Agreed. Don't hold vendettas from game to game. On the other hand, if you play 5 games with him and he's obviously a bad or inconsistent player obviously you have to take that into account.

I hardly take into account the names of the users. I only remember countries. So it's really easy for me to start with a clean slate, the way I think the game should be played. Of course, for many other players, it's hard to ignore what you know, but I would encourage you to at least try to minimize grudges if they are impossible to remove.

Agreed with above. You should always start with a clean slate...unless you identify a pattern with 'fakename'.

I've done both. I've had a guy really piss me off, and got him good the next game, and I've had guys who really pissed me off turn into my best ally the next game. So it can go both ways. Theres nothing wrong with a little revenge as long as your still playing smart.

But never put your anger into your strategy.

of course if there is a player named 'fakename', I apologize... I purposely tried to make the name fake.

I try to go in with a clean slate, but its second nature for me to remember previous tactics...

Then again, I like to play games differently. One game play aggressive, another more defensive, etc..., so I guess I need to keep that into consideration.

depends. dude like feckless clod - appropriately named indeed - is a complete dickhead so that generally means war straightaway.

no need for personal attacks. I purposely used a fake alias to ensure we keep out of personal attacks, please do the same.

Theres no such thing as a clean slate. If the player has a good track record with you all is well....if not...

That actually just came up in a game for me, because I 'stabbed' a player. (I was never actually allied with him, said I would do something that I didn't.) But here's the conversation:

Him Autumn 1906: its amazing how you lie
Him Autumn 1906: but dont worry, i ll remember you for next games
Me Autumn 1906: The idea for Diplomacy is that each game stands on its own. You aren't friendly with someone in one game because he helped you in another. Otherwise, thats considered metagaming and against the rules here.
Him Autumn 1906: sure you are friendly with someone in one game beacuse he helped you in another. thats why we can see players names in each game, to remember... i ll see you again

previous form is a good tiebreaker when you can't decide who to turn on...

Im not being pedantic, but where does it say metagaming is against the rules?

oh personal attacks are just part of the spirit of manly camaraderie :P

you aren't a lily livered euro are you?

though with a name like ftknox :P

i don't remember my first game :*-(

I'm in a couple of games now with players who I've betrayed or they've betrayed me in a past game. And with some of them, I'm at war and with others, we're working together nicely, for now.

The game is based on working with other players until you can turn against them (if that suits your interest), so I don't think holding a grudge is fair. Now, this is of course, unless you play 15 games and everytime the person does the same thing.

And I agree, I think this is metagaming, regardless of if its against the rules or not.

Agreed, Feckless Clod is, well, feckless. He should be attacked on sight. I have no patience for clods like him. =D

It doesn't say that metagaming is against the rule explicitly anywhere, it's just a general consensus upon gamesmanship that metagaming is undesirable. While personal considerations are all very well in F2F games, in this new realm of online play there are a few notable differences. The most primary example of metagaming and perhaps the most obviously wrong is when two people playing here know each other in real life, and as such this drastically affects their play, to the point that say a husband and wife duo will never stab each other and essentially act as a super country. The other players in the game are at a great disadvantage because they don't have a similar relationship, nor should they be expected to. This is not to say that you cannot participate in a game with people you know in real life, it's just that you shouldn't be afraid to stab them or play them in the same way that you would an online stranger.

The problem extends to the issue in the OP. Perhaps you find someone that you work very well with, and so in other games you immediately ally yourself with this reliable person. This is the same sort of issue as you exclude the other players who may be just as qualified and dependable especially given that an individual's reliability is based more around the situation and opportunity rather than personal character. You put players who haven't had the opportunity to play with you in the past at a disadvantage which they don't deserve. This especially runs contrary to phpDip's mandate to spread the joy of Diplomacy to new players as it puts them at a disadvantage.

Sure it's ridiculous to ask someone to un-know what they've learned about other players, but I would definitely encourage them to try anyways. If it can't be altogether eliminated, it does not make the pursuit of it's minimization any less valuable. Be ready to stab your best friend, and co-operate, if perhaps grudgingly, with your nemesis. It's the spirit of Diplomacy.

