Civil Service Medals

[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.

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.)

This is where we fundamentally disagree. The point of the game is to maximize your points and, if you like the game, then you'll have fun doing so.

Of course it's fine if you genuinely want to see how well an honest approach does. But if you're doing silly things like telling other players about your stabs with no strategic rationale then you're no longer playing Diplomacy, which is unfair for the other players who agreed to play Diplomacy with you.

If I joined a local chess club and insisted that "moving pawns is no fun, I won't move my pawns and we should reward other players who don't either" then I think it would be fine for them to stop inviting me. In that case, I'm no longer playing chess and I'm wasting everyone else's time.

If you really don't like being lied to or manipulated, or you don't like doing that to other players, this probably isn't the game for you. There are so many other games out there that don't rely on this mechanic, but it is central to Diplomacy.

And what's so wrong with dishonesty in a game that is based on bluffing and deceit? I for one love encountering press strategies where players strategically get others mad, leverage past grievances, lie to everyone and get away with it, etc. The fact that such strategies are possible is what makes Diplomacy unique, and what makes it great. If that doesn't interest you, just play Risk.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

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?

Bro you've got some real hang ups about lying lol.

It's its own type of lying to agree to play a game based on lying/deceit, but then to ignore the games rules and incentives because you find lying distasteful.

[CaptainFritz28]

This is where we fundamentally disagree. The point of the game is to maximize your points and, if you like the game, then you'll have fun doing so.

On that I think the best we can do is an agree to disagree, and I see why you think the way you do based off of that.

Of course it's fine if you genuinely want to see how well an honest approach does. But if you're doing silly things like telling other players about your stabs with no strategic rationale then you're no longer playing Diplomacy, which is unfair for the other players who agreed to play Diplomacy with you.

If I joined a local chess club and insisted that "moving pawns is no fun, I won't move my pawns and we should reward other players who don't either" then I think it would be fine for them to stop inviting me. In that case, I'm no longer playing chess and I'm wasting everyone else's time.

I find it interesting that you find fault in my medals plan because supposedly it would impose my standards on others, but then you turn around and impose your methods of lying on me, saying that if you don't lie you aren't playing Diplomacy. How would you respond if I said that if you DO lie you aren't playing Diplomacy? It would be ridiculous! Why do you insist on double standards? It is hypocritical, which I am surprised to see from you.

Let's take your Chess example. Consider the following: if you were to insist that you would not move pawns, and thus played without moving them, then that would be your preference. You would still be playing Chess, but you would be playing a more challenging version of it. Now let's say you develop a strategy without pawns, and it is successful. Not using pawns will force you to become a better player if you want to win. Others will want to learn your strategy and use it to become better themselves. Whether they use pawns or not, they will have benefitted from your method. Should others then shun your strategy simply because you don't use pawns?

If you really don't like being lied to or manipulated, or you don't like doing that to other players, this probably isn't the game for you. There are so many other games out there that don't rely on this mechanic, but it is central to Diplomacy.

Ha! Diplomacy is not about lying. Nothing in Diplomacy requires lies. To say that it does is simply to refuse to see other options, and to limit your own horizons.
If it is about having fun and growing in skill, then lies are completely extraneous and even harmful.
If it is about winning, then lies stunt your growth in the skill of the game. Not lying forces you to be a better player.

And what's so wrong with dishonesty in a game that is based on bluffing and deceit? I for one love encountering press strategies where players strategically get others mad, leverage past grievances, lie to everyone and get away with it, etc. The fact that such strategies are possible is what makes Diplomacy unique, and what makes it great. If that doesn't interest you, just play Risk.

The same thing that is wrong with dishonesty in general. The game isn't based on bluffing and deceit, nor is that a required element. You have stated that that is the case multiple times, but you have not given a logical flow that proves it. I ask that you lay out a simple logical proof of how lying is necessary - and not beneficial, but necessary - to play Diplomacy.

I don't care so much about being lied to, I care about my own standards of honesty. When I force myself to be honest, I force myself to become more convincing and persuasive than otherwise. I want a challenge, and I want to grow in my diplomatic skills. Thus, I will play Diplomacy honestly.

Risk is boring.

[CaptainFritz28]

Bro you've got some real hang ups about lying lol.

