But I do think that the French player is being kind of dumb in delaying his victory... I wouldn't do it, that's all I can really say about it.

A player can give away his/here centres, if he/she thinks it's a good way to victory, or to a draw or survival in case he/she can't win.

well I see what game you are looking at.
it's
the Se7en, right?

Of course it's okay to give away your supply centres. That's like asking if it's okay to donate money to charities, sure it might not provide you personally with any practical results but you're still entitled to give away your possessions.

That said, I've been in situations were giving SCs to my ally has paid off with a win for me in the long term.

No question... You sometimes need to help an ally to stop an enemy taking him down... There are other scenarios, but that is the most obvious.

Se7en? Lol.... I didn't notice Chairman Mao complaining when I handed him my SCs to help him against France....

I may be a moral vacuum, but I see nothing at all wrong with this.

In fact, there are respected openings that involve giving a supply centre to an ally, as compensation for doing something that is strongly in your interest, but against theirs.

I think all debates about ethics in Dip, or any game, for that matter, miss the point, which is.... there's a rulebook; if it's not against the rules in the book, it's not unethical.

The game of Diplomacy in other forms has included such delights as intercepting mail, forging entire fanzines, passing forged orders, and placing units on the board when nobody's looking, all accepted as legitimate tactics. I think I'd probably stop short of murder.

The focus is wrong...sorry

My focus is whether a player should on one hand keep getting and on one hand give away to prolong a destined victory

Yes, if he wants to.

When are people going to learn that diplomats are free to do as they wish?

I'm not even going to comment.

I think this MAtRiX guy is one of the more ethical guys on this site and should be applauded for keeping his word to England!! ;-)

I'm sorry, but placing units on the board when no one is looking is NOT a legal tactic and violates the rulebook.

If it is PPSC then fine, go ahead. If it is WTA, then no.

I'm not sure whether it violates the rule book, freak, but it HAS been accepted as a legitimate tactic under some house rules.... or, in any case, it hasn't always resulted in the offender being immediately disqualified, which amounts to the same thing, IMHO.

From the Dip A-Z:

FLYING DUTCHMAN (1) [MB/RE:Jun80/89-90]
Essentially a face-to-face phenomenon, this is an extra unit slipped onto the board, or exchanged for a piece of a different type (say, an Army for a Fleet) or colour. If it goes undetected, the player controlling it will often endeavour to embroil it in the development of the game so thoroughly that, even if spotted, it becomes difficult to rectify the mistake. House rules may vary in such circumstances: under some house rules, it is possible to swap F(Tus) for A(Tus), order it to Venice, then "spot" the mistake and have it changed back to a fleet. In others, the unit will be moved back to Tuscany and made a fleet once more, or have to remain an army for the rest of the game. Where there is not a GM, this sort of duplicity is thoroughly within the spirit of the game, for all that the more "sober" games-player may disapprove.

http://www.badpets.net/Diplomacy/AtoZ/EF.html#FlyingDutchman

Any game can be played under the house rules that cheating is allowed. Monopoly played by Calvin and Hobbes is one well-known example. However, the rules completely defined what is allowed to happen on the board, and I guarantee that "you may do whatever the hell you want when no one is looking" is not in the rules.

The rules don't completely define what is allowed to happen on the board. They don't, for example, cover convoy paradoxes. Is "you may not do whatever the hell you want when no one is looking" in the rules?

