Civil Service Medals

[CaptainFritz28]

I have noticed that there are many among the community of WebDip players who are exceptionally nice persons. Either being helpful when uncalled for, to great gratitude, or being a rather open and honest person, or taking over a doomed position out of their own goodwill, these people do what they can to make each WebDip game they play a great experience for others. However, there is no way to reward them.

Thus, I suggest Civil Service Medals. These would be a medal that could be voted upon by all players to award to another player, once per game. Should a player receive six out of seven votes (or a unanimous vote, but I figure there is always the person who doesn't realize others are voting or who just doesn't care), they would be awarded a Civil Service Medal which would be displayed on their profile.

This would give an incentive, if even a small one, to join games where you will be in a position you know you will lose. Just an idea I thought would be interesting!

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I would love if taking on open positions were at least counted correctly on a player's page, which is not the case now.

That said, I don't know that it'd be good to reward helpfulness/openness/honesty in other contexts. Seems like that might encourage even more Carebearishness, which IMO is already a fairly major problem on this site.

Besides, being mean and a liar is sometimes the optimal move in this game. We should never encourage a player to make a suboptimal move in the hope of receiving some other award.

[VonEconomo]

I think this is a bad idea.

If I have guessed the game that the original post is in response to, the medal would go to a player helping an alliance committed to a large, 4-way draw take their territory. Diplomacy should be about encouraging people to win, not helping them create a large draw.

[CaptainFritz28]

To Economo's point, a) I would much rather a player do what the aformentioned has done than what many would do, giving up on the game entirely, leading us into multiple wasted turns, and b) You haven't seen the end of that game. There is more to come. Also, a four-way draw may be the best I can hope for as a central player in a public press game.

To Bertissimo's points, honesty and decency are good things. Diplomacy should not be about lying your way to the top, nor about shouldering your way to first place without regard for others, but about persuading your way into the lead. A player who can be honest, kind, and win games is objectively better than one who must lie to achieve the same. We should not encourage dishonesty, nor rudeness, for that is not good Diplomacy. The spirit of the game is two objectives: increasing in persuasiveness and having fun. Lying and being mean does neither. (I know, because I have done so far more than I would care to admit.)

As for carebearishness, this encourages the opposite. Instead of staying in a large draw because you like your allies, you can stab them and have no remorse, as you may vote for them gaining a medal as a token of being a good ally. It also means that instead of leaving a nation in a draw with one or two centers, because they have been an honorable player, you can eliminate them and not feel bad because you have voted for them gaining a medal. Also, I must remind you that this would be a unanimous vote, or at least 6 out of 7. That means that if anyone has worries that voting for them would encourage carebearing, they may simply not vote for them. This would be a fairly rare medal, awarded only when all players involved believe that a certain player has done something worth rewarding.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

"Diplomacy should not be about lying your way to the top"

Is this a troll post lol? That's like 50% of the game. If your lies aren't persuasive you might just need practice.

[CaptainFritz28]

As I said, a player who can win entirely honestly is exponentially better than someone who must lie to win. Sure, lying works, but it doesn't make you as persuasive as if you are entirely honest.

[CaptainFritz28]

As for being persuasive, I don't claim any persuasiveness, whether when lying or honest. :D I'm just pointing out that an honest victor is a better player than a dishonest one, and we should try to be the best diplomats that we can.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I guess I just fundamentally disagree.

There are many game situations that require lying and deceit. I don't know how one could ever solo without deceiving at least the second place player. Likewise, it is rarely strategic to give an accurate answer to a question like "Are you going to attack me next season in Kiel? If so, how many supports will it have?".

Persuasion is also very hard to distinguish from dishonesty in this game. Alliances run on narratives, which are subjective interpretations of the state of the board, what's likely to happen next, the playstyle of other players, etc. Even a player who commits to communicating only the truth (or at least their true opinion in cases of uncertainty) will still be deciding what topics they want to bring up proactively. And if a player is volunteering press that even they think would be bad for their strategy, then they're no longer actually playing Diplomacy.