It's its own type of lying to agree to play a game based on lying/deceit, but then to ignore the games rules and incentives because you find lying distasteful.

I find it to be a moral evil, so I suppose you could say that, yes. Lying is not kind, nor loving, nor does it achieve the common good, nor does it serve anyone's purposes but oneself, nor has it ever been beneficial except as the lesser of two evils.

Once again, there is no part of Diplomacy that requires dishonesty. Prove me wrong, please do. If I am missing something and lying is really intrinsic to the game, I would like to see it proven so I don't make the same mistake again.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I won't stop someone from lying; that is their own choice. But your claim that it is dishonest to agree to play Diplomacy and refuse to lie is ridiculous.

You cited the rules. What about the rules requires lying?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

If you're not earnestly trying to maximize your points then you're not playing Diplomacy. At best you're roleplaying, but it's an odd role since no real nation is truthful in its diplomacy during a time of war.

Your medals wouldn't ruin the game, but they would give a prize for something other than just playing well. If that incentivized anyone to take a sub-optimal move, then it would be bad for the game as a whole.

I think my chess example is clarifying. Someone who insists on never moving their pawns might be able to beat a total noob, but they will never beat a player who is equally matched or better. Yeah I guess dunking on noobs with a bad strategy is within the rules of chess, but playing a strategy that handicaps oneself unnecessarily is bad sportsmanship if both players believe they're playing to win.

You can win a game of Diplomacy without explicitly lying, but in a genuinely competitive game you have to be deceitful. You have to stab. You won't always be able to pre-announce your stabs if your opponents are good at the game. Even if you did, you were still deceitful in the lead up to the stab. This is such a central game mechanic that a popular online implementation of the game is called "Backstabbr".

The game is based on bluffing. Objective fact. Players commit to their moves secretly and reveal simultaneously - the essence of bluffing. Just because you might choose to always pre-announce your move doesn't mean it's not a game about bluffing. I could show everyone my hand in Texas Hold-em, but as long as everyone else is playing normally then it's still a game about bluffing.

Lying doesn't make you better or worse at the game. It's a strategy that is almost surely good in some circumstances and bad in others. A great player will know when to use this tool and when not to. A player who never ever lies won't develop this skill.

Lying in a game that allows for lying, encourages it in some cases, and is actually prolific for being about deception is not morally wrong.

I was sloppy when I said "rules" require lying. What I was trying to say is that a player trying earnestly to maximize their points in a genuinely competitive game will need to be at least somewhat deceitful in their moves or press. If you play only noob games or are fine with always ending in 3-7 player draws then you can occasionally just pick a couple allies, never stab anyone, and call it a day. Every other situation requires stabs.

[Octavious]

I find it to be a moral evil, so I suppose you could say that, yes. Lying is not kind, nor loving, nor does it achieve the common good, nor does it serve anyone's purposes but oneself, nor has it ever been beneficial except as the lesser of two evils.

This is a lie

Father Christmas is a lie, and it is very much kind and loving. National myths are lies, and they can inspire community spirit, self sacrifice, and resistance against oppression. "I am just going outside and may be some time.", is one of the most famous lies in history, and is also one of the noblest and courageous acts of friendship and self sacrifice ever carried out.

A lie in a Diplomacy game is an effort to play the game to its full and thus a mark of respect for your fellow players.

[CaptainFritz28]

I find it to be a moral evil, so I suppose you could say that, yes. Lying is not kind, nor loving, nor does it achieve the common good, nor does it serve anyone's purposes but oneself, nor has it ever been beneficial except as the lesser of two evils.

This is a lie

Father Christmas is a lie, and it is very much kind and loving. National myths are lies, and they can inspire community spirit, self sacrifice, and resistance against oppression. "I am just going outside and may be some time.", is one of the most famous lies in history, and is also one of the noblest and courageous acts of friendship and self sacrifice ever carried out.

A lie in a Diplomacy game is an effort to play the game to its full and thus a mark of respect for your fellow players.

I clarified elsewhere, although I should have clarified here as well, and that was my own fault, that it is only good when the lesser of two evils. I would argue that the lie of Father Christmas is not such, as that detracts from the true purpose of Christmas, in favor of making it about gifts and material wealth. National myths lead to the benefits mentioned, and thus are worth having. In this case I stand corrected, I should have qualified my statement. Lawrence Oates chose the lesser of two evils. It was either his lie or his comrades' death.