Planning on attacking someone out of revenge is often stupid - the game may not develop in such a way to allow you to do this. I go into games with a clean slate, however I do remember people who consistently back-stab me and who are very faithful allies and this does affect my likelihood of trusting them.

fwancophile:
No, I'm a good ol'fashioned 'merican :P

And I do like the "oh personal attacks are just part of the spirit of manly camaraderie", though I'm more a peacemaker ;)

Remembering poor play that gets the player concerned killed is good policy. Bearing a grudge over a stab that helped the stabber to victory is ridiculous. Blaming someone else for your own inadequacies.... well.... thanks for the heads up, dickhead....

You should not hold a grudge at somebody stabbing you- you should with any player take the precautions you judge to be necessary to ensure your safety, and good diplomacy involves making sure of the fact that your allies don't want to stab you.

However it is impossible not to consider how different players approach the game. There are some who stab more, some who stab less, it is necessary to recognise the two as different when they are in order to succeed.

i agree with crisp, i often forget the player and just remember the country in a game, especially when im playing more than a few games. however players that never reply to messages...i remember those guys and dont bother all that much to ally with them when i meet them again. If a player stabs me and its the right time for a stab and its something i would have done if i was in their position then thats fine but overly quick hasty annoying stabs that are counterproductive for the stabber in the long run, those guys i remember and play cautious around next time, i still might ally with them but not with a lot of trust.

yes, i feel so inadequate - a teacher and a pop psychologist, fierce.

I think it is important to remember that game situations come before prior knowledge of the other players: if the situation forced a stab in the previous game, you don't carry trust issues over unless the situation is similar.

I cannot claim to always have been the best of sports, but I can say that I consider the country before the player (if I have faced the player before). You can't forget your idea of a previous player when a new game begins, saying to yourself 'oh, its so-and-so', but you can try to be fair by working for mutual interest without revenge, grudge-bearing or accepting reputations.

I do not hold grudges. It is, after all, a game. Moreover, it is a game where lies and duplicity are a fundamental requirement.

What I do carry forward is a slightly better understanding of the other players. I will try to capitalize on this in other games by exercising caution against strong opponents and by being more aggresive against weak ones.

I'm playing a lot of games at the moment and I've been stabbed in about 5 of them in the last 3 days. The funny part is that in two of those the Stabber timmed it so bad they want to work with me again, 2 others its going to mean that everyone but us has a chance to win, cause we are just going to tie up eachothers forses. and One guy I give kudos to because he got me good......and then didn't bother to place the three armies he got for doing it.

I take each game as a new one (do my best to do so)

I bring the vengeance because then that player will think twice before doing it again. I believe MAD policy, it worked for the cold war.

But in Diplomacy doing that will only have them ensure that their stab is all the more effective so as to cripple you. Any retaliation on your part is quickly drowned out by superior forces.

Haha, oh Feckless. Have we ever played together? We should... you seem like an entertaining player.

I had the experience of a stab gone so entirely wrong. (and not the one at q93, sorry about that :)) I was playing germany, and i thought england was about to move against me, so i wanted to ask Italy if he would support me. Turns out what i thought was private chat between us was actually the global channel, with myself and italy having been the only 2 contributors. Oops! :)

The odd thing is, while i find it easier to stab people i don't know, i feel less guilty stabbing those i do know. can anyone explain this?

awww I like feckless clod <3

I go for the clean slate approach, but there are a couple people who I find it hard to remain nuetral with......

Thanks, Pandora, I like you too.... so don't take it too personally if I'm a little quicker to stab you next time....
No, Chrispminis, we have never played together. I shall have to try to remember to attack you on sight. ;)

If it was a good stab, it is OK. But if it was not, I'd prefer to keep an eye on him/her.

My 2p worth is just to refer to the following comment from Rod Walker's Gamer's Guide (2nd edition, page 6):

"One member of a group may attempt to 'bully' another into an alliance he otherwise wouldn't want. Some may attempt to negotiate on the basis of personal relationships which exist outside the game. Or, in organizing a game, one may call another and say something like, 'Let's play DIPLOMACY tomorrow and you and I can be allies.' These sorts of tactics have no place in the game."

If you see play in one game that convinces you that another player is inept at negotiation, cannot develop strategy, tactically weak, overly gullible or a trigger-happy stab-hound then *of course* you can use that knowledge in another game. And you pay the price if you get it wrong.

However, I think stabbing someone in one game, just because they stabbed you in an earlier one, goes close to the prohibition on negotiating based on personal relationships which exist outside the game (in this case, a poor one).

haha clod, havnt you already stabbed me enough?
give a sweet little girl a break lol

Great quote, Samael! Thanks.

She's not a sweet little girl, she's a predator posing as a house pet....

amen to that brother