terrible

Rule #2: refer to rule #1. There's no reason for you to draw that game Diplomat... you easily could have won. Admittedly I have drawn 17-17, and the other player allowed me to get to 17 when he easily could have won. I appreciate him doing that, but I would have absolutely stabbed him had I the ability.

President Eden +1

I think it depends on the type of player you are, and the type of game it was. if it was a "team effort" to wipe the board clean, then I would happily draw. but that works on the basis of working together and supporting each others troop movements for most of the game... but that's just me.

It was a team effort. I play to win but in this case my all was faithful so I did not kill him.

and I think in that situation its a fair choice to make.

Agree. For 2 more it s not worth it.

Wasn't it PPSC? The solo really doesnt hurt him as opposed to WTA. Just go for it, thank him for the solo and he gets his points.

Solos are everything! Its why we're here! I've certainly learned my lesson from a few of my early games to start. If you have a chance to solo, go for it.

It was but he didn't attack me so I returned the favor.

@ Ursa (magic the gathering reference? even though that was Urza) everyone knows that rule #1 you do not talk about ... I'm gonna shut up now...

A 17-17 draw demonstrates foolishness on the part of both participants. Go for the win. Friendship gets you nowhere.

Actually, just this once, it's forgivable. Now you can cite this game every time you lie about a 2wd to set up your solo.

@Azygous - Ursa means Bear and happens to also be part of the reasl name for the big and little dipper (Ursa Major and Ursa Minor). I can't answer for Ursa why the name choice, but it is more common than some M:TG reference in the adult world.

Dip33, if you're happy with the result, then that's all you need.

On another note, how would you like to join a 260pt wta game?

Can I watch can I watch can I watch? :)

I'd love to see how Jacob puts Diplomat's newly acquired "diplomatic skills" in a healthy perspective..

Haha. Nice Jacob.

Not a 260 point WTA game. I never bet more that 1/4 of my points in any one game so that I don't fall back down to the 100 point level. But maybe a 25 point game.

But whenever I join high points games people kill me just because. Even in anon games.

Diplomat, you completely missed the point he was trying to convey.

D33 is a kid Jok3r. The subtlety of Jacob's joke is easy to miss.

'A 17-17 draw demonstrates foolishness on the part of both participants. Go for the win. Friendship gets you nowhere. '

em, no, if stalemate lines have been hit then a 17-17 draw is perfectly fine.

And i'd also say "A 17-17 draw demonstrates foolishness on the part of both participants. Go for the win. Friendship gets you nowhere." -

I entirely agree jacob, I play to win because it is a challenge and overcoming challenges is fun.

Diplomat, if you had fun, don't let anyone tell you that is wrong. (though i know all of those people would have stabbed much earlier...)

"Diplomat, if you had fun, don't let anyone tell you that is wrong. "

+1 orathaic

I should have qualified that better by adding something about the draw not being a stalemate, but who am I to judge?

@Dip33: "A 17-17 Draw is really satisfying because it demonstrates great trust and cooperation, as well as diplomatic skills."

Actually, I think the real winner is Benbase. He used his diplomatic skills to fool you into not taking the win.
Diplomacy is about knowing when to trust and when to deceive. If you played in f2f tourny's you'd realize that most vicious stab is cheered and viewed as masterful, not the hate-filled tirade you get here.

The only reason I'd take a 17-17 draw is if stalemate lines were met (which demonstrates a poorly planned end game). That'd be a mark of shame on my mind.

There's a slight possibility I'd do it in the case PE brought up. "Look, I've done it before, so trust me!" Then take the win from the sucker ;)

'There's a slight possibility I'd do it in the case PE brought up. "Look, I've done it before, so trust me!" Then take the win from the sucker ;)'

that kind of meta-gaming is exactly why anon was invented...

no wait, it is the precise reason i try to avoid playing anon if at all possible.

I know it makes it harder to 'better' players to win if their history is known, but i'd much prefer to learn from history and thus avoid repeating it... learning is part of the fun of overcoming the challenge of playing good players.

Experience and learning from it is not metagaming.

you may be right, though i'm mostly conceding the point to avoid getting into a metaphysical arguement about self and the 'self of the game'...

I'm with you, Diplo. 8 "Shares" in 45 games. And I can tell you from experience, for those who play for the "challenge", there is no greater challenge than trying to orchestrate a 17-17 without being stabbed.

It's the great thing about Diplomacy - there are many variants, including PPSC which makes 17-17 possible.

>>and what a high quality discussion, with FIVE, count'em, FIVE donors involved. :)

Everyone is talking about whose diplomatic victory and defeat it is, yet nobody points out how the last nation to be eliminated was clearly the one who lost diplomatically. That nation should have been in position to threaten a solo should anyone touch him, so ultimately it is his inability to sow doubt into the other players that leads me to believe it is his loss more than anyone else

Agree. France was stupid and so was italy. France actually was going to be in a three way draw with us till he made a poor stab.

I was Russia and I could stab Diplomat33 but like said before, make a 17-17 is a challenge that's very nice to make. I trusted Diplomat33 to the end and so we could make a great draw... It's my second 17-17 draw and it stays something nice to do !!

They are satisfying on a moral level which lying and stabbing to win doesn't do.

Note to self: Never play Benbase and stop playing Diplotool. They don't get the stated objectives of the game. WIN!

'there is no greater challenge than trying to orchestrate a 17-17 without being stabbed. '

except that this is a self-defeating strategy, as more and more people try for this elusive and difficult feat, the easier it becomes...

In that case, someone should set up a game where the sole purpose is to get to a 2 way draw. It could be called "2WD?". At least 5 disappointed people, probably 6.

Why not go straight for the 7 way draw? You wouldn't even have to finalize orders in '01 just hit the draw button and be like "omg I'm good at this!"

"They are satisfying on a moral level which lying and stabbing to win doesn't do."
+1 Diplomat33

"Diplomat, if you had fun, don't let anyone tell you that is wrong. (though i know all of those people would have stabbed much earlier...) "
+1 orathaic

Wow... This conversation reminds me of a big one that occured not too long ago! *Go figures which one it was*... But it also reminds of a discussion I had with some of my friends this weekend about hockey. I'm a HUGE Hockey fan (there goes my Canadian way!), and I tried to sell my friends the idea of liking this sport for, not only the winning side of it, but for the beauty of this sport, for the skills involved, the beautiful plays made by the players, etc. I then told them that I'd prefer seeing my hometown team, the Montreal Canadians, lose a game 6-5 to the Toronto Maple Leafs, in a regular season game, but with AWESOME plays, dekes left and right, one timer goals, tic tac toes, than watching a game that would finish 1-0, with a Montreal Canadians' victory, but with a boring game from A to Z. But, of course, playoff time, I'll want my team to win no matter what, because I will then Does that make me a hater of my sport, or just someone that thinks there's so many sides to appreciate in a game, no matter what kind of game we're talking about?

My analogy also applies to Diplomacy. Is there only "ONE" way to play this game? Should the competitivness of this game always prime over simply having fun playing this game we all like so much? Sometimes, you go for the win, sometimes, you go for that other aspect of the game you want to test.

Thank you. I almost always play to win but put it aside this time in favor of a faithful ally.

Oops! Looks like my sentence was caught in some ways!

I meant: I'll want my team to win no matter what, because I will then only hope for the championship and the Stanley Cup!

@sly - The beauty of diplomacy in the well timed stab. If you never stab, you are predictable and boring.

It may not have been noted, but i believe that a 7-way draw is much harder to achieve than a 17-17 split.