@ Spyman: of course it makes the game easier to handle when it gets messy if we all share the same approach. But I don't think that's often the case. Levels of play can vary greatly between the players, just as "ideals" can vary as well.

One thing for sure: I consider my games here competitive first, friendly after. I think Slyster sees it in the reverse order.

I think you can be competitive and friendly. I always congratulate my ally after a stab. Partly out of friendliness, but also because I am still playing "Diplomacy", and might still want him on side, or I might want to lull him into a false sense of security so I can stab him right back. One way of keeping it friendly and fun is for all players to understand that this is a game with winners and losers (and drawers). Play your best game. Expect the worst and you'l never be disappointed.

Right. I think Sly could say the same. Maybe I didn't say it properly, but his frustration really didn't come from the stab, but from the context in which it occurred. Was he right in his interpretation of that context? No, I don't think so. But given his interpretation, his frustration is quite understandable.

any other EOG`s from this game? MM?

Short on time, and much to say, hopefully late tonight.

Anytime anybody ever says to me 17/17 draw I just chuckle to myself.

I'd only take that deal if it is guaranteed that the other guy will never be in position to steal a win. Not even sure if such a thing is possible unless you're coming down to it already.

"I'm not going to say that people are wrong if they don't share my ideals about the game. "

But I will. People are WRONG to join a WTA game then play it as if its PPSC. we all are supposed to play ONE game with ONE set of rules. the rules are 1) to win with 18 centers and 2) to NOT let anyone else get to 18.

if you can't follow those rules, go play a different game. so Cachimbo... sorry, if you don't think like this - you are WRONG. and if your buddy does not want to come back, I say good riddance. to give up a solo like this is beyond sucking at the game, its about making it a worst place to play... so I'm glad MM stabbed him and hopefully taught him a lesson, and I hope less and less players with his "ideal" join this site.

sorry for being harsh... but this is a perfect example of everything that is WRONG with the PPSC mentality that has been allowed to fester on this site and I would HATE to see it infect WTA games as well.

"Let's just say that Sly thought this game could be used to make a point, that alliances could be formed that would play for a 2-way draw out of honour. He was then convinced by MM, both in game and through his contribution on a forum thread, that he too was into making that point."

This is an admission to meta-gaming. a ban-nable offense. indeed if MM knowingly participated and pushed this line of thinking on the forum that is one devious freaking tactic, whose morality I don't care about, but which seems to fly in the face of site rules on meta-gaming as well.

if MM and sly were aware of each other's identity and engaged in conversation on the forum about that - indeed if the thread's creator Balaran also knowingly did this, then I think Draug might well have a point with his crusade on this issue.


most importantly, this sentiment expressed in the quote above is nothing short of an almost blasphemous attack on the very essence of this game. go fucking play a PPSC variant game and stop meta-gaming in WTA games in order to 'prove a point'.

That is disgusting to me.

This thread, this game, and the previous thread have truly disgusted me. I have LONG argued (3 years now) that the PPSC variant is a curse on this site and its biggest effect is that it has 'normalized' the PPSC mindset in the minds of many who have learned Diplomacy on this site...

and this is a culminating result. where some noob who'se learned the game "incorrectly" comes in with an expectation and in essence to prove a point that is outside of the WTA game at hand dilutes and destroys a perfectly good WTA game that produces a solo that SHOULD NOT have happened.

I'm truly truly truly disgusted. I feel that my beloved Diplomacy game has been raped.

I'm going to retire from the forums for a while... or at least until I mellow out and this whole thing has blown over... I'm SERIOUSLY pissed.

bye all for a while.

I have had discussions of this nature with others on this site regarding WTA and PPSC, and I am in the WTA camp. PPSC is an inferior variant because it does encourage playing for second best (and there are people desperate enough to go for third best and survivals). I won't repeat the arguments as they have been voiced often enough.
I do think though, Babak, that you are perhaps overreacting to this. A mellowing out period is probably best.
I do think that all upper echelon games should be WTA games, but it is really hard for noobs to learn to play for stalemates rather than for supply centers. It should not be a problem for them (or veterans) to play PPSC, but when they do join a WTA game, they should really understand the paradigm shift. If they come in with the same expectations and get stabbed at the end and come away with nothing, they should learn from that. They simply have no right to complain. It's the name of the game: winner-takes-all. Get to 18 or prevent another from getting there: it's that simple. Like gunboat, people should learn the difference in the game before joining one and then bitch and moan about what a stupid variant gunboat is.

