*cough* Get over it. *cough* (directed to both of you)

Publicity is not a valid tool, because it encourages meta-gaming, which creates prejudice, and undermines any fresh attempts at Diplomacy.

It is always sad to be backstabbed, especially on such a grand scale, after you had given your trust in full. All the same, it is still just backstabbing, and you should never fully trust any player, because you must keep in mind that they probably wish to win. Even when shared wins are implemented, I would still be wary.

Constant vigilance!

There's two ways to avoid such prejudice; get everyone to agree not to talk about your unconscionable actions (ie cover them up) or don't participate in unconscionable actions. Those with reason to fear publicity always try their best to implement option 1, but I would always advocate option 2.

To win at Diplomacy you do have to mislead, betray and backstab; I don't think anyone would complain about that, if they do I can't see how it will create prejudice in this environment. Even outright lies are probably considered acceptable by most players, and the ethical limitations on a player who knows he cannot win are apparantly even more flexible.

But there is a line between what is conscionable and what is unconscionable, which varies from individual to individual depending on their personal integrity. If you believe you have acted in good faith you can deal with the political fall-out. I say it again, an honest player has nothing to fear from the truth (and not just in Diplomacy!).

Stormwolf, how do draws and ties work anyway? I'm wondering at what point in the process it's all over and you can let your guard down, so to speak. Presumably if shared wins / draws are better implemented at some later stage, there will be a way for the draw to be real and binding.

LOL, wtf? there is no such thing as a draw. as Chrispminis said, GET OVER IT. and what's the point in agreeing to a draw? it's all or nothing in this game, and you didn't really lose anything after that. it's the same as being eliminated in Spring 01. (okay, Fall 01, but same thing).

FYI, aoe3rules, there are plans to implement ties (IE, so allies can win) in phpDiplomacy, as I recall. I believe that facility is there in the board game, too.

i know, but they haven't been implemented yet.

There are no draws in Dip, so how would you expect the game to ever 'go away'?

There are draws in Dip, if you mean Diplomacy the actual game. They just don't have them yet on this site.

I believe aoe's point was: if here there are no draws yet it is not useful to make a pact in which you agree to draw the game, so the pact is pointless

Noodlebug, you misunderstand me, and you misunderstand the word prejudice.

Prejudice comes when you bring your issues to the public because people who have never played with you may be judging you beforehand, and it could ruin the Diplomacy experience.

I am not talking about personal integrity, I am talking about meta-gaming. Publicly bringing forward issues creates a poor environment for Diplomacy, because it generates prejudice, and grudges, which cause prefrabricated alliances and enemies, where there should be none.

There is a fine line between what is conscionable and what is not, but it does not lie between a double standard for stabs, or for delays. If you truly believe that honest persons have nothing to hide, then I am sure that you are supportive of big brother implementations such as the RFID chip.

It is a wonder that you jump at every chance to open up an old wound. I can't believe that you ever accused ME of holding grudges.

DANIELLE IS ONE OF THE MOST IMMATURE PLAYERS ON ERE.
SHE MUST BE 4 OR 5?

To Chris: My general comments on publicity in a thread where you had initially not posted or even been mentioned can hardly be regarded as part of a grudge or an "old wound" (unlike, say, the phrase "get over it!"). If you are still sensitive about such things perhaps you should re-evaluate your actions and behave differently. Its up to you.

There are several other players whose behaviour I (and others) have previously called into question - behaviour much worse than yours! The world does not revolve around Chrispminis.

stormwolf, I'm reeaaly curios about how you two came up with a draw in a game where, currently, draws aren't possible.
Also, how do you make any difference between „After agreeing to a Draw / Tie game the other guy attacks you” and „backstabbing”. I'm asking this because you said that „Backstabbing and all the rest is part of the game (a good part)”, but I see no difference in what that guy did and backstabbing...

hello guys, it's me you're talking about...first of all i'd like to say that i didn't backstab anyone, but i've been many times :) i'm not immature, and i'm a male...i told stormwolf that i agreed to a tie game, but i didn't know if it was possible to declare a draw. i told him what happens if we don't play anymore, and if we could for example contact the author of the game, to close it as a draw

he gave me no straight and clear answer, he just contacted the other two players but they still played the turn in question...what should i have done? since the other two players still in the game went ahead, why should i have to leave the game in their hands ? by the way... i had 15 units and stormwolf 16, it was a very nice and close game

i feel honest and i don't have anything to fear about ...i called in my games bastard the opponent many times when i was backstabbed...i lost at least a pair of games this way, which i was dominating, but i couldn't do anything

i feel sorry for stormwolf, because he helped me against the two others, as i did with him...he deserved to win the game as much as i did

The other 2 guys had already finalized moves before we started to talk about the tie game. They only have 1 or 2 units left, so even if they had moved it wasnt going to make much of a difference.

If it was an honest mistake then all you have to do is not make any moves in the next phase, if you do then i will know you are not being truthful.

Until then ill give you the benefit of the doubt and even apologize if it all turns out okay.

Hey man,

In real diplomacy, sometimes the boundaries between what is illegal and legal is not defined. WHen they played diplomacy in the DoD, it was reported that they even stole each other slips of paper, or made changes to them. Apparently as in love, alls fair in war.

And i feel that unlike what chris suggest, griping about another player is a valid tactic, as reputation is important to diplomacy too.

