I agree with KnightPraetor that backstabbing must remain part of the game play mix, else players get complacent and don't put the effort required to keep track of the strategic situation with their allies.

I define a backstab as breaking the letter of an existing treaty to cripple an ally. So, attacking a player with whom I've been friendly but with whom I do not have a signed treaty is not a backstab, rather this was a big mistake on the other player's part. Also, writing a treaty in such a way that it allows some form of attack, say it specifically calls out a list of prohibited actions that do not include packet attacks, and then taking advantage of the loophole is not IMO a backstab but again is a big mistake on the packeted player's part.

All that being said, I've only backstabbed a Stars! ally once. We had been allied for many decades, he was in first and pulling ahead and I was in second. Out treaty had no exit clause, a situation I will no longer accept, so I conspired with other players to launch a coordinate attack on my ally. I did not win the game, but neither did he in the 10+ years since then I have never had to resort to an outright backstab because I am very careful in writing my treaties and watching the strategic situation of my allies AND enemies, but should I determine that a backstab is critical to my chances of winning then I will ensure that my knife is very very sharp.

[Updated on: Wed, 18 October 2006 11:31]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

slimdrag00n wrote on Sat, 04 April 2009 13:17

Im new here but i totally agree with the previous post. I for one have honor. Sadly most people dont. But in all honesty though if host doesn't post something as a rule then there is no rules. Why people get bent out of shape over backstabbing i dunno. They end up putting this ultra grudge on some one for all future games. Sure the right thing to do is give someone a few year notice before breaking an alliance but its natural for anyone to want to win. Expect the unexpected... assume automatically that the person you are allying with will back stab. Just like the guy who plays the board game monopoly and always yells that he wants to be the banker... Keep an eye on the money!! There can only be one winner so i say be glad you had the alliance while it lasted.. and always be ready. If you ever been back stabbed just expect it.. be ready.. if not doom your self to playing solo.. good luck to all. A fair game is a good game.

It's natural for anyone to want to win but it's also natural to remember whether people backstab or not and not run headlong into it again

What people get bent out of shape over isn't so much a smart backstab as a stupid backstab, one that doesn't accomplish anything. It's perfectly reasonable to avoid allying with a player that obviously doesn't play logically and who is therefore a loose cannon.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

"Backstabbing" is simply a specialized term for a specific use of diplomacy.

Some people are simply oblivious to the meaning of real diplomacy...

I've followed this thread closely, but I must say that if I were to do something in a game which would tick someone off and they hold a grudge on me for future game... I'd consider it so lame that I'd then greatly question their understanding of diplomacy and RP. And perhaps even go as far as questioning their intelligence...

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote:

... they hold a grudge on me for future game... I'd consider it so lame [...] And perhaps even go as far as questioning their intelligence...

IMHO lameness and non-intelligence does not follow from emotional reaction.
I suppose grudge and hatred can prevent one from unfortunate alliances.
I would even say that hatred can be very powerful motivator and can succesfully deter other party from backstabing one again.
(Thou I agree that hatred can lead to general lameness and weak play - however the lamer opponents the more likely I am to win \ )

Just my $0.02.
Kris

{mod edit: fixed quote}

[Updated on: Tue, 21 April 2009 06:48] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

DaYng1 - My personal definition of a backstab is to break the word of an agreement in order to cause the crippling or outright destruction of another race. I think that many people will think this too restrictive, that breaking the spirit of the agreement is a backstab, but then I'm very careful about the words in my agreements.

If someone breaks an agreement over momentary advantage I guess this is a backstab, but really it is such a stupid move as to be better defined as...well...a mistake. If you are going to so piss another player off as is inevitable with a backstab you better do it for big strategic gain and you better succeed.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Fri, 17 April 2009 11:55]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sat, 18 April 2009 16:38]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sun, 19 April 2009 00:51]

Report message to a moderator

vonKreedon wrote on Sun, 19 April 2009 04:05

Again, assuming a strategically well founded and operationally well executed backstab, here's why not re-allying is ludicrous: 1 - The player has shown himself (using masculine here because there are damn few women Stars players) to be an excellent player from the strategic, operational, and diplomatic standpoints. Such players make useful allies and terrible enemies.

