Finished: 04 PM Thu 01 Oct 15 UTC
Death is near RUN
1 day /phase
Pot: 42 D - Autumn, 1910, Finished
Classic, Draw-Size Scoring
1 excused missed turn
Game won by Subotai45 (326 D)
31 Aug 15 UTC Spring, 1901: Good luck and have fun guys!
01 Sep 15 UTC Spring, 1901: I look forward to a great game with all of you!
01 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: Vote to cancel because of Germany's lack of moves?
01 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: Personally, I don't enjoy games where someone misses the 1st turn since it can be so influential. But, I'll continue to play if it doesn't bother others.
01 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: It's certainly harmful to the game, and it'll skew things, but I don't think it's so bad we need to cancel.

Obviously, as one of the ones who stands to gain the most from Germany's inactivity, I'm a tad biased. But the game is definitely still playable.
02 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: Oh no, I'm here. No cancel :-p
02 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: Just missed the first turn
02 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: Actually. I'm voting cancel.
02 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: I'll vote to cancel if everyone else does - but this is no longer so bad it needs to cancel.

He missed a turn, yeah. Instead of picking up 2 SCs this turn, he'll only get one. There are other powers who have been here both turns that will probably only get one as well.

He missed the initial alliance-making options. But he has every turn after this to change alliances, and some probably haven't even formed yet.

I don't think it's ruined at all. But if I'm the only thing holding it back from cancellation, I'll follow what everyone else has. I want everyone to have fun, and holding you in the game against your will wouldn't be.

But I have trouble finding joinable games here, and I don't want to throw one away unless it's absolutely necessary.
02 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: It's worth pointing out that his absence benefits France and Russia the most.
02 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: This is true. Rather just cancel this one and start a new one folks.
02 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: It does, I've never denied that. But it's not game-ruining.
02 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: I believe a cancel should be in order. Everyone seems to be for that.
02 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: I voted for cancel, but I won't fault Russia if he wants to continue playing.
03 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: We could all gang up against Russia until he agrees?
03 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: Ironically enough, this is the game where I get Italy with a decent start.
03 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: No - we are not ganging up on Russia if he disagrees. That's metagaming, and just plain wrong.

Now, if you chose to attack him for other reasons, sure. But don't metagame.
03 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: Interesting point for debate. Why is 'metagaming' 'wrong'? Is not one of the appeals of this game that outside factors and pressures can be brought to bear ingame? On a close call between two potential alliances, are you not persuaded by non-game related qualities of a potential ally (i.e. whether you "like" them or not)?

Is it also 'wrong' for the rest of the players to gang up on a bully?
03 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: Games should stand on their own merit, as should players. Outside influences should have little effect - namely, contrasting game philosophies in this case.

I don't think games should cancel without good cause - and this isn't one - but if everyone else is looking for an exit, it won't be fun for me. Russia, perhaps, has a stronger desire to play through every position, because things like an unexpected NMR show different diplomatic possibilities.

As for your point about alliances, whether you "like" someone or not is entirely up to their diplomatic overtures throughout the game, their style of communication, in short, their skill as a diplomat. If anything, that is the surest measure of skill and is by no means outside the scope of the game.

It is wrong for us to gang up on Russia because he wants to play a game we all love. It's pretty hard to get a game going here, and this one is reasonably balanced. Why not play it out?

Ganging up on a true bully would not be wrong - not because ganging up on bullies is justified, but because his bullying diplomatic style has alienated people and shown him to be a poor diplomat, and therefore susceptible to elimination. Not to say, of course, that if you get ganged up on, you suck - because that happens to all of us. But if you drive everyone away by being rude - eh, you get what's coming to you.
03 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: Hmm. I believe at best that's a fine line delineating 'justified' reasons to target someone. The contention I take is one's actions in the game, and non-actions in the game, whatever the bases for those actions or non-actions, are as part of the game as anything else.

Case in point. Take your f2f game where a player promises some form of out-of-game consideration in exchange for action in game ("I'll do the dishes for a week if you attack X"). Is this wrong because the player is using outside influences as a bargaining chip to his ends? I don't believe so, and I daresay that happens often and it should be a justifiable tool by those who choose to use it.

As to the merits, is not one's unwillingness to cancel when the rest of the players acquiesce instructive of his diplomatic style? Take the different stances various countries have taken to the request to cancel this game. Russia isn't the only one to benefit from Germany's missed turn. But all others who benefited, at some basic level, are willing to put the goodwill of the whole over individual gain. Is this not indicative of how this game would progress if Russia continued and was in the position to solo and the motion on the table were a draw? And more to the point, is it 'wrong' for a player to anticipate that, determine an opponent's proclivities and philosophies and make changes to his or her strategy based on that?

This is all part of the game. And each game of diplomacy is not just defined by the moves that are on the board, but by the interplay between those moves and what goes on behind the scenes.

One additional point to consider. If it is 'wrong' to let outside influences affect a game, how can this be reconciled with taking advantage of the missed turn (an outside influence) to so much degree that it alters the initial alliances and gives advantage to those players who were randomly assigned to positions next to the player that missed a turn? I don't think you can have it both ways. Either everything is on the table and fair game for use as tools and consideration (Russia can be justly targeted for the non-cancel stance), or outside influences have no rightful place in the game of diplomacy (and hence games with early NMR should be cancelled due to their affect on the game).
03 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: I was in favor of the cancel due to NMR at the early phase. We could have restarted a game quickly. But now that we've already progressed through a full year, I feel like we ought to play it out.
03 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: Italy: I agree there - there's a bit more invested now.