Thank you for forcing my clarification.
However, in Diplomacy, lies are not a playing of the game to the fullest. Why would you lie when you could become a better player instead? As far as a mark of respect, with that rationale one could say that cheating is a mark of respect, since it makes it harder for the others to win.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

However, in Diplomacy, lies are not a playing of the game to the fullest. Why would you lie when you could become a better player instead?

As far as a mark of respect, with that rationale one could say that cheating is a mark of respect, since it makes it harder for the others to win.

I'd like to corner you on the idea that deceit in either your moves or press is a necessary part of truly competitive play. I think this is undeniable.

When you say that not lying/deceiving makes you a better player, you are tacitly agreeing that lying/deceiving is sometimes a good strategy. You could choose to try to train your other methods of persuasion or your gunboat ability by keeping your deceit to a minimum, but if you're in an evenly-matched game you disrespect your opponent by handicapping yourself.

This has nothing to do with cheating, which is obviously unsportsmanlike and not even possible in the online implementation of this game.

[CaptainFritz28]

If you're not earnestly trying to maximize your points then you're not playing Diplomacy. At best you're roleplaying, but it's an odd role since no real nation is truthful in its diplomacy during a time of war.

If I were to say, "If you aren't earnestly playing for the primary purpose of having an enjoyable time and growing in your skill as a diplomat you aren't playing the game," you would call me ridiculous! Why must you have such a double standard?

Your medals wouldn't ruin the game, but they would give a prize for something other than just playing well. If that incentivized anyone to take a sub-optimal move, then it would be bad for the game as a whole.

Here is the matter. You believe that the point of the game is solely to win, nothing else. I believe that the point of the game is to be a better persuader and have fun. Others have other standards. Therefore, medals would only be given out when someone has done something worthy of the standards of everyone involved.

Is it your contention that, under the current system of taking over civil disorders, that no one should take over a hopeless position?
I would agree that the system should be changed, but I am asking under the current system.

I think my chess example is clarifying. Someone who insists on never moving their pawns might be able to beat a total noob, but they will never beat a player who is equally matched or better. Yeah I guess dunking on noobs with a bad strategy is within the rules of chess, but playing a strategy that handicaps oneself unnecessarily is bad sportsmanship if both players believe they're playing to win.

I agree, it is clarifying. So you would agree, then, that someone who insists on never moving their pawns, if they want to beat a high level Chess player, must become a better Chess player than their opponent? After all, there is more than one way to be better than your opponents. One of them, as you stated, is to play with noobs. A much better one, and the one I advocate for, is to become a better player. If handicapping yourself makes you a better player, and then you win because of it, then handicapping yourself actually achieves your goal of maximizing points, because it makes you a better player in the long run. On the other hand, if your goal is really just the points and winning, then why don't you just play every game against noobs? You will win every time, and get more points every time. On the contrary, being honest has its handicaps, yes, but those force the player to be better. I don't see why you would not want to become a better player.

You can win a game of Diplomacy without explicitly lying, but in a genuinely competitive game you have to be deceitful. You have to stab. You won't always be able to pre-announce your stabs if your opponents are good at the game. Even if you did, you were still deceitful in the lead up to the stab. This is such a central game mechanic that a popular online implementation of the game is called "Backstabbr".

I am well acquainted with Backstabbr, in fact that is from there where I began playing Diplomacy.
Once again, you have stated that lying is necessary in a competitive game, but you have failed to provide a reason why. If one becomes a better player because of honesty, then that is the most competitive you can get!
Sure, stabs are a central game mechanic. That does not necessitate dishonesty. If you begin the game with the assumption, as all should, that alliances are for the good of the individual player, not the alliance all together, then to betray that alliance is not dishonest, especially if prior notice is given. All that being honest means is that you have to position yourself in such a way as to have overwhelming force, such that when you are honest, you can still defeat your opponent. It forces you to be better, which is the most competitive thing possible.

The game is based on bluffing. Objective fact. Players commit to their moves secretly and reveal simultaneously - the essence of bluffing. Just because you might choose to always pre-announce your move doesn't mean it's not a game about bluffing. I could show everyone my hand in Texas Hold-em, but as long as everyone else is playing normally then it's still a game about bluffing.

