Meaning, who agrees the Turk was bound by the game of diplomacy to act in that manner, tha Turkey was required to commit suicide in that exact prescribed manner?

Nonsense. If I'm being pushed between two jerkwads who are trying to solo or draw at my expense, I'll throw the game to whichever is more convenient just because there is a chance the other guy will wise up and switch sides.

This would be doubly effective in WTA I imagine.

I sure as hell don't. That follows under the "survive or screw the guy who killed you". To me, stopping the solo is not an imperative if you aren't going to be part of the draw. For those who think it is, they are restricting themselves from the chainsaw/suicide threat realm of diplomacy. And I'd actually rather give the win to someone else and be eliminated if I had to , then let the one who expects me to rollover and die so he can get his two way get his way. I'm not rolling over and letting you have easy access to my backside. No f'ing way.

I think I've said my piece.

Ok after studying the maps for a while I feel that the 18sc win was caused by France. Turkey did the obvious thing (which i did too) which was to threaten to defend unequally and allow Russia the win. I don't see why the importance of the game would chang the fundamental aim of the game. As I said earlier, I feel the first priority is to win by whatever means and if that isn't possible you should do whatever you can to prevent another getting the win.
In your game France had the opportunity and position to attack Russia which Sly did not have in our game. However if France was refusing to co-operate with Turkey then Turkey had to use the ultimate sanction in the same way I had to.
As to Turkeys inability to convince France, I guess it has to be questioned in much the same way that I was completely unable to convince Sly. I know I did absolutely everything I could including projected moves to persuade Sly that he was making a mistake, I was nice! I cajoled, I was then strong and demanding when that failed and I felt that i had no other option but to use the ultimate sanction. My position was hopeless. I was either going to be eliminated, or a survivor. Either way I got nothing.

So my final answer is: assuming Turkey did his utmost to persuade France of the outcome, then France is to blame for the defeat. He made no effort to win the game himself, even leaving Rome stood whilst taking Trieste. Had I been Turkey I would have been as mad as I was after ABI24

So, Balaran admits stopping a solo is *not* the only objective if you cannot solo yourself. So, who's to say where we are all to draw the line between what you do that may allow a solo and what you do that must be 100% to prevent a solo? Who wants to play God and make that determination? Babak?

"I feel the first priority is to win by whatever means and if that isn't possible you should do whatever you can to prevent another getting the win."

I agree with the first half of this sentiment, but not the second half. Doing whatever is necessary may include being eliminated and I would rather let someone else win than be eliminated while others were part of the draw. It's another diplomatic tool you can use.

Well I see your point MM, however I felt I had exhausted the possibilty to win and also to prevent a win. The ultimate sanction was just a last ditch attempt to persuade the player to see my point and change direction. I see it as a game of chicken! turnaround and attack him or we both die! Eventually I will concede that the game will likely get won if the sanction fails.
I do see your point about playing god though. ;)

@Draug "I would rather let someone else win than be eliminated while others were part of the draw."

That is where we differ as I would sooner be eliminated and in the bar having a pint at lunchtime than be involved in a survival to an 18sc victory. Firstly it saves me much time, and secondly no one is ever going to blame me for the mis-order, bad 50/50 guess etc that caused the 18th sc.

You're missing the point, Bal. You use the fact that you will throw the game to the 17 SC (of course, you have to be in the spot to do it), to bring the others around. It works, especially if they believe your threat. And most who play me know I will do it.

Yes it may occasionally work if the position is that tight. When the game however is 13,12, 9 as it was in ABI24 then there was never going to be a chance that if Sly changed his mind, we could hold MM back unless he changed his mind straight away. I used the fact that i was willing to throw MM the game as the ultimate sanction after all other avenues had failed. It was the only tool left in the box. It might have worked and it does occasionally work. I'm not sure though if you mean when there are more than just 3 players.

I did once find myself as England facing 3 german fleets and 3 French fleets in Spring 1902. I told the German that I would only defend against him and I would make sure the Frenchman got all of my centres if he persisted with his upcoming attack! I told the Frenchman the same tale only the other way around and it worked for 3 seasons! (until they worked out that they couldn't do much else with all those fleets) It gave me the breathing space to change the game and the endgame saw them both eliminated. Granted this was F2F and they weren't the strongest players, but this is another example of how devil's advocate is a good tool when the chips are down.

Once you admit that stopping a solo is *not* the only option available to you (if you cannot solo yourself), then the answer is no longer objective, it becomes subjective and up to the interpretation of the individual in the situation. To claim otherwise is to claim you are the one and only Diplomacy God that is all knowing and *far* superior to anyone else on this site. It's absurd.

Does anybody else find it odd that this issue is diplomacy's equivalent to abortion? Regarding the potential of a two-way draw in my ABI-24 game, more than one person told me they would have quit playing on this site if I followed through with the two-way draw, and one person will quit the site because I didn't. Honestly, I'm just a random guy off the street that has absolutely no comprension of the implications of this debate, why on earth would anybody give a rat's ass what I do or do not do in a single random game, at least to the point of quitting this site?

Again, I play by feel, make things up as I go along based on my gut take of what others in my game are thinking/doing, I often have to guess if I should submit orders based on my brain or my gut, and I don't know which is "right", I just make a decision and move on to the next one. Why would anyone else base their decison on whether to play on this site (or not) because a stranger doesn't really know what he's doing?

