I am not Canaduh's friend backing him up. I.ve never r met him, and I think i only played him once and I think he died early. Acknowledge the fact that non-biased people might disagree with you.

figlesquidge-

Was somebody accusing me of multiplaying here? Well at any rate, you are correct in that Russia and I are working together because it's the only way to keep France from winning. I need him to hold all his SC's otherwise we both lose. France put a ton of effort into getting us to attack one another earlier on, and from what I can tell he was in fact relying on that to happen.

If that person still thinks we're multiplaying, feel free to have Kestas check our IP addresses.

Regarding your question about the code, absolutely I'll make it available to you, and anyone else who wishes to see it. In fact, one of the issues I had with Kestas was how tightly he guards the current source for phpdip. I've already setup a Sourceforge project for it and applied the latest GNU GPL license to the code. I will most likely only distribute the code to select individuals during the beta testing phase, so we don't end up with a bunch of competing sites using legacy buggy code. After that, however, the most current version will be made immediately available for public download, and outside contributions will be much more welcome and encouraged.

And yes, the adjudicator code is fairly complex! However, believe it or not, it's turning out not to be nearly as difficult as I'd anticipated. The only real tough part is making sure I know all the rules provisions lol. At current pace, I'm hoping to have it ready for beta launch within a few weeks. I'll be happy to send you a copy of the code once I'm done getting the initial alpha stuff done if you like. =)


Treefarn-

No worries, in fact I wasn't referring to you. Your comments, though I disagree with them, appear to be genuinely impartial. I was referring to Churchill's most recent comments, which included an "I hope you win" message to my opponent. That was the grounds for me referring to him as a friend. If my wording was confusing and led you to believe I was referring to you, I apologize for the misunderstanding. =)

Seems that the game is done. I always thought that there was a way to break the deadlock (despite what you thing Marek!), and all my moves were aimed at either holding the line where I could, and getting the right units in place to make a concerted effort at the weak point. I was sure I was invulnerable (providing I did not make a mistake) - just as sure that I would eventually win.

And as a postscript - I do not know anyone on this site.

The rules state that any player or group of players can declare wictory once they have secured more than 18 supply centers.
so if the stalemate had 17 on one side the other side could have declared a joint victory. (note division of points between allied victors should not be the same as for a solo victory.)

at least that's the way i've always played.

Hmm... Such a whimper of an ending. Russia failed to submit moves.

Canaduh, I said the game is still open. Turkey however new how to finish it (with units in Galicia, Ukraine and Sevastopol instead of Trieste, Prussia and Livonia it was a draw), while you apparently didn't know about it. BTW, if Turkey and Russia didn't move towards the stalemate, you would have to move your army from Gascony to the North and break though Prussia and Silesia. There was no other way.

Thanks Marek. I know. I was happy that it was doable, it was merely a question of lining up my ducks. And I am a little sad that Stagger (Russia) gave up. He stole my victory celebrations, if not my victory!

But it was a good game, and I am not yet sure if Kristopher was trying to use the Forum as a diplomatic tactic.

Lol Treefarn you're right, and looks like Russia proved me right as well. The stalemate was broken not due to any brilliant strategy from either side, but because Russia got sick of waiting and thus walked away and didn't submit any moves. Looks like Canaduh's "strategy" of waiting for one of us to drop out worked. It's a rather pathetic win for him, but a win just the same, so congrats on your victory.

Honestly Kristopher, I think its poor sportsmanship on your part, suggesting that Canaduh connived his way to a victory. He had a game which many thought was still playable, and thats what he did. He was still moving pieces around the board, he wasn't just supporting down a front waiting for someone to give up. Did you ever think that maybe he really thought he could win?

You want to come to the forum and post an earnest question, fine, but you didn't. You came to the forum and accused him of bad sportsmanship and asked for people to back you up.

I think that in this game (so aptly called Diplomacy) 'conniving' is a perfectly acceptable tactic. In fact, anything goes except for mutli-accounting and meta-gaming (and the definition of that is even unclear!).

And it's possible to have an objective viewpoint and also have an opinion. In fact it's impossible to have no opinion of a subject (which by your definition would mean that it was impossible to be objective). So nobody is un-biased in your perspective (which is invariably biased).

Of course, Kristopher's whinning on the forum about a stalemate that wasn't actualy a stalemate might be considered a tactic (but this would stir up the whole meta-gaming arguement about influences from outside the game).

Treefarn-

Actually, not once did I ask anyone to "back me up." I simply asked whether others thought it was bad sportsmanship to try to "out wait" an opponent instead of accepting an obvious stalemate. He was still moving pieces around, but not in any way that would affect the outcome either in the short-term or the long-term, and there were plenty of other people, including one player who had been previously eliminted, who agreed it was a stalemate.

Also, you make it sound like I tried to force him out or something. On the contrary, I wanted to call attention to the tactic, and prompt a discussion as to whether or not there should be a hard-coded rule to prevent it, and if so what the threshold should be. Canaduh did nothing except wait for Russia to drop out so he wouldn't have to accept the stalemate. If you think my calling that to attention is bad sportsmanship, you have the right to your opinion, though you are in small company with that viewpoint. In any case, those who agree that it's not a valid tactic can now take that into account.

Now that we've beaten this dead horse, I'll try once again to steer this back to my original inquiry. Regardless of whether you agree with the example I cited or not, nobody can disagree that stalemates do occur and that an individual could conceivably abuse that. Should there be an adjudicator check to automatically declare a stalemate under certain conditions, and if so, what should those conditions be? This is not a hypothetical question; I'm still up in the air on this with regard to the adjudicator code I'm designing and I'd like some additional input before I make a decision on it.

Ahh - but Kristopher. The point is that most people thought that the game was winnable. I did not make moves just to play a waiting game, as you repeatedly suggest. All my moves were designed to bear down on the Livonia/Prussia pressure point, or hold the line elsewhere.

Tree is right. I thought that it was quite gracious to attribute your use of the forum as a diplomatic tactic - seems Churchill took a dimmer view.

In addition, Uhtred pointed out that in a game with three players and open diplomatic channels, there cannot be a stalemate.

I have analysed the game, and I conclude that canaduh will win.

Going back 2 moves, when Russia was still there.

Stp s Swe - Liv
Bot s Swe - Liv
Ber - Pru
Bal - Ber
Kie s Bal - Ber...
And then since Liv has to disband France's army can go to Prussia with enough support.
Then it is not difficult to get another army into Livonia, and then Moscow is forfeit.
(or Munich, whatever...)

Thanks, Gobbledydook. So, no stalemate then.

Gobbledydook's scenario assumes Russia would make the wrong counter-move. Notice my armies moving north to help Russia hold? That's what I was referring to earlier btw, though I'd assumed it was so obvious I didn't need to draw you a map lol. In any case, Gobbledydook's scenario would've had to play out the very turn that Russia dropped, which it didn't (according to France's moves). Once my unit was there, his scenario is no longer applicable. Plus I had another unit moving to adjacent as a cautionary measure.

Most people agree this was a stalemate based on the moves. In chess, if certain conditions exist (such as the king no longer having support units), a stalemate is automatically declared if a certain number of moves passes (I can't remember the exact number, but I could probably find it if anyone really wants to know) without a checkmate, regardless of whether a future checkmate is -theoretically- possible. In other words, in that and many other similar non-random based games, a stalemate often applies after a certain period of time has passed in which all attempted moves result in a standstill. The reason for this is to prevent someone from dragging a game out indefinitely, based on an infinitesimal chance of breaking the standoff, in order to hold the other player hostage until s/he forfeits. This sort of debate took place hundreds of years ago, so it's not like I'm saying anything revolutionary lol.

This common precedent was the basis for my question as to whether or not Diplomacy has such a rule, and if it doesn't then whether or not it should and what that threshold should be. If I'd known Canaduh would get so obsessively defensive, I probably would've just searched the finished games for an earlier example that didn't involve me.