If there's a huge skills mismatch, or if a player gets very lucky, the better or luckier player can probably afford to be somewhat more honest - but should we reward a player for playing against opponents who are way below their skill level, or for getting lucky?

And such an award would reward Carebearishness, because it would be much more likely to be given out in a game that ended in draws. The larger the draw, the more likely it is that at least one player would have the luxury of never needing to lie. I really don't think a solo game amongst experienced and evenly-matched players could ever end without deceit unless someone got exceedingly lucky.

[CaptainFritz28]

I guess I just fundamentally disagree.

There are many game situations that require lying and deceit. I don't know how one could ever solo without deceiving at least the second place player. Likewise, it is rarely strategic to give an accurate answer to a question like "Are you going to attack me next season in Kiel? If so, how many supports will it have?".

The trouble that you point out with being honest is that it is very difficult to win. One must be honest to all, including their enemies. This means that in the early game, you must make alliances with people in which all parties are entirely open with each other, often leading to a stab of the honest player. That is, unless the honest player is able to convince the other not to, by means of eloquence and skillful persuasion.

Thus, you determine allies and enemies, and make it clear to those who ask who the aforementioned groups of nations are. You must rely, as in the real world, on overwhelming force, to make things work. If someone asks if you will be attacking them, you reply that you are not willing to share for strategic reasons, but that if they propose a better alternative than attacking them, you will consider it.

In the end game, to solo, one must betray their long standing allies. But there are honest ways to do so. The turn before betrayal, the honest player will inform the party to be attacked that their alliance, while it has been long and full of grand campaigns, must come to an end. Solos usually happen one of two ways - either the soloing player sees an opportunity in which they cannot be stopped or it comes down to a 50-50 guess and the soloing player wins. Either of these can be carried out with full honesty, in the method described above.

Persuasion is also very hard to distinguish from dishonesty in this game.

Not when you are the one doing the persuading. You know full well if what you write to another player is true or not, it is up to them to decide if they trust you.

Alliances run on narratives, which are subjective interpretations of the state of the board, what's likely to happen next, the playstyle of other players, etc. Even a player who commits to communicating only the truth (or at least their true opinion in cases of uncertainty) will still be deciding what topics they want to bring up proactively.

All true. Opinions are only from one's own perspective. It is impossible to be perfectly objectively honest, as we are not omniscient. However, it is very possible to be honest with what information you have. For example, whilst trying to convince Italy that Turkey is to be feared, and must be stopped, an honest Austrian player may point out the various strategic options Turkey has to invade Italy, and how these options present a threat. On the other hand, Austria argues, Austria does not have such options, as they are locked in a war with a juggernaut. Thus, for Italy's own protection, they should ally with Austria against the Turko-Russian menace. All of that is honest, albeit from a certain player's perspective. Opinions, while just that, may be conveyed with truth.

And if a player is volunteering press that even they think would be bad for their strategy, then they're no longer actually playing Diplomacy.

I don't think that is necessary. A simple "My ally does not wish for you to have that information," or "I have not seen proof of your trustworthiness, so I cannot provide such information as is requested at this time," or "I am afraid you are a declared enemy of my state," or "I cannot share such information at this time," or "I am not at will to say," will suffice to ward of intel-seekers. It is to the player's discretion who receives information.

If there's a huge skills mismatch, or if a player gets very lucky, the better or luckier player can probably afford to be somewhat more honest - but should we reward a player for playing against opponents who are way below their skill level, or for getting lucky?

That is non-unique to my proposed medals plan. People who are matched with opponents of far less skill will always be rewarded. That is not a fault of my plan, but of the randomness of the way this site works.

And such an award would reward Carebearishness, because it would be much more likely to be given out in a game that ended in draws. The larger the draw, the more likely it is that at least one player would have the luxury of never needing to lie. I really don't think a solo game amongst experienced and evenly-matched players could ever end without deceit unless someone got exceedingly lucky.

