first off, wow you're some character fwancophile. Lets just looks at some of your qualities.
1- no will to survive...who cares if someone wants to get a few points by surviving; a few points are better then none.
2-ignorant...anyone who doesn't understand that the object to this game is to win or survive needs to look at a basic diplomacy web site.
3-uncompetitive...if you think that it is best for this game for it to be an unspoken rule that if you get a lead that it is then necessarry for everyone else to just turn on you otimatically. This would discourage the whole idea of diplomating and making alliances, because you would then know that if you do ever get a lead that those alliances would go no where, and that would make for a very boring game.
and finnally something you do have right ungracious...just because you may(or may not) have been in a couple of games where some infant countries could of helped you obtain a stalemate or even overtaken the current leader doesn't mean you can come out and say to everyone that has ever done this to blow

To conclude...just because someone wants to gain back a few points or doesn't automatically turn against the leader doesn't give you the right to post that everyone who does this blows...grow up and realize what is most important for the game and not just yourself

sure sean, let everyone decide. but there are right choices, and there are wrong choices. you can decide, well, i'm impovershed, so i have to steal to feed my family. feeling compelled to do something out of necessity often, and in this case, results in unethical action.

you're a douchebag farcwad, so really you can say whatever you want about unethical play. the objective of the game is never described as "to survive" - the clear objective of the game if you bother to read the rules is to prevail, the only other permissible conclusion to the game in the rules of diplomacy is a predetermined number of turns.

because that is the objective, the only competitive play is that which honors the design and objective of the game. what makes this game uncompetitive is players that abandon their competitive obligation to attempt to win.

there is absolutely no getting around that the object of the game is one winner, not a bunch of also-rans pathetically grubbing for points. the rules are precise - get them out yourself - the objective of the game is for every player to attempt to dominate europe. because the game and its techniques is designed around this concept, anything other than that undermines the integrity of the game.

Fwanco, I feel that gains maximization is the only objective of this game. In diplomacy, usually, the only way to "win" is to win with 18 SC - and that is your only gain. But in this website, things are a bit different. Points are a form of gains, too, and if some people value that, then you should try to manipulate the situation to your advantage. There are no rules stating that one must always gain 18 SC, and those who do not attempt to do so should not be blamed - in fact, you could've pretended to be all big and mighty and gather the support of those who like points. Even if you don't, you can still try convincing them that they can get most of the pot if they stab. And if that fails - well, not every game can be won.
I am completely unaware as to the significance "ethics" plays in this game - which may be because I'm unethical. But I hold another view. In this game, we can backstab without remorse. We can lie through our teeth, sometimes just for the heck of it. It is difficult to cling to ethics in such a situation. As long as gains are maximized, the spirit of the game is fulfilled. And here, gains can be points.
And a word about ethics - if the alternative of stealing is seeing your family die before your eyes, I don't think a lot of people would mind taking a coin away from the haves. The situation here is much lighter, of course. Compel with the big leader or perish within the year.
All the insulting is tiring, though.

Although in general I applaud fwancophile's idealism, I don't think it is realistic to expect someone to sacrifice themselves so another person can win. Sacrifice has it's place in a good diplomacy player's arsenal, but certainly never the fatal variety!

People down to one or two supply centres are a special case that don't really fit in with the general theory of diplomacy. Perhaps we could call such situations "quantum diplomacy?"

It's no more in their interest for superpower A to win than for superpower A to not win and someone else to win. The only thing such people can do is survive, doing whatever it takes, and hoping that circumstances change and allow them to grow into contention before the game ends. It may be a long shot but if it's the only shot you have, surviving in such a demeaning manner is perfectly understandable. And it's still motivated by a desire to win.

The ones I don't understand are the people who actually have a serious chance of winning, but allow another to win. If you have 5 or 6 supply centres, and the leader has 13 or 14, it doesn't mean he is bound to win (subject to position and other's willingness to work with you, of course). I've seen and been in sooo many games where people come back from such situations.

