National Cup (not actually a national cup) Peanut Gallery

[JECE]

Does anyone want to step in for Austria so that we can finish this game?

I'll take on the challenge if needed and wanted.

[Ferdack]

Does anyone want to step in for Austria so that we can finish this game?

I'll take on the challenge if needed and wanted.

How about we just start a fresh game with you and the six of us?

[Ginge86]

Does anyone want to step in for Austria so that we can finish this game?

I'll take on the challenge if needed and wanted.

Yeah, let Jamie's friend take over the position, that should work out well lmao.

JECowardE - I knew this would be the outcome, I just hoped for better. It is no shock, I am just simply disappointed that this is the best web dip has to offer. The quality of players on this site, clearly leaves a lot to be desired. To feel the need to go against the agreed rules, says a lot about the confidence of the players in this game. I for one, have no desire to play with players like that.

[JECE]

Does anyone want to step in for Austria so that we can finish this game?

I'll take on the challenge if needed and wanted.

How about we just start a fresh game with you and the six of us?

Actually, yeah, sure. But not SoS.

[Theodoric]

I'm happy to start a fresh game. JECE--thanks for the offer to step in.

Your friend,

-Turkey

[JECE]

Does anyone want to step in for Austria so that we can finish this game?

I'll take on the challenge if needed and wanted.

Yeah, let Jamie's friend take over the position, that should work out well lmao.

JECowardE - I knew this would be the outcome, I just hoped for better. It is no shock, I am just simply disappointed that this is the best web dip has to offer. The quality of players on this site, clearly leaves a lot to be desired. To feel the need to go against the agreed rules, says a lot about the confidence of the players in this game. I for one, have no desire to play with players like that.

I'm pretty sure that I started several games with forum invitations addressed to whoever 'wants to lose' or 'get crushed'. Like this one: viewtopic.php?p=240109. Granted, I wasn't being serious like you apparently are, but I've put a target on my back before and done fine, even against tough odds and diplomatic isolation. What's most fun is fighting in the face of those odds and proving your worth.

[Gandalfthegrey]

If we did want to continue with this game, could JECE be subbed in right away, or would we have to wait for Ginge to NMR out?

[Aristocrat]

I am not a mod, but I would say two things:

1) If you think someone or some people joined with a predetermined intent to attack you, that probably falls under metagaming and should be reported using the in-game button.

2) Cheating accusations aren't supposed to be aired publicly in either in-game chat or in the forum.

Regardless of the pompousness of the "invitation" for the game, Ginge is correct that no one should have joined if they already knew they wanted to attack him. I make no judgment on whether the moves or press in this game reflect any such predetermined intent.

[Gandalfthegrey]

I am not a mod, but I would say two things:

1) If you think someone or some people joined with a predetermined intent to attack you, that probably falls under metagaming and should be reported using the in-game button.

2) Cheating accusations aren't supposed to be aired publicly in either in-game chat or in the forum.

Regardless of the pompousness of the "invitation" for the game, Ginge is correct that no one should have joined if they already knew they wanted to attack him. I make no judgment on whether the moves or press in this game reflect any such predetermined intent.

Yup, it seems like poor form all round and something that should be investigated by the mods, though I'd understand if they were tired of dealing with Ginge-related drama at this point.

[Theodoric]

Aristocrat--I'm actually not sure. It would be interesting for a mod to weigh in on this.

The rules say:

You cannot play a public game with players that you know outside of the site. In doing so, you create an unfair environment for other players by giving yourself the opportunity to form alliances for reasons outside the game. This includes playing public games with family, friends, relatives, coworkers, or even joining a game with any player of a previous game with a predetermined intent to ally with or attack certain players. Additionally, you cannot make deals based on any factors outside of the game.

Because Diplomacy is a social game, we always encourage playing with friends. However, you should always do so in a private game with an invite code and make sure that every player knows about any real life connections before the game begins.

A literal reading seems to suggest that entering a game with an intent to attack a specific player isn't metagaming unless you joined along with another player with that predetermined intent. It seems like this sort of individual grudge would be almost impossible for the mods to police anyway, especially since it's surely not against the rules to *claim* to have a grudge against one player when talking to other players.

In any case, I agree that entering a diplomacy game with any intent other than playing a good game of diplomacy is bad form. And--with apologies for being a little defensive--I want to emphasize that I entered the game in order to play with good players, spent the whole game trying to win, and would have happily worked with Austria if I'd thought doing so was in my best interests.

