Here's an analogy for this game we've been discussing, however distorted:

Let's say it's the seventh and deciding game of the World Series, bottom of the ninth inning, bases loaded, two outs, the home team is up by one run. The home team decides to send "Turkey" to the mound to pitch and hopefully close out the game. The visitors decide to send "France" to the plate to bat. The catch? Well, France has no arms and doesn't bring a bat to the plate to oppose Turkey. So, what happens next? Does Turkey have the audacity to even pitch to France? If Turkey manages to throw three strikes to France before Turkey throws three balls, how much credit to you give Turkey for striking out France, versus how much is this just basic competency on Turkey's part and the only thing that really matters in this situation is that France has no arms so anything/everything Turkey does is not only irrelevant (i.e. statistically insignificant), it's a bit disrespectful to continuing on as if there is still something to prove, as if it should still be considered a game of baseball. To me, it can be argued, that if Turkey decides to pitch to France, it's something other than baseball, and Turkey striking out France has nothing to do with baseball, it morphs into something else that has no significance in the baseball world because France does not have the basic capacity to play the game.

Yeah, a bit distorted, but there are very clear parallels that illustrate the point I'm trying to communicate...

Babak, I'm going to comment on things you've said to me, but in the mean time, would you answer my question? Has there ever been a day in your diplomacy career, from the first day you were explained how the game worked, that if you were an ~8 center France, and you were on a stalemate line with an ~8 center England, while there was an ~17 center Turkey, would you have ever gone for a two-way draw with Turkey?

bump

Babak, feel free to answer that last question, when you get a chance...

The way I see it, almost any set of orders can easily be defended in 1901 because there are so many possibilities with seven different brains involved. In the mid-game, options progressively reduce in number due to fewer people making decisions and the likelihood of certain areas of the board becoming relatively resolved. By the time the game gets down to only three people, two of them each at ~8 centers and on a stalemate line against an ~17 center power, there is only one valid option left for anyone that has the most basic understanding of how this game works. This is why I equate this game's situation to a "baseball" game with an armless French batter. The Turk could throw the most amazing curveball ever witnessed and follow that up with a 110 mph fastball, but not only would I be unimpressed with such pitches against an armless batter, I would question why the Turk was so intent on showing up an armless man, how much pride can a person take in accomplishing something that should never happen against the noobiest of noobs?

"What's wrong with Dunecat?"
"He got beaten by a newb."

One good thing to come from this is that Dunecat's name can now be used synonymously with blowing a draw for no apparent reason.

Player X: "I think if the game played on things would have changed. They always do - people get nervous and want to make a move. But it would have taken a really long time and who knows what would have happened..."

Player Y: "Someone would have to pull a Dunecat for a solo to happen."

Anonymously quoting yourself there, eh trip?

and you too...

hell, i couldn't help but rubberneck on this thread. i'm just happy to get something out of it.

I'd have been fine using my name, but i didn't have consent to use yours.

I am just teasing. I am glad you didn't use my name. Isn't there some debate around copying and pasting private press after a game is finished somewhere in this thread?

yeah, it's back there somewhere.

the only problem i have with that kind of thing is if a person will spill private conversations on a public forum, there's no reason to believe that any future press i have with them will be kept between us.

Okay, Babak, I have some time to respond to previous posts:

In my book, yes, a two-way draw is better than a three-way draw. That said, a two-way is extremely tricky and can only be attempted in a select few circumstances, one of which is NOT when there is a ~17 center Turkey with an ~8 center France and ~8 center England. If France truly believed he had a two-way option, when it’s absolutely crystal clear to the noobiest of noobs that France did not, then I have no interest in playing with a player that lacks such fundamental judgment required to play diplomacy since, in my book, it would not constitute playing a game of diplomacy, it would be a waste of my time, especially if I could solo against such a player every time we played, what’s the point?

I totally understand that you were willing to take a three way draw, it’s just that you do it kicking and screaming, bitching and moaning, etc. Anyway, I agree, near the end of games, I often have a bit too much respect for my fellow players to lie repeatedly/nonsensically to them, especially when there is no way in hell such actions should work with even the least proficient player.

I always get a kick out of a person that cries “jealous” when someone else disagrees with them… I’m always left with the feeling that that person thinks exponentially more of themself and their “accomplishments” than is the case in reality. That said, I obviously would have liked to solo the game, as I would each and every game, but to me it’s not whether you win or lose but how you play the game and I would no way in hell want a solo based on the lies you had to tell and, more importantly, based on the complete and utter ineptitude of decision making of the French player, again, that should never happen in any game involving the noobiest of noobs, that sort of play doesn’t even register as basic competence in my book, it’s inexcusable and unacceptable, period.