Like I say, the hard part is getting from 1 or 2 up to 5 or 6, especially when someone is trying to pick you off.

at least insults aren't contrary to the purpose of the game :P though certainly not good strategy.

it may not be realistic that every player on this sight will prize victory above points, but that depends on what you do - it depends on your action, and hopefully your informed action.

and yes, i'm sure that the people who do make the choice to deliberately lose to save a few points are lovely people outside the game and not worthy of playground namecalling, but for the purposes of a game whose objective is victory, it sucks. why are you choosing to do this? it is not the end of the world, this does not happenall the time, it doesn't hurt me bad, but seriously, why are you making this choice that is antithetical to the reason we are playing this game?

yes, you can win an election with a rigged voting machine, you can steal that ring while the jeweler's back is turned, you can lie to your lover when you know you can get away with it - and these things will always happen as in playing-to-lose-diplomacy - but i think raising this issue, at least in part, brings up the discussion of the design of the game. as just one facet of the game, diplomacy is designed for that situation in which you have two units and a couple of other countries have one or three units and you have to work together to strategize - and if you lose then, that is honor. it is designed for you to make the tough choice and risk elimination, not to piggyback off of somebody else. if you just suckle at the teet of the winner, it is like the opposite of the reason that this game exists. it is supposed to be about your self-interest, and the only self-interest that this game has as its objective is victory.

Are you Hillary Clinton?

and i think the ethics are related to the competition - within the domain of the competition, otherwise unethical behavior such as lying is not prohibited, but the framework for those kinds of strategies of lying or betrayal is the victory. i mean, you can play civ 4, and use the world builder to maximize your points - after all the higher the score, the better you have done as per the design of the game. but doing so, it makes the whole thing pointless!

heh my concern for ethics is merely a ruse :P

by the way, i know this is whiny bitchery. though hopefully someone who didn't realize that the point of the game is to win may ask himself, "is the point of the game to win?" but because people can play however they want, including ways i think are illegit, i think labeling such behavior as undesirable in a player is fair.

Obviousle the objective of the game is to conquere europe, but what i was repulsed by was that you that a struggling country should do what ever he sould just to hold up the leading nation.

What you are mislead on is what, phpdiplomacy.net, brings to the game; unlike most other sites. When there is points involved it is acceptable to try to survive just to get some points back from your original bet. Everyone can agree that some points are better than none, so why isn't it acceptable to tag along with a leading country and survive long enough for those few points. Why would they risk backstabbing that country for just a few SC when they would just be turned upon, overrun, SC-less and eliminated from the game. Its perfectly reasonable not to risk something that would eliminate you from the game.

Now i will agree with you on one thing. Granted if someone has a good chance at rebuilding and getting back into the game, then they should do so; but if they don't, then that doesn't mean they blow they could be timid, unsure, or ignorant of the game.

Do you mean to tell me you don't lie cheat and steal when you are trying to win as well. You don't just do these things in playing-to-lose-diplomacy, how original by the way. These things are used in the aspect of the game. What you fail to realize is that if the only way you are going to survive and recieve some points is by hanging on to that leading nation, then it is very smart to do so.

NoodleBug--i do believe he is, but one day he will realize that trying to survive is part of THIS GAME, diplomacy.net, just like bill found out that oral sex still is type of sex...but that is another matter

This game needs a "fall on your sword" option for players who can't fight any more but still wish to maintain their honor.

Frankly, I'd like to get rid of the points system entirely. Make only wins count. Too may people play solely for points, which is contrary to the basic principles of the game, in my opinion.

*vigorously applauds Razz*
I'm trying to remember what people played for before we had Dip-points... oh yeah that's it. Wins! (and occasionally pride!)

we could have both. if a win/loss ratio was set along side your name in phpdip rather than the number of points people would see/think about wins more. but still keep the point system for everything it does today - managing entry into new games/ scoring of game points etc. Your number of points could be in your profile rather than next to your name.

Good idea, sean. I applaud that.

farcwad. ha. ha. ha.

personally, i think that the win lose ratio is a matter of personal relevance...and the amount of points you earn reflects you ability and devotion to the game.

not whether you're a douchebag or not.....

or if you say to conclude.
like dear farcwad did.

farcwad. ha. ha. ha.

personally, i think that the win lose ratio is a matter of personal relevance...and the amount of points you earn reflects you ability and devotion to the game.

not whether you're a douchebag or not.....

or if you say to conclude.
like dear farcwad did.

Well, since the introduction of the points system, it has changed the way games are played. The main incentive is to attempt to gain as many points as possible, with no other factors. Some players might argue this is not "ethical" and that every player should work together against the largest player, but what is the incentive for this behaviour?

Personally, I think the points system was a bad idea from the start. It encourages meta-gaming, and distorts game objectives. Perhaps a winner-takes-all points system would be better, but I still cannot understand why points are required in the game.

DONT POST

this is an old worhtless post from way back...just let it filter down the list so i dont have to look at "you blow if" every time i take a look at the forum

:p