[JECE]

Yeah, it strikes me as a false accusation from what I've read. Ginge86 knows where to find the mods. Ginge86's demand not to be teamed up on struck me as a get-out-of-jail-free card from the beginning, ready to be used regardless of whether anybody was indeed trying to target Ginge86.

[DougJoe]

So, to quote a famous line from my Russian counter-part. "Suck My Balls".

When did I say that?

To feel the need to go against the agreed rules, says a lot about the confidence of the players in this game. I for one, have no desire to play with players like that.

Regardless of the pompousness of the "invitation" for the game, Ginge is correct that no one should have joined if they already knew they wanted to attack him. I make no judgment on whether the moves or press in this game reflect any such predetermined intent.

I had been told by others pretty early on that they suspected Ginge was Austria and I really wasn't 100% sure myself, but I did NOT join this game to GOAT hunt. When Ginge's request for players came on the other forum thread I was simply intrigued at what it would be like to play with others of a higher caliber. Also, in the other forum thread I clearly identified myself as a self-described non-elite player and so I'm sorry if my play hasn't been up to Ginge's standards (as he has seemed to imply from various messages in the game that were posted in the global chat).

Ginge, if you do end up leaving the game and want to discuss my moves through PMs (and what was going on in the game from my perspective) after that happens I will be more than happy to do so, plus I was planning on writing an AAR as well so you can wait for that if you would prefer.

Yeah, it strikes me as a false accusation from what I've read. Ginge86 knows where to find the mods. Ginge86's demand not to be teamed up on struck me as a get-out-of-jail-free card from the beginning, ready to be used regardless of whether anybody was indeed trying to target Ginge86.

I thought that stipulation was kind of odd as well, but I figured "whatever".

[Ginge86]

If the intent was to join and have fun, why was everyone talking about who I was? Why have 3 people confirmed this was happening now?
Anyone with a brain can see what happened.
Anyway, thanks for the game and thanks for the reminder of how shite this site is. Absolute cowards couldn't even make it a year before resorting to using outside influences. PATHETIC!
I have no intent of contacting mods, I am simply going to say farewell.
And again, to those who played that did not do this, you have my thanks and respect.

[Ginge86]

Oh and my final thought.

I will now be forever remembered as the 11th best press player to ever grace this site. Every time you see my name, remember, you were all too cowardly to play me in a fair contest. I will be there FOREVER!!!

To be honest, you are lucky your hero's refused to play me, as me wiping the floor with them, would probably have been too much for some. Much better to purposely join my game, with the intent of breaking the agreed rules, than to actually play me fairly.

I will now take my leave, off to greener pastures. Hopefully to a place where the 10 elderly people that remain, are not so up there own arses, that they are able to accept the challenge of a younger player. Without feeling the need for avoidance, cheating and pretending to be retired to avoid a challenge.

Extremely disappointing. Web Diplomacy, your player base is weak, your hero's are cowards and the few that are not, are unable to resist the need to cheat. You should take a long look at yourselves. Is this what you intended to create?

[Doom427]

Regardless of anything else to be said, Goat really did prove that his grace and humility under pressure are what makes a great diplomacy player

[Ginge86]

All this game proved was that the player base on this site are shit scared of the GOAT.
A bunch of old, wrinkly, washed up has-beens. That is your sites top 50, bar 1 or 2 small exceptions.
I would be embarrassed to join a game, agree rules and then break them year 1. BUT, as this site has no standards, there is no reason to be embarrassed.
I gave you peons a chance to play with greatness and instead of embracing the challenge, you resorted to rule breaking. Sad, very Sad and definitely says a lot more about this site and it's player base than it says about me.
Give it 20 years and there won't be a decent player on this site, as time catches us all, even those who gatekeep a stupid diplomacy website like this.

[DougJoe]

Ginge, if it wasn't clear in my last post, I was assigned Russia - your continued insistence that Jamie was Russia was kind of amusing to me, and I felt that it was in my interests to not confirm nor deny that accusation when you first said it in the Austria/Russia chat.

If the intent was to join and have fun, why was everyone talking about who I was? Why have 3 people confirmed this was happening now?

I thought that discovering who is who was a common thing that happened in Anonymous games where the set of players was known? It certainly happened in the last game I played of this kind (not here) and I think it's almost impossible for it *not* to.