Well medals should not be given out willy-nilly, sure. These should be only given when an exceptional display of good sportsmanship is shown. Medals should not be given as a reward for simply not lying; one could achieve that by never saying a thing. Rather, they should be given out in the occasions where one would like to give homage to the fact that a certain player is exceptionally honorable, whether they win or lose. Thus the reason for a unanimous vote being necessary. What they have done must be visible to all, and all must recognize it as worthy of a medal, or else they don't get it. It is not a matter of five players participating in a large draw and deciding that they want someone to get a medal, because the two eliminated players will have a say in it, too. If they see carebearishness, or anything else not deserving of a medal, then they may vote against it.

Perhaps my idea is a terrible one. I will admit that there is a good chance of that. But I will also say that it is a matter of fact that if one can solo in a game of equally skilled opponents, without any deception or rudeness, they are a far better player than one who must lie to achieve a solo. It is very difficult, yes. That does not mean it is a bad thing. On the contrary, being honest makes you have to hone your skills as a diplomat, in persuasiveness, tactics, and communication. I don't see why anyone would not want that.

[Ferdack]

The turn before betrayal, the honest player will inform the party to be attacked that their alliance, while it has been long and full of grand campaigns, must come to an end.

This is utterly absurd.

[CaptainFritz28]

What about it? I've seen it happen from others. I've done it. I've succeeded and failed in it just as any other stab. If you truly have the force necessary to solo a game, you should be able to do it with your enemy's knowledge.

[kestasjk]

I'm not sure whether right or wrong but the full press AI CICERO was intentionally written to not be deceitful based on input from top Diplomacy players

I expect it's a bit of style thing, that you can be a good player with either approach and it's more about other factors

It's an interesting idea, but unfortunately probably not going to the top of the todo list for a long while when there's the multi-accounter management improvements, bot stability/difficulty/etc/etc to do first.

[kestasjk]

I would love if taking on open positions were at least counted correctly on a player's page, which is not the case now.

That said, I don't know that it'd be good to reward helpfulness/openness/honesty in other contexts. Seems like that might encourage even more Carebearishness, which IMO is already a fairly major problem on this site.

Besides, being mean and a liar is sometimes the optimal move in this game. We should never encourage a player to make a suboptimal move in the hope of receiving some other award.

FYI I've fixed that so your profile should now count CDs taken over correctly

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I would love if taking on open positions were at least counted correctly on a player's page, which is not the case now.

That said, I don't know that it'd be good to reward helpfulness/openness/honesty in other contexts. Seems like that might encourage even more Carebearishness, which IMO is already a fairly major problem on this site.

Besides, being mean and a liar is sometimes the optimal move in this game. We should never encourage a player to make a suboptimal move in the hope of receiving some other award.

FYI I've fixed that so your profile should now count CDs taken over correctly

Thanks so much for this. Thorny GR-implications aside, I'm just happy that the open position counter is accurate now.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'm not sure whether right or wrong but the full press AI CICERO was intentionally written to not be deceitful based on input from top Diplomacy players

I expect it's a bit of style thing, that you can be a good player with either approach and it's more about other factors

This is super interesting to me. But CICERO must actually deceive others through its movements right? It's not a non-stabbing bot?

"Don't lie unnecessarily" seems like great Diplomacy advice, but I can't imagine "never lie or deceive" is even remotely viable in a genuinely competitive match.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

What about it? I've seen it happen from others. I've done it. I've succeeded and failed in it just as any other stab. If you truly have the force necessary to solo a game, you should be able to do it with your enemy's knowledge.

I see no reason why you should pat yourself on the back for announcing your deception one turn before you deceive. It's just a weird and non-strategic thing to do.

I would hate to find out that, after playing one of these games for weeks, another player player who could have won just threw the game by trying to achieve the Fritz code of honour and spoiling their own strategy. To me, that cheapens the whole experience. Someone who values honesty that much should just play other board games that aren't centered around bluffing, persuasion, etc.

[kestasjk]

I'm not sure whether right or wrong but the full press AI CICERO was intentionally written to not be deceitful based on input from top Diplomacy players

I expect it's a bit of style thing, that you can be a good player with either approach and it's more about other factors

This is super interesting to me. But CICERO must actually deceive others through its movements right? It's not a non-stabbing bot?

