I'm currently hosting my first diplo game, and a player has managed to create an diplomatic pact (in spite of the rules limiting alliances and personal networks) consisting of the majority of players. Right now, said player has proposed that the majority alliance should be able to change the rules of diplo.

I am very new to hosting diplo games, and I have no idea how to react in this case, which I have never seen occur in other diplos that I have played. What should I do in this scenario?

As host, it's up to you, but if majority of players are against it, it may be easier to go with the flow.

Well, in my opinion.

IF the rules are somewhat unfair (i.e limiting alliances to 2-3 members, among other I haven’t experienced), then go with Krinid’s answer above. But if the rules are lenient, then I say they are overreacting. But unless you have the max limit of troops in one territory (100,000), you’ll be absolutely forced into their deals whether you like it or not.

So unless you wanna be an observer with only one territory in the game, I suggest you wanna go with their ideals unless it gives unfair advantages to said team.

Here are my rules:
1. Players have to wait 1 turn after publicly declaring war to attack.
2. Undeclares are accepted by default if no territory was taken since the declaration was made. However, a player can reject the undeclare in chat if they so choose.
3. If territory was taken since a declaration of war, both parties must publicly agree to a peace treaty or ceasefire.
4. Follow the restrictions listed in the Factions section above.
5. Gangbangs can be up to a 2v1.
6. A player can be allied with up to 5 other players. NAPs are unlimited.
7. Claims do not have to be respected.
8. There are no penalties if a player accidentally takes territory that was neutral or belonging to a common enemy/PE at the start of the turn from another player who took that territory from the neutrals/common enemy/PE.
9. If there is a PE, no players may attack any player neighboring the PE, and any player neighboring the PE has to attack the PE.
10. Roleplay is encouraged.
11. Giftblocking is prohibited.
12. Final discretion is given to the host about rules interpretations and declaring players PE.

From my experience, the 5-alliance limit and the 2v1 gangbang rules are probably more restrictive than other diplos, but the first rule the pact is proposing is having the pact be able to sanction any players deemed "a global threat to stability" by gifting negative-income bonuses and declaring players who gift back those territories PE.

lmao you got played

you can do two things in this case

get subjugated by the masses
or
go rogue

(the second option is more satisfying and better imo but it may get you blocked from future games)

Edited 9/8/2021 14:03:24

In my opinion yet again, 2 is somewhat questionable. 7 may stir up a little fight, 8 might cause some difficulties for Country C who’s territory with their troops was taken by Country A who is attacking Country B who’s the PE.

Their first proposal is total BS, some favors will come out of that box no matter what you do to limit it that much. Gifting people deemed dangerous to the stability of the world!?!?! Now that’s what I call being disrespectful to players who’ll receive those punishments. Unless of course the little guy manages to make the guys run out of gift cards, thus K A R M A I S S E R V E D .

Their second is not bad, it’s more of the general rule of PEs, you just exterminate countries who violated the rules. More of general common sense floating around PEs. Anyways, try to negotiate the first proposal and bump it’s power down as much as you can, if that gets approved. You definitely ruined the game, thus make another game. The game is already dead in the water as is.

The first proposal will ruin the game. Permanently in my opinion, so abandon that game, and make another Diplo the offenders won’t reach ever, and you’re good unless they come back to your lobby. Then you are definitely screwed twice.

Which rule is it that they have issue with?

They have issues with rule 9 and rule 5.

The player who created the majority alliance (and many members of the alliance) declared on that player shortly before a neighboring country to the player who was declared on became PE.

Likewise, more than two players were planning on declaring on that player, and they openly announced plans in the chat to partition said player.

Too many pronouns ... lol, not sure who each instance of 'the player', 'that player', 'the player', 'two players', 'that player' are ... maybe use player A/B/C/D/E/F/G/etc? But the players who "intended to declare on someone" - well that means that they were planning to declare but didn't so if we're sticking to rules, they didn't declare so can't attack yet. Have to wait 1 turn, not a big deal.

That said, #9 is often problematic in many diplos. You're essentially saying that PE status trumps everything else in the game, all plans and strats that have occurred to date are set aside to deal with the PE. And that means you trample on people's plans, sometimes even asking weaker opponents fight a stronger PE, without ever specifying what happens after the PE is eliminated.

For example, what if 1 person gets wrecked by the PE and one of the players helping elim the PE gains a lot of territory? I've been in a situation like this ... I didn't respect a claim someone made (this is legal, similar to your rules - claims are just statements of intent, not actual rights to the territories), he attacked me w/o declaration, he became PE, many attacked him, he took personal vendetta against me, gave his territories to a cooperating neighbour of his to make that player stronger while focusing on reducing my lands.

