Not if you cheat!!!!

Let me respond to some of this.

Re: uclabb in the draw
I said that I was a bit ashamed I didn't make include him because I felt that we really built a relationship working together. I never promised him I would include him, I refused to make a promise I didn't know if I could fulfill after the first issue or making duel promises and recognizing it was a big mistake. Had uclabb decided to work with me 1 turn earlier I planned to let him have a build b/c I really believed that he would push me towards the solo. However, he waited too late and I negotiated Paris to myself in the meantime. And then he misordered by going to Spain instead of Portugal and slowed my progress to get in the med. My deal with uclabb was unwavering support to push me towards a solo and then vacate his centers for me to take it. Before I secured Paris on my own I told him if he got me to 14 centers I would guarantee him a slot. uclabb is a great player but I don't think a 1 center player that helped me but I didn't have a true shot deserved to be in *this* draw, so I cut him out. I was ashamed b/c I felt bad about it, I also think that keeping a 1 center power in a situation like that can benefit me in future games. I was touting the game that I kept a 1 center Mapu in the draw for his assistance in helping me towards a solo in a previous game as a way to convince uclabb to work with me when he still had 2 units left. It would be great to have another game like that on my resume, but in this case I didn't end up with a true shot at the solo like I did with Mapu, imho, so I cut him out and ended the game.

Re: marx
I think you guys are giving him too much credit as being a psychological genious, or just shittiing on me too much. He is a great player no doubt. He is all about playing the mind games. I completely agree uclabb a mute is such an obvious tool and it had no effect. But the tone of this thread is that I'm a fucking idiot PPSC noob or something. If I am such a guilable idiot why couldn't *you* convince me to do what you wanted? I fully admit that I am not the best player and am always seeking to get better at the game. But I am also not a complete greenhorn. All the bitching comes off as a bit butthurt to be quite honest. As I said, I don't claim to be great, but I didn't get to top 20 GR by being an easily manipulated tool. Imho, a lot of this critcism is unfair.

Re: going for the solo
Many of you are acting like I'm a complete fool for not going the 2 way/solo race route. I made an assessment that the solo was not possible for me and therefore a 3 way draw was the best result. Marx and I had exchanged plenty of insults over the last several years and with berlin/munich locked down and Austria deciding that b/c I didn't move off the bat the 2 way was done I saw no opportunity to solo and only an opportunity to lose a nice 3 way draw. I assume you all will counter that Marx is lying/ "misdirecting" about looking to keep Berlin/scandinavia while under attack. But my assessment was that was the truth and while everyone but me had entered draw in the game it was time to go ahead and take it.

To address the situation, this is exactly what happened. I was very clear to Gen. Lee that even with no agreement, I would allow him to order my units for the rest of the game. What I suggested, then, was that we could have the following deal: I would put 100% effort into the game focused only on trying to make him solo, including vacating my centers if we ever had 18 between us. In return, he would give me his word that he would include me in the draw. He refused this offer. Fine, I gave a counter-offer. I would do all of the above, and in return, I asked that if the final four players were me, him, Russia, and Austria and the game was in a draw state, he would choose me as the third player instead of Russia. He gave me his word on this. The way the game played out, I believe that I did my part of the deal. I did misorder that one turn (which I do surprisingly often... It's weird) but at that point I profusely apologized and said that if he thought that the deal was off because of that, it was fair and he could still enter all of my orders, I would just stop putting so much effort into the game. He said that it was no problem and the deal was still on.

I just personally feel (surely partially because I was the "wronged" party) that if we make a deal that requires me to put 10 or more hours a week into helping you solo for essentially no gain for me and you give me your word on a deal, it passes the "it's just a game" threshold and that deal should be honored, especially since the deal would have given you the same result- a three way draw. I'm sure that is an unpopular opinion, but I believe it pretty strongly. I can say with 100% confidence that if the roles were reversed I would not have eliminated France. But again, that is a quirk of my style of play as much as anything else.