"Don't lie unnecessarily" seems like great Diplomacy advice, but I can't imagine "never lie or deceive" is even remotely viable in a genuinely competitive match.

It'll omit information that it knows isn't good to disclose, but with the default settings it won't lie about its intentions. It's something Meta and their main Diplomacy consultant Andrew Goff made a big point of.


I still don't know the system that well, but afaik the bot generates the best chosen orders that it thinks are the best choice given the current situation and press, and also orders it thinks are the best / most likely for the other powers.

Based on these orders it can generate "plausible pseudo orders", used to generate dialog / pretend that it's going to do in place of its actual planned orders. It would choose the plausible pseudo orders that are most likely to result in the other power going with the most favourable orders, and then its press would pretend it's doing a different set of orders than it actually is.

But if the truthful flag is set, which it is in the default Cicero configuration, it won't do this step and will use the actual orders it intends to do rather than the plausible pseudo orders, so its dialog is always based on its actual intention not deception.


Here is where the truthful flag is used in the code:
https://github.com/facebookresearch/dip ... t.py#L1510

It would be interesting to turn this off and see how it behaves at some point.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'm not sure whether right or wrong but the full press AI CICERO was intentionally written to not be deceitful based on input from top Diplomacy players

I expect it's a bit of style thing, that you can be a good player with either approach and it's more about other factors

This is super interesting to me. But CICERO must actually deceive others through its movements right? It's not a non-stabbing bot?

"Don't lie unnecessarily" seems like great Diplomacy advice, but I can't imagine "never lie or deceive" is even remotely viable in a genuinely competitive match.

It'll omit information that it knows isn't good to disclose, but with the default settings it won't lie about its intentions. It's something Meta and their main Diplomacy consultant Andrew Goff made a big point of.


I still don't know the system that well, but afaik the bot generates the best chosen orders that it thinks are the best choice given the current situation and press, and also orders it thinks are the best / most likely for the other powers.

Based on these orders it can generate "plausible pseudo orders", used to generate dialog / pretend that it's going to do in place of its actual planned orders. It would choose the plausible pseudo orders that are most likely to result in the other power going with the most favourable orders, and then its press would pretend it's doing a different set of orders than it actually is.

But if the truthful flag is set, which it is in the default Cicero configuration, it won't do this step and will use the actual orders it intends to do rather than the plausible pseudo orders, so its dialog is always based on its actual intention not deception.


Here is where the truthful flag is used in the code:
https://github.com/facebookresearch/dip ... t.py#L1510

It would be interesting to turn this off and see how it behaves at some point.

Extremely interesting. Maybe being deceitful in your moves, but rarely/never in your press, really is a dominant strategy in Diplomacy. Just in case the good Captain F is reading, I would want to emphasize that a healthy dollop of deception is still required (i.e., you still need to stab and you don't volunteer information that hurts your strategy).

I'd love to see whether the bot could do better in some circumstances by indulging the lies it crafts with its pseudo moves. Maybe the bots are unconvincing liars, so the default to selectively-volunteered truth is better for them? I actually have the opposite intuition - in my experience a well-tuned GPT model can be an excellent liar.

The final frontier would be to see if CICERO could eventually get into the weeds of deception. I want a bot that tries to befriend players, that creates false narratives about other players' intentions, that gaslights players after stabbing them, etc. Maybe we'll find out that these approaches are rarely strategic, but I've seen human players make them work.

[CaptainFritz28]

What about it? I've seen it happen from others. I've done it. I've succeeded and failed in it just as any other stab. If you truly have the force necessary to solo a game, you should be able to do it with your enemy's knowledge.

I see no reason why you should pat yourself on the back for announcing your deception one turn before you deceive. It's just a weird and non-strategic thing to do.

I would hate to find out that, after playing one of these games for weeks, another player player who could have won just threw the game by trying to achieve the Fritz code of honour and spoiling their own strategy. To me, that cheapens the whole experience. Someone who values honesty that much should just play other board games that aren't centered around bluffing, persuasion, etc.

I don't mean to pat myself on the back, I'm simply stating that it is possible to do successfully. Believe me, I am not great at this game.