After PE was eliminated, there was an adjustment phase where all players decided:
(A) territories that PE gave to another player shall be subjugated; once the problematic player became PE, he forfeit all his lands, and thus these territories weren't his to give anymore (aside: the player receiving these territories almost became PE himself b/c he initially refused to relinquish the territories despite the otherwise unified mandate)
(B) territories I lost were to be recompensed
(C) those who helped elim the PE should be compensated

But not all diplos have people who cooperate like this, and more often just spiral out of control into arguments. And the issue often becomes stopping 1-2 players from gaining too much from eliminating the PE.

But it sounds like the population is united against eliminating a PE, and if this is the case, do you really care to stop the movement?

Edited 9/8/2021 14:43:28

Let me rephrase my previous comment then.

Player A is creating the alliance trying to overturn and rewrite the rules and declared on player B, along with much of his alliance. They have openly stated their intentions to partition player B, but their war has been halted due to player B neighboring player C.
Player B is the player being declared on by player A and neighbors player C. Player B has not violated any rules.
Player C is a PE, for reasons unrelated to player A or B. Player C neighbors player B.

Player A and most of the people who declared on Player B do not neighbor player C.

Rule 9 was one that I saw in other diplos, hence my inclusion of it. In hindsight, that diplo I saw it in had a nasty argument regarding PEs and the exact same situation (minus the majority alliance) occur, which ended in that game's version of player B getting kicked from the site.

Changing rules in the middle of the game is like changing game settings in the middle of the game.
Fizzer doesn't allow changing kill rates by majority vote, so you already know his opinion.

So player C is PE, and b/c player C borders player B, the rules force player A and others to not fight player B.

By the rules, this is easy ... elim player C, no fights with player B can occur until that is complete. After that, 2 can attack him but not more.

If player B isn't PE, they shouldn't rally together to team up like that on him - b/c it's against the rules of a game they voluntarily joined.

Obviously you can't enforce it but you can scold them for it. LOL

And explain how things should happen to align with the rules. And maybe they'll see the light.

Here's an update below. I'm really panicked right now, to the point where I can't concentrate on my job. As a remainder, Player A is the one who started the whole majority pact.
Here's what I ruled in chat:
"Here's my decision. I'm willing to amend rules, and I will even accept new rules if a supermajority agree to them. However, I'm putting my foot down with the sanction rule. Global stability is an incredibly nebulous term that has the clear potential to be abused, especially now there is an alliance with the majority of players. Implementing this rule means that the entire game will be dictated by PORTE. You all can still gift these negative-income bonuses and declare war if a player gives those territories back (still subject to the modified gangbang rules), but making this part of the base rules is ridiculous)."

Here's player A's public response:
"I ask that (the host and another player not happy with Player A's moves) don't get involved in (the alliance's) buisness as they are not a part of it"

My response:

"(I’m not acting in my role as the (country I am rping as), this is the host speaking. You’re proposing fundamental changes to the rules that would apply to all players, not just the (majority alliance Player A created).)"

Player A's public response:

"(Which will make the game a lot more exciting)"
"(Also you barely roleplayed as (country I am rping as) 90% of your messages are as a host)"
"(Its a shame you picked (country I am rping as) and wasted the slot for someone who could have done something nice with it)"
"(Now please stop spamming the chat so the rest of us can have some fun)"

In private:
"Seriously stop trying to be a host and just be a player"
"you are a very bad host"

I am 99% certain that Player A is trying to outright usurp the role of host at this point.
Do I continue trying to be diplomatic, or do I put my foot down? The issue is that I believe a majority of the players will back Player A if push comes to shove (given that the majority of the players are in Player A's alliance), and I don't want to look like an asshole.

Edited 9/8/2021 16:14:46

Yeah, just blacklist him and call him a PE. There is no need to be nice to toxic players.
Also, the title is false. It is not a majority vote, but a vote of a major dummy.

Edited 9/8/2021 17:08:20

They all know, or should have read, the rules before joining. As host, you need to keep control, not be steam rolled. I'd put it simply play by the rules, or be listed PE

Here's an update below. I'm really panicked right now, to the point where I can't concentrate on my job.

Hey, you are playing an online browser games against some kids here who might have lied when Warzone asked them for their age.

Agree w/Norman, don't sweat this. If you can't handle it, just surrender and walk away. You don't owe those trolls anything.

Or just state your case, declare player A to be PE and see how people react. They may just ignore you or even kill you too. Just a game, don't fret over it, not worth it.