Join or create a team of excellent players and try your luck in the 2021 World Cup! Sign ups close at the end of November.

Registration for the virtual World Diplomacy Championship played on Backstabbr can be found here.

Finished: 12 PM Wed 18 Jan 12 UTC
Featured Private Deadzone in the Amazon
2 days /phase
Pot: 875 D - Spring, 1907, Finished
Classic, Draw-Size Scoring
1 excused missed turn
Game drawn
27 Dec 11 UTC Spring, 1903: You guys keep repeating this as if that was a fact, an objective fact.

All I see is people refusing to get passed certain issues. The "tits up" part is true only so long as you make it.
27 Dec 11 UTC Spring, 1903: But I'm not the one making it tits up. I have apologized for making it happen, but I'm ready to play on *if* none else is just phoning it in.
27 Dec 11 UTC Spring, 1903: Cach, I do not limit my ethics in a game of diplomacy to what the mods require, the mods are largely hands-off and foster an "anything goes" attitude. I was never the child that pushed the limits of the rules to see what I could get away with, and as an adult I tend to think thinds through a bit and make my own interpretations. I think the mod's "rules" can be a bit political and thus I do not limit my views to those enforced by the mods. For example, I could imagine the Catholic church's official view of homosexuality always will be that it's a sin merely because if they backed off of that view then it could look like the Catholic church is trying to excuse the actions of the priests that have molested boys, so the politics of the situation can completely override the situation itself.
27 Dec 11 UTC Spring, 1903: Cach, I do not limit my ethics in a game of diplomacy to what the mods require, the mods are largely hands-off and foster an "anything goes" attitude. I was never the child that pushed the limits of the rules to see what I could get away with, and as an adult I tend to think thinds through a bit and make my own interpretations. I think the mod's "rules" can be a bit political and thus I do not limit my views to those enforced by the mods. For example, I could imagine the Catholic church's official view of homosexuality always will be that it's a sin merely because if they backed off of that view then it could look like the Catholic church is trying to excuse the actions of the priests that have molested boys, so the politics of the situation can completely override the situation itself.
27 Dec 11 UTC Spring, 1903: Cach, I do not limit my ethics in a game of diplomacy to what the mods require, the mods are largely hands-off and foster an "anything goes" attitude. I was never the child that pushed the limits of the rules to see what I could get away with, and as an adult I tend to think thinds through a bit and make my own interpretations. I think the mod's "rules" can be a bit political and thus I do not limit my views to those enforced by the mods. For example, I could imagine the Catholic church's official view of homosexuality always will be that it's a sin merely because if they backed off of that view then it could look like the Catholic church is trying to excuse the actions of the priests that have molested boys, so the politics of the situation can completely override the situation itself.
27 Dec 11 UTC Spring, 1903: Draug, I agree with your view that an easy draw is the likely outcome of this. Token game and that the natural ebb and flow that should take place in a game has largely been compromised in here by factors outside of the game, and that is the reason I view this game broken, but I will fight on regardless of my personal views on the situation.
27 Dec 11 UTC Spring, 1903: Okay, sly, time to see if you are a man of your word, both Babak and Draugnar have "given up" in here, you said you'd vote cancel if just one of them refused to play on.
27 Dec 11 UTC Spring, 1903: Tee-hee! Double post! Those became so rare once we transitioned to the new server and we already have 2 in this game!

I think your example is missing the point MM. This game is one where the outcome of the game must be decided diplomatically. In other words, any decision the players have to make that can have an effect on the outcome of the game is to be reached through diplomatic relations.
Cancelling a game is bringing the game to an end: much like a draw or a victory, it is a possible OUTCOME of the game. That is why it should not be decided democratically but diplomatically.

I've yet to see anyone tackle this point in our conversations.

And I'm not going to take a swing at the hornets nest that is the example you suggested!

One thing to consider...

In logic, appeal to the majority is considered a sophism (an argument where the logic is flawed). The only reason we distinguish democratic decision (elections, for example) from such a sophism is because we have a system a law that recognizes the authority of a majority vote. You'll note, however, that systems of law are generally grounded documents (say the American Constitution, for example) that are rarely (if ever) the result of a democratic vote. More generally, they are dictated by the winners of a war or a revolution.
27 Dec 11 UTC Spring, 1903: Oh! And Draug maintains that he will play so long as Babak plays.

And Babak has said, and I quote: "As long as there is even one person not voting to cancel, the game goes on."

So Sly is not stuck in the position you would have him.
27 Dec 11 UTC Spring, 1903: Cach, perhaps we have a bit of cultural differences at work as well, you often make very little sense to me, and I have family comIng in a few hours that will stay through New Year's Day, so at this point it is what it is and I view other people's opinions how I view them, so I will have to pick up this debate at a later time.
27 Dec 11 UTC Spring, 1903: I wish you happy celebrations!
27 Dec 11 UTC Spring, 1903: Cache - Something is getting lost in translation. Babak isn't actually playing. He is going through the motions so he doesn't CD. But he isn't communicating and isn't really putting forth the effort. There is making moves and there is playing. Babak is doing the first, not the second.
28 Dec 11 UTC Spring, 1903: You know, everyone had their opportunity to vote. It seemed to me that everyone agreed (at least implicitly if not explicitly) to have a majority rules vote on the issue of canceling. The funniest thing is that originally cach stated he felt a cancel was the best way forward and mm was the one pushing for the game not to be canceled. In my view mm only switched sides once he realized his in-game position was untenable.

Everyone had their chance to vote and cancel this game. I am leaving my cancel vote in place as it represents what I truly feel *should* happen, but I have no expectation that the game will be canceled. I also do not feel that sly, cach, or jmo should feel any obligation to cancel.
28 Dec 11 UTC Spring, 1903: Babak is going suicidal on an identified target.

That is one way of playing it as well. You're right that he could try to play with you (and you telling us he isn't could be a way to hide the fact he is!!!), but he doesn't have to.

Since when do we decide what other players are to do? I thought we were supposed to have them do our bidding by convincing them thus?
28 Dec 11 UTC Autumn, 1903: Alright, I read through all pf these messages, and I have not say I am not, even a slightly more convinced that this game should be cancelled. MadMarx, I'm a man of my words when dealing with those kind of things, but I beg to differ when I see others aren't keeping their words on what they said in earlier commitments. So that does not apply to this specific case. I also am not someone who appreciates to be dictated what I should or should not do. We live in a free world, right? Mate, you did good in convincing me to do the undoable in our last game, but it surely didn't work in this game! Not that I take our last game as a reference of how I should interpret your thoughts, but let's say I am not convinced by the weight of the arguments you've stated earlier. Be pissed or not at me for deciding so, but that's the way I feel right now and how I'm dealing with this situation ATM. And now, I'm facing a new situation that convinces me even more to finish this game off, to let others know, in an EoG thread, what was my thought process through all this game/drama.

@Jacob: Your honesty and your "straight forwardness" honours you from all the messages I read from you on the global chat. I wanted to point that out before finishing this message.
28 Dec 11 UTC Autumn, 1903: Wah! This Iphone is making me sick! First sentence of my message was: "and I have TO say I am not"
28 Dec 11 UTC Autumn, 1903: Thanks sly. Also, my iPhone does the same thing to me...
30 Dec 11 UTC Autumn, 1903: OK, all holds ordered. This should get me eliminated quickly and give the bullies their easy and worthless draw.
30 Dec 11 UTC Autumn, 1903: Ah yes Draugnar, because that is what good sportsmanship is all about, when you don't get your way do whatever you think will best fuck over everyone else.
30 Dec 11 UTC Autumn, 1903: Fuck "good sportsmanship". This is diplomacy, assholes. It's a fucking game and the order of presidence is win, then draw, then screw anyone who was determined to keep you out of the draw. I don't believe in survives which is why I don't play WTA and I believe in having fun above the rest. The game isn't fun, so I make int interesting and then get the fuck out.
30 Dec 11 UTC Autumn, 1903: *precedence... Brain fart.
01 Jan 12 UTC Autumn, 1903: Hol and Pic disbanding.
01 Jan 12 UTC Autumn, 1903: I like your way of making the game funner Draug...

That's right... funner.

Happy new year all.
01 Jan 12 UTC Autumn, 1903: BTW, That's why I only play WTA and don't play PPSC. Another brain fart that night.
02 Jan 12 UTC Autumn, 1903: I'm not quite sure I get what you mean by that...
02 Jan 12 UTC Autumn, 1903: I was correcting my earlier post where I said I don't play WTA when I meant I only play WTA.
03 Jan 12 UTC Spring, 1904: hold entered
04 Jan 12 UTC Spring, 1904: Question: Is it metagaming to not want to discuss options with someone so that the game can end in a "logical" draw, reason being that Babak has chosen to metagame against Draugnar while Draugnar's response to that metagaming is to quit playing? To be more precise, if you significantly alter your playing style due to the fact that this game involves serious metagaming and you want the game to end, what is the point of continuing to "play" (i.e. go through the motions just to get your highly valued draw) rather than admit the obvious (that the game is broken and should be canceled), isn't it metagaming to alter your play based on outside factors (i.e. Babak metagaming against Draugnar) and what is being proven?

