Your own, or others, or what? In a game, on the forum? Is there more info here?

Stolen from one country and given to another. Usually used to turn one against the other if one has a checkered past in asking to attack the other.

Yeah it's fair. You could easily forge it, so why not?

Just copy+pasting your conversation to a third party.

@Thucydides

Because you can't forge something so quickly if there's an ongoing conversation. If a country were to directly ask for it or you were to bring it up during a heated discussion. It would have validity to it then.

Ya, I think it's fair. As Thucydides says, it can be forged without problem. Is it any different from summarizing their betrayal and passing it along?

It's fair, just kind of a lame way to conduct diplomacy. Yeah it might convince them, but where's the fun in it? If I can't use my own words to gain an ally or manipulate a stooge, then I would feel like an idiot using someone else's. Whether or not the quoted conversation is factual doesn't matter much I think, no matter what it's a low blow.

So you mean in a live game then?

Well, in that case I guess maybe it is questionable.... but even then it could be a lie.

Yes, a live game would be an example of one. I'd believe it if it were brought out. We can all say for certain that no one would go to those extremes to prepare that far ahead. Also, it can be disproven by a simple copy and paste from the other party. I, personally, think it's very lame. It ruins all FtF conversation exchanges. Personally, I'd like to see a rule put on the subject.

ZaZa, of course you can quickly forge something. You take what they sent and you change key phrases such as "I will NOT attack Italy" becomes "I will attack Italy".

Besides, if your words to country A are given from A to B and B asks you about it, you can just say "Sure I told him that and I was really hoping he would fall for it."

First: yes it's allowed, it's called DIPLOMACY.

Second: it would be very easy to fake one anyway or to transcribe it.

Third: Another cut-and-paste would not disprove it: it would just become one guy's word against another. That's what the game is about: who do you trust?

Forth: it is also not reliable because it could be edited anyway, as Alderian said. It's no different than paraphrasing what someone else said.

The game's DIPLOMACY.

Another reason that it is fair is that everyone can do it: the playing field is still level.

It's absolutely ok.

It is entirely fair and valid. This should not be banned. The rules do not need changing on this matter.

the same holds true for FtF games as well. notes can be passed from one individual to another, someone else can submit move orders for another player (either true ones or false), theres a plethora of deceptions that can arise out of FtF games. the same is true online.

it doesnt ruin the spirit of diplomacy...it is diplomacy at its heart. how much do you believe the 'copy-pasted' message coming from france about italy is true? was it forged ahead of time, is it a splicing together of 2 messages from two different seasons? is it the entire conversation or just a portion taken out of context? you can also take what you said to a country and claim that it was that country saying it to you just as easily.

with all the unknowns, nothing is certain. plus if it is a lie that someone can get you to believe is true, all the more power to them. remember, everything goes in diplomacy since lies and betrayal are at its heart.

true story: in the very first game of diplomacy that i played, i was playing with some friends of mine (Jacob and his brother to be exact). we went to Gen Con Indy and played with 4 other noobs. i was italy, jacob was germany and his brother was austria. in order to woo the turkish player onto my side to attack austria while i slipped into constantinople, i told the turkish player that A and G were brothers and definitely working together. i left out the fact that i was their friend and that we traveled to Indy together. this pissed T off so bad that from that point on, he believed everything else i said and you can believe that i included snippets of false conversation and if i had anything handwritten id have used that too.

it worked like a charm and i won that game.

For an even better example, I have been in a FtF game where the Germany player passed me a note. Out of sight of everyone, I carefully tore off the bottom half-inch of the note, which removed the last sentence - a sentence that had a distinct effect on the meaning of the message. I then went to the Russian player and said "hey, look at this note Germany passed me!"

So that's pretty much an exact replica of the situation Zamaradingdong was talking about, and in an actual game. And as far as I can see, what I did in that face-to-face game was not against the rules.

Case closed?

copy+edit+paste is usually much better

Also, a rule has to be enforceable.

very true, very true. oh the pains of diplomacy. i still say it was Mr Green with the wrench in the conservatory regardless of the note Ms Scarlet gave me.

