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)

< Return

Chat archive


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).