I gave you peons a chance to play with greatness and instead of embracing the challenge, you resorted to rule breaking.

I don't believe I broke any rules and resent being called a cheater (since you aren't specifying who was or wasn't cheating). In S01, all three of my southerly neighbors proposed some sort of alliance. The offers that I was getting from Italy and Turkey were much more... substantial than the simple DMZ from Austria. After S01, I could go keep the DMZ and try to stab Turkey (which didn't seem like a good idea at the time) or I could try to get my share of the Austrian spoils. Who was playing Austria had nothing to do with it. Both Italy and Turkey were interested in attacking you, and if, by your "not allowed to gang up on me" rule, I was supposed to use the fact that people thought you were Austria and then not attack because of it? That seems silly.

Absolute cowards couldn't even make it a year before resorting to using outside influences.

Need I remind you, I'm the first who decided to try to punch above my weight class and see what happened - as I said then, I'm willing to play *anyone* - so, again, I resent being called a coward... and I don't know what you mean by outside influences, but I only used the press I received to make my in-game decisions... but if you feel you were horribly wronged, then sorry that this game didn't work out for you. In the end, your press just didn't convince me to change my mind.

[Theodoric]

I'll just take a second to spell out my reasoning for what I did this game as well. As is likely clear to anyone watching this ridiculous situation unfold, I played as Turkey.

Imo, the basic problem with Turkey is that any path to a solo hits Italy and Austria pretty quickly, and allying with Russia is extremely vulnerable. My general approach is to make shifting, short-term alliances in order to gain early ground and then try to work with the more distant powers to keep expanding. I wanted to avoid getting stuck in on a specific conflict that wouldn't yield centers, because once another Southern power gains more momentum than Turkey I'm likely to be stuck in my corner for the whole game.

I had two acceptable visions for how the first year would play out. The first was getting Russia and Italy to gang up on Austria, while I sent friendly press to everyone and made non-commital moves. I could then either team up with a weakened Austria to attack Russia and secure the Black Sea or team up with Russia and Italy to take out Austria, hopefully getting more than my fair share of the loot because Austria didn't expect an attack from me. This is what actually played out.

The second would be engaging in some early derring-do that had the potential to either yield me two builds or leave Greece open. You can see from the public press that Austria published that I tried to suggest two such schemes to Austria and was rejected both times.

I went into the second year genuinely usure if I would go after Austria or go after Russia. I ultimately decided to attack Austria because, despite me saying a few times that it was important to me that we both attack Russia at the same time, Austria only proposed plans where I would attack Russia first and he would follow up afterward. In addition, Russia looked to be in a weak position with a low chance of getting a build, so I wasn't too nervous about getting stabbed by Russia. I was, up until Austria rage-quit, considering whether there was a way to pivot back up against Russia while preserving a build--preferably from Greece.

Had Austria agreed to any of my proposed strategies I likely would have worked short-term with Austria (while of course looking for a chance to stab and grab).

It's true that Italy sent a message early on indicating that they thought Austria was Ginge, and saying that they wanted to attack. I encouraged this because I wanted Italy and Austria fighting each other. I don't think there's anything unethical about this, and in fact think it would have been silly not to try to capitalize on it. I still think--based on Italy's early non-committal moves and unwillingness to engage in kamikaze tactics (like bouncing Austria out of Greece on turn 1) that this was all a tactic on Italy's part to convince Russia and I that they would go after Austria, rather than a genuine motivation.

Ginge: you're of course welcome to feel however you want about all of this, but ultimately the reason I stabbed you was because you gave me an opening and didn't give me good alternatives. The reason the stab worked was because you didn't see it coming and didn't defend against it. That's life.

[Ginge86]

Ginge, if it wasn't clear in my last post, I was assigned Russia - your continued insistence that Jamie was Russia was kind of amusing to me, and I felt that it was in my interests to not confirm nor deny that accusation when you first said it in the Austria/Russia chat.

If the intent was to join and have fun, why was everyone talking about who I was? Why have 3 people confirmed this was happening now?

I thought that discovering who is who was a common thing that happened in Anonymous games where the set of players was known? It certainly happened in the last game I played of this kind (not here) and I think it's almost impossible for it *not* to.

I gave you peons a chance to play with greatness and instead of embracing the challenge, you resorted to rule breaking.