Fair point. But once again, you have proven that it is beneficial to lie, not that it is necessary.

Lying doesn't make you better or worse at the game. It's a strategy that is almost surely good in some circumstances and bad in others. A great player will know when to use this tool and when not to. A player who never ever lies won't develop this skill.

Ah, but they will not need to, for they will develop other skills to a greater extent. If one limits themselves to honesty, then they do not learn how to lie well. Instead, they learn how to be persuasive, be logical, and be tactical moreso than if they allowed themselves to lie. What you are saying is that lying is a tool, a card that everyone has up their sleeve. I agree. However, I believe that the art of being honest will grow your skills far faster than using that tool. If not using pawns makes you a better Chess player, then don't use pawns.

Lying in a game that allows for lying, encourages it in some cases, and is actually prolific for being about deception is not morally wrong.

In this case I think I might agree. I would say that everyone, when they join a game, is signing an agreement to be lied to.

I was sloppy when I said "rules" require lying. What I was trying to say is that a player trying earnestly to maximize their points in a genuinely competitive game will need to be at least somewhat deceitful in their moves or press. If you play only noob games or are fine with always ending in 3-7 player draws then you can occasionally just pick a couple allies, never stab anyone, and call it a day. Every other situation requires stabs.

Becoming a better player is a far nobler goal than maximizing points in each individual game, because becoming a better player lasts into the next game, and the next, and the next, etc. Maximizing points in each individual game limits your potential to maximize points on the whole. The reason diplopoints exist is not so you can have pithy fights over them in every game, but so you can track how good of an overall player you are.

The idea of having civil service medals would be to allow the public to say "I believe this person has done something worthy of praise." Each of us has our standards, and thus if one person disagrees with the awarding of a medal, their vote will veto it. Only in the most honorable of cases will someone actually be given a medal. It will be evident to all, and it will be something that all can agree is good.

Anyways, I cannot keep sending messages at the frequency that I have been, so I will probably not send any more after this on this thread, and if I do it will be in response to a new point being made. I have given a detailed explanation of each argument I have given, so if you don't understand it it is either because you simply didn't listen or, more likely, because I didn't communicate it well enough. If you do understand them all, and still disagree, then I think there is not much I can do to convince you otherwise, because our disagreement is a fundamental one. In that case, I am content to agree to disagree. Hopefully this discussion has brought us collectively further towards the truth.

[CaptainFritz28]

However, in Diplomacy, lies are not a playing of the game to the fullest. Why would you lie when you could become a better player instead?

As far as a mark of respect, with that rationale one could say that cheating is a mark of respect, since it makes it harder for the others to win.

I'd like to corner you on the idea that deceit in either your moves or press is a necessary part of truly competitive play. I think this is undeniable.

When you say that not lying/deceiving makes you a better player, you are tacitly agreeing that lying/deceiving is sometimes a good strategy. You could choose to try to train your other methods of persuasion or your gunboat ability by keeping your deceit to a minimum, but if you're in an evenly-matched game you disrespect your opponent by handicapping yourself.

This has nothing to do with cheating, which is obviously unsportsmanlike and not even possible in the online implementation of this game.

I disagree. Deceit is not necessary, as full honesty may include the withholding of information. It is a harder game to play than just flat out lying, yes, but it is possible. Your long term strategy should see you soloing, and since that is assumed, it is not dishonest to do things that are in line with that. In the short term, that means that you will make alliances knowing that they will eventually break.

I am agreeing that lying and deceit is often a winning strategy. I am not arguing that it is a bad strategy, but that honesty is a better one.

Regarding cheating, the logical parallel is thus:
What about lying gives your opponent respect? It is the fact that you are using all means possible to defeat them, and giving them the honor of genuine play. I would argue that honesty does this just as well, but that is a separate matter.
If respecting your opponent means doing whatever is necessary to defeat them, and lying is more respectful because it is an extension of that, then cheating is even more respectful, because it is a further extension of doing whatever is necessary to win the game.

Also, there are definitely ways for someone to cheat on WebDip. Multi-accounting, metagaming, communication outside of WebDip, and accessing another player's account without permission come to mind.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Okay Captain, guess there's no convincing you.

It's rude not to play to win. If you take over a poor open position, you should still play to win. "Win" means just surviving into the smallest possible draw. Your opponents deserve this. It should still be fun to play this way and, if it's not, then you don't like the game.