It was not ever my understanding that you expected a E/A/R/F draw nor do I believe that I gave my word to that agreement. My understanding was that we would seek a solo and the elimination of Russia in a trade for France in a 3 way. I also think that 10 hrs is a gross exaggeration, it was one unit I told you where I wanted it to move and bounced ideas for my own moves off of you. With all that said, you were a pleasure to play with and I still do feel bad about taking you out.

I never said you agreed to a 4 way draw. I said you agreed to this:

"I would do all of the above, and in return, I asked that if the final four players were me, him, Russia, and Austria and the game was in a draw state, he would choose me as the third player instead of Russia. "

Here is an excerpt of my request:

"In return, I obviously want you to make the moves I suggested above, but I also want your word that if I do all that I have promised and work as hard as I can for you (up to your discretion), that you will choose me over Russia when the rubber hits the road if such a choice arises in the end game and go with a E/F/A draw."

And here is your response:

"Let me speak to the heart of this whole issue. You have really impressed me as a player that always has his head on his shoulders. There is obviously no lie that could get you into a draw here, nor have I seen dishonesty in your game so I do not doubt your loyalty. If marx stabs me this turn, which im starting to realize is a no-brainer then I will seek his elimination along with Italys. Which would mean either a solo for me (unlikely but your offer is great) or a F/A/E."

Russia continued to attack you after that turn.

This is all about the big pot. If it was a 5 point pot no one would care who was in and who was out.

Gen Lee:
Falling for MM's tactics is not an attack on your abilities as a player. We all fall for other players at one time or another. Some will tell you that they've fallen to my "magic", though I very much doubt I have such capacities nor do I think they are untalented players. Similarly, I've fallen for players as well. I remember Babak working quite a number on me once, and serving me a wonderful lesson at the same time.

There are various reasons why we sometimes fall for someone's particular brand of shit. Not all of them spell out a player's inabilities.

And I'd rather think you fell for his shtick than think you were perfectly aware of it all but just not good enough to see the opportunities when they offered themselves. That seems a harsher criticism of your talent.

You're wrong Mapu.
This was a game played between fairly talkative players who had very diverging opinions on what motivated the game's dynamics and how it should have ended. To tell you the truth, I've not once thought about the points I've lost in this game, but have had many thoughts (and frustration) about the game itself.

I would venture I'm not the only one feeling a bit bitter about it.

That, and the fact that Gen Lee is conducting this EOG with grace and intelligence explains why we're debating it so much, I think.

Carving out the time for an EoG is proving difficult, especially with all the other discussions going on. Perhaps I'll share a few somewhat general thoughts about specific people.

As far as Cachimbo, there's just something about this guy that repulses me. I think I do an excellent job of leaving our past in the past, when it comes to a new game, and I can say this because most every message of his within a new game seriously rubs me the wrong way, so any sort of animosity Cach may have felt coming from me in this game was all freshly cultivated by him within this specific game. I tried, very hard, to keep an open mind with him in here, but when all was said and done, the two of us working together was just not meant to be. Most every message of his had some sort of in-your-face arrogant tone to it. I'd sincerely share an honest thought, and his response would be "Yeah, right." I don't know if he's the sort that is 100% focused on not getting "bested" by another (perhaps especially me), but season after season, and year after year, Cachimbo made it clear that he did not trust me in the slightest, he was too smart to do so. That's fine, but I'm a reactionary player, and to me, if someone doesn't trust me, no way in hell I trust them, and my nature is to want to eliminate that sort of player. Mission accomplished.

