Let's go England and Turkey!! :-)

Hey, Turkey, has Rait's repeated violation of No Press rules gotten you to change your mind on your agreement to a draw? If so, maybe Kestas will just cancel this game since Rait has compromised the integrity of this game...

Hey, Kestas, what is your role in a no press game when one player repeated violates the rules? Do you need Rait to admit he compromised the integrity of the game to cancel it or what? Well, seems like Rait shouldn't get his points back for ruining the game, maybe the result should be that all players remaining with units split the pot, which is the draw that all remaining players agreed to in the global message board anyway... Any/all input would be appreciated, thanks!

England agrees.

Marx; I don't really enforce these extra rules. If someone makes a patch which allows no press to be enforced I'll apply it

Not that I think that Rait can really be said to have violated the No Press rules, but if MadMarx wishes to maintain that he has, and if I am to avoid becoming subject to the same accusations, then I couldn't possibly comment.... beyond confirming that there will be no draw any time soon.

MM - you cant just make such a public accusation without some kind of details to support!!

I don't admit having violated any nopress rules in the game, so cool down MM

He can make such a public accusation without details, and he did.... he's on a wind up....

Since the reputation of one of our most esteemed players is now being questioned, I'll say this.... the supposed 'violation' that MadMarx refers to was a couple of Rait's posts in the GLOBAL tab, made AFTER he had been eliminated from the game, and which did not discuss any strategic element in detail. And no, Rait's remarks did not influence my decision.

All I did, was presenting my point of view, that You shouldn't draw the game. As far as I remember, You were the one to raise the topic. It was discussed in global chat box only. No specific moves or even strategies was touched.

This was my comment:

Tue 06 AM Autumn 1917: sorry, still can't see the reason for draw ... English are about to break, Germans are about to expand etc. - there is still lot's of activity on the board - why draw.... it's WTA after all ...

And this can't be judged as violation of nopress rules.

My first comment was even less innocent, so I totally can't understand the flames of MM.

Shoot, I'm on a road trip and don't have much time to respond... plus the long response I just typed out vanished since I lost my connection sometime after starting...

I'll post more later, but for the record I think Rait is a big, mean cheater and Feckless has no ethics after agreeing to a draw on the global tab and then reneging!! ;-)

No:
1) Rait does not NEED to cheat;
2) Rait has been eliminated, and has nothing to gain from cheating;
3) One who cheats is a cheat, not a 'cheater'. Bloody Merkins....

You're definitely on a wind up, Marx, and that's fine, but you should be picking on ME, not Rait. I have no ethics. It's true. So sue me. :p

Oh, and thanks for sharing the fact that you're on a road trip and have limited computer access. With that, and my new alliance with thewonderllama's dsl provider, I think this one's in the bag....

Crap, another long message vanished... you'd think I'd learn that this motel's internret connection times out quickly... :-(

Come on, I was obviously just kidding by calling Rait a big, mean cheater... I do like to exaggerate and stir the pot a bit and thought it would be fun to tease Rait a bit, but no offense was intended...

That said, the integrity of our game has been compromised. I think it is common knowledge that suggesting a draw (which, for the record, MajorTom suggested, not me) is allowed as well as a simple positive or negative response. Rait’s rantings on the subject were clearly meant to influence the decision of other players. I can relate to Rait’s frustration with some people’s decision making on this site, perhaps going so far as to claim some decisions are “spineless”, but in a no press game you are obligated to bit your tongue and allow others to make whatever (sometimes illogical) decision they want based solely on the moves submitted. I could go on and on, but Rait did indeed influence others with press and therefore clearly violated the rules of the game. In a nutshell, Rait insinuated that it would be “spineless” for Feckless to draw the game. Once Feckless agreed to the draw, Rait continued to belittle Feckless and even started a separate thread on the forum regarding the topic. Feckless, feeling ashamed, attempted to regain a shred of his dignity by reneging on the draw… Yeah, I’m exaggerating again a bit for effect, but that’s the basic way things played out...