Germany: In your ftf game example, I consider that the one of the most extreme versions of metagaming possible and if I found out someone was doing that in one of the games I ran, I would not invite them to future games. It's rude - and unfair, because not everyone is in a position to offer to do the dishes. It also further weakens the position of the newcomers, where it's even more unlikely that they can offer that sort of quid pro quo.

That's why I prefer blind cancels and blind draws. I don't really like the idea of ganging up on someone who refuses to end the game a certain way.
03 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: I can respect that point of view and gaming philosophy, and I don't know that I've given it enough thought that I'm settled on the issue. It is still an interesting topic to discuss and that's why I raised it.

If the issue with unfair offers of consideration is an issue of inequality (i.e. some people are in a better position to offer to do the dishes than others), is the very nature of that difference different than the skillsets players of varying, and unequal, degrees bring to the table?

As I consider this, I think there certainly degrees, and it is a matter of drawing the line. At a fundamental level I don't disagree that something like outright bribery (in out-of-game terms, i.e. paying someone $20 to take a certain move) is deplorable and demeans the game. Nor do I support allowing an external relationship to create and unnatural alliance (joining an online game with a friend and conspiring). Those types of activities raise to the level of what I think we would all instinctively call 'cheating.' If that's the extreme, where is the line between that and 'legitimate' tools of diplomacy?
03 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: I play a lot of chess - and one of the beautiful things about chess is that it's a purely equal contest (disregarding the slight advantage to white). So I suppose my Dip philosophy in some ways tries to get it as close to chess as possible - it's still seven ways, but it should be as equal as possible. So while players have wildly varying skills, things that are not in-game skills should not have an effect.

I regard dish-doing as bribery just as much as paying someone $20 - and I agree that joining a game with a friend to cooperate and win is cheating.

So, for me, at least, "legitimate" tools include any action that you are doing in-game to elicit another in-game reaction. If I'm Austria, I might in-game message Russia offering him supports into the Turkish home SCs in return for the Balkans. That's legitimate. Playing off of relationships that exist IG (Russia knows that Italy and England have beef over who got Spain from my collapsed empire and uses that the get Italy to stab England) is also perfectly okay.

For me, anything outside the game should not affect inside the game things. This, for me, includes cancel proposals - although I put that right on the border line. I also favor anonymous draw proposals, because I think it offers more diplomatic possibility.

It's all terribly interesting - Dip is a great community in that it allows for a couple of different game philosophies to coexist and we're all able to politely discuss it.
03 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: I've withdrawn my cancel vote - it doesn't appear like we're going to decide to cancel it for this reason, and if something else arises that some people might want to cancel over, I don't want my vote to be an auto-yes in their favor.

Right now, as it stands, if we all keep it on cancel permanently, some people, were they to start losing, could screw everyone over by putting the last cancel or two in.

Then again, we now have three people off cancel - and chances are at least one of us is honorable enough not to do that.
03 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: will also withdraw cancel vote.
03 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1901: I withdrew my cancel as well. I appreciate the kind vote for those of you willing to do so, but I believe I've found a way to make this game interesting for me again. (And one of you *might* be in on this plan... but who...?)
04 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1902: New Turkey here
05 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1902: Hello new Turkey!
08 Sep 15 UTC Spring, 1903: Hi new England here
18 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1906: All- I'm going to respectfully request a pause for the weekend, at least through mid-day Sunday. I'm going to be out of town and am not sure if I'll have reliable internet access.
18 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1906: I'll check in once more before I head out for the weekend. Please consider voting to pause.
19 Sep 15 UTC Spring, 1907: Austria - you are being rude. Please hit pause.
21 Sep 15 UTC Autumn, 1907: I'm back. Thank you most of you who voted pause. Fortunately I was able to have a tiny bit of cell service so was able to input moves after losing connection repeatedly.
26 Sep 15 UTC Spring, 1909: Hi all - apologies for not hitting ready. I'm out of town with limited access. Don't need to pause but just want to allow the time to tick ff since I can't check until tomorrow afternoon.
26 Sep 15 UTC Spring, 1909: Fair enough.
30 Sep 15 UTC Good game
30 Sep 15 UTC GG France.

30 Sep 15 UTC Thanks guys for a great game. It was a lot of fun, especially those early moves through Munich to hit Russia - then the subsequent simultaneous stabs on Germany and England.

All in all, solid game.

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

Subotai45 (326 D)
Won. Bet: 5 D, won: 42 D
20 supply-centers, 16 units
tmal (206 D)
Survived. Bet: 5 D
6 supply-centers, 7 units
Fastner (137 D)
Survived. Bet: 3 D
6 supply-centers, 8 units
mrak5 (171 D)
Survived. Bet: 5 D
2 supply-centers, 3 units
Pauze (129 D)
Defeated. Bet: 4 D
kojabu (100 D)
Defeated. Bet: 5 D
Firefly54 (35 D X)
Defeated. Bet: 5 D
Civil Disorders
Lackbeard (262 D)England (Spring, 1903) with 5 centres.
Der Eiserne Kanzler (103 D)Turkey (Spring, 1902) with 4 centres.
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages