Messages - webDiplomacy

Chat archive

28 Jul 13 UTC	Spring, 2000: [Russia]:Oh my god, I've played this map almost a hundred times and this is the first time I've EVER been West Russia.
28 Jul 13 UTC	Spring, 2000: GameMaster: Mintyclinch was banned: multi/meta. The time until the next phase has been extended by one phase length to give an opportunity to replace the player. Remember to finalize your orders if you don't want to wait, so the game isn't held up unnecessarily!
28 Jul 13 UTC	Spring, 2000: [South-Africa]:Wow
28 Jul 13 UTC	Spring, 2000: [Russia]:Excellent. Good for you, anyway, South Africa, if no one takes the position.
29 Jul 13 UTC	Spring, 2000: [South-Africa]:I hoped for a game without drop outs
29 Jul 13 UTC	Spring, 2000: [China]:could we pause until the 31st? i'm going camping and wont have internet access
29 Jul 13 UTC	Spring, 2000: [Near-East]:why would you start a game when you knew you wouldnt be able to play for the first three days
29 Jul 13 UTC	Spring, 2000: [Russia]:It's alright, China's generally doomed anyway. Possibly the worst positioning on the map, next to Libya.
29 Jul 13 UTC	Spring, 2000: [China]:thats the thing, i didnt know about this -_-
29 Jul 13 UTC	Spring, 2000: [India]:I too voted pause, but if ALL the players don't vote pause, the game will go, obviously, in 4 hours, sorry for you China.....
31 Jul 13 UTC	Autumn, 2000: [China]:could have been worse...
04 Aug 13 UTC	Autumn, 2001: [Near-East]:India is so mad.
05 Aug 13 UTC	Autumn, 2001: [Russia]:They should have seen it coming. I mean, no matter how close you're working with someone, you DON'T leave your back open like that.
05 Aug 13 UTC	Autumn, 2001: [India]:Near East is not only insulting in the global but also a trahitor in the starting phase of the game: I invite ALL the players not to trust in him because his words have no value and in this manner he shows also to be a very inexpert player, thinking that is good to show all over the world that he is a no-confiable ally, from the starting of a game!!!!!!
05 Aug 13 UTC	Autumn, 2001: [India]:Russia, at the starting of a complex game with so many anonymous players everybofy need to have a real alliance and to trust in the ally; only the poor and foolish gang-members try to have many enemies and to show their dark attitude from the beginning, so it's not an error to leave the back open...., it's an error to exploit this little advantage in the starting phase, when everybody can stop forever to trust in the author of a trahison.....ahahahah!
05 Aug 13 UTC	Autumn, 2001: [South-Africa]:Wait, in a game of Diplomacy you are complaining players betraying you? Excuse me, Sir, but that is what the game is all about.
05 Aug 13 UTC	Autumn, 2001: [India]:no sir, you don't understand or I'm not able to explain.... betrahing is normal in Diplomacy; betraying in the first turns is a gang.style act, expecially in a game with so many anonymous players! do you understand?
05 Aug 13 UTC	Autumn, 2001: [India]:the first turns need to build alliances, to share points, to reinforce himself without be obliged to think that the "ally" is betraying you from the starting...! if you act in a different manner you simply show to all the other players that you are not confiable and in such a game with so many players you can damnage your "ally" but you will be destroyed by the other ones, simply refusing any pact with you. do you understand, now, sir? I hope yes......
05 Aug 13 UTC	Autumn, 2001: [India]:consequently, betraying in the starting phase is a simple gang-style act, without any sense and logic, a little gangster "stratehy": no less and no more..... of couirse it is completely different if A has a secret pact with B against C from the starting and one or two of them create a false "pact" with C to attack it better: this is strategy (and loyalty between A and B....), the gang-style betraying in the starting remains olny...gang-style without future....
05 Aug 13 UTC	Autumn, 2001: [India]:course*