Nope, protocol states that Babak must apologize to me formally on the forum, I have a higher GR than him, case closed.

http://www.tinygif.com/data/media/19/scarjo_popcorn.gif

well I thank you all very much for your thoughts. The game i'm currently involved in is no where near the stalemate line and the 2 powers coming at me are on 13sc and 12 sc. one player clearly has an opportunity to stab the 2nd but not vice versa.
I am bitter because the 2nd player is willing to risk all to achieve this. Of course i am in awe of the first player who has convinced him it will work, despite me saying I will unbalance my defence. I am sure the 1st player will truely savour his victory, but the 2nd player (my long term ally) should go back to playing snakes & Ladders!

I guess I am further annoyed because I've come across 2 lots of meta gamers on this site already and I assumed that by joining a high value invitational WTA game I would be free of play that wasn't as it was designed (IMO).

This may yet proove to be my last game here!

WTA 2-ways are for schmucks and villains... The villain offers it to the schmuck hoping the schmuck buys it and then uses it to get a solo. It's that simple. They can happen naturally and in the late game, the players may come to realize that they have control of their own spheres and agree to do it, but before the end game, it's just a ply to use someone else to get you SCs by weakening the remaining opponents for you.

MM -

I refer you to my comment from 6:50pm
"but i'm over it now and I buy his very legitimate explanation on how things actually played out."

Then again from from 10:32pm
"ps. i re-read my own comment and it may have come across as too harsh against MM. I did not mean it in that light... what I meant was that I WAS pissed at him for a good while but his explanation was indeed legitimate to me regarding how the 2way transpired. like I said, it IS possible."

which was a good 3 hours before your note.

I will not apologize for 'at one point' thinking you were meta-gaming with 2 2-way draws with the same player (in both cases as you admit, you knew who it was). I will also not apologize for saying that because of YOUR record and YOUR trustworthiness, I have bought your valid explanations and no longer think that you cheated, even in a minor way.

I also note that the only reason I entered this conversation was because YOU specifically sent me a PM asking me to join this conversation. I quote:

MadMarx Online 06:12 PM
Please respond, and if not to the game I posted specifically, at least in general, I know you have a very strong opinion that others *need* to hear, in my opinion, thanks!:

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?newsendtothread=791433

As for thinking it was 5 games and not 3, I'm sorry I did not going to dig through your 100+ games to get an exact number, but I recall it grating me since you both shot up through the GR roof at the same time I was in the top 10 trying to catch up to you guys... so its a thought that stuck with me. but if it was only 3, then I do apologize for suggesting it was 5 draws.

Babak, it was three games, not three draws, we were both eliminated in our last game together. Also, in the first game, there was probably about 120 GRpoints on the line, and I probably put in around 40 GRpoints, so by following through with the 2-way, I netted about 20 GRpoints while I would have netted about 80 GRpoints for the solo. I'd guess I netted about 20 GRpoints for the second two-way, but I lost about 40 GRpoints for the last game I was eliminated in, so my net result for those three games was close to zero. To imply I was GR farming and the result of my actions shot me through the roof GR-wise is complete and utter bullshit and it's this false analysis/implication on your part that I take extreme offense.

Balaran, did you not know it is taboo to talk about current games on the forum, or were you intentionally breaking site rules by your last reply?

Babak, two more points:

1. The second two-way draw was an anonymous game, and I didn't know who dave bishop was for a long time (I can't remember exactly when I figured it out, but I'm slow in that regard), so it's not like it was a plot from the start, as you imply by saying I did know who England was in both games, you are exaggerating the truth by leaving out important details to shed me in a negative light.
2. I invited you to comment hoping you'd have more to say in general terms, such as that first two-way draw where I could have won but I shared a two-way draw, which is the topic of this thread, I was not expecting mud to get slung at me repeatedly, but perhaps this will allow us to clear the air in the end because even at Boston F2F you made a comment about dave bishop, so I'm not so sure you are over it.

Damn, I had so much hope for a great day, now I'm just cranky and bitter...

RE: Taboo about discussing games on forum. Are you kidding me. It isn't breaking the site rules except by a very creative interpreting of rule 3. Key words very creative. The tabbo is against breaking the anon in anon games, the global nature of global games or the silent nature of gunboats. And the last one there has been a huge dispute over. He didn't post a link or reveal who he was.
This whole don't talk about ongoing games thing is and has gotten ridiculous.

Does watching MM and Babak fight make anyone else feel like their parents are about to get divorced?

hahahahahaahahahahaha!!!!

Abge: sometimes you just crack me up! Good one!

LOL, ab, sometimes it's fun to vent!! :)

damian, you are not allowed to discuss current games on the forum, but you can discuss past games all you want, discussing current games on the forum is metagaming, influencing a game by outside forces and is extremely poor sportsmanship at best.

@ MM:

He didn't discuss an ongoing game per se. I mean, I see your point and I've known all along that this was what was happening: someone fishing for perspective on an in-game issue. But he's been fairly good at avoiding any and all references to players or games.