If people want to play, let's play (I know I am trying). If people just want to waltz to their draw because this game is "broken" and they want it to end, what is the point, why not cancel?
04 Jan 12 UTC Spring, 1904: I think the point is mainly to punish you for being a whining conniving baby.
04 Jan 12 UTC Spring, 1904: MM - you better stop your retarded fucking accusations. What the hell is your problem?

You either do not know the definition of metagaming or you are such a poor excuse for a player that you can't accept when your own actions cause your own downfall. Fuck you for being such a prick and for making such a baseless accusation.
04 Jan 12 UTC Spring, 1904: Babak, my understanding is that you are allowing whatever transpired between you and Draugnar on the forum and/or your other game together to influence your actions in this game, which, based on my understanding, is metagaming (regardless of how good or poor your reasons are). Do you deny this?
04 Jan 12 UTC Spring, 1904: From the webDip rulebook:

No Metagaming: You can't make alliances for reasons outside a game.

This also implies you can't refuse to make an alliance for reasons outside a game.
04 Jan 12 UTC Spring, 1904: Dude! Careful: there is no such implication.

"You can't make alliances for reasons outside a game" means that I can't decide to have an alliance with Sly BEFORE the game has even begun just cause he's my friend. Such a move would give me an unfair advantage.

But it sure as hell doesn't mean I can't refuse to ally with you just because I don't like you. The fact is, this game is won by alliances, not by refusals to ally. If I decide from the outset that I won't ally with Babak, that's a constraint I freely elect to play under. Yes, it might affect Babak's chances of winning as well... or it may not. Point is: you can't presume either way. In other words, it's really just my problem -- and certainly not the best way to secure my victory.

The whole point to the metagaming rule is that one should not avail oneself of "in game" advantages in virtue of conditions external to the game.

Refusing to ally with someone for reasons outside the game can hardly count as an "in game" advantage.

All that to say:
Can we drop this conversation already????????? It's really getting tired.
04 Jan 12 UTC Spring, 1904: That is an excellent point, Cachimbo, I never thought about it quite like that...

My own personal bias is that I feel strongly a game should be played on its own merits and should not be impacted positively or negatively by some extreme unique event that happens outside of the game. It frustrates me, but I suppose it is what it is at this point.
05 Jan 12 UTC Autumn, 1904: MM - me not working with Draug in-game had everything to do with his attitude. That included both in and out of game. Just as YOU bring in all your baggage into a game, and I can quote you directly, treated me differently than you would other players - others have that same right.

Long story short, you have no leg to stand on with this argument and i'm insulted by your invectives here. Enough so that I wrote words against you that I had not even directed at Draugnar. Since I'm not the first nor even second on this map alone that has been so offended by your 'diplomacy' you might want to consider why this pattern has emerged.

This game is indeed shot to hell, you were right about that, but folks do not want to cancel, so get over it and stop being such a pansy.
05 Jan 12 UTC Autumn, 1904: Babak, why on earth are you voting cancel if you "not working with Draug in-game had everything to do with his attitude"?!?!?!?!

To me, voting cancel means this game is tainted by outside factors, and if this game is tainted by outside factors it's because of you and Draugnar, and if it's because of you and Draugnar it's mainly you since Draugnar initially voted to continue playing and Draugnar didn't think there was an issue that could not be overcome, and if that's the case then you are metagaming, based on my assumed definition of metagaming at the start of this game. So, in my eyes, either you are metagaming or you should not vote cancel (i.e. if you are not metagaming there is no reason to vote cancel), and if you are not voting cancel and are not metagaming then I'm not voting cancel since nothing is seriously wrong. Pretty simple, really, nothing to get so worked up about.
05 Jan 12 UTC Autumn, 1904: Thinking on this just a bit more, I have removed my cancel vote. Babak, I think I have over-estimated your character a bit, I assumed you would only vote cancel if there was metagaming involved, not just because you are upset with people in this game, but I think that assumption was wrong at this point. Just because a game is "shot to hell" you don't vote cancel, it's all about the reason the game is shot to hell, and if you are just voting cancel because you don't like how our pre-game discussions went and you don't like Draugnars in-game attitude, you seriously need to pull up your skirt and toughen up.

Also, it is becoming much more clear how much my in-game diplomacy has affected you, but I would not argue from that that my diplomacy is weak/poor, I would conclude that my diplomacy is either pretty good to get you to flip out so badly or the more likely conclusion that your emotions have gotten the better of you and thus we have seen a weakness of yours in that you could not control your temper.