The CaptainFritz28 code of honor is just that - mine own. Everyone has their individual standards. That means that if medals were to be involved, everyone would be judged on different people's standards. Because it would be a unanimous vote, even of those who had been defeated, people would only win a medal when they do something that all standards can agree is honorable.

That said, if someone does abide by the standards I have presented here, they will not have built their long-term strategy on needing deception, and thus they won't be spoiling said strategy by being honest.

Perhaps you are right about that last sentence, sure, but I find it quite the enjoyable challenge to play a game of full honesty just to see how I do. After all, the purpose of the game, in the end, is to have fun and increase your skills in persuasion. Winning is great, sure, but if you don't enjoy the game and aren't becoming the best diplomat you could be, or if you are knowingly causing others not to enjoy the game (beyond just them losing; I mean if you are being rude or deceptive to the extent that it takes the joy out of the game), then you aren't really playing in the spirit of Diplomacy. Being honest accomplishes all of that, with the added bonus of winning if, and only if, you really do well.

(Also, I am not claiming that I am always entirely honest. Even just in my most recent game I did some things that could be considered dishonest, although it was chiefly due to a failure to communicate properly. I have been a bit lazy about honesty recently, so hopefully this thread will incentivize me to be better about that.)

[CaptainFritz28]

This is super interesting to me. But CICERO must actually deceive others through its movements right? It's not a non-stabbing bot?

"Don't lie unnecessarily" seems like great Diplomacy advice, but I can't imagine "never lie or deceive" is even remotely viable in a genuinely competitive match.

It'll omit information that it knows isn't good to disclose, but with the default settings it won't lie about its intentions. It's something Meta and their main Diplomacy consultant Andrew Goff made a big point of.


I still don't know the system that well, but afaik the bot generates the best chosen orders that it thinks are the best choice given the current situation and press, and also orders it thinks are the best / most likely for the other powers.

Based on these orders it can generate "plausible pseudo orders", used to generate dialog / pretend that it's going to do in place of its actual planned orders. It would choose the plausible pseudo orders that are most likely to result in the other power going with the most favourable orders, and then its press would pretend it's doing a different set of orders than it actually is.

But if the truthful flag is set, which it is in the default Cicero configuration, it won't do this step and will use the actual orders it intends to do rather than the plausible pseudo orders, so its dialog is always based on its actual intention not deception.


Here is where the truthful flag is used in the code:
https://github.com/facebookresearch/dip ... t.py#L1510

It would be interesting to turn this off and see how it behaves at some point.

Extremely interesting. Maybe being deceitful in your moves, but rarely/never in your press, really is a dominant strategy in Diplomacy. Just in case the good Captain F is reading, I would want to emphasize that a healthy dollop of deception is still required (i.e., you still need to stab and you don't volunteer information that hurts your strategy).

I'd love to see whether the bot could do better in some circumstances by indulging the lies it crafts with its pseudo moves. Maybe the bots are unconvincing liars, so the default to selectively-volunteered truth is better for them? I actually have the opposite intuition - in my experience a well-tuned GPT model can be an excellent liar.

The final frontier would be to see if CICERO could eventually get into the weeds of deception. I want a bot that tries to befriend players, that creates false narratives about other players' intentions, that gaslights players after stabbing them, etc. Maybe we'll find out that these approaches are rarely strategic, but I've seen human players make them work.

I wouldn't say the deception is required, but yes, to your point, it is still there.

Might I ask, though - what would be the purpose of giving CICERO deceptive powers? What good does it do?

I will say, there is a way of looking at Diplomacy such that lying is not an evil. If one considers joining a game as an agreement that lying will be involved, and that, because there are no real-world stakes, that lying is simply for the purposes of entertainment, then I can see how one would view it as not wrong to do.

However, that begs the question - how far are we willing to go for entertainment? If lying is allowed, why not thievery? Why nut murder? I know that is a slippery slope, and I am certainly NOT claiming that you are suggesting that murder or theft should be used for entertainment, but my question is - why should we allow lying but not other evils?