No, but rules of a game must be either prestrictive or restrictive. Restrictive rules tell you what you can't do, and prestrictive rules tell you what you can do. For example, in sports, it is impossible to completely define what a player can do, so we tell players what they can't do (in soccer/football, to describe everything that players could do, we would have to describe running, walking, kicking, heading, etc. to a high degree of precision, and referees would have to carefully watch that players did nothing else. Instead, it is much easier to make rules defining what players can't do [let the ball touch their hands or arms, foul other players in specific ways, pass to an offsides player, etc.]) However, in a board game, it is much easier to describe what CAN be done. The rules tell you how moves are inputted, and what results based on that. They don't described completely what PLAYERS can do, because that is not important - they describe what happens to the pieces on the board under what circumstances. If we interpret diplomacy rules as prescriptive, the game works the way we intend it to (basically the way it works on this site). If we interpret the rules as restrictive, all chaos breaks loose. Not only can we move pieces while no one else is looking, we can move pieces while everyone is looking, then punch them in the face when they complain and/or try to move them back. Because the rules don't mention that a fleet is allowed to be replace by a submarine that moves only on sea spaces, but moves two spaces a turn, I think I'm going to do that. This way lies madness. The only way to interpret the rules of Diplomacy that makes a game worth playing is if we assume that the rules describe what CAN happen, not what CAN'T. When I said the rules "completely define what is allowed to happen on the board" this is what I meant. I did not mean that they create a perfectly complete and logical system. The convoy paradoxes are a flaw in the game, not an invitation to cheat in whatever way you want.

Eh, it might not be the nicest thing to do to the player getting shafted, but it's not illegal. I love the ethical debates in a game like Diplomacy where ethics seems to be at the bottom of most peoples' priorities. It only becomes an issue when one is getting the shorter end of the stick, then it's unethical. =)

I take your point, freak, though I think your examples are unrealistic comparisons. If you were playing ftf, and somebody put one of your submarines on the board, you'd notice and object immediately. If somebody punched you in the face, you'd notice and object immediately, and probably knock them cold, or have them arrested, declare their country to be in civil disorder, and take all their centers. If someone slips a unit onto the board, and you DON'T notice immediately.... then what? I'm not saying that this is legal, it's obviously not.... neither is stealing mail.... all I'm saying is that these tactics have been used, without negative consequences for the offender. It's dirty to cheat, but then it's a dirty game, and that's half the fun, so if you think you can get away with it.... well, like I said, I'd probably stop short of murder. Probably.

I am on the side that the rules set out the only allowable behavior of the units. If the rules do not state it is allowed, then it is not allowed. The rules, however, do not address any limitations of tactics or diplomatic promises other than "no agreements are binding." As far as what diplomatic and strategic tactics are used, the player is not restricted, even to his own word as long as the moves he orders follow the prescribed rules.

Whereas I am of the opinion that rules must be enforceable - which is the beauty of internet play.

when i first read your post i actually thought you must be talking about MarekP :-) no, this is not ok, but it happens even in WTA and even in high pot games. all we can do is complain and bring those metagaming players to the public eye

Well I guess we are agreed then. The procedure you described is against the rules, and thus cheating; yet some players choose to play with the house rules that cheating is not punished. It's not actually any different than Calvin and Hobbes playing Monopoly, just maybe a little more widespread.

So then, is it okay to take supply centers from your ally? As Feckless pointed out, The Chairman was more than happy to accept supply centers from his ally when his ally was giving them away... Personally, I think that if France formed an alliance with England when there were only three threatening Great Powers remaining in the game, and promised England double digit supply centers (thus, obviously, giving England a chance to gain power and stab France to give England a shot at victory himself), that it is more than fair for France to keep his word... This is especially true when Turkey benefitted greatly from Italy's kamikaze mission against France and Turkey's size in the game was largely a result of Italy's charity...

Charity? How dare you? T'was unbridled malice!

Ah, and for full disclosure, now that the game is over. I was trying to convince Turkey to work with me and was going to attack France, to try to go for the win (that's what the game's about, right?) But he didn't want to work with me on my conditions. So I had two choices, work with France, get 10 SCs or attack France and fight France with 17 SCs and Turkey with 10, while I had 8.

It was an obvious choice and I think I did the right thing. I wish I could have worked with Turkey to gain a few more SCs (even if that meant Turkey winning), or even possibly win. But in the end, Turkey gave up (more or less) choosing to attack me rather than defending his SCs, so that I'd have less and he'd have more. Which makes total sense. If you're going to lose, try to get as many SCs as possible. That was my strategy and Turkey's too.

i think its ok. one must keep to the world system, ie one sc equals the ability to have one unit, fleets cant move inland, armies cant walk on water, london borders the english channel and so on and so on

but within that system its your sc and you may give it to whom ever you like.

as for metagaming alamothe, that only comes into consideration if another game is involved.