You're splitting hairs about what is or isn't deceit - I think most people agree that stabs are deceit no matter how gently you do them. Stabs are absolutely necessary in competitive play.

You disrespect your opponent when you decide to avoid a whole range of viable strategies for your weird honour code. You aren't a better player because you refuse to engage in a central game mechanic.

[kestasjk]

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

That's a surprising question :| I'm a terrible Diplomacy player but surely there are situations where you're about to stab someone and it's advantageous to lie and continue the impression of an alliance so that the player you're stabbing won't defend?
(I'm not following this convo too closely, it seems a bit philosophical, so perhaps you're saying this in the context that lying in Diplomacy is always wrong / counterproductive?)

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?

Heheh.. C'mon, that's a bit much.. If you tell your child their drawing is really good when objectively it's the same house and sun and dog and tree with crayons crap you've seen a million times I don't know if that's on the same level as murder / theft.

To say lying in a game is evil, where lying / deceit is kind of a core mechanic, it's in a sandbox where lying is allowed / limited to the game, and it emulates diplomacy between european powers where diplomats did lie..
It feels a bit like a communist being opposed to playing monopoly, just a bit silly.

[kestasjk]

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.

Heheh I think a bot can definitely be a superb liar since it doesn't know it's lying. If it generated false pseudo-orders that it's "pretending" it is going to do it would feed that into the dialogue generation model just like it currently feeds in its actual orders, and text gets generated based on that. From the bot's text generation point of view it can't have any tells / slip-ups / etc.

I guess the only way you might be able to tell is if the orders were clearly not in the bot's interest / not optimal for itself / would encourage you do to something that might benefit it.
Then you might realise that it's not generating text based on a logical order but on a pseudo-order. (But that's why in the code they're called "plausible pseudo orders", because they have to be plausible)

Definitely not gonna get any signs of deceit from the generated text though.

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.

Yeah would definitely be interesting how strategic it could get; I do get the sense the capability for deception in the bot wasn't developed very far:
- The limited amount of code that's disabled when you enable truthfulness,
- Like you say deception in Diplomacy can be complicated and hard to pull off,
- I know they had problems during development with the bot letting things slip, it has to have filters to ensure it's not revealing its plans, which would be a lot trickier with deception
- They had issues where you could reply to a bot saying "thanks for agreeing to support me from X to Y" and the bot would generate orders based on that assuming it *had* agreed to that, you can imagine with deception it'd get a lot trickier

I feel like the deception capability built in at the moment would only be useful for a sudden stab, i.e. deception across a single turn rather than over a long period / manouvring another player into a position they can be stabbed. (But again I've still got a lot to learn about how it works)

[CaptainFritz28]

I play to win, of course. But I do not intend to lie in order to achieve that. Refusing to engage in lies does not automatically make me a better player, of course not. Rather, it forces me to hone my skills, or else lose. If I win as an honest player, I am a better player than if I win as a decietful player, because being honest means I must be more skillful in all other aspects of the game. However, I don't claim to win, and my record, at least on WebDip, proves that.

I believe there are ways to do stabs that are not deceitful. I have laid out my reasons for such, and you may disagree if you like, but they are there and they are unresponded to. Most people might say stabs are deceitful, but that is because most people are not accustomed to what I am talking about.

I agree, when you join in a hopeless position, you should do your best to win. The point of that question was the fact that if the goal of the game was to maximize points, no one would take over civil disorders. It takes people realizing that there is more to the game than points for those open positions to be filled.

You may say that not lying to my opponents is disrespectful, and that comes down to your interpretation of the purpose of the game. My interpretation of the purpose of the game is different, and thus it affects what I view to be respectful or not. Those are fundamental differences, and since neither of us have proven our fundamental view superior to the other's, neither can make statements about whose version of respect is superior.