Saying that the game has been violated doesn't really do anything constructive though.

"This is an admission to meta-gaming. a ban-nable offense. "

It's not really meta-gaming though because the agreements were made (and broken) entirely in-game.

.... except the implicit forum agreement that two-ways are "honorable". That was a bit dodgy.

Am I the only one that thinks creating a forum post to further a position in a game is actually just a very creative and original diplomacy tactic. As long as who you are in an anon game isn't revealed or implied, it seems like it should be fair game.

Maybe you're right Yoni. I retract my last statement on the grounds of I am not sure about the forum thing. Certainly getting pissed off because someone broke some kind of "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" agreement in the forum is a bit silly.

I'm not gonna point out how this game would have been different had not the no discussion of ongoing games rule been enforceable and enforced by the mods. Its time for a change and the mods to make an absolute decision on this issue and add it to the rules.

Well, I had planned to pull together an EoG, but Babak ranting like an arrogant elitist bigot has distracted me, and I'm having difficulty thinking straight...

Babak I have to disagree with you a little about your maxim:
the rules are 1) to win with 18 centers and 2) to NOT let anyone else get to 18.

I am definitely a big advocate of promoting a shared understanding of the goal of this game is and I agree point number 1 is goal number one. BUT the second point I don't think is quite right. For example I don't think minor powers should be expected to throw themselves on their sword to stop a victory when they will may be immediately removed.

I think the goal of the game is better summarized in a one line statement: each player seeks to maximize his position in which ever way he sees fit.

The expanded version is 1. Win 2. Draw. 3. Influence the game in whichever way you see fit.

Seen in this context it is perfectly acceptable to throw a game as revenge tactic. The potential for this to occur is a valuable negotiating device that allows even minor players to "maximize" their position.

Seen in this context MM did nothing wrong. He played to maximize his position and succeeded in achieving goal number one. Nothing underhand or at odds with the spirit of the game.

Slyster's disappointment on the other hand can attributed to his "expectations" being in-congruent with the reality of the game.

Win then draw then survive and finally screw over the guy who screwed you. But over all else, have fun.

I just re-read some of Babak's posts, and I want to state, for the record, that my last message was a response to just his first of three responses above, the one that starts:

"I'm not going to say that people are wrong if they don't share my ideals about the game."

Babak saying how everyone else is "WRONG" about things is what I viewed as him ranting like an arrogant, elitist, bigot.

I don't take offense at any personal attack Babak is directing my way, at least not yet, I'm used to us butting heads with Babak a bit here and there, so I pretty much just ignore that part of his press.

First off, Babak, let's get a little perspective. Your recent replies remind me of one of those arrogant assholes up at the local community college gym that think they are Michael Jordan and playing in the NBA finals. Recently, in a game my team was losing fairly badly, one guy launched five three-pointers in a row, one from at least twenty feet behind the three-point line. I called him on it after the game and he ranted at me, telling me I didn't know his game and how he can make that shot and if I had seen how many games he had won for his team I would shut the eff up, etc., etc. I later go and sit down by two other guys on my team from that game, one asks the other why he didn't take a couple three point shots down the stretch since he was 2-for-2 on three point shots during the game, and the kids response was because that first guy would never pass the ball. In case you missed it, in this analogy, you are the arrogant asshole that thinks you know everything. You're not Edi Birsan and this is not the World Championship of Diplomacy, there are many people that play here with their own mindset on how the game should be played, if you can't show an ounce of decency and respect to others, being considered a highly respected member of the community, you need to do a bit of soul searching and think about what it's like to be the victim of such hate.

To quote the rulebook:

"OBJECT OF THE GAME: As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it is considered to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that Great Power is the winner. However, players can end the game by agreement before a winner is determined. In this case, all players who still have pieces on the board share equally in a draw."

Nowhere in the rulebook does it state anything about how anyone should prioritize stopping a solo.

As far as this game goes, it has absolutely nothing to do with PPSC mentality and it has nothing to do with trying to get lots of centers with a strong second place. slyster believes in 100% truth and honor, and has a strong belief in his ability to spot it in others. He made a guess that he could trust me to two-way draw this game, and it turned out to be incorrect. I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that you have made a guess about how another player would act in a game, and that guess has turned out to be incorrect. That's all that happened here. slyster is no n00b, I can assure you that, he is a very good player and it is a shame if he does not play on this site again, and I mean that whole heartedly. I believe his "100% honor" ideal can get him into trouble from time to time, but most of the time he will easily overcome that self-imposed limitation, and in the end it is just a game so he has the right to play any way he'd like regardless of what you do or do not view as WRONG..

