The Next Message was

"Please vote to draw. We've fought a good game.
Italy, you've been a great player and a great compatriot. Please vote to draw. If you don't you will be wiped off the map by France.

Next Messages : From Russia

My only response is that France and I don't generally ally unless there's some kind of specific reason to. More often then not France and I have been enemies. It just so happened that I figured I could trust a player I've played with before more than you, you I've never played with before. Some one was going to betray someone and you happened to be that person. I'm sorry for the confusion.

From Me (Italy)

It would have helped to have been told that you new France as this may have made me feel less secure with our agreement. I feel that you used me when it suited you then threw away an alliance that could have worked because of an out of this game friendship.

Additionally this has been made worse by the fact that are blatently playing for a draw. The aim of the game is to win.

From Russia :

Why would I have told you that I was going to ally with France in the end until I knew you couldn't do anything about it? Secondly, YOUR aim may have been to win, as you can see, I'm prepared to win, but since I didn't come into this game fairly (I took over a six SC Russia in civil disorder) I'm happy to draw it

From Me (Italy)

The Fact is that FRANCE invited you into the game - you then used me to assist in the wipe out of a threat to you.

You then obtained a position from which you could win - but because France Invited you in you ARE going to draw with him.

From Russia

You can still draw, although I admire you going out fighting like this.
09:35 PM You've nailed it. Although it's quite long-term for this game, I've exchanged a favor for a favor. This game seems to involve a lot of using people to some ends. If you don't like that part of the game you might want to play Risk where you can win simply by luck. There are points to be won here. A draw seems more than fair don't you think?

Can A Moderator please read and respond to this sequence of mails !!!

chelseapip... I agree wholeheartedly that you're on the losing end of a meta-alliance... but seeing as how the mods can't do much about it (based on precedent) I'd take the draw at the very least. No point getting wiped out, and if the accusations have merit then they'll be dealt with anyway.

Thanks for the advice - What really upsets me is that they (France and Russia) do not accept that they have done anything wrong.

Oh well they have withdrawn the option of a draw - but that doesnt bother me. I like games to be played fair (and by that I do not mean everyone carrying through on agreements because stabbing is a part of the art of the game).

Well, I guess dieing with honor isn't a bad choice either. Certainly better than winning though meta-gaming at least.

Wo cares why someone made an alliance? If e ad made the same alliance and stabbed you, WITHOUT knowing the other player, would you feel any differently?

At the moment I can't read your conversations, so I don't have any way of verifying that statement. However, if it's true then as has been said entering a game with a preset alliance is not fair.

As others have said, taking the draw would be a good idea, and as it's a PPSC you could also suggest that Russia takes 1 SC from you, giving him 18, as his ally will then get handsomely rewarded.

Hi Figlesquidge.

Russia had secured 18 SCs in the spring and moved out before it confirmed in Autumn. They are blatently playing for the Draw as shown in the messages above.

Onar : Yes I would - I do not mind being stabbed fairly as that would have been my problem for not protecting myself adequately. The problem in this game was that I was between two friends who had agreed a draw from the moment Russia was invited in.

Figlesuidge :

One of the posts from Russia was :

The only thing I think is up for debate here is whether players who have played with each other before should be obligated or encouraged to share these connections with players in a given game. I would submit that there is no such obligation, moral or otherwise.

Sorry Figlesquidge my spelling went mad on your name.

I saw that, and remember that its in your interests to persuade him he wants to take the win.
Would you like me to talk to them off-site Chelsea?

Yes Please.

I agree that they have not shown this level of working together previously, but I just feel that in this game they have admitted to playing for the draw when Russia could easily have taken a win. I just want to make sure that they do not continue to do this to other people.

Especially newbies (which I no longer consider myself to be even without a win yet) who could be put off playing in future.

I will take the future course of action to not participate in games with them and if this occurs accidentally of infoming all other players in the game of the risks.

In fairness, they have offered you a draw, do take it! Moreover, you are the smaller power in between two larger ones, and as such the stab in itself is not unfair. However, the deliberate delaying of victory when it is under control is something I personally view as bad practice, but I'm not sure it's fair to force that on everyone.

And withdrawn the draw because I have moaned about their conduct.

It is the bit you agree is Bad Practice that worries me.

I was under the impression from Previous Forum posts that this was frowned upon. Are you now saying that deliberate Metagaming for a Draw is Ok.

Russia could have got this Game when I still had 6SCs by attacking France and it is my belief that they had agreed the draw at that point.

Playing for a draw is ok. Metagaming is not.

