I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I see the problem...

Neither do I

ps. if MM actually wins this as he should instead of giving in to the 17/17 draw, I withdraw my rant and this can simply be chalked up to horrible play by dave... though I'm sure he learned quite a bit from it.

Can you really withdraw a rant?

I'm confused--are you mad because they went for a 2way draw?

If it ends as a two-way draw, it certainly will not have been the first one, and there are plenty of two-way draws in WTA, so I don't see how this has anything to do with PPSC. I'm with abgemacht, I don't see what the problem is.

I'm sorry, I see the problem. MM had the win in his hand and gave it up. Yes, I'd be a bit annoyed at that, too.

PV, I was confused, but if you look at the previous turn, MM had MOS and gave it up for no reason.

*St.Pete*

giving up scs you already have to go for a 2way draw maybe it's too much. Kind of foolish. I probably wouldn't do that.

I'm sorry, but there's nothing wrong with agreeing to a 2-way draw, WTA or PPSC. You're out of line on this on, Babs. the PPSC mentality is helping another country WIN so you end up with 10-16 SCs and a share of the spoils. Draws have nothing to do with PPSC.

Babak wanted a long-term alliance with me from the beginning. He knows I'm a loyal ally and that the two of us could be a powerful duo and take over the game. But, I felt Babak was verging on expecting me to ally with him.. In spite of this, or perhaps because of this, I kept the option open for a while, but ultimately decided to not ally with Babak and I used my gutt feeling that he would bend over backwards to appease me against him. This obviously didn't go over well, especially as Babak watched me being a good long-term ally to someone else.

I agreed to a 17-17 draw with dave and we worked hard for it for years. A two-way draw always gets crazy at the end and we were both worried Babak would manage to turn us on each other and force a three-way draw. In the end, dave got a bit sloppy with Tunis, and I wanted to let him know about it so he wouldn't make that mistake in the future. I could have won, got some more points and upped my GR a bit, but I valued the game-long alliance with dave much more than that. The only fitting way for that game to end, in my opinion, was a two way draw between dave and me.

People can think what they want, that's fine, I stand by my decision.

How dare you be nice MM, diplomacy is about pulling DMs and being a lying asshole, not about being friends:p

Yep. Germany was an idiot, and Russia should go play Candy Land instead of diplomacy. I'd be infuriated if I were you.

I did not expect to care what others have to say on this topic because I considered it so completely random, I never understood Babak's concern. But I must admit I am a bit curious at to what others have to say... Here are some of responses for consideration:

@ Babak: You're truly disappointed in... me?! I've never claimed to know what I'm doing, I think you put far too much stock in my actions.

@abgemacht: A bit annoyed? Interesting. I was a bit annoyed by many of Babak's comments throughout the game, such as when he threateded to scream metagamer to the high heavens if I were to two-way draw the game (Babak obviously wanted to be involved in a three-way draw). Perhaps the sole reason I drew the game with dave was to spite Babak, has anyone on this site ever stooped to spite in a game?

@hellalt: Foolish and you probably wouldn't do it? I didn't expect to. I was actually excited to get the solo... but, perhaps dave deserves credit for convincing me to draw with him? I am admittedly much better at diplomacy than strategy, does no one see any merit in dave using diplomacy to get the draw when his strategy/orders let him down?

@rlumley: Candy Land? Priceless, I love that line! In hindsight, maybe it was pretty weak on my part... BUT, has nobody else been talked into doing something like that in any game ever?

Not sure why this has my interest at the moment, but I am a bit fascinated... I'm even a bit curious what flashman would have to say on the topic, so maybe my brain is in a bit of fog these days! ;-)

Again, curious about any/all opinions, please weigh in if you have a strong opinion one way or the other.

No problems here.. If you play PPSC, you will face this from time to time - you should play the scoring system!

