I didn't read everything in here, ( just Babak's coments, of course ;) )

Jusrt my two cents from FtF tournament games;
People are not supposed to comment on other boards, ans usually don't, except for something like "man, you're letting DQ solo agaiin???". And if asked (by DQ in that case) they will ALWAYS step away without a further comment. Also, the rule there is that once you are eliminated, you shake hands and move away from the board, not commenting on it any further. And people with a solo chance are sometmes playing to eliminate stronger players that are helping weaker players put in the right moves so that these stronger players cannot help the weaker players any more.

But then FtF tournement is a variant too, the one I came to love and enjoy playing most, but in the end just one variant... (and often more similar to PPSC than WTA... but that is another debate :) )

Regarding the leagues, Draugnar, Babak, I will not join. I am focusing more on FtF play and prefer spending my time concentrated on one weekend with more adrenalin than over a longer period of time with some excitement every 2 days.... Would I play the leagues again if I would spend more time on the site... probably yes, simply because I prefer non-anon games and the new format (more players, though I would increase the number probably to around 30 in one league if I could).
Hope that answers both your questions?

and finally: MM, Babak.... fight it out at World Dip Con !!! And everyone else: come along and watch them / be on their board! :)

I already played Babak face to face. I beat him. LOL!! :-P

I was Austria in that game and there was an I/R/T alliance that formed against me before spring 1901 orders were submitted, yet I did manage to top the board. Not sure I can top that, so no real reason to play F2F again.

hmm... MM - if I recall, I think I beat you in that tournament and had no reason to top you on that particular board hahaha... I guess we each got a piece of the pie on that one.

Wiz - you are correct. these are ALL varitants. the fact is that the game has evolved into a number of good variations of what it was 'supposed' to be. and its a matter of choice which variant one prefers. My life now tells me that a 48hr deadline anon classic game is the best choice for me so that's what I stick with.

you are right though that FtF tournaments are a beast of their own with a LOT more of a rush. very intense.

@ Yellow and Jesus: I was kidding. I thought that was fairly obvious.

@JMO: You're perfectly right: honourable games are not meta-gaming games. If you're having a blast playing with someone and you feel like splitting the map in two for the sake of doing it with your ally, that's a game well played from a particular perspective.

Yeah, Babak, you cleaned my clock in that tournament, so I choose to latch on to something else, anything else, to make me feel better about myself.

Are people interested in any sort of tally of opinions? Cachimbo is clearly in the "honor" group, and I assume Babak is in the "solo" group. We're talking 17-17 draws here, do people think it's okay to honor a game-long alliance for a two-way draw even if you could solo, or do people think you should solo every time you are able? Do we need to start another +1 thread on this topic?

Hmmm... It might be necessary to nuance my position a bit MM.

I'm of the mind that there are various ways to play this game, in fact, possibly as many ways as there are personalities playing it. "Honour" games, if we're to call them that, are one possibility amongst many. And the attitude that seems to describe Babak's is yet another. My point of view is that neither is the "real" or proper way to play. They are both possibilities opened by the game itself.

As for myself, I play each game for its own sake. I will readily confess that WTA games generally call for a more "Babakian" attitude. But I love good press, and I enjoy fun partnerships. Therefore sometimes a WTA game will unfold in such a way to make me want to risk the adventure of a 2-way draw. And sometimes, I know that's what I want fairly early in the game.

I think it was you, MM, who said that you didn't care much for the players' history, that you played each game as if it was everybody's first, that you decide how to move in light of what the map and the press say, not what the player's dossier shows. I've recently moved towards that sort of attitude myself, though I think I still like to analyse players a touch more than you do. One of the reasons for me changing my approach a touch was that I liked playing each game differently, trying out new things, and meeting new people. And yeah, sometimes I liked letting someone into a draw even if I could have beaten them a few years later just because I had fun playing them.

Similarly, sometimes I just want to out someone for various reasons! I'm not always honourable!

And I really like that the game presents me with so many different ways to play it. I think it's why I like it so much.

All that to say: 17-17 splits are possible, and I will sometimes sincerely and wholeheartedly go for them. Offering them is sometimes also a way to secure my victory, and I will opt for the solo if nothing else (like splendid collaboration and a glorious game) prevents me from doing it.

There's honour in a good draw.

