And yet...apparently....you KEEP falling for people's lies, it seems. Perhaps your own diplomatic efforts are so horrible (such as the whining in this thread) that people are just inclined to want to lie to you and stab you, because you come off to them negatively.

You *must* expect a lie in the game....and yet sometimes it is obvious when it is coming, but with some recent changes to my diplomatic efforts I have greatly reduced the initial stab and/or greatly increased my ability to effectively detect a lie -- and it is all based upon the amount and style of communications.

If you're not lying, you're not winning.

When to lie and when not to lie is a judgment call. In the long run other players poor judgement should help you more than it hinders you. If this is not the case then you need to reconsider your own judgement.

I think the best axiom is to only lie when you know you can get away with it.

People forgive a lie if it wasn't accompanied by a stab.

If it *was* accompanied by a stab then the idea is that stab better have crippled them

Oh, I never talk about troop movements. I discern everything that another player is doing based solely on what they think of booze. Except the Sultan. I base everything I know about his movements by his opinion of concubines.

This is how NOT to do it:

Germany: "I do not trust you enough to tell you this. You lie too much and I think you would just use anything I told you to know my moves before they happened."

Me: "Isn't it obvious by now I've known your moves before you do them anyways?"

Anything goes in Diplomacy...if lying your butt off gets you a good result, why not.

Being predictable is the best way to get killed. If they know you never lied, they will take advantage of it, if they know you always lie, result would be the same. Uncover plans of your enemy and keep your plans in fog.

This is my problem being an honest person. I have to be cautious, because I rarely lie, unless I'm screwed if I don't.

DiploMerlin; Just put the ball back with the person who lied to you. Just keep shoving them off when they come back to you. Give them a moveset you want them to execute before giving them their trust back. Be nice to them, but make sure they take initiative to restore the relationship again, make them feel like if they don't do what you say, then you simply won't talk to them anymore.

You can remain diplomatic and still lie your butt off. I am very polite at all times, even if I am in the midst of a stab:

"Turkey, I sincerely apologize for stabbing you, but I had to because... <rationale>" Of course, I only say that after I have the upper hand.

Be careful not to add insult to injury though. A player will see if a stab is "necessary" (it very rarely is) or just opportunistic...

There is no right or wrong way to play this game. There are successful and unsuccessful ways, but it is completely based on who your opponents are.

dooddoener

My point is lies definitely work in this game. The problem is I will never trust someone who has lied to me. Then another problem is if the liar was anonymous then what does it matter anyway. I find some players are very good at "being diplomatic". Other just don't give a shit about peoples feelings. And I'm not whining, I'm just observing that maybe lying isn't a very good long term strategy if you intend to play more than one game.

If nobody lied, then every single game I have ever end would end in a 7-way draw, because I have never started a game without all my neighbors telling me exactly how much they want to be my friend, and complimenting me on how nice my vegetable garden looks this year and, oh, yes I did lose weight, thank you for noticing...

Look very carefully but you will not find many players who will not lie in this game. This is geopolitical simulation of the pre WWI period, and it simulates post Bismarck age with alliances being made and broken. Big part of the game is to evaluate and decide who to trust and when...and this is main reason that this game is so intriguing. Without that psychological aspect diplomacy would be just poorer version of chess.

You shouldn't fully trust anyone in the game...whether they have lied to you or not.

I want to be ALLLLLL of your friends for-EVER...

Fact is, every game is different. I have had someone lie their pants off to me until the end game when they needed my help. And I said no. So we both lost, and boy was he pissed!
But later on, I saw an EOG thread he was in, and everyone complimented how trustworthy he had proven himself to be, even his enemies! Clearly I caught him on a bad day, or maybe he changed. Who knows?

I myself waver on how and when to lie. When I think it is diplomatically expedient to say "we are now at war" because I might need to look back and say "I never stabbed you, let's stop the leader," that's exactly what I do.

There are many kinds of lies too. "the kaiser said this." he does differently. "dammit the kaiser lied to me! Sorry friend." that's the best kind really, bar one lie, which is the lie that lets you eat your ally for lunch.

@diplo "Other just don't give a shit about peoples feelings."

This is an important part of diplomacy. You need to be able to screw somebody over royally in game and still be respectful of them and not crush their feelings. Otherwise it's gonna bite you in the ass. Being "nice" comes for free and there is no reason not to do it whenever possible.

@DiploMerlin - You do realize that carrying acrosds the mistrust from game to game meansyou are metagaming, right?

Draugnar come on, don't be silly. If you know from personal experience that somebody is lying swine, or particularly trustworthy, or just a good player, you're gonna let that influence your decisions. Sure, it's *technically* metagaming, but you'd be a fool to not take advantage of every bit of past experience you can - not to mention, it's downright impossible to ignore that knowledge once you possess it.

Remember, it's ALSO metagaming to look at your opponents old games to try to predict how they act.

Hey, Draugnar and Yellowjacket. Interesting observations! If every game was anonymous then its hard to carry a grudge. But a lot of games are not anonymous, and I try not to play in anonymous games because I like to know who I'm playing. I don't even know what metagaming means. Are you saying carrying experiences from one game to another is cheating?

@Diplo and YJ - With regards to looking at past game history - I don't do it. I don't like it, and I wish it weren't available here. I woudl rather that you could only see the moves of the games in which you participated. But it isn't my site and therefore it is what it is. As far as using personal experience... It's fine to let vague memories of the past and all influence it, but if you use thre fact that so and so lied to you last game as an excuse to attack them, then that is metagaming in the bad sense. Don't trust them - I never trust *anybody* to tell me the truth, the whoel truth, and nothing but the truth. But it is part of the game and you shouldn't hold a grudge is all I'm saying. It's like Vegas. What happens in a game, *stays* in that game.