martinck1 is another guy I have had "disagreements" with in the past (though just the recent past, we played multiple games together previously that all went very well, as I remember, and I had nothing but respect for the guy), and that seemed intent to carry those past grudges along with him in this game, in spite of my focused attempt to not do so. Anyway, martinck1 was Germany, and he promised me Sweden in fall 1901. He lied. And then in spring 1902 he shifted at me, clearly all of which was a declaration of war against me. That's fine, again, I'm reactionary, so I attempt to defend myself, which involves getting England to stab Germany and join me against Germany. Germany instantly wants all things to be forgiven, wants me to join him against the "stupid" Englishman, and promises to support me into Sweden that fall if I shift all my units away from him that spring (and if I don't then I obviously won't only because I'm an ass that holds grudges from past games). I explain to Germany that he already told me I would have Sweden, and he lied the first time (so why trust him this time), *and* that he's cost me game years in the process, so if he wants me to even consider joining him against England that he needed to "make things right" with me and not only get me Sweden *before* I help him out, but he also needs to make some sort of interest payment for the lost time he caused me (another SC). Of course, Germany claims I carry grudges and that I'm stupid for not joining him agains the evil Englishman that is sure to kill us both... Honestly, when England stabbed Germany, why on God's green earth would I come to Germany's rescue when he did nothing but lie and attack me up to that point? I suppose my top focus is the relationships in a game rather than board position, perhaps martinck1's top focus is board position and he gives relationships little focus. I just don't get it, but clearly the two of us think and play much differently, so the fact we didn't get along in here was not overly surprising, and, just like with Cach, was not based on past grudges, but based 100% on press and orders submitted within this game.

As far as Julien, yeah, things were pretty vague. The Italian spoke of working with Austria and me to take out Turkey, and then turning on Austria, which is all fine and good to talk about, but then Italy shifts all of his units to the west and isn't involved in the east at all. Meanwhile, Austria and I eventually get on track and take out Cachimbo, and Italy is still focused in the west, so in my eyes Italy was all talk and no action when it came to working with him and implementing his plan of working together in the southeast.

uclabb and I had some good discussion in this game, and I'm thankful for that. He, as France, got triple-teamed from the start and had a rough go of things, so we never really had much of a chance to do anything. I am a bit surprised to hear how focused he was on my elimination, but if he viewed that as his best argument to be included in the draw I certainly would do the exact same thing in his shoes.

Austria was pretty quiet, which normally I hate, but it was music to my ears this game! All the drama with the German going on and on about how I hold grudges and suiciding against me, and trying to have reasonable conversations with Cachimbo was taking its toll, so having a neighbor that was not offending me repeatedly each day was worth a lot. As I told Gen. Lee, my take was that ghug does not get enough credit for playing a low profile game. With Gen. Lee, I formed a tight bond, so when he started screwing with me, I was highly offended. BUT, with ghug, we didn't have any sort of bond to break, so when he started screwing with me, I couldn't care less, I was too pissed at Gen. Lee! ;-)

As far as Gen. Lee playing England, I'll apologize for needing to get to the gym before 4th of July festivities begin, so I will have to add more later. I felt like he and I really clicked in here. I can expand more later on how Denmark was not a stab, which it absolutely was NOT (and, honestly, I don't even remember uclabb having much input on that whole situation, so I was surprised to hear from Gen. Lee that uclabb was proud of having engineered that situation, but kudos to uclabb for getting into Gen. Lee's head on that account!), and after that the game took a very unfortunate negative tone between the two of us. Must run, more later!

Well, I am one of the players that suffered the most from England choice of pursuing south instead of going all in on Russia. Does it mean that England did it out of being manipulated by MM? Uclabb and Cachimbo do think so, but I for one simply do not know.

First of all, one should wonder whether it was a better choice to hit Russia. There my opinion is that yes it was as securing the northeast did not seem too difficult as Russia was quite weak for some time, and it would have given more units to England, therefore helping his advance in the south.
But maybe a stronger England than in the game would have meant that Ghug would have refrained from attacking me out of fear for an English solo.
So, England may have gotten blocked at the gates of the Mediterranean instead of the shores of Tunis. But compared to the game, England would have probably been able to make more progress into Germany, meaning higher chances for a solo.