Ultimately, it boils down to this:
You believe that the ultimate purpose of Diplomacy is to win games.
I believe that the ultimate purpose of Diplomacy is to be a skilled diplomat and have fun.
These are irreconcilable ideas, and they impact every part of our discussion about honesty. It can not be proven that one is better than the other, as they are simply are fundamental principles of how we view the game. Therefore, I will not claim that your way of playing it disrespects opponents, undermines the spirit of the game, or some other such malarkey, and I ask that you do the same. We all play the game for different reasons, and those reasons ought to be respected each their own. Having medals would not raise one reason above another, but would rather highlight the areas in which the reasons are similar, the areas which everyone can agree are worthy of reward.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I guess the only way you might be able to tell is if the orders were clearly not in the bot's interest / not optimal for itself / would encourage you do to something that might benefit it.
Then you might realise that it's not generating text based on a logical order but on a pseudo-order. (But that's why in the code they're called "plausible pseudo orders", because they have to be plausible)

Definitely not gonna get any signs of deceit from the generated text though.

Yeah would definitely be interesting how strategic it could get; I do get the sense the capability for deception in the bot wasn't developed very far:
- The limited amount of code that's disabled when you enable truthfulness,
- Like you say deception in Diplomacy can be complicated and hard to pull off,
- I know they had problems during development with the bot letting things slip, it has to have filters to ensure it's not revealing its plans, which would be a lot trickier with deception
- They had issues where you could reply to a bot saying "thanks for agreeing to support me from X to Y" and the bot would generate orders based on that assuming it *had* agreed to that, you can imagine with deception it'd get a lot trickier

I feel like the deception capability built in at the moment would only be useful for a sudden stab, i.e. deception across a single turn rather than over a long period / manouvring another player into a position they can be stabbed. (But again I've still got a lot to learn about how it works)

It's interesting to think about how a bot might be deceptive.

A bot can keep all of its lies straight and lie with exacting precision. It can make up a convincing story for nearly any circumstance. If it's trained well, it might be able to exploit different players in tailored ways based on their responses. I imagine that, if the current bots cannot do long-term cons yet, they will be able to in the near future.

But as long as it's identified as a bot, there will be some limitations. It can't ever claim "oops, I entered that move by accident". And I imagine a bot player would have a harder time regaining trust after being caught in a lie. The apologies, explanations, etc., would just feel too insincere if it was known they came from a bot. Maybe one day we'll have bots that can get the timing of their messages right and can fully mask as human players (if that is permitted by the hosting site).

The reverse will be interesting also. The bots' current limited engagement with deception (sounds like its just withholding information and silently stabbing when it makes sense at the moment) seems to also insulate them from human deception. If they really engaged in narrative play they would, by necessity, be exposed to and involved in potential elaborate plots from human players. This would go beyond the simple trick of trying to convince the bot it already agreed to a move - players could try to deputize a bot in a complex press strategy where it may be hard to know for sure whether or not it's in the bot's interest to participate.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Ultimately, it boils down to this:
You believe that the ultimate purpose of Diplomacy is to win games.
I believe that the ultimate purpose of Diplomacy is to be a skilled diplomat and have fun.
These are irreconcilable ideas, and they impact every part of our discussion about honesty. It can not be proven that one is better than the other, as they are simply are fundamental principles of how we view the game. Therefore, I will not claim that your way of playing it disrespects opponents, undermines the spirit of the game, or some other such malarkey, and I ask that you do the same. We all play the game for different reasons, and those reasons ought to be respected each their own. Having medals would not raise one reason above another, but would rather highlight the areas in which the reasons are similar, the areas which everyone can agree are worthy of reward.

You actually don't get to define the point of the game for yourself. This is a strategy game with a clear scoring rubric. When you play a ranked game, you should be trying to win, where "win" is defined by the point system used in that game (SoS, DSS). When you decide unilaterally to redefine the point of the game, you're no longer playing that game, since none of your opponents are working towards the same goal.

If your Carebear / popularity contest medal was something that people really wanted to earn then it would sometimes encourage them to make decisions that might not be point maximizing. I think that would be bad in a competitive game that already has clearly defined win conditions.

Maybe you can just start a forum thread where people can shout out players who have mentored them, or who were especially polite after a stab, or who appear to have pulled off an exceptionally interesting win that isn't easily explained by luck or skills mismatch.

[kestasjk]

I guess the only way you might be able to tell is if the orders were clearly not in the bot's interest / not optimal for itself / would encourage you do to something that might benefit it.
Then you might realise that it's not generating text based on a logical order but on a pseudo-order. (But that's why in the code they're called "plausible pseudo orders", because they have to be plausible)

Definitely not gonna get any signs of deceit from the generated text though.

