Ethics have nothing to do with it. If it is anon, do what you want - it's a question of your self-image as a ruthless winner vs. your self-image as a giving individual. If it's not anon, you do need to consider the consequences to your reputation for future play - after all, that's kind of the point with non-anon.

there may be no mercy

In my opinion - at least in anon games - you're kind of signing a contract that you'll fulfill your victory condition to the best of your ability. Declining to eliminate players when the game is effectively over (as in, you can no longer change your reputation or manipulate them in a way that is useful), is, in my opinion, a breach of this contract.

This obviously isn't true in non-anon... but non-anon is basically match fixing IMO.

^Wut? Non-anonymous isn't that at all... When you play FTF can you play an anonymous match? Non-anonymous is more in line with how the game was intended to be played.

In every non-anon game I've played, the player with the enormous match history of never ever backstabbing is in on the draw. The only viable strategy is to never stab and never lie, since all that matters is the long-term record and not that individual game.

By viable I mean "would exist in a nash equilibrium", not "can win some games".

Really, Condescension? I'm pretty sure I have quite a few losses on my record, and they're not all anonymous games.

I'm afraid I'm with James. I'm from the Triumvir school: win if you can, draw if you must, survive at all costs. The point is to win or failing that get the best draw. That means eliminating players where you can

I actually found Diplomacy through Triumvir, lol

Past actions certainly can, and often do have consequences (good or bad) in non-anonymous games. A known player's history effects strategy as well, but match fixing is a poor generalization.

So players excellent at getting into a draw in non-anon games are fixing the result? More like they are good at getting into a draw, and thus are likely to do so again. Those that struggle in non-anon games often struggle because they fail to understand that projecting a good nature and then being ruthless to go for a win is revealed and seen as just being ruthless, yet they fail to adjust and soften their approach in at least some games. In non-anon games, you have to genuinely be a loyal ally some of the time, if not most of the time, if you want to earn the trust of the other players that pay attention to this, which the better non-anon players almost always do.

It's all about making your history as docile and friendly as possible. The ideal non-anon player is the one that never double-deals and never backstabs, which is bullshit. The aim of a game should be to win THAT game, not to win the next 100 games.

My favorite non-anon games are ones in which everyone "gets it" and is trying for a good alliance to the end, and it's a matter of negotiating for those alliances and then making the best tactical and cooperative moves to find become one of the players in the end game. Inevitably, some player that plays mostly anon games stumbles into one of these non-anon games and starts crying that the game is awful because players aren't trying to solo. They're missing the point, and are out of their element.

Surprise - repeat game theory favors friendly players, or rather tit-for-tat style play, which in turn favors friendly players and punishes backstabbing players. That's not BS, that's how game theory works. Anon games hides this repeat element, so people that mostly play anon games don't seem to understand this, and have to resort to calling repeat game style playing BS because they find themselves losing a dozen games for every one-to-two that they win.

I understand the game theory. It can be game theory and also bs.

Obviously it's the rational way to play, it's just also profoundly not fun.

Diplomacy wasn't meant to be boiled down to repeated prisoner's dilemma.

You can see completed anon games too, so I'm not really sure how cultivating an image would have any less of an effect in anon games. It's also not my experience at all that people metagame non-anon that hard.

I don't see much point in eliminating people once I can't solo. It increases the chances that something will get fucked up and allow someone else to solo, and even without that it's just wasting time eliminating people when the game is already over. If I do it, it's usually out of spite for the eliminee, respect for someone who wants to narrow the draw, or a perceived chance to solo.

People IN the anon games can't see your anon games. If you never play non-anon, you don't have to build a reputation.

What about if it's a 7 way draw unless you eliminate people? :p

As ABC always said, the perfect Dip game results in a 7-way draw. (That's why I've never understood a 7-way being regarded as the least valuable outcome in most eating systems. In my view, it should probably be worth more than a solo and certainly more than any other draw.) But no game is ever perfect.

However, it is not a question of ethics as to whether or not to eliminate players but rather personal morality. In my view, regardless of the scoring system, players should be playing to win. What constitutes a win, though, will vary by circumstances. In a tournament, for example, securing a part in a draw might mean qualifying for the next round. That could be seen as a win. Likewise, playing to maximise a rating score by not being eliminated could be a legitimate aim.

My philosophy is summed up by the phrase, "win if you can, draw if you must and survive when you have to".

My philosophy is "maximize your expected value". As in, maximize the expected number of points at the end of the game.

My philosophy is "Do whatever it takes to prevent someone else's solo". Once that risk is mitigated, then "Cull out the weak!"

I prefer team victories. I know a bunch of you hate that, but there it is.

I wouldn't say its unethical. It is a bit selfish. But the whole point of a stalemate is to reach a position to where nobody is willing to play anymore, no more progress can be made, and/or nobody wants to make anymore progress because of repercussions or the threat of being teamed-up on. So, if there still is an opportunity to win, then it isn't much of stalemate to begin with.

"I understand the game theory. It can be game theory and also bs."

The world works like this. Develop a good reputation and things generally get better for you as people learn they can trust you.

It's not BS

This is actually a really interesting question because the current mod ruling in live games as I understand it is the mods will force a draw in 3 years if the leading player does not have a valid strategy for "winning" when an unbreakable stalemate is in place. Not limiting the draw, but winning. So if you had the chance to eliminate a small country but it would take you 4 years to do it while the stalemate line is 100% in place, would that still qualify for a forced draw?

Not anything I ever ran into in years of modding here, so it's unlikely to ever occur, but interesting nonetheless.

Interesting rule, but it makes sense in a live game situation. Someone in the lead could just keep making moves, waiting for other players to eventually resign/CD.

Oh don't get me wrong, it's an absolutely essential rule to prevent that exact situation you just explained. I just wonder what the right call would be in the unlikely situation I explained.

I made that sound like I thought you were being critical of the rule. That was not my intention :)

It would be a tough call. Could you maybe consider the rule's intention over what it actually says in black and white? Another problem could being able to verify that they would ever truly attempt to eliminate said country. It could be just another stall tactic.