If we admit that this choice was better (which noone can say for sure), then did Gen Lee not go that way because he was influenced by MM? You guys seem to think so, but I am far from sure. First I second MM point that being one of the very top players is double edged: some may pay too much deference, while some others may want to defeat you. But I do not think that it applies to top players. And here I support Gen Lee point that one does not reach GR top 20 by being easily manipulable.

I do not want to aliment into any kind of polemics, but I am curious why Cachimbo thinks MM is such an unpleasant fellow? My interactions with him were fine. Quite courteous. Only points that could be negative was that 1. he stayed vague all game, but then probably it was bc he did not find that allying with Italy would bring him benefit, and did not want to alienate me. 2. he sounds way too modest "I never solo, I am not good at this, at that." Come on, man, if you're GR1 there are some things you are not too bad at ;)

As for the debate classic vs gunboat, drawing to inflate statistics etc.. well at least now GR shows rankings by category, so this should give a statistical indication whether solos happen more often in gunboats or classic, therefore clarifying the argument whether the ability to talk helps gaining solos or defusing them.
That some players prefer draws to increase GR and do not seek solos, yeah that is probably true, but what is wrong with this? They just use the way things are calculated. I would personally be in favour of giving solos a higher weight in GR calculations so that people get more incentive to try for it. But this is because I stick to my romantic idea that Calhamer wanted the game to be about each and every try to get the solo, and draws should be the last resort, rather than the aim. But it is just me ;)

Julien, to be clear, I am extremely reactionary. You are courteous to me, so I am courteous to you. Cachimbo is an arrogant unpleasant ass to me, guess what, I am human and cannot resist stooping to his level, especially in a game on the internet. This is something I need to work on.

Looks like my post and MM's occurred just about the same time, so after reading his, I'll clarify about Italy's strategy: I indeed proposed a two step plan with RUS AUS first taking TUR down, then ITA RUS taking AUS down. I do not think I mentioned I'd help to take TUR down, as I am not a big fan of Lepanto, looks to me a stretch on Italian units, making it quite vulnerable.
So as soon as I understood there was an opportunity to get some French SCs, I went for the quick gain, my idea was that I'd gain a few units, at the same time as Turkey would get eliminated, and then with my added strength I'd be able to help MM to take Austria down. But I got entangled into a protracted struggle in the West, so was never able to follow up on that plan. But to MM: not these were not just words, I meant it. And I should probably have just finished the job with France, share the spoils with Gen Lee and then move East. I'm just curious what England would have done then.. Gen Lee?

Well I got along well with both MM and Cachimbo, so that is why I was curious about their not so good relationship (let's put it this way!)
But it is true I noticed that MM has mirroring tendencies, meaning that he will observe and react: for instance when I stabbed England, then MM said he would doubt about me. As for me I can be quite chameleon, in some games totally loyal ally till the end, in other games the worst traitor, so I was surprised about MM reaction, as he would make general deductions based on one stab. But true he did not have other elements about me.
In any case just to make a last point about the two step plan: I was serious about it, but it seemed to me that MM was not, as he focused north instead of helping Austria to defeat Turkey. Maybe he HAD TO focus north, I just don't know, but impression i got is that he was not truly interested in my two step plan.

So after we first exchange words of respect for one another, and after I voice a profound dislike to your approach, you move to say that something about me personally just repulses you...
Meh! Maybe I've slipped myself and attacked you as a person, and if I did I most certainly apologize. I do have issues with personality as well, but it's really with the character that comes through your messages to me (the false modesty that Julien alludes to, though he doesn't call it that, is most certainly part of it) and I've voiced what I had to say in private messages to you in game. I didn't think it necessary to do that here. I still don't. So I won't go that way. But be my guest if you want to continue alone along that road.
I will say one thing though that just might fly in the face of my best intentions but seems warranted in this particular context. Every bit of animosity felt, you said, was ultimately caused by me. You came into this game, you said, absolutely pure of any feelings from past encounters. Good sir, on that count, I will simply say this: you, MM, are a liar. But I'm more than willing to think that you are in fact lying to yourself as well, that you actually believe what you wrote. Nonetheless: you didn't come in this game pure of ill feelings. Our conversations in the forum threads, just before the game, quickly became abrasive and I think I have just enough experience with people to claim that there is absolutely no way our past didn't taint your attitudes towards me despite your best efforts to mitigate their effect.

