Someone should be an linguistics philosopher, just to confuse the game a lot more - we already seem to have Sartre, Machiavelli and Laozi sharing a room...

I'll get back to this soon.

David Hume, because he could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel.

I don't think he changed his philosophical positions in life. If I'm in error, please tell me and I'll pick a work or works to limit myself to.

1. SYnapse - John Stuart Mill "Utilitarianism"
2. BaronVonBlitzentoden - Thomas Hobbes "Leviathan"
3. Socrates Dissatisfied - Machiavelli "The Prince"
4. Your Humble Narrator - Jean-Paul Sartre - text?
5. Thucydides - Laozi
6. dubmdell - David Hume
7.

Judge -

My reference text I suppose is the Tao Te Ching. But I'm a little different than you other guys

also come on fuck these political philosophers.

everyone *already* tries to play like machiavelli and sun tzu. that's just boring. socrates you should change your role.

Thucy have you properly read the prince?!

I almost picked Nietzsche or an egoist but thought that defeats the point, playing by the prince severely limits many things I would do, if it's a real issue I will change but to be honest I was hoping someone else would pick it before me assuming it's an easy ride and then there would be many debated orders...

I'd love it if somebody picked a Wittgenstein or Quine just to complicate things. Thucy's choice already makes it very confusing (in a good way) :)

I've got half a mind to sign up and choose Jacques Derrida.

Or Heidegger's "Being and Time".

bump

of course ive read the prince. and you dont think it exemplifies exactly the way that people always try to play diplomacy under normal circumstances??

anyway yes, as laozi I will be going with the flow of nature. and i will be interpreting that as i go. and since it should be spontaneous, i do not yet have any plans as to how i will actualize this.

1. SYnapse - John Stuart Mill "Utilitarianism"
2. Socrates Dissatisfied - Machiavelli "The Prince"
3. Your Humble Narrator - Jean-Paul Sartre
4. Thucydides - Laozi
5. dubmdell - David Hume
6.
7.

2 more needed. Are you going to join Baron?

This seems really interesting but being at the ripe old age of 16 I have very limited knowledge of philosophy and great philosophers so I think I'll just watch and learn.

No offence was intended Thucydides, I just know many people that somehow haven't... And I definitely think people don't play like he wrote but if you want you could be him and I would be something else?

I wouldn't mind picking Wittgenstein, if you want someone who knows (or thinks they know... sometimes hard to tell with Wittgenstein) enough about his philosophy - Tractatus or Investigations - whichever is easier for the everyone else.
It should be quite difficult to apply epistemology to Diplomacy, but I'm willing to give it a shot.

I thought it would be easier/better to have something that does definitively show in some what way what to do but it would be interesting

Sorry, yes, I'd love to join.

1. SYnapse - John Stuart Mill "Utilitarianism"
2. Socrates Dissatisfied - Machiavelli "The Prince"
3. Your Humble Narrator - Jean-Paul Sartre
4. Thucydides - Laozi
5. dubmdell - David Hume
6. BaronVonBlitzentoden - Thomes Hobbes "Leviathan"
7. SFZ - Ludwig Wittgenstein "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus"

Judge - semck?

Just waiting for the last 2 to join. If anyone wants to change their philosophy, please state before the game starts!

SFZ are you sure you would be able to play this through, by the way? Hecks would you want to play?

It's possible but with Derrida I'd just end up saying my messages didn't mean what you think they mean. And the best way to represent "Being and Time" might be to miss all my phases, which wouldn't make for a great game...

take willard van orman quine, that'll really screw everyone's heads up

7 day phases? Okay, fine, sign me up, but understand that I may need the full phase to consider the philosophical ramifications of my moves. To make life easier, rather than Derrida or Heidegger, I'll be working with G.W.F. Hegel's "Elements of the Philosophy of Right".

Just need that final join... is semck definitely ok to be the judge as well? And it's fair to assume that for anyone that hasn't given a specific text we can argue using any text of theirs?

Yeah, how does the judge view the game though? Or is the forum to be used for our arguments?

@hecks, you have two days to submit orders in the press box. This portion of the phase is standard diplomacy deal making and discussions. Play it like a regular 2 day phase PP. At the end of the first 48 hours, we begin doing line item discussions of whether an order is in violation of a philosophy. If anything cannot be reasonably rationalized as befitting, at the end of day 7 (or when consensus is reached that the arguments stand where they are), the debate goes to the judge who has three days to rule for or against. Any move shown by board consensus or by ruling of the judge to be unacceptable is changed to a hold.

@SY, It's public press. Anyone can see public press and we can always distill our points into easier to read formats.

I just looked at the game and left it. It should be 10 day phases.

sigh, alright new game ID is http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=113541
you already know the password gentlemen.