The whole little feud with DipperDon and myself stems from us disagreeing on how to play the game. He finds is offensive because I play to win and do stab my allies at some point if the opportunity presents itself. While I say that his games are boring because he will never under any circumstances stab his ally.

Just would like to hear other people's opinion on this.

Well there's a difference between unbreakable alliances and game long alliances. I've certainly participated in game long alliances; if you beleive that in the long term you will benefit from not stabbiong an ally, why stab them?

BoG did you create this thread just to get the heat off that you're getting in the original thread? think you did.

Sometimes your alliance is effective for so long that you find yourself unable to stab effectively. Why piss the guy off for spite when you can draw and everyone's happy?

A solo win is always ideal, though.

@laurenceofarabia please post only relevant comments in threads.

I'm with DD in that it is a legit strategy and part of the game. I've played a number of games where I and an ally agreed to eliminate everyone else, then see if we couldn't break through the 17-17 stalemate if we still felt like playing at the end. It is legit and just provides more of a challenge to the other players. The important hting to note is that you can go into the game IN ADVANCE with that intent or it is metagaming, and you can't always trust your ally to abide by the rules and not stab you.

BoG, you're misrepresenting. I never said I found it "offensive" to play to win. I do it myself sometimes. But, I do tend to ally with other players who "offer" game long alliances or have a history of them. You spit on the idea, and your game histories show you usually stab your ally mid-game. So, we haven't allied because we have two different styles.

You are disgusted by my style, and I don't trust yours.

I find it very boring and going against the principle of the game.

well dipper doesn't always stick by his allies... ahem...

@BoG sorry but you are not getting away with that cheap post regarding DD

join world domination 8 1 hour phase bet is 25

i think the worst is to be predictable. being known as someone who generally stabs or generally doesn't break a two country alliance seems quite predictable. since every game is different, it makes sense to me that sometimes you go for the 17-17 draw, and other times you don't. but it's also clear that people have many varied perspectives on the "principles of the game" or "how the game ought to be played" and we should stop trying to stake out the "right" one and get know to who has what perspective and see how we can use that to our advantage to win =P

Hey, Laurence, don't tell people that. You'll ruin my carefully crafted reputation.

join world domination 8. 25 bet. Starts in 40 minutes. 1 hour phase

The fact is that the best players win outright as quickly as possible, and understand when stabbing makes sense.

To hate on stabbing is to not understand the game.

Dunecat, the problem is that if you're all one way or the other, it ends up hurting you. For example, we're in a game together which would be ending in a three-way, but the third player wants only to see you dead, no matter what, because of your continual stabbing.

So, djbent is probably right, that a mixed reputation is probably best.

permanent alliances are not an obligation
backstabbing is not one either
there are no rules at all and everything remains open
that's the magic of the game
rules spoil it

djbent is absolutely correct.

DD, are you saying that you looked at his history, saw that he stabbed people in most of his games, and so did not ally with him? I would say most people stab someone at least once every game. That doesn't mean they can't be good allies. You have to be able to work with stabby folk as well as stalwart muffins.

i am with BoG all the way on this, but i dont blame DD for his 'game-start-ti-end-alliance' ideology - i blame the retarded PPSC system that encourages such play and makes it effective instead of laughable.

i personally have tried to steer clear of DD because by his own admission he looks favorably on meta-gaming. but i realize that there many 'bad' apples in this community BoG but we have to live with the community we have, not the community we wish we had =)

I agree with Don--you shouldn't stab predictably. That doesn't mean you shouldn't stab an ally if it means a good game.

As soon as a Diplomacy round becomes predictable, the fun is over.

So, Babak, I'm a "bad apple" just cause I like to be a good ally?

Crispminis, the game histories are a tool - an indicator, or how someone plays. If I see BoG stabbing every ally in mid-game as soon as the first target goes down, I'm going to be wary allying with him. Add to that my tendency to go ally with the one who says "Let's kill xxxxx and see if we can roll the board", which BoG never offers, and its just logical to figure that I'm going to be allying with the one who offers what I'm looking for and has a record of good alliances. BoG takes that as having a grudge against him, but its not. I play each game separately, but so far, every situation that's come up has not ended up with us working together.

So, does that mean I'm playing the game wrong? No. It just means I have different priorities than he does, and our playing styles clash. Does that mean I'm bad player or a bad person? No. Does it mean he is? Hell no. He's very very good.

Crispi, if the game histories are not supposed to be used to look at someone's tendencies, why are they available to look at? Why not just have the statistics summaries, and not be able to go through each game season by season?

fo sho

but just because someone makes an alliance and doesnt break it doesnt make it wrong. its more complex than that

if a gamelong alliance benefits both players, go for it. if your playing to be the number 1 player in the game (which you always should) and stabbing your ally would help you achieve that, go for it. if both players in an 'unbreakable' alliance are playing to be the number 1 player, then conflict is almost inevitable if they border each other. the only time i can see a gamelong alliance being wrong is if one of the players is ok with sitting back and taking second or third, as then they will just be a tool for the other ally to get first place. if theyre both competing for first place, i think its ok.

and im with babak in that the only reason people go for second or third is because of PPSC. but i still think that very long term alliances are ok.

The situation should be made to force the allies to stick together. If this is not true then the ally who has the opportunity to effectively stab and win but doesn't is being contrary to the spirit of the game. I usually like long term alliances but you should always expect stabs from both sides.
There is also the problem that it unfair to the others to be completely secure in all alliances because they have been able to create the situation where the alliance should break down, but they aren't rewarded for this because the players in question are completely incapable of stabbing.
In all situations I think that to do anything other than the interests of the current country is effectively metagaming.

How about a spring agreement to 17-17 draw with your ally? Some people are ok with draws and actually pride themselves that they do not have win but rather draws. This is what I find very wrong in the approach since this game was designed for stabing and counter stabing throughout.

While I don't have particularly strong views one way or another - I try to win but will happily play for a draw when a solo is impossible - I find this sort of debate rather silly. "Against the principles of the game", "the game was designed for".... I hate to use such a cliched argument, but it IS a GAME - I can't see much offense over the "betrayal of principles" - there aren't even fans, franchises, and major television events involved.

That being said, yeah, game-long alliances piss me off too, at least when they're killing me. When I find myself in one, they tend to be alright.

I could see the TV now.

"Well, Vince, BoG75 is over in the corner talking to iMurk789 and DipperDon is totally unaware of it. Wait, the players are returning to the table now with their orders filled out. Let's see what the adjudicator makes of the orders... Oh! BofG75 and iMurk789 stab Dipper Don taking 3 SCs from him!"

"You know, Don, that's really gonna stick in Dipper's craw. He's a firm believer in the game long alliance, but he should never have trusted a man who has clearly shown a preference to stab mid-game."

"Ok, let's review the board..."

lol that's the tone i hope the "meta diplomacy" commentary will take on!!