ah seems i missed this one. would you be able to PM me a link when you start the next one?

cheers

Send me a pm whjen you start the next one

I will definitely set up another Forum post for the next one, and I will send out some PMs to the people who didnt get a chance to play in either of the first two games. :)

The CU rules sound interesting, but so far there has been no need for it. If it comes to the point of CU, someone may simply not pause, or not follow the settlement. It's also possible that no settlement may be agreed upon by the CU. That is the basic gist of how it works now, but the game works best when you really don't even need the Global Court. I like the advice though. :)

In otherwords, most settlements can be resolved independently, and a very brief verdict of guilt by the Global Court is often all you would need for the defendant to admit fault and settle. This game really isn't for immature players who have to cheat and steal their way to win or argue their way through the game. The bracket rules make it very clear what you have to do. Players in this game just do it. And when we get called out to making a wrong judgement, we strive to fix it. Know what I mean?

Yes. I know what you mean. But I enjoyed writing it.

oh absolutely. and I enjoyed reading it. Hopefully you can play one of these soon.

I look forward to the next one :D

As do I.

when is the next one?

Well I am playing two of them right now, which is enough for me at the moment. I would love to do another, but I think my wife might kill me. If you want though, feel free to set one up. You read my rules about how to offer and sign contracts. That is really the only major thing you need. Feel free. Otherwise it may be a couple of weeks.

I feel I have kept some more experienced players out of the game. How about setting up another one?

Sorry, missed that last message. Can I set one up?

i find it amusing that the no-stab game is being written up in stab-zine

i also like that it is perfectly acceptable to refuse to make any binding agreements, but if you just try to make unbound agreements your opponent will be suspicious - i imagine 'i just want to keep my options open' isn't a very good excuse.

So by not making binding agreements you don't simply return to a normal game.
I didn't think i'd like this but now i'm interested in playing. (though i'm in a lot of games right now, Fog of war being the most interested variant...)

Haha. That bit about the stabzine is funny. Yeah the game is really interesting. You can play it almost anyway you want. The binding contracts are merely optional. Some people can play hard ball and say you'll only get this if you sign a contract for that. What is the fog of war variant?

fog of war is a simple variant where you can only see your own units and the territories they can move to.

You don't know what's going on across the board except what other players tell you.
You can try sneaking units forward, and it is more important to keep a unit behind as a watch-towers to keep an eye on your borders.

I'm only playing my first test game, it's available on http://goondip.com/ as an option (like the anonymous games, or public press or gunboat options) for any map...

Oh interesting

I love how binding diplomacy translates into no stabs. The contracts can be worded and interpreted in many ways if written well.

I'll play if the game is anonymous and that everyone agrees to abide by the rules.

You're right that wording can be misleading. In this kind of game we have to balance our attempts at deception with the likelihood that breach disputes will arise. They could really ruin a game like this, though in my games so far, everyone has been VERY clear about what they are agreeing to and held true.

why do you want anonymity? That seems like people would not be held responsible for contract breaches

but if you're allowed to decieve other players how do you resovle an issue where someone claims to have a binding agreement but they it was not agreed at all?

or do you require all binding agreements to be public?

Paul, what I am trying to say is that you don't have to be clear on what you're agreeing to. You can create flaws, or misinterprets in clever wording:

{The English nor the French will cross the English Channel} You can tell the person in plain text that this means neither of you can move there, but that will be a lie.

{In exchange for a DMZ in Prussia and Silesia, Germany agrees to let the Russians move to Sweden} He can move there all he wants, but the move will fail.

{My army stationed in Venice will not move to Trieste and the Austrian's will bounce Gal and go for Serbia/Greece} This doesn't stop you from moving Ven to Tyr and Rome to Ven and then taking Trieste.

This isn't a no-stabs game, if anything, it promotes stabs. And when they come running to global, you just have to explain that they misunderstood the treaty and that you've never broken it. I doubt you could do this many times in one game, but one perfect stab usually wins the match, especially if you have peace treaties with countries that will only think to attack you after the stab.

Also, how do you hold people responsible for "contract breaches?" and how does knowing their name change that approach?

the only way to hold people responsible in-game is to have global discussions about it, deciding that a settlement should be agreed upon. There is always the possibility of total douchebags playing the game, who will cheat an not settle, but knowing their name allows you to never invite them again.

The way I had originally intended this game was to allow for this kind of wording manipulation. I used it in a non binding game to tell austria that galicia would move westward, when i ended up going to vienna. The key to the whole game is players getting along with eachother to keep disputes to a minimum. This means demanding explicit terms. That kind of manipulation is often perceived as cheap, and the disputes that arise as a result slow and potentially ruin the game. It preys on the stupid, but I would be willing to play a game with a few smart, crafty, and cunning linguists at some point. Mostly though, you can just play that game without contracts.

Right, so knowing the person's name has nothing to do with holding them responsible if they cheat.

no-not in that particular game, but for the future. People act more responsibly when there is less responsibility. Think about the things people do and say online and on message boards vs. in person.