So yeah, his thread is pushing the envelope a bit, and it would have been fairly unproblematic if he would have avoided that last comment, but I don't think he's broken a rule. He bent it, that's for sure, but he didn't break it.

@Balaran:

I'm pretty sure that, given the way MM set up the game, there is no meta-gaming going on. And MM's point that people play this game in a number of different ways (hells! I don't think I ever play 2 games the very same way or with the exact same mentality) is important. Some people like to play for honour, they get a kick out of it. I know I have. I've let a France survive and partake in a draw once, where it was either a 2-way or my victory. And I agreed to it because he had played a hell of a game and I had enjoyed his company.

Not something I'd do often. But it certainly was not meta-gaming.

Sorry for your bad experiences. But please take the time to see that two identical set of actions can reflect very different intentions. Think of irony if you need an example.

No, Cachimbo, he broke the rules, it may not have been intentional, but it's a good reminder for all of us. You don't need a link to a game when you describe the situation in-depth. Hell, even you have assumed it was one of my ABI games based on his description. Too much was said, but I will say no more.

I think you're mostly right about that: too much was said now, and this thread should go quiet.

Except where it concerns you and Babak!!!

I think MM and Babak both fear me, hence they feign battle to escape getting into a game with me!

(not)

MM, methinks thou protest too much!

go back and read my posts... as I've said over and over, I DID doubt your sincerity in the past, in fact we had many words in PMs and on the forum back then... but I also was very clear that I no longer doubt you or your actions back then. I said your explanations were clear enough despite my initial doubts...

I think you are taking this way too personal... on this thread, I repeatedly said I have accepted your reasoning... which you repeated about 5 times here! (no I did not keep exact count). =P

anyone who looks at your record or has played against you can only be awed by your skill. you rightfully deserve that top spot, and I've said that several times as well.

don't know why you're being a prickly princess about this now. =P (yes, that is a smiley face denoting my humorous demeanor in that last sentence)

Babak, I'm not a princess, I'm a drama queen, can't you even get that much right?!

And, no, I'm not all that good, but I didn't get my ranking by cheating or GR farming, I got it by playing hard so I do take a bit of pride in over-performing...

All that said, I still think it's interesting to discuss such things as giving up a solo for a promised two-way draw, which is the point of this thread. Any other insights on that topic?

PS - Thanks for the kind words, Babak, apology accpeted! :-P

How does one, "GR farm?" I'm always looking for cheap ways to make me look better than I am.

@Damian - it is against the rules (the mods have said as much) to discuss any *ongoing* game of any type in the forum unless that game is a forum based game (i.e. the School of War series).

It should be obvious that discussing gunboat is a violation of gunboat, but forum discussion can lead to tactics discussions about the future of the game and influence the game going forward. this turns the discussion into a means of metagaming, even if the people involved aren't trying to do it. It's like when a jury hears something then the judge says ignore it, it's still in their subconcious and *will* have an effect on their future decisions.

A+, would read again.

@ab
more like two 6-year-olds whining over who ate the last candy.

@ MM/Babak: Settle it here:
http://windycityweasels.org/wdc

No it is is not. Read the rules. You're creatively interpreting them. This was the problem when this debate came up the first time. When I left for a break it was still unresolved, and now everyone just acts like it never happened.

The last time I discussed it with a mod. They informed me that their personal opinion was they disliked the discussion of ongoing games, but it was NOT against the rules.

There is no reason to disallow 'metagaming' of this sort. We might as well also disallow articles on diplomacy tactics. Looking at the actions of other players. They're all forms of metagaming. Believe it or not, having a bad day and just feeling uncharitable is also a form of metagaming. The only serious form of metagaming is one is which a person tries to bypass the system, either by trying to game it for points through pre-rigged alliances, or by way of cheating acquisitions/bug reports which are against the rules.

Discussing gunboat is a violation of gunboat, however there is reason that we had a debate about it, because the need to cancel for important personal concerns was an issue and still is an issue. (While I lie on one side of the camp I don't think this is tangental to the point)

The point being that if you don't break the conditions of the game, you're aren't breaking the conditions you agreed to -Anonymity, Talking in no press games, PMing in public press games. An open press game is just that, open press.
It's not poor sportsmanship, anymore then being loyal to an ally, or pointing to your history is poor sportsmanship. If you can set up a situation where you know the forum will drive a game to a certain conclusion there is no reason no to use it. Just like you can and would use spectators in any other form of public event.

The mods resolved it. They said "don't discuss ongoings games in the forum." Period. No flexibility. Geofram is a mod and can tell you that unequivocally.

No wonder the forum has gone to hell.

Also, how do they expect people to follow rules if they aren't added to he rulebook? Because frankly, people like yourself (no offence) have been hanging around the forum telling people what to do for a very long time with no basis but their opinion.

Because they don't have a means to enforce it (Kestas told them no more docking points for forum violations) and only Kestas has access to update those pages.