Yeah would definitely be interesting how strategic it could get; I do get the sense the capability for deception in the bot wasn't developed very far:
- The limited amount of code that's disabled when you enable truthfulness,
- Like you say deception in Diplomacy can be complicated and hard to pull off,
- I know they had problems during development with the bot letting things slip, it has to have filters to ensure it's not revealing its plans, which would be a lot trickier with deception
- They had issues where you could reply to a bot saying "thanks for agreeing to support me from X to Y" and the bot would generate orders based on that assuming it *had* agreed to that, you can imagine with deception it'd get a lot trickier

I feel like the deception capability built in at the moment would only be useful for a sudden stab, i.e. deception across a single turn rather than over a long period / manouvring another player into a position they can be stabbed. (But again I've still got a lot to learn about how it works)

It's interesting to think about how a bot might be deceptive.

A bot can keep all of its lies straight and lie with exacting precision. It can make up a convincing story for nearly any circumstance. If it's trained well, it might be able to exploit different players in tailored ways based on their responses. I imagine that, if the current bots cannot do long-term cons yet, they will be able to in the near future.

But as long as it's identified as a bot, there will be some limitations. It can't ever claim "oops, I entered that move by accident". And I imagine a bot player would have a harder time regaining trust after being caught in a lie. The apologies, explanations, etc., would just feel too insincere if it was known they came from a bot. Maybe one day we'll have bots that can get the timing of their messages right and can fully mask as human players (if that is permitted by the hosting site).

The reverse will be interesting also. The bots' current limited engagement with deception (sounds like its just withholding information and silently stabbing when it makes sense at the moment) seems to also insulate them from human deception. If they really engaged in narrative play they would, by necessity, be exposed to and involved in potential elaborate plots from human players. This would go beyond the simple trick of trying to convince the bot it already agreed to a move - players could try to deputize a bot in a complex press strategy where it may be hard to know for sure whether or not it's in the bot's interest to participate.

Yeah, the possibilities interesting. Still a way away from being able to tinker with such things myself though.

Re: Bots masking as human players; when Meta was developing the bots they knew they wouldn't be treated like human players and would get skewed results if people knew they were bots (and they didn't want to announce the project until releasing the paper), so they played in anonymous games and had humans to check the messages that went out so nothing would slip. (This was all done with permission of course)
I think one player got suspicious they were talking to a bot at one point, but across all the games it played it was remarkably good at acting human.

And yep there's a whole model which determines how long to wait between messages to emulate a human. It's a bit of a pain because it's designed for live games and is quite hard to tweak; it either doesn't shut up or will go silent, it's one of the highest priority things to figure out.

[CaptainFritz28]

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

That's a surprising question :| I'm a terrible Diplomacy player but surely there are situations where you're about to stab someone and it's advantageous to lie and continue the impression of an alliance so that the player you're stabbing won't defend?
(I'm not following this convo too closely, it seems a bit philosophical, so perhaps you're saying this in the context that lying in Diplomacy is always wrong / counterproductive?)

I don't know much about AI in this context, but from what I can tell they learn how people interact, what people are convinced by, etc. Perhaps I'm wrong, in which case I would appreciate correction.
If that is the case, then the restriction of not being allowed to lie will force CICERO to learn better tactics and persuasion to achieve the same result as allowing lies. This would result in a stronger player. I am saying that lies inhibit progress, and are the easy way out of a situation, whereas honesty makes the player, or in this case the AI, work harder and thus get better.

There is also the moral element of it, but I won't get in to that.

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?

Heheh.. C'mon, that's a bit much.. If you tell your child their drawing is really good when objectively it's the same house and sun and dog and tree with crayons crap you've seen a million times I don't know if that's on the same level as murder / theft.

To say lying in a game is evil, where lying / deceit is kind of a core mechanic, it's in a sandbox where lying is allowed / limited to the game, and it emulates diplomacy between european powers where diplomats did lie..
It feels a bit like a communist being opposed to playing monopoly, just a bit silly.

Ah, but once again we are dealing with the lesser of two evils. If lying to your child would lead to worse results than being honest with them, then lying is an option. But if telling them that the drawing sucks, albeit in a kinder fashion, makes them a better artist, then you should be honest.