You should play the game to have fun, as long as you don't break any of the rules of the site then do whatever you want. You might annoy some people if you start opening with a triple bounce as England but whatever. If that's how you want to play then so be it.
It's not fair for other people to complain about a win or loss as long as there was no cheating involved. Do whatever works for you. If it's a 2 way draw to reward good play in a game or if it's convincing someone you will draw with them to then stab them for the win. Both are legitimate ways to play the game.

Threatening to quit the site if someone followed through with a draw or not sounds like an attempt to force someone to make a game decision for reasons outside the game, hence metagaming. Quit after if you want, but actually telling the dominate player on the board "I'll quit the site if you don't draw with me" sounds like a form of blackmail and is probably against the rules, if not borderline.

Did you read Slyster to be doing that JMO? Because that's not exactly what happened: the "I'm outta here" came after the game; it was a consequence, not a threat.

I still disagree with it, even if it's a friend who said it, but I think the nuance is important.

@MadMarx - If anyone quits over what you did or did not do, it's there loss and they are the fucktards. You do what is best and right for you. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Well, I'm hoping Sly won't quit because I don't like to see friends being called fucktards.

Disagree with him all you want, I know I do. But I'd rather you kept the insult meter down a notch.

Thanks.

Fucktards is a description of the quitters group as a whole. And honestly, if he is quitting because MadMarx duped him and took the win, then he *is* a fucktard. Sorry if you disagree, but he represents the worst fo the worst: the players who think theirs is the only way to play and all others are somehow cheating or dishonourable.

FTR - None of the "quitting the site" talk started until after the game ended. But I still find it fascinating that people were so emotional about this topic, that either way it played out, at least one person was supposedly going to quit the site. The way I pla the game of life is with honor and truth, in my eyes, so it is my nature to want to reward honor and truth in a *game* of diplomacy, which is something I have done in the past (given up a solo to follow through with a two-way). This time it played out differently, I couldn't resist a win that would take my GR over 1000, that proved to be too tempting of an accomplishment. Neither decision, for me to solo or to two-way draw was 100% correct in my eyes, each had benefits and each had disadvantages, so I just told myself to not think about it and do what *feels* right to me in the moment, and I did. This is exactly how that first two-way draw with dave bishop played out, I told myself to not over-think the decision, just go with my gut, and in that case, with *much* different issues at stake, I just went with the two-way draw, it was just one single game and my typical MO is that it's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game. And, yes, I know Draugnar is going to rip that to shred, yet again, so have at it Draug, I set you up nicely! ;-)

Not at all, MM. I said, you do what feels right and is best for you. Nothing to rip apart at all. I omnly rip[ apart people who think they know the only way to play and it's their way or the highway.

I had said that I would consider stopping playing on this site if the game ended in a 17/17 split!!! Does this make me a Fucktard? Can someone define Fucktard as it isn't a word ive ever heard outside this forum!
My own hesitation on continueing on the site was for a number of reasons and not just the ABI24 game.
I wasn't happy with the way previous games had gone. I was trying to hold a stalemate line as Russia and got eaten by turkey from behind! The game ended as a win for England. I had several games where they had to be reported to the mods, and I also disliked the ppsc scoring system. If all these genuine doubts about my future on the site make me a fucktard, then I assume the word fucktard means rational, logical or something similar ;)

Balaran, I started a thread for your game I spoke of, at least give webdip one more shot, I'm confident I can deliver what you are looking for!

Draugnar, I meant the whole "It's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game" philosophy, you've ripped me for that in the past.

Yes ive seen the thread. many thanks MM i'm looking forward to it. Had a very good game of live Gunboat last night which has softened my attitude considerably. The game was WTA and everyone played as though their lives depended on it.

@Balaran - Quiters never win and winners never quit. Have you been playing PPSC by chance? If so, that explains *alot*. Play top quality WTA games and you will find you are able to hold your spot even as the little guy if you play it well.

@MM - I've grown to realize that your philosophy is as valid as any other. I don't play by it because this is a cuttthroat game. But I won't degrade anyone for playing how they feel best outside cheating or quitting when they are behind (CDs) or jyust quitting cause they didn't like how they lost.

And Balaran - you are only a fucktard if you actually do quit. If you take a break to calm down and cool off, then you are a wise diplomat, but people who go away angry and never come back are fucktards. They just haven't discovered it yet. Quitters never win and winners never quit.

Well when you are new to a site and you haven't played a game of dip for several years, you don't bother to read pages of site rules, you just dive in! Then after some bad games I started asking people why they did things which din'y seem logical or in the spirit of the game and as you guessed, I had been playing PPSC.
I am trying to find a few more games of WTA but there are very few in the waiting lists, and the ones i have started don't fill!
I wasn't going to quit dip anyway, just this community, and had I done so I think it would have been purely because of the ppsc attitude. It does baffle me that when everyone seems to slate it so much, and yet it is still being used!! Surely something needs to be done to have this abomination removed so Dip can be played, and not the strange variant which this has become!?

@Balaran, just do what MadMarx is doing right now. Make a forum post ask for some good players to join. You'll be able to start some good high quality games that way.

@Balaran - You just became my hero!

Just hang out here and arrange games with the best player sand you will get lots of WTA play with competent opponents who'll make you cry uncle more than you like but you'll love every minute. I know I love the wins, draws, and eliminations. I just hate survives.