I think we simply don't get along. Not online anyway. Maybe we would in person. Who knows!? I have recognized about myself, in this thread, that I am somewhat arrogant. I think this attitude is actually often found in good Diplomacy players, though it's not necessary to success. But from what you're saying, every bit of your own arrogance was mirroring mine...

My dearest MM, if one was to be so gullible as to believe all of that, one would have to come to the conclusion that you have the personality of a roof-shingle.

We all bring some of what we are on the table, and we try our best to take advantage from that. But sometimes, it plays against us.

My own predispositions towards you made me react much more forcefully towards your efforts at manipulation (not an attack, not an insult... it's what we do in this game) and your veiled insults. I cannot escape the feeling that you took pleasure out of keeping me in that box for so long. There was simply no good reason not to make the move earlier. Even your EOG doesn't provide one (but you're welcome to make one up now). I can recognize that I was ill disposed towards you, that it made our relation more difficult. Can you?

I'll leave you with a thought: truth, like any other meaningful object, is nothing before it is used, nothing before it is picked up and applied.

As for a more general and open conclusion to this long post (apologies):

Regardless of my beliefs regarding the dynamics of this game, I have nothing but respect for the players I shared the board with and, with one obvious exception, I would relish the chance to find myself around another game of Diplomacy with any of you at any time. Though some of you frustrated me to no end (Ghug and Gen Lee come to mind...!!!), I've never had anything but fun writing and reading you guys. I'm truly sorry that this feud with MM has taken so much space in this thread and, as I have told him most of what I needed to tell him, here and elsewhere, I promise to do my best to remain silent (or of very few words) where such matters are concerned in the future.

Thanks for the invite Gen Lee.

@cach
Yes of course folks fall for different forms of manipulation in every game, that is part of it. I've already admitted there were certainly other routes I could have taken in this game that may have been much better options to put me in solo position. I think it just comes down to a difference in style. As I said before I have had some of my best games by playing the 100% loyal and trusting ally, so that was the route I aimed to take. It served MM and I well in the early game. This was only my 13th WTA non-llive full press game. Each game is an experiment for me to find out what is the best formula for opening negotiations, for advancement and for manipulating a position to be able to solo from. Of course the great thing about this game is that there is no perfect formula and it has to be tweaked each game based on who is sitting at the board. I'm still working on it!

@julien
Regarding had you moved east. My plan and my hope in putting you into portugal was that you would double support to spain and let me have portugal. I had stated that I only wanted to get a second fleet to MAO and hold that position, giving you mar/spa and the ability to take on Austria while I took the lone remaining center in Paris and moved on Russia in the north. That was my actual plan. I hoped to get you to move east and make gains in the north, with the position at MAO/portugal I would have stabbed once I got a better foothold in Germany (i.e. Munich/Berlin) and tried for Tunis. So yes, for several years I would have anticipated peace between us while I moved on Russia and waited for the right moment to try and break into the med.

Now, after that inital stab by you I proposed that I would take Portugal and consider all forgiven. I had hoped to carry through with this as well and was looking to get myself to Munich which I detailed what happen there in my OP. Somehow MM got spooked out of the swap and I was not able to get Munich *with* permission from Austria so I had to amend my plans to keep appeasing the "3 way draw" mission and look for another opportunity.