There is no less honour in a mean stab to secure victory.

And this year's Oscar for Best Male Performance goes to... Cachimbo!!!!!!

Brought a tear to my eye! ;-)

Seriously, well said, Cachimbo, I like your perspective on the situation (regardless of how much I do or do not agree).

Hnour, schmonour... If you can gte the win, you should take it. That said, I have been known to insist polayer X and player Y get to be part of the draw because they played well and mean it. If they played well and I have a say, I don't see a difference between a 2, 3, or 4 way draw.

doesn't a 3 way help your points and GR more? I'll fuck my game long ally who played extremely well over without even thinking about it if it's guaranteed to lower the split.

"Therefore sometimes a WTA game will unfold in such a way to make me want to risk the adventure of a 2-way draw. And sometimes, I know that's what I want fairly early in the game."

psst, if he says this to you in a game. Don't believe a word of it. Trust me.

I just wanted to add that in light of the EOG thread involving at least 3 of the main commenters here... I feel that I was cheated in my conversations here. This thread was nothing more than a meta-diplomacy conversation in order to affect the in-game actions of players within a very specific game. If these players KNEW of each other's identities, I would accuse them of openly meta-gaming. but since it was anonymous and I would rather believe they did NOT know each other's identities... and because some of the players at least should be given some respect in this regard, I am not going to ask mods to investigate this game for bannable offenses.

HOWEVER... I think we do need a clear and concise ruling from the mods on the issue that Draugnar always raises and many of us (including me) deride him for. That is to say, Is it indeed a rule of this website and forum that one can not talk about an ongoing game they are involved in? if that is going to be considered an illegal activity, what is the punishment?

This thread and the associated game are a prime example in my mind. one can label this devious diplomatic tactics (I certainly would) or one can label it openly flouting the site's rules and literally cheating, in which case the punishment should be at minimum cancellation of the game and at worst, temporary banning of the players involved in the cheating.


I am extremely pissed and upset to see this game, specially such a high caliber one devolved into such a joke. if even the anon WTA games with top players have become such crap games where PPSC attitudes apply, where meta-gaming occurs, and where forum-diploming is acceptable, then what is the point of staying on this site?

Babak, you crazy!! :P

Seriously, you know not of which you speak. This thread didn't affect the game in question one bit. Balaran started this thread because of our game, but he didn't initially bring our game up, he was bringing up a generic topic on the forum for discussion. I was sort of pissed when he linked it to our specific game in here, but it is a valid topic to discuss, obviously, since it brought up a bit of heated debate. I'd still like to hear more on this topic.

Anyway, are you saying that before you start a thread on the forum, you need to go through all of your games and make sure that the topic does not even vaguely relate to a situation in any of those games?

I have to say that this thread was started purely to gauge opinion of the people on this site, and not to have any effect on the game i was playing. To be fair there was nothing that could have been done at that stage to change the game outcome anyway!
I was sore, and because I had experienced a number of other similar situations in games here, I made the post to try and work out if I wanted to continue playing here or whether I would be more suited to a different enviroment.

Some may say i went a bit too far, but it certainly wasn't intentional and I was shocked when MM said in this thead that others had guessed it was an ABI game. It did not occur to me that there were so few "high stakes WTA" games running. As far as I was concerned, I felt it extremely unlikely that anyone could link my vague outline description of what could have been any game to the specific game I was talking about.
Hey I'm noob to this site! call me naive if you wish, but the intention was pure even if the outcome became cloudy.

For my own feeling on how this thread has progressed I very much liked Cachimbo's last statement. It seems to sum it up (even if my personal views are perhaps more purist)

Now! anyone wish to play again as I would very much like to play a number of people in this thread ;) (apologies for hijacking my own thread with a game opening)

WTA game 700 pot 1 day 12 hours turnaround

ID=72577

Send me an pm for the password, but please don't have a high dropout rate as i find it infuriating when games are spoilt because someone is losing and dropsout. (topic for another thread i think ;)

@ Babak:

BLARG!

Come on! Seriously? Damnz you crazy....

Even if they knew who was who, or had come to find out, be just a fucking tad logical here.

Balaran opens the thread, pissed at Italy and Germany, but mostly Italy.

