They are the people for whom the stab factor is very low. They would NEVER stab you. Really. Some would call them the best possible ally.

A player who lacks ruthlessness, who will, for example, continue to play for an agreed draw even when presented with a clear chance for a solo victory.

Weak.

It's all a matter of perspective. I've known carebears who have really good records (not through metagaming) but because they really do believe in alliances and would prefer to have a 2-way or 3-way draw to a solo (but would take a solo if it's "fair"), so I don't think it's fair to say that all carebears are weak or won't take the solo. If they can convince another person NOT to stab them even when they can take the win, there's something to be said for that; it takes a lot of diplomatic skills for that to happen.

Carebears can be great allies and more important they can be stabbed at the right moment for you to take the win or go for the 2-way draw if you want to show that you can or if the alliance was that good.

Ah! So it's a term of endearance for a strong and reliable ally. Someone who you can safely leave all your home centers vulnerable to. Got it.

pimp daddies

Arguably, it's against the spirit of the game because people may pursue suboptimal results because of an alliance.

I would play with a carebear or partner up with one any day rather than an unreliable player. But that's just me.

Sure. The question is what you do if you can win over the back of your carebear friends, though.

That isn't a question. You win.

@abge tell that to the multitude of people who don't.

I do.

I recently successfully finished a 2-way draw. I saw it as a challenge to see if I could negotiate one with no possibility of stabbing. As it turned out, we both had the opportunity to stab, but chose not to.

Mind you - this was PPSC, so the difference between winning with 18 and drawing with 17 was very small. But ignore that, and take it as evidence that I am the MOST reliable of allies, who you can COMPLETELY TRUST with the safety of your home centers.

The problem is that those who play PPSC are not easily welcomed into my circle of trust.

I have no problem with my fellow players being confident that they can count on me under all circumstances and that they won't find a truer ally anywhere else.

You are a carebear if you do not belong to the Vince Lombardi school of Diplomacy.

Lol I'm not going to lie, I used to be a carebear, hence my very low win rate. Lol I would feel really bad when I stabbed someone but now I don't care. This game has desensitized me.

Gunboat anonymous carebears bug the heck out of me. :-/ I can see the rationale in other types of games... But gunboat anon? Ugh. Just no.

I have no issues with carebear, ask Valis. I'm more than willing to stab, but winning is not always the ultimate goal. Most here know I really prefer the 2 way

Someone tell yoyo 7% is not a low win rate. I'm sitting at 0, but at least I've got draws on draws.

ssorren is always meta gaming. Prefer the 2 way? Nice try setting up fools to trust you more. ;)

Jeff: gameID=156305

No, ssorenn does like two ways. It is very well known.

It is a form of insult, based on behaviour you dislike; this it can be seen as an attempt to curb this behaviour, and as such is a used as a tool of oppression.

Look at steephie's: "Arguably, it's against the spirit of the game because people may pursue suboptimal results because of an alliance."

Now in this case - a game where anyone can choose who they play with, or not consent to play at all - i don't find this kind of oppression to be much of a problem. The 'carebears' are enjoying themselves or they wouldn't be here. And while i would promote though games where i have to fight tooth and nail for my solo, i don't find the need to denigrate my opponets while doing so.

But all that said, it has all the hallmarks of a tool of oppression - and if you can recognise it here, where it arguably doesn't matter,* then you may also be able to see it used in 'real life', where people don't have the option of walking away.

*on the other had, mods policing a site where policy indicates they want to create an inclusive forum for all, and the best diplomacy experience may argue that carebear is a form of hate speech and should be banned.

"Carebear" is an insult, but I don't think it's hate speech. The way insults are bandied about here, I hardly feel special when I'm called one. And then, one can as easily insult me by pointing out my stats.

insult != hate speech. It really would depend on whether carebears, as a class, are an oppressed or powerless group, and whether using the term is meant to incite hatred or violence against the group. You damn solo Nazis. :-)

What's the deal with banning all speech that might make someone feel bad? Sure, let's not attack people for gender/ethnicity/religion, but arguing for what style of play is best surely falls under the definition of free speech--a constitutional right. (Of course, the Constitution does not apply on private forums lol.)

"Jeff Kuta (1643 D)
11:44 PM
+1
ssorren is always meta gaming. Prefer the 2 way? Nice try setting up fools to trust you more. ;)"

I think the mods should address this. He accused me of meta gaming. Fuck that moron

Eh, I think it's a bad idea to ban any type of speech, even hate speech. If the government does it, it's unconstitutional, and if a forum does it, it kind of just ruins the quality of banter, something that we should try not to ruin, and adds subjectivity (i.e. "what is 'hate speech'?"), where I much prefer objectivity.

@steephie - "Arguably, it's against the spirit of the game because people may pursue suboptimal results because of an alliance."

But in my opinion the spirit of the game is also forging alliances. Now, I'll admit that I'm too much of a "carebear" myself and should stab more (it's my pacifist tendencies manifesting themselves in the game), but there's something to be said for a successful partnership. The key, I think, is balancing when to be ruthless and when to work together.

@jbalcorn - the official definition of carebear to end all definitions: "a Diplomacy player who values loyalty to allies over their own best interests and thus stabs far too little." They're the best kind of ally, and if they're good they might not lose much, but they rarely ever solo games.