I’m unclear why you are beating your chest about the strategy of pulling back forces, that’s a pretty basic strategy. I can see why you think I disrespect the game, but to me, respecting my fellow players is how I respect the game. It’s true this is a game of disrespecting everyone, so you may have a point here, but I choose to play the game with some level of respect rather than no respect whatsoever. Calling me “chicken” is a very nice touch, I applaud the quality of that argument! ;-) I don’t think it’s a matter of reputation either, especially since I prefer anonymous games and I prefer for nobody to know who I am in a game. I play the game the way I want to play it, the way I think it should be played, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks and/or demands of me.

I’ve ignored your point about Ivo because I don’t care about Ivo’s role. I’m not the type to “watch” a game once I’m dead. I’m not the type to analyze each and every decision other people make in a game. I’d like to think it’s because I don’t care and/or because it’s boring to me, but it’s also because I am 100% dependent on press, so I can’t analyze other people’s actions since I don’t have all the press they have. So, for me, regarding this game, the only fact that matters in the end game is that there was an ~17 center Turkey, an ~8 center France and an ~8 center England. That situation, regardless of any press from any one person to any one other person, should result in a three-way draw 100% of the time if the three players in the game have the most basic understanding of how the game of diplomacy works. 100% of the time. If one time a three-way draw does not result, it is 100% due to ignorance and faulty judgment, period. There is no amount of skill that can force a solo in this situation, it is totally 100% due to ineptitude. If France feared England going for a two-way with Turkey, that is further proof of France’s lack of competence regarding how to play the game of diplomacy.

“I think part of MM's strategy is 'normal' for "leaders". even in global politics, super powers want stability because the status quo serves them... same with MM... his preference is to find allies who stick with him to the end so he can keep his draw rate up... its to protect his 'leader' status...”

Well, Babak, I must insist that the way you think is incorrect. In statistics, when two things are highly correlated, it is impossible to determine causality. You say/think my “leader status” causes me to be conservative/respectful, but I would argue that my natural tendency to be (at least somewhat) respectful is a major factor in my evolution to “leader status”. Some might call this a “chicken and egg” sort of situation, but your assumption that I am so heavily focused on status/GR is a window into your own brain and may very well reveal how heavily focused you actually are on status and GR (good, bad or indifferent).

I think a three-way is significantly different than a five-way draw, even if I argue a five-way is not much different than a four-way and a four-way isn’t much different than a three-way. I do not think it is “unethical to stab a game-long ally”, but I would have to benefit greatly from doing such a despicable thing (when I say despicable, I mean that it is difficult for me to do and I hate doing it, even within the context of a game of diplomacy where it is totally acceptable). DAMN, you really like to speak for me Babak, you certainly are confident in your ability to understand how my brain works, you are much more confident about your understanding of my brain than I am, must be nice! ;-) I do not think “people that play well should be rewarded”, I am not a black and white kind of guy, I do not live at the extremes. I think it is acceptable to reward people that play well, that it is a valid option, but I don’t insist that it is the only option. If I play well, and am on my way out of a game, of course I’m going to make an argument on my behalf, especially if I think I have a valid argument to make. I

If the intent of diplomacy, based on rules and the person that invented the game, is to never be nice, and always be narcissistic to an extreme, I don’t give a shit… other than the narcissism it takes for me to play the way I want to play regardless of what anyone else thinks! :-P

thank you MM for taking the time to respond... hopefully I'll get a chance this weekend to come and read everything here - but I've been away from the forum and from Dip for a week or so now (RL)

but I'll try to to respond at some point.

and the short answer to your question near th top of this page is "no". me personally, I would not give up a 3 way if I was France. but in this game, someone else was France and I was Turkey. Anytime I'm a 17 center power, I will do my absolute best to get the solo. I will try, kicking and screaming until I either do, or until the stalemate line is absolutely set in stone.

"In statistics, when two things are highly correlated, it is impossible to determine causality."

Pardon me for completely posting off-topic, but I couldn't resist:
http://xkcd.com/552/

agbemacht, you should never apologise for posting a link to an xkcd.

That's a funny cartoon. I like it.

spyman, that particular one? Or have you not seen xkcd before? If not, you should definitely start and the start and read them all. And don't forget to read the mouse-over text. This goes for anyone that isn't familiar with xkcd. Best comic on the net.

Babak, I didn't ask what you'd have done in this game as France, I asked if there was ever a day, including the first day that you were taught the game, that you would go for a two way as France in this situation. To me, this is the quintisential example of what not to do in a game of diplomacy, in fact, if I were to give an example to a noob of what not to do, this is likely that example I'd give (17 center Turke, 8 France, 8 England) since it is so amazing clear what the answer is, there is no debating that fact.

Hey, abgemacht, that is a great cartoon, especially since I've also taken a statistics class! :-)

my suggestion has not been implemented :(