Sorry, I'll try to be clearer!
Multiaccounting = Horrific
Metagaming = Wrong
Going for a draw rather than a win = hmm...
---
As I understand, your scenario went something like this:
->Game Starts, You Russia and France form an alliance.
->Russia goes CD, France's Friend takes over (after all, finding CD replacement can be hard)
-> You three kill off all opposition
-> They turn on you in a well coordinated stab
-> Russia reaches a point of possible victory
==== Am I correct with this?
I'll just check my understanding before commenting further...

Yes - However the gist is that France was in more in control of the game prior to Russia going CD.

The New Russia Player came in - chatted with me (not identifying that they knew France or that he had invited him into the game) and I agreed to work with him against mutual strong opposition.

At this stage I could have chosen to work with that oppositon If I had known I was between two friends who were always going to co-operate. Note "Could have chosen" I possibly would have played the same game but with an awareness of risk.

Here's my take on it:

Russia went into CD so I invited someone I knew to the game. Knowing him has no bearing on how we played this game or any other game. More often than not we are enemies because we are both competitive. This can clearly be seen by looking at any other game we have played.

With that said Italy, Russia, and I had an alliance to basically work together against everyone else. This was developed in game as any alliance would be. It turns out that the three of us had a good alliance and knocked every other player out. At this point in the game Russia was slightly ahead of me in the SC count, but Italy was far behind and was clearly the weakest and easiest target. It would have made little sense for Russia and I to fight it out when there was low hanging fruit in the Balkans that would decide the game. Breaking alliances is part of this game. Obviously it makes sense to break the one with the weakest player. Our knowing each other did not dictate Italy's circumstances, his inability to actually expand into Germany and/or Austria with two strong allies did.

After knocking Germany out I offered a draw, without mentioning it to Russia, as gesture to our third ally and to save some time. I didn't know if Russia would accept it or not. I was doing you a favor. Sorry.

Chelsea, playing for a draw is a legit strategy on this site. If you don't like, don't whine about it, just win. Now there meta gaming isn't legit and something should be done. But if they had been total strangers who decided to team up for a draw... Well, I've done that myself in the past. It is as legit in PPSC as any other strategy. Play WTA if you don't want players playing for draws and points.

SINister - The fact is that Russia had 18SCs in the spring and deliberately withdrew from to dtop himself winning.

I accept that you offered a draw - and at that point I asked Russia if he fancied helping me to finish the Game with 5 Scs whilst ensuring thathe got the victory and you got second.

He never replied but at this point sent me the message saying that he wanted the draw because YOU had invited him into the game.

Can you 100% gaurantee that if the roles had been reversed and I had been France and you Italy that he would have ACCEPTED the Draw - I think not. And that proves metagaming in my opinion.

Dragner : I agree that playing for a draw is a legal strategy and I have done it myself in the past, I have lured someone and been lured by the prospect of a drwa then stabbed/been stabbed. I have no problem with this.

It is when one Player RUSSIA Openle says that he is taking the Draw because he was invited into the Game by the other player that things look out of place.

In respect to SINister I accept why he offered the draw in the first place - based on good game play by all - however this was not the attitude of Russia.

Rememer one of his messages

"France and I may simply draw the game which would leave you in it. You might ask yourself why. France invited me to the game and is a friend of mine. Even though I could take the game I have a strong sense of loyalty, especially to those who are also loyal to me. Please remember that if you see me around."

This to me implies that he will always side with friends and previous allies who have worked with him.

I personally hope he has this attitude once too often and gets seriously stabbed by someone he thinkk he can trust as I did in an earlier game. Which I accpeted graciously and have played with this player again since.

I think a lot of good topics have been covered here. I was Russia. I do know the person who was France outside this game. As you can see in other games, we often fight against each other when our interests don't align. In this particular game, the player who was France invited me into a favorable position. I played to the best of my ability and ended up being able to win. Since I was stabbing Italy (Chelsea) in the back I offered a draw in which Italy would receive some points. I see here and on other posts that playing for a draw is a legitimate strategy (at least is considered to be by some). I delayed winning because Italy was being whiny and throwing around accusations. Had Italy taken the draw the game would have been over. Since Italy wanted to be a poor loser (in my opinion) I thought that I rather see them get NO points for the game. I get the meta-gaming concern made by the admin and I can say that if the situation was different and France ended up in a weaker position I would have killed him too. Since things worked out the way they did there was an easy opportunity for me to throw some points France's way. Any one who is reading this forum should know that in the game of Diplomacy, sometimes I stab other people in the back and that results in me winning. Please don't let this surprise you.

Lastly, I did not originally plan on playing with France, it simply worked out that way.

Do they know each other in person or do they know each other through past games?