@MM
Regarding Denmark. While I believed that was a stab when it happened, once you put me back into Denmark all was good. However I choose to keep playing up that it was a stab with France and Austria. It served my purpose for Austria to believe you would try and solo and almost got me Munich. Furthermore I wanted to have an excuse to move on Russia with the rest of the board without everyone flipping out that I was trying to solo and stabbing Russia, he stabbed first! Well that didn't work anyways as I was not able to get Munich through negotiation and once I moved to Baltic Austria did get freaked out and backed off Italy claiming to be intent with a 4 way draw.

At the risk of involving myself in things that I shouldn't, I will quickly say that I agree that both the most distinctive and, at times, most frustrating, thing about MM is how blank and mirror-like he is. When I first played with MM, it really pissed me off, to be honest, but I have since learned how to play with that approach and not against it and have always truly enjoyed playing with MM. I also think that MM is the player I have "stolen" the most from play-style-wise, perhaps with the exception of Babak and davebishop.

@GenLee- I'm disappointed that you still haven't said that you went back on your word.

I’m finding it difficult to get into games that I enjoy, so I’m retiring from Web Dip for at least a while, that’s why I am a bit late to the debate, but couldn’t resist putting my side of the story.

It’s always difficult to write an EOG when you’re the first to go out of the game. Obviously any adverse comments can come across as bitching and the nature of any written statement is that nuances are picked in different ways by different people.

It was a tough game for me. It’s clear from the history that Julien often goes west as Italy and that was his opening Diplomacy gambit. (As an aside, this why I don’t like non-Anon games online. The complete record of previous openings is different to the hazy memories when playing FTF.) I have, without exception, found uclabb an enjoyable and engaging player, but it was clear that the direction of travel is that Italy was going to attack and England was minded to join, so I decided to join in. After some very encouraging opening exchanges with France, it meant my subsequent diplomacy in 1901 with France was rather transparent.

My preferred style is a strong alliance and relationship and I thought I had developed that with England. He was pushing me to stand out Russia out of Sweden and having felt that I had a strong ally, a chance to do some damage to a key competitor seemed too good to miss and would have allowed both of us to have developed strong positions. With Italy lapping at the shores of the Med and an agreement only to put one army into France, this felt a good position to be heading towards.

Then England stabs me – disaster and a stab I couldn’t really understand at the time, because I had offered Gen Lee a great deal. For me, it was frustrating because I had invested huge emotional capital in the alliance and I had pissed off both France and Russia. But the reality is that uclabb and MM are two very good players who were pushing him to attack me, plus I was too complacent at this point and ultimately Gen Lee was still in at the end of the game in a 3WD.

So from here on in, I had difficult relationship with Russia because I had lied over Sweden. I have played a number of games with MM and he is a player that I respect immensely. As GR1, he plays with a wide range of people and that is a real asset to the site for people who are developing their Diplomacy skills. My experience is that there is no way back with him at this point unless you are prepared to leave yourself completely open to his counter-attack. That usually also ends in disaster. So with England set on his attack and not wishing to upset all his neighbours, I had to look elsewhere in the game. Julien is a player I enjoy playing hugely, he is creative, engaging and a top player, but he was focused on France. Austria has acknowledged that the game was not getting his full attention and it was my experience that I couldn’t successfully activate what I believe the important early alliance for Germany, mainly just 2-3 line replies at best. Turkey was open, but could get no traction without Austria. So that was the game over for me.

So onto the discussion around MM. I believe that he is exceptional at finding the players in the game where he can find the greatest edge and manipulates that position. Who can complain about that? It’s a very successful strategy. To be fair, this often results in a good outcome for his allies. This should partly help Austria understand his success in this game. Also when Russia was under pressure, Austria stayed loyal. I think what some people find difficult, is that MM appears to still be playing Diplomacy after the game has ended and rather have a fully open discussion, he is positioning for his persona. Of course, everyone should be doing this, if they want to be very successful.