At any rate, if we're done beating this dead horse, can we please get back on-topic? Regardless of what you think happened in this example, do you think there should be any sort of stalemate provision in Diplomacy, and if so, how should it be structured? I'd really like to get some constructive feedback on this question so I'll have a basis to proceed on that in my adjudicator functions, rather than wasting time with this childish back-and-forth over a game we've already analyzed to death. Can we try putting the same level of analytical thought into the adjudication question I posed? =)

Kristopher, On the one hand, you are correct. You did not ask people to back you up, nor did you ever even mention what game you were referring to. So I take back that statement. however, once the game and the players were out in the open, you showed a lack of respect for your opponent. I don't believe it was a tactic on Canaduh's part, but an earnest belief he could win. You were playing a WTA game where your opponent was 1 SC short. I would have been loathe to give up too. I would have played on for a few more years if I was in his shoes. And I don't believe that, as you state, 'most people' agree this was a stalemate. However, even if it was, that's irrelevant.

Part of the grueling nature of WW1 was the stalemate on the western front. The war of attrition, how long the home front can withstand the losses on the battlefield. I'm not sure I'd be in favor of any stalemate provisions.

Lol well technically what broke the stalemate of WWI was the advent of the tank, rendering trench warfare obsolete. :P

The only stalemate in Diplomacy exists between two players where neither player can achieve the required 18 SC's under control. Again, this may be broken by the fact one of the players cannot identify the correct moves to hold a position.

If the game would need a rule conscerning stalemates there would be a rule coverning it. The rule-makers have ammended and added rules many times since the beginning of this game and yet have not included provisions for stalemates. I wonder why?

The overwhelming majority of people who have commented on whether or not stalemates can occur with more than two players have agreed that it is possible.

But yes I do agree with you that the people who drafted the rules 30 years ago were negligent in not addressing this obvious scenario when they had the chance. Fortunately, most internet incarnations of Diplomacy do take some initiative in updating the rules, so I see no harm in doing the same if it's done with proper consultation and community deliberation.

I don't think that's what Churchill was saying Kristopher.

Well Kristopher, there is no stalemate. Neither you nor Russia have an army in Sevastopol, thus Moscow cannot be held.

Churchill, you forget the stalemate in the Great War only lasted until 1918, or about six or seven diplomacy turns.
A more apt comparison is the Korean war, which is technically still not over, since neither side is willing to concede the de facto sovereignty of the other as legal.

The 'de facto' sovereignty has been conceded. Its the 'technical' sovereignty that hasn't been conceded.

Well, if you want to bring real life into this why can't a unit in Spain (sc) change places with a unit going to Spain (nc) from Portugal?

Diplomacy is obviouly not an adaptation of real-life. The rules and map of Diplomacy are used to create a simulation that forces players to make difficult descisions and be in situations they do not want to be in.

About the updating of rules: Avalon has a 2008 revision of the rules and I see no new changes involving stalemates. Perhaps if other sites have rules you like better you might find playing on these sites more enjoyable than trying to reform this one?

Lol Churchill you obviously only skimmed my post, either that or you're not very literate. What I said is that I'm designing an adjudicator for another online Diplomacy incarnation; I never said anything about reforming the rules on this site.

And I'm not the one who started tying WWI "real life" into this debate, I merely responded to an analogy that had already been cited more than once in this thread.

Well, logic would dictate that the 'real-life' comment was directed at menace.

I did read your post and I wish you the best of luck in creating this new, redundant adjudicator. When are you going to start?

Treefarn: read the sentence again more closely. Thanks.
Churchill: you brought a real war into this topic, not me. It's not my fault if you make an analogy that undermines your argument.
Everybody: didn't we just have this argument, or is it déjà vu? A couple of options for forced draws were tabled, but nobody who was in favor could agree on one, and in any event the majority of opinions expressed were negative. Kestas can do whatever he wants, but inasmuch as a democratic process can influence his decision, it was starkly in the negative. Debate over.

Churchill-

It's going very well, thanks for asking! =)

Technically the adjudicator isn't a redundancy because it's not an adaptation for phpdip, and indeed would almost certainly be completely incompatible with it. Instead, I'm creating an entire Diplomacy incarnation from scratch.

All the major/difficult stuff is finished already, at least once I'm done with all the rule-processing code. After that, mainly all that's left is to create a basic adaptive AI, user interfaces, etc. Life's been busy lately, but with any luck I should be ready to launch it for beta testing within a month, perhaps less.

menace:

Can you enlighten me as to where I made a reference to a real-life situation? The only time I did refer to a real-life situation I said "Diplomacy is obviously not an adaptation of real-life."