Also 'damn solo Nazis' +1 sir, +1...

@orathaic - Trying to change people's behaviour isn't inherently wrong, and insults are of a subjective quality in that it's hard to objectively define what's allowed or not. I'd agree that bullying to a certain extent should be punished (such as repeated harassments, or encouraging suicide), but in no way should the term "carebear" be banned. I'm glad you aren't advocating that.

And I think that with "discrimination" there's a difference when it's things they can control vs. things they can't. If someone discriminates against someone because of, say, race, or something like that they were born with, that's wrong, and it should be discouraged in forums like this. If someone "discriminates" against someone because of something they can control, like their choices, or in this case Diplomacy strategy, it's hard to say that that's discrimination. This is a more extreme example, but am I discriminating against pickles if I tell McDonald's to "hold the pickles?" Again, that's taking it further than it is, and the example is inaccurate (I actually quite like pickles), but I trust you get my point.

(**As an aside, race is mostly/entirely cultural not biological, so you are not born with it, you learn it from your family, peers, and media - though it is very hard to unlearn - and people still discriminate based on biology, rather than 'the content of your character')

But to your point. Yes, you are discriminating, against pickles - but it is ok, because pickles don't have feelings to be hurt. You are also free to be critical of another player's play style. To try and change their mind, and to (re)educate them.

But there must be some limit. For example, banning care-bears from discussing tactics (to achieve a two/three person draw, and weed out the 'Solo Nazis') would go too far.

But mostly i find it interest to think about the parallels between this word and words used to discriminate against other minorities.

"And the mods would be right ban bullying (in the sense that they have a stated goal o making this the best diplomacy forum on the internet)"

If the mods want to make this the best diplomacy site then they should ban the carebears, amirite?

And let's be real clear here: ss is not a carebear.

Awe, thx Abge

'If the mods want to make this the best diplomacy site then they should ban the carebears, amirite?'

Perhaps :) glad you're onboard ;)

Defeated: 14 ( 24% )
Won: 2 ( 3% )
Drawn: 25 ( 43% )
Survived: 17 ( 29% )

Yeah. I am a carebear. You can ALWAYS trust me. Honestly.

@Ora - "But it is ok, because pickles don't have feelings to be hurt."

Even if they did have feelings to be hurt, and some point you have to draw the line of where it's their fault for their feelings being hurt, right? I mean, if I say the word "shit" and someone gets upset, in my opinion that's their fault for being upset by my word. Likewise, if someone calls another a "carebear," I think it's an insult that can easily be brushed aside, and if someone truly gets upset, is it not as much their fault for getting offended than it is the offender's fault? If it is, then it's not in the moderators' jurisdiction to regulate, I don't think.

I guess I'm getting more in-depth than any normal person would get, but I've never claimed to be normal.

ssorren: I apologize for using the term "meta gaming" as people understand it here (talking about games in progress on the forum) which sometimes results in banning. We have had a misunderstanding. I did not mean to imply in any way that ssorren is an unethical player.

What I meant to convey by my statement is that in a general sense, publicly stating that you like going for a 2-way draw can lull players in *future* games into a false sense of security so you can stab them and win when they think you're going for the tie. I actually thought your statement here was brilliant and subtle setting up a reputation which pays off big time later.

I am used to throwing the term "meta gaming" around loosely from my experience with CCGs and local tendencies among players (favorite colors, clans or styles of play). mea culpa.

Kuta, i dont claim to be that smart.---we have never had the chance to play, and my comments were meant for the thread at hand. each game for me starts with its own slate, and have no fear, i will stick the dagger in deep if i see fit, or im more than happy to settle with 2-3 way draws---But as most who have played with me i think would agree(regardless of what they might think of me in the forum) my integrity in game is as solid as it comes

@Jeff that is a correct usage of the term meta-gaming.

@Lien i guess it depends on the usage, there is no right not o be offended.
But if you are using a term as a form of bullying ( which must be part of a pattern of behaviour, not a once off ) and attempting to delibrately exclude someone or deprive them of their rights ( say the right to free assembly, by making them feel uncomfortable am threatened OR the right to engage with their culture, by preventing them from finding diplomacy games ) then you are most likely in the wrong.

Of course you could argue, as abge has, that any diplomacy culture aspires to greatness by excluding all those carebears from their modst. And i await a proposal for a final solution to this ongoing issue from the mods ;)

I don't actually want to get rid of carebears; they're so much fun to stab!

i figured you were being ironic...

I really don't see "carebear" as a bullying issue. Players call each other much worse. I suppose an argument could be made that its potentially feminizing or derogatory toward homosexuals, but given that Carebears are a real cartoon with a strong anti-violence bent, I'd say its on par with calling someone a "+1 whore".

Carebear is a well-established term in gaming that has nothing to do with sex or sexuality.

Agreed, there is much hatred of care-bears in the Eve Online community, to name but the one i know of.

Being a bear has a unrelated meaning, though i suspect the average webdipper is more familiar with gaming jargon than gay community jargon.

Do you play EVE, Ora?

Leinad, I agree. My first goal is ALWAYS to find a good alliance partner or partners with whom I can tear up the board, and I'll take substantial risks to obtain that. However, if that doesn't pan out, then secondary considerations are protecting myself from less far-sighted players, and revenge (justice). I don't lie (well only once and I really felt bad), but I won't tell everything, and sometimes another player's actions will change my mind and I then don't feel the need to notify them of the change in status before the next move. :-) A solo win comes lower than these other goals and I feel no pressure to conform to some players' insistence on solo wins as the only goal.

Oh, and stopping another player from soloing. That's very high on my list of top priorities.

Ok, not lying does not make any sense to me whatsoever in the context of this game. Half of the fun is deciding when to lie, with whom, and what about. You gimp yourself by not lying in this game (regardless of the reason).

Hell, I'm lying to you right now.

I never lie. The previous statement is not a lie.

Abge, i did, but i don't at the moment...

There are reasons to avoid lying, and i do like to be blatant about my plans, even when i'm not planning to be nice to someone. They can know that i'm going to attack, and fail anyway...

@Mujus - I lie sometimes. It's part of the game. But I consider lying a rare tactic as opposed to a common occurrence. To me, the key is lying when it's the best option, and determining what that best option is. Lying is in my tactic arsenal, but I try not to use it unless needed. Like nuclear bombs. I do, indeed, think that a very important thing is building alliances to grow together, and that can only be done with building trust.

@Ora - As you can tell, it's a tricky subject. We've established that there is room for at least slight negativity or less-than-politeness, and we've also established that some extreme offenses are worthy of mod action. But we can't determine where the line is. Until someone can come up with an objective line of what should and shouldn't be allowed, I'll be wary of censorship.

It's not the lying is always bad, to me, honestly gets you further.

There's way too many here who think that lying just for the sake of lying is a good tactic WRONG.

What makes a lot of the good players good, is learning to bend the truth, leaving enough ambiguity about what really happened, where they could argue that they really didn't lie, they see the truth in a different manner.

What makes these things different, because you could argue that you did not lie, it tends to leave doors open that would otherwise be closed.

I never stab, but sometimes there are unfortunate misunderstandings.

Hurl, gag, and barf

Regarding his post directly following mine, I must say that I agree with ssorenn 100%. Actually, more than 100% if that's possible. That's weird to say, but true.

@Tas - I get your drift. "Unfortunate misunderstandings" *winks furiously*

Why thx LT