As far as spring 1901 moves and pre-game diplomacy I have absolutely no regrets and would do things just the same if I had a chance to do it over. Yeah, I play you a bit different than some, but that's a compliment and shouldn't be that big of a deal if I don't immediately agree to typical F/I DMZs, but *you* turned it into a big deal by freaking out and demanding I bounce you in Piedmont. If someone demands I do something, my knee-jerk reaction is to do the opposite since I don't want to set a precedent that I bow down to that sort of tactic, so I did what I had to do by allowing you into Piedmont, it was the logical thing to do.

As far as Jacob, I tried to be open to an A/I, but when I'm Italy and in the pregame Austria is very vague about wanting to be allies but doesn't want to discuss *any* short term plans together and just wants to see how things play out, I get a bit nervous. So, I try to come up with some sort of play to bounce in Trieste and then the Austria freaks out at me, that's pretty much all the *in-game* evidence I need to get the Austrian's attention with my first moves. It was a bit unreal to me how you (Babak) and Jacob completely freaked out in here, and more surprising how both of your attitudes have continued on (perhaps even worsened), but I suppose that's your burden to carry not mine.

As far as arguing for a cancel, that's what I thought was the right thing, and when faced with a situation that I don't think is going how it should, my default is to say something. If that doesn't work, I'll say something else. If you two think I'm whining or being a baby, again, not my problem, call me names all you want and cuss me out all you want, I'm merely reacting to situations as I see fit. I make no claims that I am perfect and do things well all the time, I often make things up as I go knowing if that I step on anyone's toes along the way one of two things will happen. One, we can talk it out and gain a stronger relationship through the process or, two, things go to hell and we're better off not having much of a relationship. Suppose it's clear how that is playing out, and I'd argue getting that sort of thing figured out sooner rather than later will serve all involved very well.
05 Jan 12 UTC Autumn, 1904: Save your breath mm. We see through it all.
05 Jan 12 UTC Autumn, 1904: Hey Jacob! You'll have it, that's for sure. Have you tried to message JMO about it as well?
05 Jan 12 UTC Autumn, 1904: wow... that was bright, Sly... Congrats
15 Jan 12 UTC Autumn, 1906: Just going to take this chance to encourage everyone to participate in one of the School of War games as either a TA or a Professor, there is a full list of students signed up for game 2 but a sad lack of higher ranks willing to help them along! Just give it a bit of thought!
15 Jan 12 UTC Autumn, 1906: See you all in a couple months, it's break time.
15 Jan 12 UTC Autumn, 1906: Sorry JMO! Cach just said in my face I was a n00b! I guess, then, I don't qualify for this! ;0)
No, but seriously, I need a break as well after this other game I'm playing!
Should we do an EoG thread for this game or might that influence a resurgence of the drama that went on? I'll wait for you guys' thoughts on the matter.
15 Jan 12 UTC Autumn, 1906: Oh jeez, I think an EoG for this game would take me forever. I also know Draug is not a fan, and that Babak and MM are both taking a break for a while.
15 Jan 12 UTC Autumn, 1906: I'm not up for it. Neither got the time nor the desire to go over this game.
15 Jan 12 UTC No EOG for me.

It was nice meeting many of you. This game sucked however and should have been cancelled in my opinion. But it is what it is.

Meanwhile I hope whenever I get back to the site, ill play with you all again. Though never again non-anon.
15 Jan 12 UTC Here here!
15 Jan 12 UTC Congrats jmo, cach, and sly!
15 Jan 12 UTC Thanks Jacob!! Will look forward to play an other game with any of you!
15 Jan 12 UTC Oh, and to those who are taking a break like me (I think Cachimbo, Babak and MM), well... Have a good break!

Start Backward Open large map Forward End

England
slyster (3934 D)
Drawn. Bet: 125 D, won: 292 D
12 supply-centers, 12 units
Turkey
jmo1121109 (3817 D Mod)
Drawn. Bet: 125 D, won: 292 D
11 supply-centers, 11 units
Russia
Cachimbo (1181 D)
Drawn. Bet: 125 D, won: 292 D
11 supply-centers, 11 units
Italy
MadMarx (36290 D (G))
Defeated. Bet: 125 D
France
Babak (26982 D (B))
Defeated. Bet: 125 D
Austria
Jacob (2562 D)
Defeated. Bet: 125 D
Germany
Draugnar (0 D X)
Defeated. Bet: 125 D
Archive: Orders - Maps - Messages