Again, we come back to the fact that everyone agrees to be lied to when they join a game, meaning that I agree, there is nothing necessarily evil about it. It is a personal preference for my own gameplay. Also, there is the fact that it is a matter of the individual's conscience. Some, such as the game's creator, would say that cheating should be allowed, as it is realistic to real-world geopolitics.
https://diplomacyzines.co.uk/strategy-t ... elligence/
I don't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to lie, nor do I mind being lied to in this game, rather I am simply saying I personally think honesty is a preferred tactic. My point in bringing up murder is simply to ask of Bert: how far are we willing to go to achieve the supposed goal of maximizing points?


In the end, I suppose I'll say this: I don't think medals should be given as a reward for honesty alone. I never meant that, and if that was how I came across I apologize. On the contrary, medals should be something that are voted for by all in a game to be a symbol of exemplary conduct. What "exemplary conduct" is should be decided by the players. If they cannot all agree that something is worthy of recognition, then no one gets a medal. Only when players all agree that something is worth rewarding, no matter what they think is the purpose of the game, would a medal be given out.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

how far are we willing to go to achieve the supposed goal of maximizing points?

Now we're at the crux of the issue. I think reasonable people can disagree about this.

I think your position about the morality of lying in this game is a little extreme and probably not shared by many others. I also think your definition of deception is so narrow that you're giving yourself a pass for all sorts of deceptive press and actions that you're also participating in. I'm totally unconvinced that your stabs aren't fundamentally just like everyone else's lol. I also think that the game itself would stop working if everyone played in such a way as to be eligible for the award you've proposed - it'd just be role playing and big draws rather than actual competitive Diplomacy.

But I too found my own limit with a now-banned player, Ginge86. His press strategies were extreme. Sometimes they outright broke the rules (metagaming, sexually explicit and violent messages, etc.). But even in the circumstances where Ginge stayed within the lines (extreme anger, making a big show of throwing the game any time he didn't get his way, relentless spamming of press until he was muted, trying to make the game so unpleasant that it ended in a draw favourable for him, etc.), I found the way he played very distasteful.

I doubt that his approach was always effective, but it certainly worked sometimes. Games with Ginge were interesting and sometimes fun. It was occasionally fascinating to see how the board would respond to his shenanigans. But too often it made the game unfun in my experience.

I personally think a good loadstar is to act online more-or-less how you might act in an in-person gaming group. I'd definitely lie to a friend in an irl game of Diplomacy if it were strategic to do so, but I probably wouldn't squawk at them until they got so annoyed they didn't want to play anymore lol. There is one other game objective that does supersede the rules, which is that people should still want to play with you again in the future.

But despite this I would not want to narrow the range of acceptable press strategies. The free-form nature of this game is truly what makes it special and fun.

One other thing I'll mention is that deception and lying doesn't need to be done in an abusive way. I typically apologize after a particularly nasty stab. Even if Ginge had done all this crazy stuff, but then went in the global chat and said "sorry for putting you all through the ringer, but look, I achieved goals x, y, and z by being an extreme asshole" then maybe one could leave those games without such a bad taste in their mouth.

[CaptainFritz28]

You actually don't get to define the point of the game for yourself. This is a strategy game with a clear scoring rubric. When you play a ranked game, you should be trying to win, where "win" is defined by the point system used in that game (SoS, DSS). When you decide unilaterally to redefine the point of the game, you're no longer playing that game, since none of your opponents are working towards the same goal.

The ranking system allows for that to be a purpose, but it does not necessitate that. When I play ranked games I play to win, but I also play to get better. Honesty can achieve both of those so I figure I might as well do that.

If your Carebear / popularity contest medal was something that people really wanted to earn then it would sometimes encourage them to make decisions that might not be point maximizing. I think that would be bad in a competitive game that already has clearly defined win conditions.

It would not be something that would impact rating, nor should it be a purpose of playing. Rather, ideally it would be something that would allow players to look back on a game and realize that something someone did was really great. I realize, of course, that not everything works out like I would like them to ideally, but I think it is a reasonable ideal at least.

Maybe you can just start a forum thread where people can shout out players who have mentored them, or who were especially polite after a stab, or who appear to have pulled off an exceptionally interesting win that isn't easily explained by luck or skills mismatch.

Here we go! This is why I started this thread; to brainstorm ideas for better options. Thanks for the idea!