I feel compelled to butt in in the last argument in the game lobby.
Guys, I think we might be taking this too seriously.
I honestly think that wobbly did nothing wrong when he tried to ally others against the (at the time) most successful empire, mine, and then change his mind when things went bad for him.
Be sure of this: that is exactly what any of you would do in that situation. This is a only-1-can-win game with diplomacy enabled, so it is expected that players break the alliances they form, and that players get more jealous about securing their own growth over their (temporal) allies.
IIRC, after W and DB had their private contacts about me, W got into trouble fighting LR. I offered him my support because I thought it was better for me to not let LR get strong. Then I tried to secure a non-aggression pact with DB and Endhu so that I could leave my space undefended. After an excessively long interchange of PMs, mostly with DB, it didn't work out. It was my subjective perception that DB basically made me waste my time waiting for a pact that would never come, while he was conceling information from me and preparing his own pacts against me*. During that undfruitful interchage of PM, DB told me that he didn't trust W because W had proposed DB that pact against me but then W informed me.
Daybreak, I assume you expected the pact to be secret, and maybe even that W would never accept my support just because he had approached you first?
If that is the case, it is unreasonable, plus it pisses me off.
Honestly, who is more honest? the one that makes hidden pacts to make unsurmontable surprise attacks or the one that goes up front?
For your information, in our private negotiations, the one that went up front was me. And the one that keeps information for himself and probed everyone for the best offer before accepting a pact was you.
So, given that it is so OK for you to speak out loud about the honesty of others, let me tell you this: your actions showed me you are not trustworthy.
But there is more. Only now, after reading the chats between DB and W, I realize that W also had more reasons to ask for my support: his intention to ally DB against me was also mediated by LR entering into that alliance (W, seriously? WTF OMG LOL, we'll have to talk about this...), and since LR didn't want to, W had a good amount of reasons to ally me (unless DB had helped W out, which seemingly didn't happen). So, Daybreak, when you say "(W was) at the same time boasting it to Oberlus", you are wrong. It wasn't at the same time, W first tried the alliance with you and LR, and he accepted my offer only after that failed .
basically after offering all that you told Oberlus you were mucking around with our minds.
You know I can say exactly the same about you, do you?
Also, DB, if you are calling someone by their nick and saying they are dishonest, you are insulting them. In this last exchange between you and W, he told you he doesn't like to be called dishonest and that he is not happy with the situation in a personal level (so clearly speaking out of game), then you say:
maybe i should have said trusted in game - more fair, and ok for this game, not outside game.
Maybe?
Or maybe you could have said nothing at all. But let me tell you that "maybe" doesn't help.
And after some more exchanges in which W's personal disconfort is made literally evident, you add this:
f8unny now i think your outrage is a little false
So calling him again a dishonest person, uh?
Dude, I have few social skills, but yours are not much better LOL.
you ae probably very trust worthy outside the game.
Probably?
Why you have to speak again about the honesty of W in real life? And why you have to say it in a way that clearly states that W might not be an honest person?
If you think it makes sense to apologize, do it in a plain and direct way.
If you think you did nothing wrong and you don't want to be conciliatory, you can just drop it.
Trying to justify your actions, trying to make the insulted person understand why you insulted the person or why your insult is limited to this or that context, is not what will get you mutual understanding.
So, guys, let us try and make a reset. We could start from these agreeable points:
- Diplomacy with backstabbing is complicated and risky and emotionally involving. In that context, It's normal that players get mad at other players for what they do in game.
- The more we speak in PMs, the more diplomatic mistakes we can commit. That's why no one ever will have a beef with o01eg, or why no one is wary about Endhu in this game, while I am a fucking demon despite trying to be 100% honest and reasonable in my negotiations (yes, DB, I really think I was fair in what I offered you in our negotiations, utterly fair; we agree to disagree).
- You all can concede now because I am about to finish my megafleet of solar hulls with neverending flows of troopers, Fremen style, so you better start thinking on what you learnt during this game and hope to be in my team next game