Indeed, and therefore, via Tall Poppy Syndrome, targets for an alliance, not prospective members.

Quote:

2 - Assumably he made a good enough ally for you to put him in a position to effectively backstab you; that up until the backstab the alliance was effective and useful to you. So why deny yourself this usefulness again?

Because as a whole the alliance wasn't beneficial, now was it?

Quote:

3 - The circumstances for the backstab are unlikely to be common. Again, I am speaking only of a well executed backstab, one in which the strategic situation made the backstab the best play in order to win, the opportunity was available, and the backstab was effectively executed. So, there are not that many times that this correlation of circumstances will happen.

There are lots of situations in which backstabbing your ally is the "logical" move. I'm in a borderline one right now.

Quote:

4 - You know that the player is willing to backstab. Think about what information you would need to see the backstab coming and how you can structure getting this information into your treaty. Then write the treaty to give you these guarantees. Also, go ahead and be paranoid if your intel indicates any potential for a backstab.

Easiest way to guarantee - don't ally in the first place.

Quote:

If the backstab was stupid or the ally was not really a good ally then this does not apply. But then the reasons for not allying have more to do with not allying with stupid and poor allies than with the backstab.

Indeed. Those who backstab for stupid reasons go in my "Only if I'm desperate and it's my o

Report message to a moderator

vonKreedon wrote on Sun, 19 April 2009 08:36

Certainly, but don't reflexively discard the usefulness of the ally overall. Re-evaluate, and if the "ally" helped you gain territory/score/tech and only in the end-game when you became a bigger strategic threat than help to your "ally" did he orchestrate a masterful backstab, then I argue this guy was a great ally and I would re-ally with him in a heartbeat, but be very very sure to evaluate at what point I might be becoming a greater strategic threat to him than our enemies of the moment. Because if you have the treaty right to have ships at all his planets, or to have his download and race passwords, or to not allow his to have orbitals in certain areas, etc. these are verifiable things that don't require you to trust the "ally", but rather provide you the early warning of a potential backstab and some amount of mitigation in the event he does backstab.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to make any sort of agreement with one so paranoid.

Out of fear of them backstabbing you, ironically enough.

I agree with Altruist and AlexTheGreat, with, again, the exception of special rules.

[Updated on: Sun, 19 April 2009 01:05]

Report message to a moderator

magic9mushroom wrote on Sat, 18 April 2009 22:00

Indeed. Those who backstab for stupid reasons go in my "Only if I'm desperate and it's my only choice" bin of players. Those who backstab for perfectly logical reasons go in my "At arm's length - fine" receptacle. This doesn't apply to the endgame, I should note. When there's less than 5 players left, I consider it "open season", though I probably still wouldn't backstab others myself.

After appearing to disagree with my viewpoint on all four of my points, this to my eye then completely agrees with my overall position.

To elaborate, real backstabs IMO are, with very very rare exceptions, end-game gambits. There is not enough time left, either because of game imposed time limits or because the backstabee to be is running away with the game, to use more normal means of exiting the alliance, and so the backstab becomes the only realistic means of winning.

As a player I assume that all the other players are playing to win; that they will do what it takes, within the agreed rules, to win. I'm counting on that and when players do not play to win due to chivalrous concepts of honor and fair play beyond the stated rules it screws with my gameplay and annoys me mightly. If the game is a sole victor game and the number two or three player has been allied with the running away number one for ages and then will not even exit the alliance it screws up the game for the rest of us who are trying to win since we cannot pull down the number one if he remains firmly allied with number two or three. This is slightly different from the backstab discussion, but the concept of honor and such is the underpining most often heard in this situation and really is just a more common effect of this IMO misguided ethic of honor over winning.

If you are playing to win and your sober and ruthless analysis of the situation is that the only chance for you to win is to backstab your ally and you have the realistic potential to pull off a backstab tha

[Updated on: Sun, 19 April 2009 18:34]

Report message to a moderator