sure ... except Lives -

and it won't change my decision, because I have seen way too many crappy crappy crappy live games...

I don't see why live games change anything about my statement.

My. How many of you games fall into this category?

I am sorry but a legit win involved beating six other players

... it does not include the reality of how many live games happen...

Dharmaton, no one wants to play live games with you anyway, so thanks for leaving them. In fact, I might just start playing them again now.

No Ogion, a legit win involves a game you win. Without cheating. If you don't take advantage of a CD and other's stupidity in failing to see your advantage, you are not maximizing your chances.

I'm not saying everybody will feel this way. People are "honorable" and stuff. But don't try to tell me it isn't legit.

Someone's trying to justify his bullshit victories to himself. :P

eh

i agree with yellowjacket. CD are very common and you need to take advantage of them or others will

I think it's legitimate to win by any legal means, particularly if, as Herm Edwards reminded us, "Hello! You play. To win. The game." I don't personally view it as an acceptable strategy, but that's because I often "play the game to just play it" and have other concerns besides simply winning.

But I'm certainly not going to castigate someone else who views the game differently and acts accordingly.

bye bye

I've never played a "perfect" game of Diplomacy. Seems it would be very difficult to enjoy the game if you always wanted situations to be other than they are.

Besides, playing hard under adverse circumstances improves your abilities.

Very little difference between a CD and playing with some asshole noon who fucks up a game be cause he doesn't know what he's doing and just makes shit moves. Should we cancel games when a nolb plays like shit and gives a superior player an "unfair" advantage. No. So if some jackass noob CDs take advantage of it. Power to the YJ. PeCe Owt.

In a game with press, the problem can be dealt with by arranging a certain year when players may start taking land from a country that has fallen into Civil Disorder. It's a little trickier in a gunboat where communication is restricted. If I'm ever in a gunboat and someone NMRs, I immediately hit cancel.

Let me phrase it this way:

I respect a solid win over six active players over a win with an early CD that gives an unfair and unreasonable boost. Did you "win" in that circumstance? Not within the objective of the game. Thus, I'll always vote to either cancel or draw in that case. I am talking about the kind of game where the player with the advantage is the only one refusing. As I think you meant though, such players can be brought to heel pretty fast if the other players decide on a 5 v 1 in that circumstance.

Now, YJs point is that often the other players won't vote for the CD or draw. If you win that kind of game, well then I invite you to take a joyous bath in your plundered gold!

That said, CDs are common, and when they are done by a two unit power that is basically defeated, I hardly even notice or care.

So, in truth, it is only a smallish subset of CD games I look down on. If a CD of a minor player happens after 1905 or so, then I personally don't give a damn on that score.

so: it depends.

Sure, but that's all just your opinion about what's a "respectable" win or not. It's the eternal question: "is it within the spirit of the game?" The answer will always vary depending on personality. You say a CD-aided win it isn't the objective - I say it is. If I could figure out a way to frustrate neighbors into CDing in 1901 every game while simultaneously convincing the rest of the map that it isn't "really" helping me, I would totally do it. I'm sure not going to turn my back on the advantage if those things happen by accident.

I don't care whether anybody "respects" my win. My attitude in this matter reflects that of our victorious friend in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Yy0pkcfiA

Nobody respects the loser who whines about how I won. That's what sucks about being a loser. Now, to fully address your point, of course I take more pride in a victory that was hard fought against skillful and determined opponents. That doesn't mean I'm going to cripple myself when my opponents don't live up to the challenge.

@AD gunboat or not, my point still stands. If your opposition is so shitty that they don't recognize an insta-cancel situation, then you are playing against too shitty of opposition and have no cause to complain. I never immediately cancel when a CD happens nearby. I only do when the rest of the board makes it clear it'll be a draw without me included if I don't shape up.

This can and is communicated in gunboat by skilled opposition.

Duly noted YJ. Should I come across this situation involving I definitely have some ideas.

After watching four straight full press games get cancelled or played out because I stabbed someone so hard in 1902 that they quit, I've softened my stance on playing out CDs as well. They imbalance the game and it still feels a little hollow to win after getting a huge start due to a CD; and I think it's nothing but disingenuous pretense to act as though CDs are a "legitimate" part of the game, as any reasonable analysis of the board dynamics will show you that the game was balanced around everyone playing, indicating that legitimate play involves everyone playing their game out.

But as a practical matter, CDs are too prevalent and too easy for players to enter for someone to take a stance that all CDs should be drawn/cancelled. Hence I've started dealing with them in the context of the game, as another factor around which negotiation and action can ensue. If someone stands to benefit from a CD, then you try to convince them that it isn't fair play to go through with playing out the CD, or you act to stop them from benefiting from it as much. It's bullshit if you're on the receiving end, certainly, but we currently lack any decent means of sanctioning quitters, so the only realistic solution is to keep playing and let luck balance out.

my point is it just kills the quality and interest of the live game

@PE well said. That actually probably more closely reflects my own position than what I said :P

@dharmaton yes, having shitty players who screw up a game for everybody else does suck. Just it's extra obvious in gunboat.