I have no problem with copy/pasting, but was recently asked for a screenshot of my orders. I declined as this would require communication outside of that normally used in a game (i.e. email) and I felt that was not in the spirit of the game.

While I imagine the other player was trying to get around the forging issue associated with copy/pasting, I don't see what would have kept me from changing my orders after the screenshot was taken.

Sat 11 AM Autumn, 1909: I think you'll get it regardless. I won't bounce with England in Paris.
Sat 11 AM Autumn, 1909: Yes--bounce again.
Sat 11 AM Autumn, 1909: ok
Sat 11 AM Autumn, 1909: My fleet is in the Tyrrhenian Sea. Now what? Lol.
Sat 11 AM Spring, 1910: move to gulf of lyons, i'm moving to spain
Sat 11 AM Spring, 1910: Okay.
Sat 11 AM Autumn, 1910: Okay, now what with this fleet? It seems kind of unnecessary.
Sat 11 AM Autumn, 1910: Now i'm moving portugal, you can move to west med
Sat 11 AM Autumn, 1910: Okie dokie.
Sat 11 AM Autumn, 1910: after france is through i suggest we call it a draw
Sat 11 AM Spring, 1911: let's draw
Sat 11 AM Spring, 1911: Are you sure? You'll get more points this way.
Sat 11 AM Spring, 1911: I'll go for it nonetheless. And I'll also support Gascony to Brest.
Sat 11 AM Spring, 1911: well what's the plan here?
Sat 11 AM Autumn, 1911: I'll take Belgium and you let me have three of your supply centers.
Sat 11 AM Autumn, 1911: why would i go for that?
Sat 11 AM Autumn, 1911: You only go -2. You end up getting a bigger share of the pot. Very little, but oh well.
Sat 11 AM Autumn, 1911: I might take this home anyways.
Sat 12 PM ok take venice, i won't let you have greece this way
Sat 12 PM Okie dokie.

You guys can forge this much press in the matter of a couple minutes?

I'm sorry guys, but what's supposed to be verbal is supposed to be verbal. Maybe, if something is written a note format, then it's okay. But when it's just press like this...in a live game...how are you going to forge this? You can give away whole conversations in a second. It's against the spirit of the game, in my honest opinion.

iGo think it is okay to use outside of game comunication. Kestas has said that is fine with it. Diplomacy legend, Edi Birsan, who used to play here was a big advocate of outside game communication, such as instant messaging and phone.
I have never even tried any of the above personally, but that is not to say I wouldn't. It has occurred to me that JDip files demonstrating various scenarios distributed by email could have some potential for the very determined.

Sorry ZaZa, but I think the majority view is that your complaint is not valid.

also, you dont have to forge it all. you only need to change a bit. give him half, give him a few sentences. ive done it and its easily possible. it all boils down into what you want your opponent to know, what you want him to think he knows and what you dont want him to know. this is, in the very spirit of things, what diplomacy is about.

the only rule is that there are no rules. (other than multi-accounting, etc). also, no one said that you have to play that way. pick and choose how to play. some people refuse to lie, some refuse to even mislead or be vague. some keep alliances until they rot in their grave and others sell out their allies for a nickel. yes, forging that is possible in a few minutes because if you change one thing, then its a forgery.

I don't think the question is whether or not we should ban it, because obviously that is impossible. But is it sportsmanlike?

I would say its a gray area, so I don't do it. Also, I find "he said this to me" arguments to be unconvincing.

This is not a "sportsmanlike" game. Lying, cheating and backstabbing are all integral parts of this game. If you want people to be sportsmanlike, there's only one option for you: Play a different game.

if you are really crazy and smart
you could forge stuff ahead of time
maybe even make yourself a library
and copy paste stuff

you could even code a script which adds time and country in 1 second
to make it even faster

i tend to like the copy and paste with my enemies, and the he said this to more with my " allies" and the copy and paste with my true allies. remeber keep your friends close and your enemies in the dumpster.

"i still say it was Mr Green with the wrench in the conservatory regardless of the note Ms Scarlet gave me. " - touche! tru ninja +1

and yes ZaZa what is meant to be spoken in a f-2-f game is written in the webdiplomacy variant. Some things are different but it is still diplomacy.