Noodlebug, you cannot honestly expect anyone who understands your past history, of publicizing what should be in-game squabbles, to think that you are not referring to me. Tell me, who else could you possibly referring to?

stormwolf and daniele, I'm glad it seems things are working out...

fastspawn, I am typically ethically lenient when it comes to Diplomacy, but the two things which I believe ruin Diplomacy games are :
1. Inactivity among players.
2. Any sort of prefabricated alliances/enemies, and this includes multiple accounts, and meta-gaming.

While publicly complaining about other players does not necessarily violate any of my two pet peeves, it certainly does encourage, whether consciously or unconsciously, meta-gaming.

I didn't read all this thing, but wtf draw a game with 4 active players? anyone one of the powerfull players can win!

Indeed, but both agreed to a draw, so there you go.

how do u agree to a draw with 2 players and not include the other 2? There can be no such state? what will happen is that the other 2 will eat you up!

By both i mean all 4 of us ^_^

are u aware that the game doesn't magically disappear if you agree to a draw?

they said they would contact kestas to end the game.

In the thread "Terminating a Game" dangermouse said a game can't be ended?

I find it amusing that someone who is arguing so fervently against publicity is now asking me to name players I have complained about here in the past! Eh? Isn't that rather hypocritical..?

I'm glad to see that he is in a minority, and most of us are in favour of free speech. We all have the right to rake up the past and use it to smear people, but I'm choosing not to (however much the sneaky rats deserve it!). One of us has to set an example!

I totally agree with Chris's position on this subject. Publicity should mean that you approach the other 5 players in a given game and publicize information. This form of publicity verges too close to meta-gaming for my liking.

And I don't think this thread was titled Noodle and Chris pissing match. Noodle - why don't you start a new thread called "Chris's hypocrisy" if you need to keep going on that subject.

the reason why I believe that "publicly airing" one's differences is a viable tactic is that raised on old school diplomacy, reputation over several games is as vital a factor as tactics within the same game. This gives the game an added dimension. Of course you can say that you don't like this practice and call it meta-gaming, but doesn't that cheapen the acts of the actual meta-gamers who create multiple accounts?

What is more you can't set your own rules and expect others to follow them. Then when does it stop? Is attacking a player without warning a suitable cause of complaint? Is waging a false war to put your opponents off guard a valid tactic?

Sent from: fastspawn Sent: 12:10 AM
are u aware that the game doesn't magically disappear if you agree to a draw?

Yes fastspawn, we are aware of that, thanks for your condescension.

Okay it seems all is well in the game now, daniele has explained what happened and i can say that i have no problem with playing in a game he is in, he is actually a great player, just make sure that everyone understands what is going on and everything should be fine.

from what I saw so far, daniele is a honest player. I think that asyncronus messaging/finalizing of orders can make situations trickier. If I see the situation from his point of view, if I am offered a draw, but than some players just go on, I would think something fishy is going on and just go on with my game, too.

We do not win money or prizes, but we put A LOT of time into this game. Of course everyone is going to be careful if offers look suspicious.

Oh, what's this? A player smears the reputation of another at the beginning of this thread, then, after much discussion, establishes that "he is actually a great player." I'll wager you regret your quick judgement, stormwolf.

I agree with Chris here, but acknowledge that diplomacy will always be split, between metagamers and single game purists, between reputation-smearers and those who keep their precious precious knowledge to themselves, between people who form tight alliances and those who prefer a more fluid style of play, allied with everyone and noone. Oh, and of course, those who for whom a 'place', like second or tied first is a good result even if it is currently hypothetical, and those who will try to win whatever the cost.

Personally, I prefer phpdiplomacy without the ability for joint wins- it forces alliances to be broken and for cunning diplomacy. If it has a downside, its that it seems to encourage metagaming (psst, we can't draw, so let me win in this game and I'll let you win in another.)

TOgilvie

I agree that unfounded smears will always rebound on the smearer. And some people will always play the propaganda game (I know you're all tired of it, I'll try not to respond to the next smear!). But the thing about free speech is it cuts both ways, people are free to say things you don't like. That doesn't make free speech a bad thing...

It is impossible (or extremely naive) not to judge players on past performance. If there is a player who has won 20 games next to you, you play very carefully... the same goes with conduct.

fastspawn, I agree to a degree with what you say, and it reminds me of old postal play tactics of bringing up personal issues and relationships into the game. The main reason I am against the publicity in all forms, is that I do not approve of any sort of predetermined alliances. I am sure you must agree that joining a game in which the several other players happen to be in an unbreakable alliance due to being school friends is metagaming, and is an unfavourable environment for a real Diplomacy game.

I just don't draw the line between real life friends, long time Diplomacy players that all know each other, and a predisposition to hostility based on the public shaming of a player.

Noodlebug, this is not a matter of free speech. Nobody here is imposing on that right. This is simply a matter of people who wish to play the game of Diplomacy free of metagaming and public squabbles. You have to see this from both sides, because arguing free speech is useless, because we are equally entitled to exercise our right to disagree with you.

Of course it is impossible not to judge players on past performance without some sort of anonymity, but that should not stop us from trying to downsize the effects of metagaming. Public shamings are not justified by this argument. Judgements should be limited to one game.

It has been requested in another thread, so when I get the chance, I will write up what I believe to be an acceptable policy towards metagaming, and submit it to the phpDip community for debate and review.

I like how public debate seems to blow every little problem out of proportion.

http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/ftf/meta.htm

lol, read this.