oh sorry dave bishop, I swapped your name.
I hope we can play more fun games like that one!

Acosmist: Philosophers and theologians have the distinct honor in their professions of not being able to prove anything they argue.

http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521670265&ss=res

Nah.

If it took 3000 pages, how logical could it be?

I don't think there's anything wrong with a draw between strong allies. It's honorable and, in the Japanese sense, all face is saved. And it's not metagaming to make decisions based on how people have played in the past. It's metagaming to say "If you don't draw with me, I'll ally against you in this other game". THAT's metagaming. Determining whether to trust someone based upon how trustworty they are is called DIPLOMACY!!!!

@ Zaza - "must" is a dangerous word, especially since you have absolutely no capability to influence the behavior of others. Stating that something *must* be true does not *make* it true, and if you would like your argument to be taken seriously, better support than "because I said so" or "it's just that way, okay?" would be in order

@jbalcorn +1

Using past experience to determine future potential is as much a part of diplomacy as anything else. Using one current situation to influence another current situation is metagaming of the worst kind.

I have a lot of draws on my record. I have also stabbed plenty of times. I think I'm one of the few (there are at least 7 of us) to have legitimately participated in a seven-way draw. This was an allience of three against an alliance of four and we all felt every one had earned a position at the final table thorugh their play and reliability. I'd play and ally with any of those other six again anytime, including the folks on the other side. Honor among diplomats is hard to come by, so it should be rewarded with a potential future aliance if the situation is right for it.

If just the willingness to play with these folks again is all that their reward is, well it's better than the alternative, making other players personal blacklists that they either won't play with again or would never trust if they did play together in the future. That is the nature of being human and understanding that humanity is going to come into play in any game not run strictly by logic or randomness. That is what makes Diplomacy unique amongst all the other games out there.

There are people on this site I just won't knowingly play against. People who stab at odd and not useful times, and when asked, their reason is "Because I felt like it". That's random, and randomness definitely is NOT a part of this game - that's why there are no dice.

It's not metagaming to avoid those kind of players.

I hope I'm not one, jbalcorn... I always have a reson for a stab. I once got stabbed by an ally such that it cost us both the game and her reason for the stab was "to see if I could do it". Stupid reason.

"If it took 3000 pages, how logical could it be?"

hey irony is my thing, dawg

i always stab for the win. except when i don't.

in fact, you must fight to win. except when you don't.

DJ was my first. Broken two-way tie, I mean. :-)

DJ was my first too... Internet stalking I mean. :-)

DJ was my first... "tennis" partner, I mean

So, DJ, what were you the first for yourself? And were you the first for anything for DbJ, your anagramatic initials buddy? Or maybe he was the first for something for you... And I'm not trying to be sexual/sexist there (or am I?)

DJ was my first... time stabbing and being stabbed four times in the same game, and then allying again.

Acosmist: What exactly is that book supposed to prove? That philosophers can classify different types of logic?

Logic is a branch of philosophy. Philosophers are in the business of proving things ALL THE TIME. There are a bunch of tools for doing it in that book! Try not to say retarded things in the future, happy to help.

Spoiler alert: the negation of a universally quantified statement is equivalent to the existential quantification of the negated statement. This is what makes you wrong.

Acosmist was my first ... experience of illegal existential quantification

hm... i was first girl to get into the top three on ghost rating?

i think DbJ was the first person i got extremely angry at for saying stupid BS on the forum... or that honor could belong to you, draugnar ;P

that game with xapi was epic - and to think jbalcorn was involved too! those two (plus airborne) were the first time i was forced into a four way draw that included two one-SC powers b/c otherwise the other 16-SC player would have won.

Acosmist: What pretty language. But that doesn't change the fact that you know what I meant. Logic will only take you so far with the questions and arguments philosophers and theologians tend to pose. To arrive at a proof itself is another story. No one who follows all the rules of logic can prove the text of the Bible to be true in its entirety. Oh, and by the way. Your Thomas Aquinas reminds me a lot of the Malleus Maleficarum.

"What pretty language."

Thanks! Of course, I didn't invent it. I'm just speaking the language of philosophy, a field where proofs happen all the time (except among Continentals...).

"But that doesn't change the fact that you know what I meant."

You mean this?

"Philosophers and theologians have the distinct honor in their professions of not being able to prove anything they argue."

No one forced you to make such a stupid, universal statement, man.

"Logic will only take you so far with the questions and arguments philosophers and theologians tend to pose."

What do they tend to pose? You seem to be retreating from your universal claim. That's good, because my single instance proved that wrong.

Hey, wait, does that mean...I proved something? Damn. Either I didn't argue it or I'm neither a philosopher nor a theologian, right?

"To arrive at a proof itself is another story."

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=217298

A compelling story, sometimes!

"No one who follows all the rules of logic can prove the text of the Bible to be true in its entirety."

Do you, uh, have an impossibility proof of that?

"Oh, and by the way. Your Thomas Aquinas reminds me a lot of the Malleus Maleficarum."

Which Thomas Aquinas is mine?

I don't understand why a person would continually expose his own ignorance in front of an audience like this. You must know how awful this is going to be, right? Why do it? Does thinking of my having got the last word gnaw at you inside? The problem is, the more you post, the less intelligent you sound, so the optimal time to stop (looking forward) is always immediately. Oh well.

Must: never.
Should: Usually
Could: Always.

Clearly Its up to you. However, if you just muck around and refuse to let the game finish despite being at the stalemate line then you might cause a bit of a fuss and get force-paused. Very unlikely though

Acosmist: Now I understand why you took issue. I appoligize if I offended your profession/hobby. But you for the second time now have refused to respond to my statements in full, and have constrained yourself to argue minor points. I am not going to reward you with a true rebuttul, but really, you should look up the Malleus Maleficarum. I am sure you would understand the parallel I made between it and some works of Thomas Aquinas.