While playing clan rumbles, I am now tired of the initial negotiations every time I run into a new player. As such, I'd propose Conventions of Friendship, a code which players can declare they abide by. Hope is that this can save some needless negotiations by players in games involving 3 or more teams. (this can work not just for clan rumbles.)
Is there already such a thing?


1. Upon meeting new players in games contested by 3 or more teams, the assumed relation is peace.
The parties must not attack (including tapping) each other, or use cards that cause a disadvantage, e.g. positive Sanctions Card, Bomb Card, and Gift Card for negative-bonus territories.

2. To alter the assumed state of peace, it must be done via explicit messages. Any actions based on the new state of relation can only be carried out from the turn after the current turn in which the messages are sent (to prevent last-minute messages during bank time that deny the chance of timely response and reaction).

3. For neutral or enemy territories that both parties have access to, it should be clarified in messaging to coordination action, in order to minimise friendly fire.

4. Players should avoid entering bonuses that they are aware that other parties already hold the majority of. Players should definitely not capture territories that they are not expected to and other parties are expecting to capture to complete bonuses.

5. Both parties should facilitate swift exchange of territories to maximise income for mutual benefits.

6. Conventions can be overridden only by mutual explicit agreement.

7. Conventions only apply between Conventions signatories.

8. Declaration of Participation
8.1 Players should declare in their bio that they are parties to the Conventions.
8.2 A spreadsheet or similar database will be set up, maintained and updated by a designated group of players (Conventions of Friendship Organisation, CFO).

9. Violation of Conventions
9.1 If during a game a signatory player violates the Conventions, other parties can report it to the CFO. The reported player will be marked with a warning in the database, pending investigation after the game is over.
9.2 If a signatory player is reported by multiple parties, the reported player will be suspended from the Conventions, pending investigation after the game is over.
9.3 After the game is over, investigation will be done to verify whether the reported player actually violated the conventions. If found true, the reported player will be expelled from the Conventions, and registered in another list of expelled signatories in the database.

10. Withdrawal and Readmission
10.1 If a player wants to withdraw from the Conventions, they must immediately edit their bio to reflect that, and notify the CFO.
10.2 If a player in good standing (aka violation history) wants to be readmitted to the Conventions, they must notify the CFO and edit their bio to reflect that.
10.3 Other players who want to be readmitted must notify the CFO and edit their bio to reflect that they had previous violations but now want to abide by the Conventions again. They will be readmitted after a probation period, and registered in a list of readmitted players with their violation history.
10.4 A violation record of readmitted players can be suppressed if the player has remained in good standing for two years and the violation record is older than two years.



This is just a draft. Guys feel free to say what you think and what can be modified and improved. :)

You basically described what FFA players in games with PM allowed already do.
I like the idea, but I doubt it will gain support you imagine.

what FFA players in games with PM allowed already do.

The default I experience is war instead of peace.
Also even if I want to be pacifist, I dont have a way to tell if the other player actually prefers peace, until they have attacked me. Then I always lose 1 turn.
We need a mechanism to instantly distinguish cooperative players from the uncooperative ones.
And also the terms of cooperation are usually very similar. If players have signed up for a common framework, then those terms dont have to be repeatedly negotiated every single time.

One more rule (should be inserted in the middle though)

11. When the game has other non-signatories, signatories should first unite together against non-signatories.

Dude just play diplos, because that's basically what you're asking 🤣

This is basically a "basic non-aggression pact".

A few observations from the clan rumbles lead to my desire to have swift agreement with new encounters.

1. Winning is often decided by who can expand the fastest.
2. Uncertainty about new encounters' stance leads to precious armies wasted on stacking the commander to prevent elimination and guarding bonuses, rather than capturing neutrals and expanding.
3. A user's reputation is hard to tell without a system. I dont have a way to tell if a user often betrays their promises if I never played a game with them. So without such a system, betrayal is virtually unpunished. So the strategy of betrayal is encouraged by its rewards outweighing its consequences.
To promote cooperative strategies, there needs to be a system to "remember" past betrayals.
https://youtu.be/mScpHTIi-kM

It is quite easy to punish betrayal, unless they can snipe your commander (which would be a mistake by you). I don't like the idea of this clubs players always teaming together agaisnt those who have not joined, its basically same as players from one clan teaming together in FFAs.