If you really want try having all your conversation via skype. (if someone would build a skype plugin for the game that would be awesome!)

Its funny hearing a "you can't help human behaviour" argument coming from a communist.

Metagaming is unsportsmanlike. You shouldn't do it. I shouldn't have to play a different game to expect that.

OK, those who are opposed to copying and pasting, do you think it's also bad to paraphrase what others have said to you? Or summarize? Or were the plans that someone gave you about how he's going to invade your ally given in confidence and you have to protect player-player confidentiality?

Geez, in a real war, sending fake messages happens all the time. I have cut and pasted messages before, and I have cut and pasted fake messages as well.

Stukus, obviously not. That would be ridiculous.

The only concern is it sort of takes advantage of the medium of play, rather than the game itself.

OK, but in a face to face game, couldn't you quote someone? "Hey, Turkey said, "blahdy blah blah." Isn't that the verbal equivilent? Both are forgeable, both are available to everyone. What's the difference?

And moves have been forged in live games before. "Hmm, i don't remember writing that...."

And when we were playing the Black Press Game, people intentionally copied Italy's signature key in order to fake messages from him.

I also don't think it is taking advantage of the medium. To me, taking advantage of the medium would be hacking someone's account and changing their moves without their knowledge. Forging press is available to everyone - you don't need special hacking skills. Its no different that in a live game saying 'I heard Turkey say...' even if you didn't hear any such thing. Or if you have a written agreement with someone in a live game, passing it on to another player.

It is definitely ok, but is largely counter-productive if used excessively. Let's not forget you can actually give someone your password so that they can see for themselves, and then change it. Though, in most cases, the problem is easily solved by simply talking with the other players.

As a general rule, such information should be regarded as highly questionable - as obviously people lie here (part of the game and all), and when talking about a third party, chances are they'll lie more, much more.

There's simply no accountability - they can always say the other party changed their mind, it's not their moves after all.

I have copied and mailed some of my own in-game correspendence to mutiple players in a game. Most recently in a mid game position facing two allies who seemed to be demilitarizing their mutual border, I had been corresponding with Player A who said he would attack his ally, Player B, but later. I then wrote Player B and pointed out that at some time, one of them was likely to stab the other for a decisive advantage, and pointed out the first ally would get builds while the second would not.

I copied this email sent to the Player B and mailed it to Player A, saying "if you don't attack him soon, he will shift some units back for protection", all in a effort to destablize their alliance. So copying your own correspondence if fine, I think. It occasionally works.

What about digital signatures? If enough players understand how to use them, then I can digitally sign all my messages, and no forgery will be possible -- unless somebody tries to claim I sent an unsigned message.

A digital signature in a text field is easily copied. We aren't talking about email with private and public keys for PGP encryption/decryption here.

I was indeed talking about PGP-style encryption. It can indeed be copied, but it cannot be forged (unless you're ahead of the times in cryptanalysis). So when you receive a copy+pasted message, you can be certain it was real.

Of course, this probably just means nobody will use digital signatures. But someone could demand that you digitally sign something and broadcast your public key on the general chat, so that if they're lying you can expose them.

(That should be "if you're lying they can expose you".)

@ Centurian: "Its funny hearing a "you can't help human behaviour" argument coming from a communist."

I don't think I was making any such argument. I was saying that this particular board game, Diplomacy, is BASED on lying and backstabbing. I made no comment at all about "human nature" or the like - only the accepted playing style of a specific board game (of which this is an internet version).

"Metagaming is unsportsmanlike. You shouldn't do it. I shouldn't have to play a different game to expect that. "

The example which forms the basis of this thread - ie the copying and pasting of in game messages to other players _within_ the game, is NOT metagaming.

@Jamie +1

Meta means "outside of" and nothing about a copy and paste is outside of the game.

"OK, those who are opposed to copying and pasting, do you think it's also bad to paraphrase what others have said to you? Or summarize? Or were the plans that someone gave you about how he's going to invade your ally given in confidence and you have to protect player-player confidentiality?"

Yes, of course. Sometimes I'll take direct quotes from someone, but I wont' take the time of the post. I don't like having to use to validate my message.