Here's the line: If you were buddies before the game and help each other out because of that, it's cheating. If you became buddies during the game, it's not cheating. If someone can charm me into letting them live, they've played the game well. It's DIPLOMACY, not Clusterfuck Stabfest 2010. There's no requirement to always attack everyone and everything. Anything that happens during the game is part of the game.

stay in the hypothetical boys. no one is cheating, all alliances were made in game. Vaftrudner I appreciate your response, im trying to make the ally to be of the best sort, who has saved your but multiple times this game.

Sorry for derailing your thread, but it's something I've thought about. To me, this stereotype of Diplomacy players as pathological liars and stab-freaks feels like an in-joke that has come to define the game unreasonably much. I'm curious to hear what pros have to say about it. I'm a social being who gets attached to people and want them to succeed. I will stab people for personal gain, but I don't always do it and I genuinely enjoy long-term alliances and the building of trust. Is this a defect or an asset? I do fairly well but I'm curious to hear what those who are better than me say.

Of course, I'm probably just a psychopath and a compulsive liar making this up. Ah, liar's paradox!

here is a game ID from a while ago, the end of this game is similar to what i am talking about

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=22163

I won't stab a game long ally for the sole purpose of "improving" the draw. A draw is a draw even if ghost ratings and points don't see it that way, I do.

What alderian said - on a side not muting boishol makes this thread hard to follow, whichs means i need to encourage others to mute him aswell ;)

I usually include my ally, and have found that since I have made that change, I have had an easier time making allies in the first place... It must be a subconscious thing.

I guess the killers out there are quieter

It's very situational for me. I always feel terrible stabbing a good, long-term ally, but I'll do it if it's likely to get me a win. On the other hand, no, I have little interest in doing it just to improve a draw, and in extreme cases, if I've developed a great relationship with somebody, I might even stick my neck out and make it a condition of the draw (e.g., I'll ally with you, take out Italy, and end the game, but if you attack Germany we're through).

If I can't solo, I have a habit of keeping people alive. I've gone so far as to convoy them back beyond the stalemate line to prove to others they won't convince me otherwise. One time the ensuing argument actually opened a door for me to solo, but usually I just draw.

everyone seems so nice, in the hypothetical world... I wonder if the real life decisions would be different

gameID=55581

To be honest, keeping someone at one centre had nothing to do with being nice. I was either plotting for the solo or just wanted to stick it to everyone else on the board.

^this ... I would be looking for the solo, and would absolutely take the ally's SC if it gave me even a chance at the solo... in this hypothetical situation, though, no I would not kill my ally. I've kept allies alive and been kept alive. I would narrow a 5 way to a 4 way as I don't see a situation in which a 5way couldn't be narrowed, but beyond that a draw is a draw.

I remember Geo keeping Thucy alive as Libya with one center, literally totally surrounded, somewhere in West Africa. It was pretty lulzy.

I completed a World game recently where Argentina survived as a single center power for a good decade, ending up in Afghanistan before he was finally eliminated.

I'd stick with the guy. I like to treat my allies well, hoping they'd do the same for me. Usually I'll go out of my way for an ally that's been exceptionally great.

I'd slide the knife in that situation, because I'm a cutthroat bastard. But if there was even the slightest possibility of something going horribly wrong and a solo from the other guy happening as a result, I'd hold my ground and draw. Also, if it is a gunboat, I will never risk it, and will always click draw every time. And if I liked the guy, (which is unlikely) I might let him live.

Also, a general tip to those people who would do the same; never play in a non-anon game. It is one of the worst things ever when that guy you totally screwed over in another game happens to be there.

Would the situation the OP plotted really be a scenario where a mod could/would intervene and force a draw even though the leading player does not agree to the 3-way, as Draug suggested above?

I'd find this very problematic. My tactic would be to bore the opponent into killing his ally off. This is a perfectly viable and can last until 1950 if it has to. There are no rules about game duration.

@Mr. A - Ithas long been accepted that three years without a change of SCs is a draw. The Judges (for the epostal verison of the game) are even programmed to do such and tournaments generally use that rule as well. There is nothing problematic as this was a board game first and, unlike web games, board games can't go on forever.

So, yes, the mods will forcibly draw a game. They will give the leader a chance to argue his side. Give him a time limit in which to make his tatcic show progress, and then force it if he can't do it.

I did not know the mods would force end the game, that would have helped my diplomacy. the game I was thinking of when i made this post was
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=22163
in this game MM is turkey an dave bishop is England. I Denied MM the win, which would have allowed me to survive, and dave bishop went 2ish years without stabbing me while MM pulled back. I cant see any holes in MM line, he has his 17 buttoned up. Dave simply had to choose.
that said we were NOT game long allies in this case. it was an EOG deal, I could have given MM the win, but, I decided a sure survive is meh, so i made the deal and crossed my fingers for the draw.

It looks like we actually held for 3 years! boooooooo!!!! mods i want my points!!!!
j/k :P

MadMarx is good at pulling back from the line while maintaining it and getting the draw number reduced.

I agree with the others who have said it depends on the merits of your ally. If he's been instrumental in getting me here, much less likely to eliminate him for the extra points. But the bigger factor for me is the personality of the 17-holding opponent. If that guy is a dick, I'm much more likely to keep it a 3-way just to piss him off. For example, if he right away tells me that he is going to hold the game hostage for as long as it takes, I am much more likely to call his bluff and let him join in the suck. On the other hand, if he only offers, but does not threaten (and I don't have anything else to be pissed off about) then I'm more likely to shaft my ally.

BTW, I definitely see this as a question related to metagaming.

The biggest reason to not shaft your ally is to send a signal to all other players in all games to come that you reward good doggies.

@ cspieker - "good little doggies" lol
I was the dog in this one for sure. kicked first by dave, then by marx, then finally by dave again.
but austria was the puppet and that was worse in this game. (yes BABAK i blame you)

that's a good point, cs. The question is, does it pay off in the long term (assuming you play for GR)?

My instincts tell me no, you're better off being cutthroat. I'm thinking you'll trade a few survives for draws by acquiring a reputation as a "nice" player, but you'll never ever solo, and the draws you obtain will be worth enough less to offset the potential gain. That's just a from-the-hip assessment though.

Answer to yellow jackets issue? get your wins in gunboat!