On another note, in a game that is based on the honor system, it seems pretty clear that if someone agrees to a draw on the global message board that they should honor that agreement. Feckless, quit letting Rait push you around, man up, and abide by your word… Agree to the draw!! :-)

Feckless has stated publicly that Rait did not influence his decision. I wonder if Rait is just a patsy, and MadMarx put him up to the global posts. In this way, MadMarx could then start this thread and petition to get this game cancelled, so he could share in a pot that he couldn't win by skill?

Marx's continued assault on Rait's integrity is an obvious attempt to force a draw, and, arguably, in itself a violation of the No Press rules. :p

Let's see if I can make make this easy for you to understand.... If Treefarn were to post a detailed analysis of 'No press 23', including the options and prospects for individual powers, would that constitute a violation of the No Press rules? Clearly not - since Treefarn is not playing it that game, and is not subject to those rules. Can anything that Rait might have to say on the subject be considered a violation of the No Press rules? No, I'm afraid not.... because Rait is no longer playing in that game, and is no linger subject to those rules. Capiche?

All of this is entirely irrelevant, of course.... this business about Rait insinuating that it would be spineless for me to draw the game and continuing to belittle me is either pure invention by Marx, or it simply went right over my head - either way, it's news to me. I will be happy to explain the various factors that actually influenced my decision, but in keeping with the rules, I will do this only when the game has finished.

I would be interested to hear all impartial opinions on Marx's interpretation of the honor system. If there is a clear consensus that "if someone agrees to a draw on the global message board that they should honor that agreement", then I'll have learned something, and I will accept the draw.... even though I think it's a load of bollocks.

This is all getting a bit out of hand, but I guess I have that effect on things sometimes... I couldn't care less about the points and I'm not overly concerned if Turkey wins the game or not, but I do really enjoy discussing the nuances of the game. I honestly/firmly believe that the game has been compromised, but who the hell am I and so what if I think that? If Feckless thinks it's okay for Rait to post all the moves Rait would recommend to Feckless, to win the game, then I'm more than happy to disagree with Feckless and be on my way. I'm also not very concerned whether or not Feckless agrees to a draw or not, per se, the point I'm trying to make is that Feckless should honor his word, regardless of what his word is. I know when I make the statement that "this is just a game", that people will say, "then why are you making such a fuss", but my response is that since it is just a game, what's the point in reneging on your word?

Anyway, I do find these discussions very interesting, at least for a while, when people are making sense (including myself)...

I'd like to share a little Global press with the community:
_____________________________________________
Germany, Spring 1918: Hey England and Turkey, we are waiting for your confirmation on the forum.

England, Spring 1918: I have been planning to wait until Turkey confirms. Since a draw isn't my preferred outcome, I'm only going to affix my name to it if Turkey has already. I'd really rather not have a situation where I agree to the draw and Turkey doesn't, play continues, and then things turn sour for Turkey and he can merely agree to the draw then and it's all up. No offense to Feckless, for I think it a devious strategy, but I'm not going to play into it.

Russia, Spring 1918: Hey, Feckless, what's the holdup? Do you need me to bump the forum post so you can find it?

Turkey, Spring 1918: I have been planning to wait until England confirms. Since a draw isn't my preferred outcome, I'm only going to affix my name to it if England has already. I'd really rather not have a situation where I agree to the draw and England doesn't, play continues, and then things turn sour for England and he can merely agree to the draw then and it's all up. No offense to thewonderllama, for I think it a devious strategy, but I'm not going to play into it.

Game on!

England, Spring 1918: i hate my dsl provider.

and feckless i'm so suing you for copyright infringement. :P
_____________________________________________

Since it is just a game, what's the point in reneging on your word? Wait.... this is DIPLOMACY we're talking about, right? Duh....

Marx, FFS, if you think the game has been compromised, then you can blame me, not Rait. Nothing Rait has said has in any way influenced any decision I have made.

I'm not maintaining that "it's okay for Rait to post all the moves Rait would recommend to Feckless, to win the game" - I could certainly make a good argument to that effect, but even if you're correct, you've only constructed a good reductio ad absurdum, since this doesn't in any way reflect what actually occurred, or is likely to occur. In any case, any perceived (ie imagined) wrongdoing on Rait's part is entirely irrelevant, since Rait has already been eliminated from the game, and will not benefit from any possible outcome.