I don't believe I broke any rules and resent being called a cheater (since you aren't specifying who was or wasn't cheating). In S01, all three of my southerly neighbors proposed some sort of alliance. The offers that I was getting from Italy and Turkey were much more... substantial than the simple DMZ from Austria. After S01, I could go keep the DMZ and try to stab Turkey (which didn't seem like a good idea at the time) or I could try to get my share of the Austrian spoils. Who was playing Austria had nothing to do with it. Both Italy and Turkey were interested in attacking you, and if, by your "not allowed to gang up on me" rule, I was supposed to use the fact that people thought you were Austria and then not attack because of it? That seems silly.

Absolute cowards couldn't even make it a year before resorting to using outside influences.

Need I remind you, I'm the first who decided to try to punch above my weight class and see what happened - as I said then, I'm willing to play *anyone* - so, again, I resent being called a coward... and I don't know what you mean by outside influences, but I only used the press I received to make my in-game decisions... but if you feel you were horribly wronged, then sorry that this game didn't work out for you. In the end, your press just didn't convince me to change my mind.

Based on what you have said, I apologise to you directly. It seems that you did intend to play fairly. From my perspective, I requested players stay on topic and not discuss the player behind the country. The fact this happened and nobody stopped it, ruined the game for me, hence why I am dropping out. You are all welcome to play on without me. I wish you luck

[Ginge86]

I'll just take a second to spell out my reasoning for what I did this game as well. As is likely clear to anyone watching this ridiculous situation unfold, I played as Turkey.

Imo, the basic problem with Turkey is that any path to a solo hits Italy and Austria pretty quickly, and allying with Russia is extremely vulnerable. My general approach is to make shifting, short-term alliances in order to gain early ground and then try to work with the more distant powers to keep expanding. I wanted to avoid getting stuck in on a specific conflict that wouldn't yield centers, because once another Southern power gains more momentum than Turkey I'm likely to be stuck in my corner for the whole game.

I had two acceptable visions for how the first year would play out. The first was getting Russia and Italy to gang up on Austria, while I sent friendly press to everyone and made non-commital moves. I could then either team up with a weakened Austria to attack Russia and secure the Black Sea or team up with Russia and Italy to take out Austria, hopefully getting more than my fair share of the loot because Austria didn't expect an attack from me. This is what actually played out.

The second would be engaging in some early derring-do that had the potential to either yield me two builds or leave Greece open. You can see from the public press that Austria published that I tried to suggest two such schemes to Austria and was rejected both times.

I went into the second year genuinely usure if I would go after Austria or go after Russia. I ultimately decided to attack Austria because, despite me saying a few times that it was important to me that we both attack Russia at the same time, Austria only proposed plans where I would attack Russia first and he would follow up afterward. In addition, Russia looked to be in a weak position with a low chance of getting a build, so I wasn't too nervous about getting stabbed by Russia. I was, up until Austria rage-quit, considering whether there was a way to pivot back up against Russia while preserving a build--preferably from Greece.

Had Austria agreed to any of my proposed strategies I likely would have worked short-term with Austria (while of course looking for a chance to stab and grab).

It's true that Italy sent a message early on indicating that they thought Austria was Ginge, and saying that they wanted to attack. I encouraged this because I wanted Italy and Austria fighting each other. I don't think there's anything unethical about this, and in fact think it would have been silly not to try to capitalize on it. I still think--based on Italy's early non-committal moves and unwillingness to engage in kamikaze tactics (like bouncing Austria out of Greece on turn 1) that this was all a tactic on Italy's part to convince Russia and I that they would go after Austria, rather than a genuine motivation.

Ginge: you're of course welcome to feel however you want about all of this, but ultimately the reason I stabbed you was because you gave me an opening and didn't give me good alternatives. The reason the stab worked was because you didn't see it coming and didn't defend against it. That's life.

Just to be clear, I saw your stab coming, I just had no choice but to hope it was not. Secondly, if Italy was saying such things, why did you not remind him of the rules we agreed? It sounds to me that you intentionally took advantage of something which we agreed was against the rules. you say well played, I say coward that couldn't stick to the rules. Either way, the game is ruined now. I suppose we should all blame whoever is Italy. Considering everyone seems to blame them for starting all this. Or blame me, for not wanting to continue a game in which the only rule I gave was broken on year 1. Whatever makes you feel better.