totally honorable based on the sites previous position played at a disadvantage. Having no position has the opposite results.


An Alliance allows anything that is not a game cheat. Sharing everything and anything is fair between allies.

Non Alliance game....I already stated my position on this, it's in the HP-III thread.

A NAP means you have an agreement to not get involved in the fighting between two others. It also means you respect the sovereign space of the other party......what is the purpose of flying around in the other party's area if not to scout. It generally defines borders or "cuts up" the frontier in a me-you manner (a sort of preemptive NAP). There is also nothing wrong with an understanding of how long a NAP will last. It can be for a defined period (time) or an event (when there is nobody but us left). I consider aiding my enemy to be a violation of a NAP. It takes a lot of minor "oops" type violations before I go to full scale war over a NAP.

There can also be a game understanding that two weaker races (generally noobs but not always) are left to beat on each other. This is sort of a game wide NAP. We seen this in HP-III (Crystal vs Fed) and also in HP-IV (Bird vs Fed).

Maybe the best thing is to not have "non alliance" games. Someone will always sense or feel something that may simply be the random expansion of others.

[Dark Helmet]

Political dealings within the game should remain within the game.

I agree, there is still geopolitical diplomacy in a non alliance game. As the game progresses the map changes, the score changes (the power changes) and thus what was in your best interest on turn 12 could be completely bass ackwards by turn 30.

Beyond that I would expect a NAP be broken in a respectable manner and not with battleships.

[Norg]

The only definition I believe is required is the non-alliance for game setup. The others should be worked out between the players and I seen no need for game admin to get involved with them.

An alliance could be a full alliance or limited. The same with the NAP.  Scanning the playing area without permission in a NAP would be considered an act of aggression.  If you have a NAP and scan the area, and you also have a full alliance with another race, they could see you cans from your NAP.

Norg

[BANE]

In a game where the host defines the game as No Ally, then it is the job
of the host to define what No Ally means.

Example:
A game defined as No Alliances, No NAPs, No Trades, No coordinated
action between any players.

Would an EE player that gave Darksense information to players be in
violation of the above rules?

If the same EE player game DS info to all other players in game, is
that a violation.

The EE player is at war with all races in such a scenario and giving
information assists the players receiving, but depending upon the
POV, the EE player is using his information as a weapon of war.

ie:
EE gives DS data to the Gorn neighboring the Orion.
EE gives DS data to the Rebel neighboring the Borg.
EE gives DS data to the Tholian neighboring the Romulan.
EE gives DS data to the Fed neighboring the Colonial.
EE gives DS data to the Klingon neighboring the Cylon.

EE is attempting to steer conflicts toward his own advantage
Gorn vs Orion.
Rebel vs Borg.
Tholian vs Romulan.
Fed vs Colonial.
Klingon vs Cylon.
etc.

The goal here is to use race X to beat race Y when race Y is more
of a problem for the EE than is race X.

If the Host hasn't spelled out "No Info Sharing", then IMO it isn't in
violation of "No Alliances". 

[Dark Helmet]

In a game where the host defines the game as No Ally, then it is the job
of the host to define what No Ally means.

Example:
A game defined as No Alliances, No NAPs, No Trades, No coordinated
action between any players.

Would an EE player that gave Darksense information to players be in
violation of the above rules?

In your example, half the players got assisted and know right where to strike......geting them to war is one thing but in your example the war begins lopsided.

DS is a race advantage....What if your enemy got the race advantage or ship advantage of another race because that race wanted you both at war? If the EE can use DS to provoke a war then why shouldn't another race have the same advantage of using his abilities to provoke or enhance?

Providing DS would be outside of the rules in a no info sharing non alliance game. Proving it would be impossible.

[Batman]

Alliances:
Range from Full RST exchange down to ffx ship vision.
PHost has the various alliance switches which are really nice.
Behavior within alliances depends on the players.
Only limits I would put on Alliance behavior is game specific rules and cheating.

NAPs:
No hostile action and no espionage.
A NAP'd player with me that sends a scout into my space is in violation.
Cloaked or Not, my space is off limits in a NAP.

Trading Partner:
Untethered exchange of assets of some sort.
ie: 
Ship exchange
Cash exchange
Mineral exchange
Planet exchange
Information exchange

Say I come upon a situation where I find Player A fighting Player B
and I would rather Player A win that fight.  I happen to have an
item that would greatly assist Player A.  I make him an offer to sell
Player A item X with no commitment beyond that deal.

No further strings attached except for the items exchanged.

ie:  I sell the Bots a Loki for 300 fighters.

Non-Alliance/Neutral:
This is a grey area.
If I don't have a NAP or an alliance, Non-Ally would be to me an enemy.

A Neutral would be party C that is unwilling to get involved in a conflict
between A & B.



However, I'd have a hard time making site based rules regarding player
behavior outside of cheating.

Define what is cheating and violations of that are where a Site Admin can
get involved. 

Political dealings within the game should remain within the game.

I'll go with BANE.

[BANE]

Providing DS would be outside of the rules in a no info sharing non alliance game. Proving it would be impossible.

That's why I suggest spelling out what the rules are.
If the Host states, "No info sharing" then the giving of DS info
is prohibited and I agree.

But in a No Ally game where it is not specifically prohibited, then
it is simply a player using the weapons he has.

Of course the war starts off lopsided, it would be in the best
interest of the EE to have wars go particular ways.

I generally believe that if it isn't cheating and it isn't breaking
the rules as determined by the Host, then it is fair game.

Some things are underhanded, dishonorable, you name it, but
if they aren't forbidden by rule, then calling foul becomes an
issue of "in the eye of the beholder".

[Brent Cardno]

I'm in 100% agreement wtih Bane on this.

I'm currently a big fan of no-ally, OneAlly games.

Host has the right to specifiy the rules. The fact that ppl can cheat, does not to me advocate abandoning establishing such rules.

Players who join a game have a right to understand clearly what they are 'buying into'.

With regard to Strix's comment about the status of ppl who comment on this issue: Your view point may hold true in many situations, but when you start making carte blanche statements like that, I just can't agree in principle or in practise. These things OUGHT to be talked about.

[Commodore Cherek]

I'm in 100% agreement wtih Bane on this.

For the most part, I agree with what BANE says too. When it comes to a NAP, a lot of the time, I like to get an agreement that a NAP can be withdrawn only when given X amount of turn notice. Most of the time, I’ll keep a NAP all the way to the end. There has only been a couple games where the NAP was dissolved and I believe those involve NAPs with Shardin. 

[FLETCH]

As far as Specific game types, such as a NoAlly game I agree with what BANE says. The Host should make efforts to outline what constitutes breaking the rules.

As far as any other agreement between players within a non specific game ie. NAPs, Border Agreements, Limited Alliances all I can say is BUYER BEWARE.

In these cases you are basically entering into a contract of trust to some degree with the other player. it is in YOUR best interest to make this agreement as clear as possible to both parties. I follow the same practice as the Commodore (ye gods.... ) with regards to having a need to give notice of intent to break the agreement. I also set in place other rules, eg. If I have a border agreement with say the Lizards I would require that not only does he not cross the border without prior permission but also that he not allow any other race to cross the same border. If he is unable to stop another race then he should notify me that the border is likely to be crossed. As BANE said, if it is not "cheating" and is not prohibited by the rules, then you have to expect players to do it, or at least be aware of the possibility.

Basically I think you need to be sure players KNOW what you are expecting from any given agreement instead of just assuming they think like you do. I also keep all corespondance in case there are any "questions" later on.....