MM replies with info regarding a PAST game. He's interested in the conversation for reasons I would guess similar to Balaran (it is relevant to something they are facing in a game) but he's only making general points based on past data. Key here is "past" and "data".

Then you come in, and discuss these past issues. From your contributions, you seem perfectly satisfied that this is not related to a game, but just to old games. You NEVER have rants the magnitude of those had just now, and you discuss away towards some sort of resolution with MM.

I then came in (because Abge was funny!), and recognized that the thread might have gone a bit too far.

One important point I raised in light of the conversation was that the only person who gave indication as to what game lied in the back of the debate was Balaran. MM and Sly had no hand in putting it together or pointing to their game. They didn't set it up to Meta-game.

And yet again, let me ask you: how the hell were you cheated? What game did you lose? What argument did you not want to make? That's just bullshit. You feel cheated because you didn't know that an ongoing game spurred the conversation?

You didn't know?

Isn't that what matters? You DIDN'T KNOW!!!! So at the end of the day, that really just says that the conversation was general enough in its terms to make it difficult to spot a game it related to.

Where's the meta-gaming then? We have a conversation where enemies on the board exchange without ever discussing their own game. Doesn't that happen to you sometimes? Hells! I know I'm playing a few people right now who've contributed to this thread! Am I meta-gaming?

Please stop thinking this site, this game, revolves around you and your beliefs.

Sly was right on one important thing: this is a game. It's meant to be fun. And to many, that means it's meant to allow for camaraderie and discussions between passionate players who all have a valid reason to engage in the game.

Who the fuck are you to play the "Rule Police", "The Judge of Ideals and Values"? You're good at this GAME. That's it. No more. And your place in the GR is not grounds to give your opinions more value. You're just a player. Like all of us.

don't mince your words Cach! say what you really feel!

Damn. Cachimbo is on a mission...
Can we calm down a bit though? Our responses are getting lengthier and a little meaner each time. I feel like we are kids again, yelling at the top of our lungs to get a point across.

The voice of reason never yells !

;-)

I know you prefer not to get PM (and I still owe you a reply, looking around sheepishly), so I'll say it here.
I think you feel that slyster is under attack and you are coming to his defense, which is nice, but it does tend to color our judgment when we feel personally involved. So your response to Babak is now getting more emotional.
I don't think slyster needs to be defended, though I think it's a loss to our community if he does leave. I think Babak was ranting yesterday and regardless of how "smart" you are, when you are reacting emotionally, your intellect seems to take a break, especially when it involves loved ones. Once he calms down, our dialogue will probably be more constructive.

I have spoken with Sly several times since the game and I'm sure he will be back. He is just a bit raw around the edges much in the same way i was. But we made up and it just remains for him to deal with his own emotions and not let one experience spoil the enjoyment of many future games.

All kidding aside, I guess I came off much more emotional than I wanted to.

I should really wait after the second cup of coffee before arguing on the forum!

All I mean to say, and it's something I feel I've been harping on for 3 days now, is that there isn't one correct way to approach or play this game. Anyone who believes thus, whether it's to follow Babak's steps or Slyster's, will at some point face problematic circumstances in games because of the one-sidedness of their views.

Now, I know it could be construed as somewhat "one-sided" to argue so adamantly that the game allows for many views. Call me a relativist if you want! I'd rather see myself as a contextualist: this game sets up circumstances that change all the time because the players you face and talk to change all the time (from one game to the next, or even in-game when, for example, one suddenly feels the need for revenge, changing his game style completely from there on). I therefore try to approach the game with an open mind.

Where I don't think I am one-sided is that I don't argue that my point of view is the only right one. I see value in almost all the points of views discussed on the forum. I also see limitations imposed by those values, and I opted for the approach which I felt limited me the least. My choice, my approach, isn't THE right one. It's one approach made possible by the game like many others.

That's all I meant to say: this is a game made wonderful for the ways in which it opens up on a world of possibilities in how it is to be played. Why narrow down these possibilities in the name of an ideal? Because, let's face it: there are no "rules" beyond those that set the structure or main-frame of the game. There are indications as to what the goals are, but as MM made us see, these are but indications. At the end of the day, diplomacy between the players dictates how things unfold. Not the "rules". Not any ONE person's ideals.

That's good to hear.

Oh! Zultar, one last thing.