As a player, I have had some great games with him, but when conflict has arisen, our exchanges mean that I enjoy the game less. There is no doubt that my style is a contributing factor here. However, it is not unusual to see that some (often losing, but not always) players in his games find the experience less pleasant and not just because of the outcome. Again to be fair, he wrote pages of response, so I can’t complain that he didn’t give our discussions full consideration. I really don’t want to get into the type of discussion that Cach and MM seem to have got to, where the nature of the player’s styles extend into viewpoint of them as individuals.

We do see the game differently. One of my key early Diplomacy influences was the Richard Sharps – The Game of Diplomacy. This includes the viewpoint that countries and their positions on the board are fundamental and while relationships can ultimately overcome any problem, the positioning of the countries means that is more difficult in some cases. Germany and Russia are 2 countries where conflict is likely, particularly if Russia wants influence in the north. In addition, there is acceptance that sometimes players lie, but obviously this has to be rare, but not terminal to a relationship.

The test I sometimes consider: “Is how a enjoyable a game could I have, if I played 7 mirror images of myself in a game?” I think I would have fun and I think MM would drive himself crazy. I think it was Steve Jobs who said – “the journey is reward”, that why I think it matters.

Here are a few (hopefully) last random comments in response to what's been written of late:

As for the false modesty, that's just words. I see things a certain way, and I attempt to convey my thoughts with words and it doesn't come out right (I'm a math guy, not a word guy). Sure, I'm "not to bad" at some things, but the more you know, the more you know that you don't know, and perhaps I spend a little more time thinking about the things I don't know (and wishing I did) rather than being pleased with the things I do know.

As far as the two step plan, in general, I was very open to the concept, and I tried to communicate that, but as far as ever putting it into place, that was always going to be a bit tricky in my mind, especially since I've heard many other Italians bring it up and never follow through. That said, Italy was pretty proactive about presenting the plan, so if he was just as proactive about implementing it, there was some hope for it coming together, especially with Austria being so overwhelmingly indifferent with me as an ally.

Julien, you say you noticed I have mirroring tendencies, that I observe and react. To me, that is proof of my attempt to play each game on its own merits. I don't go and look back at anyone's game history, I didn't "know" you'd likely attack France, I just play the game, in the moment, and make decisions based on press and orders submitted within that game. It appeared to me you really screwed England over, and I did not want to be your next victim, that's for sure, but it was also my intention to play it by feel when it came to putting your plan into place, I was still open to it.

Yes, Julien, I felt I had to focus north, the situation with Germany required my full attention, as I will get into in a moment.

Cach, when I said there is something about this guy that repulses me, I did not mean you personally, as I don't know you, I meant the webDip persona that is Cachimbo, and how you repeatedly interact with me in a game. If uclabb were to write that sentence, he may say, there is something about this guy that frustrates me. Anyway, for example, at one point you said something about how you knew what you were about to ask would "upset" me, yet you asked anyway. If you know something will upset me, why upset me? Why? Because you are Cachimbo, and I don't like that. I can respect that, you playing your game your way, but it can also repulse me at the same time.

FTR - I get a kick out of you also referring to my false modesty, when you have no modesty whatsoever, lol! How many times in this thread have you gone on and on about what a "big" person you are and how you won't bring up 'x' and you won't bring up 'y', yadda yadda yadda. That's good stuff!!

I do try to enter a game "pure of any feelings from past encounters", but I think that is, in fact, impossible. I'd bet a lot of money that I do it far better than most, and about as well as anyone can do it, unlike yourself (by your own admission). So, when you then bring your past baggage into a new game, I admit being quick to react to you bringing the baggage, because once it's clear you are bringing the baggage, I would not be me if I did not then react to your blatantly obvious mindset.

As far as every bit of my arrogance being a mirror of yours, yeah, that's exactly how I'd word it!! :-P I tend to exaggerate to make a point, especially on a diplomacy website. My point was, that your arrogance was much much (i.e. >>) more responsible for me being arrogant to you, compared to me just being arrogant. What does that mean? In your terms, it means you were 88% responsible. In my terms, you were somewhere in the range of at least being twice as responsible as me (67% vs. 33%), and at most approaching 100%, but where it actually fell, none of us know exactly, yet my point remains the same, for all intents and purposes, your fault, lol!!