I think it's fair to say that every player has their own motivation in any given game. The good diplomat learns their opponents' goals and crafts a strategy to match them.

If someone solos in WTA because an inexperienced player let it happen, the blame lies not only with that player, but also with the other players who failed in their diplomacy to persuade that player to stop the solo.

@Babak:

Good sir, your contributions to this forum are certainly those I would have expected from a lover of this game. And it's hard not to think that you've only quickly passed your eyes on the texts written here (and on the other thread) looking only for words or little bits of sentences that you could take apart.
For my part, I believe I've produced reasoned arguments that do not conflict with any written rule of the game. You've offered nothing but mere opinion, and opinion couched in a debate that was not the one relevant to the current issue. Your rant about PPSC doesn't even start to address what's going here so long as what we are discussing are various approaches to the game, ways PLAYERS have to engage with it, regardless of the variants. If you want to raise hell around PPSC, go ahead, but please don't conflate the issues.

And you're "pissed"? To that extent?

Listen big baby: you weren't even in the bloody game! Tell me how it affects you? Sly might have been wrong to believe that MM would play a certain way, but he wasn't WRONG to approach the game the way he did, seeing more like a "buddies" game than hardcore competition, believing in honour, etc. And regardless: if any one has a reason to be pissed, it's him, not you. (for clarity sake: right to be pissed at the result, pissed at himself, but not at MM).

All that to say: I think you've presented nothing but a personal preference and that you are tyrannically imposing it on the forums as the truth. I find it a bit disappointing that such a good player could have such a narrow view on things.

As for your "apologies", bullshit: you don't have to be harsh nor arrogant. I've disagreed with many here, and on issues I cared about (you don't have a monopoly on the love for the game), yet I don't think I've been rude or harsh to the point of apologies. You can decide to write your opinions some other way. If you choose one way, at least have the decency to stand behind your words as you utter them.

Finally.... Meta-gaming? Are you fucking serious? Meta-gaming? Have you paid ANY attention to who wrote what and where? That "bad thread", the 17=17 split one, was started by Balaran (Turkey) and not MM nor Slyster. And the conversations were all general in terms.
Now, did MM use it to his advantage in setting up slyster? Did slyster use it as a proof that MM was going to go through with the plan? Maybe... Who knows? But one thing for sure, that's not something that the game makes illegal. We constantly go through our opponents' history, all the good players try to figure out the person and not just the reasons behind unit placement, all of that is going "beyond" the boardgame. But it's not going beyond the game.

I've heard (here I think) of people playing snail mail games with friends and breaking into their FRIEND's apartment to steal letters and gain intel. The game allows for shit like that. It's nuts, but it's fair. Because... all is fair in love and war, yes?

So all that to say: get off your high horse, go have a bowl of cereals or something, and please stop judging issues AND people so quickly and harshly. You were not involved in this (and don't give me the bullshit that this is your game too, or your site too, and that we're all involved; you had no stakes in that game. That's all). Sly was, so was MM. They have to face the consequences of their choices and ideals. You don't.

Your opinions are welcome by all, I'm sure, but they are not the expression of the game's essence or truth. And they certainly do not show respect for the people involved in the issue, for they seem to imply that they were all too dumb to know better, too stupid to get the simple rule.

I'm glad MM posted the quote. I was going to. I hope you'll read it carefully.

I'd say more, because I really dislike the sort of rant you're doing here, but I'll leave it at that for now.

Blarg! First sentence of previous thread is OBVIOUSLY missing an important...


NOT!!!!

lol Cachimbo! that's the 2nd +1 youve had from me this morning :) not for the arguement but just for the eloquant manner of your post

Maybe I'm missing something here...but it was an anonymous game. Why would Slyster have any expectation that the honorable MadMarx was Germany?

Best hypothesis? He made a guess that was confirmed by the other player. The other player could have lied about it though.

So he went out seeking MM in order to ally with him?

No. That much I know.

He had an alliance with Germany that worked for him (Italy) given the map.

The whole point is that he wanted to play an honourable game and he's familiar enough with the site's rules to know that meta-gaming is not honourable. We've discussed this game a lot, him and I, while he was playing it. So I'll vouch for him on that.

+1 MM
+1 Cachimbo