I did try to defend Slyster yesterday, so much is true. Yet I never went so far as to say that I agreed with him on all counts. I think his approach also suffers from being a touch too narrow.
My reaction this morning, however, has more to do with how little patience I have for people who behave here as though they know so much better than everybody else what the rules are and how the game is to be played. It also has to do with the way Babak presented his views, which I think is sometimes tantamount to saying: n00bs aren't welcome here. I would venture that this is what ticked MM off as well when he called Babak on the elitist tone of his contributions.

And I guess I'm also a bit annoyed to see someone completely disregard the emotions of people who were actually involved in the game, placing his own disgust over and above consideration for the legitimate frustration one suffers when losing. I sincerely believe I would have been on the same "mission" for any of you out there.

I think one of the problems is people confuse the goials of the game with how they play it...
Cach is right. There are an infinite number of ways to play it. But at the same time there is one goal clearly stated in the rules of the original boardgame - WIN! The rest of the goals are logical extensions from there and subject to some debate. But playing for a draw is not the *goal* of the game and it should only be a consideration when you believe you *can't* win. IF you keep that in mind, no matter what play style you have, then when sombody spanks you in-game and gets the win, you won't blame theem for they did exactly what the rules say to do. and that is to WIN!

I'm with you Draug. That's also how I view things, but maybe I need to be clearer...

I'm just not down with the whole idea that, should someone want to try something like an honourable 2-way draw, it's *wrong*. It's certainly not winning the game, but to me, that's "punishment" enough. I mean, the fact is that you didn't win the game, you tied. The result in itself tells you that, though you had fun and played the game as you wanted, you didn't succeed at winning the game.

That's a brute fact. And that's the only evaluative measure I'll accept. Any other, such as a measure based on how you approach the game, is a meta-criterion of sorts!

What I mean by that is that you could then judge someone to be wrong before he even sat down to play, completely a priori. That just makes no sense to me. Sure, you could say that someone is wrong if they tell you: "So, I win if I get the result I want in the end?", but how can you say to someone that, should they succeed at obtaining the outcome they wanted, they would be wrong to be satisfied?

There's winning and there's obtaining the result you desired. Those are two different things. Winning at Diplomacy is something based on the objective number of SCs under your control. Playing a satisfying game of Diplomacy is something that can be decided under a number of criteria.

Failing at either of those objectives is frustrating.

Pretending otherwise is pretending to know better than the other players. But how can you pretend thus when they too have also come to understand the rules of the game and the conditions for winning?

I'm going to attempt to get back on topic, and address this question specifically to Balarn, though anyone is welcome to respond, especially Babak. First, let's look at the following game:

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=26743

This was an actual high profile game (let's keep in mind, my ABI games involved 43 different people, so it's not like they were meant to be games of the top 7 rated players on the site, the entire point of it being as anonymous as possible was that you would have to "read" the other players, having no idea their skill level, and adjust your play accordingly) involving relatively "highly respected" players on this site, and it was for an annual "championship", bragging rights were on the line big time. So, near the end game, I tried to get Turkey to work with me to form a stalemate position in the southeast, but Turkey stabbed me, assuming the other two would *not* attempt a two-way draw and he would be part of a three-way draw. When Turkey say the two-way attempt, Turkey threatened to France he would throw a solo to Germany, but France did not back down, and Germany got the solo. So, Balaran, here's the question:

Did Turkey give away this solo or did France? Do you think Turkey should have died quietly while a two-way took place? Do you blame Turkey's inability to convince France of the situation at hand, something you should be able to relate to?

As far as ABI-24, we have the *exact* same scenario of play as this "high profile" game. The difference is that slyster committed to the two-way much sooner in the game than Polar Bear. In fact, slyster committed to the two-way *before* this thread was even started, which is exactly why Balaran started the thread, Balarn knew the game was lost (or at least out of Balaran's control, however it was to play out).

PS - Feel free to read the global tab in that game as well, the same topic was discussed, there were people arguing both sides of the scenario. Which, brings me to what disgusts me about Babak's comments, he claims to be "the one" that *knows* the answer, how arrogant is that, honestly? Can the mods change his username to Bab(DiploGod)ak? I have a strong opinion, but it is just that, an opinion, and it is constantly changing (I'd like to think evolving, but that's not for me to judge), it's a moving target, which, again, is the point, Sir Babs.