Any pleasure I may or may not have derived from you being stuck in a box, was certainly not the reason things played out like that in the south, I had things to attend to in the north, and I was not very large, so my approach was to delay things in the south a bit so I could deal with the north. This approach also game me a bit more time to feel things out in the south, and to give you many chances to present yourself as a viable ally.

It was already my sense that you were ill disposed towards me (which is why I was rather shocked that you signed up for the game, and even though you were on my personal blacklist, I defaulted to my nature when it comes to diplomacy, and I mirrored your approach, if you were willing to play, I was willing to play), and I agree that made our relationship more difficult, but I entered this game with as clean of a slate as I could with you, but as time went on and it became more and more clear that you brought along enough baggage for us both, I was left with no choice but to react to that.

Perhaps I'll start a new reply to respond to martinck1's EoG...

I very much enjoyed martinck1's EoG, which gives me much hope that one day he and I can once again share many more excellent games in the future. It is too bad martinck1 will be taking an extended break from webDip, I wish you well, and hope to see you back around in time.

So, martinck1, after you lied about Sweden and were coming after me, you shared that comment from Richard Sharp, about how how conflict is likely between Germany and Russia. In my mind, all things are possible with diplomacy, but after England stabbed you, and you wanted me to join you against England, this one comment stuck with me, and nothing had changed in that regard. Even if you and I had joined forces against England and done well, in your mind, I concluded, that you would eventually feel a need to stab me again, and likely you'd do it when England was still large enough to help you hurt me, since it clearly was your nature to want to ally with England against Russia in this specific game.

That said, if you wanted to give it a go, I would have given it consideration if you had "made things right" with me (get me Sweden and one more SC, though, in your words, if you had "left yourself completely open to my counter-attack"), since that would help give me security against you flopping against me with England in the near future. It was not meant to be.

There were two other key things you said that are cornerstones of my strategy on this site:

1. "It's a very successful strategy. To be fair, this often results in a good outcome for his allies."
2. "but when conflict has arisen, our exchanges mean that I enjoy the game less."

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

Take away: Be my ally, don't allow there to be conflict between us, and we will both be much much happier for it.

I enjoy playing this game *with* others; plotting, making jokes, and taking down anyone that opposes us. I feel that if I can find a quality ally, that the two of us are nearly guaranteed success, and a great time. The webDip persona known as MadMarx hopes that not only this is true/obvious, but also that the "opposite" is true, if you stab me, screw with me (cough, cough, Gen. Lee, cough, cough), then all bets are off and I'm going to do anything and everything in my power to make your life "difficult" within that game. "Hell hath no fury as MadMarx scorned" is one way to describe this approach, or, MadMarx makes a much much better ally than enemy.

Typing that out sounds... Pathetic? Extreme? I don't know... But, to me, a game of diplomacy is like the theater. We all have a part to play, in each situation, and if I'm going to take the tens upon tens of hours out of my life to play a game, I am going to *play* as hard as I can. I will be overly dramatic if the scene calls for that. I'll be your best friend, I'll be your worst nightmare, and, as martinck1 writes, "the journey is reward". It can be great fun, it can be torturous hell, and (hopefully), best of all, it can be something completely unexpected that was a fascinating experience that ultimately resulted in some sort of personal growth.

Cochimbo: RE your question -- 'PS: No one? Really? No one can tell me where the quote "Classic misdirection" is from? If I have no answers on this upon my return, I'll have to enlighten you!'

I think it is from the Princess Bride, but I haven't seen it in a long time. Seems like something the criminal mastermind character would have said ("Inconceivable!")

Glad you haven't just googled it!

It's from this really good show "Archer". You can hear it in the first episode. That show is simply hilarious, and one of my our best finds this year, my wife and I.