I AM maintaining that an agreement to draw is not an agreement to draw until it's posted to this forum, and under the circumstances, I think that England, at least, would be bound to agree. I have said that I will comply with a community consensus on the matter, and I don't think I can say fairer than that.

Feckless, you had me until your last paragraph. If a draw isn't a draw until agreed to in this forum, isn't everything on your global tab then considered Press?

FWIW, if Rait did indeed try to cajole Feckless into NOT drawing, then I am of a mixed mind. On the one hand, if he was trying to influence Feckless's decision (whether he succeeds or not is irrelevant), then it is Press. On the other hand, if the map looked differently and someone was asking for a draw on a game that was stalemated, and posted something like 'Your fleets can't leave the Med and I got you stopped at the St Pete bottleneck. This game is deadlocked'. I don't have as much problem with that, per se, but its the same thing, press to influence a decision.

Either way, even if the game was compromised by one player, I don't feel it should be cancelled or drawn in this case anyway. Don't punish Feckless because you feel Rait violated the rules.

Treefarn, I have not tried to cajole Feckless into NOT drawing. As a matter of fact, I haven't even mentioned Feckless nor his country (Turkey) in any press until this very message... also repeating that no concrete moves, units or strategies were touched. It was a simple statement that there is no need for draw...

Anyone who thinks I'd respond to any such cajoling in a manner favourable to the cajoler really doesn't know me very well, but in fact, Rait's statement was exactly as posted previously, with multiple witnesses to that effect.... MadMarx is on a wind up.

@ Treefarn: "If a draw isn't a draw until agreed to in this forum, isn't everything on your global tab then considered Press?"

FWIW, this terribly unethical reneging of mine wasn't a deliberate ploy from the outset (believe it or not), and it hasn't affected game-play, afaik.... it's an interesting question though....

There are separate issues here. Supposing it does constitute press? Are you suggesting that it is inappropriate to discuss the possibility of a draw in a no press game? Or that a draw should be enforced once agreed in-game, even if some participants no longer want the draw? Even if circumstances have changed to their advantage? In all games, or only in No Press games?

I'm hardly in a position to offer an unbiased opinion on any of this right now, though I would suggest that if people want to insist on such rules, they should probably agree on them before the game starts....

And FFS, people, my name is NOT Feckless, it's CLOD!

You certainly don't need to mention someone by name to be talking to or about them. That being said, note thatI am not a part of the game, so I don't know what was said, and I take everything MadMarx says with a grain of salt, based on my own experience. His admission that he exaggerates for effect (not just on this matter, but in general) submarines his arguments.

However, I think explaining WHY a game shouldn't be drawn is questionable, especially from a player who had been previously eliminated.

Feckless, Obviously the global tab must be used to offer a draw. But how much talk of a draw is too much? I don't know. Do we require a simple yes or no answer only?

And if a draw is agreed to in the game, is it binding? I don't think it is, though I wish it was. Since it may take Kestas some time to actually respond, you have to keep playing until he does. Its kind of like Russia sending a missive to England saying 'yes, we draw', but when the actually peace treaty comes, Russia refuses to sign.

Unethical, yes, but not against the rules.

afaik? FFS?

As far as I know. For fuck's sake....

Why "especially" from a player who had been previously eliminated? I would have thought that such restrictions should apply only to active players. I also thought Rait did a wonderful job of being deliberately vague....

And it's all quite irrelevant to the case in hand....

Because an eliminated player should have no input on the game in a no press game. Why not let EVERYONE, not just the 7 players, post in the global tab?

Terrible idea. The clutter would be unbearable. I, for one, would feel obliged to visit all MadMarx's games just to say unpleasant things about him. You might as well not have a global tab.

Everyone should be able to read global tabs, though.... and that might put an end to silly, libelous fictions such as those above.

Is an eliminated player posting in the global tab really any different from that player, or anyone else, posting here?