Well I can understand Babak's frustration, since he is from the win at all costs school of Diplomacy (and I put myself firmly in that camp also), however, I guess opponents (such as MadMarx) will do what opponents do whether we like it or not, and it is his prerogative to draw 2 ways with his ally. As much as I disagree with that style of play, it is ultimately his decision for what ever motives he chooses.

It's a frustrating game.

(Was that diplomatic enough?)

I've admittedly done it on a couple of occasions when I could have had a solo, but allowed for a 2-way or 3-way draw. I don't think I expected to, but the way the game played out, I thought the others had earned it. It's a tough call really and there are undoubtedly complexities or nuances that cannot be understood unless someone is in those very shoes. Part of me wishes I would have gone for the win, but again, part of me felt they had earned a share of the draw for one reason or another.

*shrug* I think those who think that someone 'has' to play a certain way are doomed to continual disappointment.

Obviously, no one is ever going to make the mistake of going for a two way draw with someone who will - every time - go for the win. This is why I try to set up three ways - and if memory serves Babak also lost it when there was a *four* way draw in a game that he was not included in.

People who you know will invariably stab are predictable, and have little room to bitch when you trust them less than someone you know *may* choose not to. That isn't metagaming, that's learning from experience.

If you can't deal with that concept, stick with anon games - except people *still* aren't going to do things the way you think they should. So if it's driving you that insane, pick another hobby

Frankly, Babak, the only poor sportsmanship I'm seeing here is you. You were unsuccessful in your attempts to split an alliance. It happens. That doesn't mean the other people are cheating because the situation ended in a way you didn't like.

stratgos has a good point. Those people who proclaim a win-at-all-costs mentality are going to have a hard time finding allies who will be willing to put everything into a fight against a common opponent. I have built many alliances by pointing out my long-term alliances in the past - people are comfortable allying with me. OTOH, I have stabbed in the past, but usually in prophylactic self-defense - because my "ally" is someone who wants to win.

So let it be known - I will NEVER stab you. ever. really, I'm the best possible ally. You don't ever have to worry about your home SCs with me.

:-)

I can vouch for jbalcorn on that. Why, I remember once he took very good care of my home SCs while I was "vacationing" in another country. Yes, they never looked better with the new paint job and admittedly no other country invaded while he was there defending my SCs :P

Don't listen to LG. He's just bitter because I made him feel guilty over beers after he stabbed me :-)

I have a slightly different take...

First of all, had I been in MM's position and this was the deciding game in a World Championship, it would have been goodbye Dave...

But this was not a major game and I play for the fun and thrust, not the points. Sometimes I will allow a player to get a respectable result after the main work has been done - even if this gives me a draw rather than the win. I know the games I have reached a winning position in and then backed off and that is enough for me. It does not happen when the game is part of a championship though and I do not do it to pay back for help in another game.

The point made above about predictability is valid: you have to make sure that a serious opponent is never quite sure what you will do. It is therefore arguably a good tactic on a site where you meet players again and again, and in games varying from competitions to one-off friendlies and variants, to go against the odds from time to time. Surely we have all met players like A:

'A is Russia, A always opens South...'

Obviously, A should open North once in a while.

In the game in question, the most important point for me is not the one about Mos and the win being certain, but that the agreement to try to play to a two-way draw was set as the strategy - after the game started, and then played towards consistently. I see MM's decision near the end to be, cough, cough, a rather noble action.

Why doesn't he do that when he plays with me?

I'm with MM on this one. He played it well. Babak, you should be unhappy with how the others played, not MM.

I also get pissed when someone else manages to fool around half the board to play like zombies, but it's not his fault ultimately. MM played it well and should have taken a solo, being the only one who obviously knew what he's doing and was able to control the map.

For one, what MM did was horrible in a PpSC or WTA if you want to maximize your points/rating (see other threads that I call this the basic of the game for me). This is not PpSC mentality, this is chicken out when you have the win. I would be upset, too - it is not "not taking the stab" when one could do - it is giving up two SCs to level the SCs and make a draw. Wow. If both played for a 2way draw and the 17-17 position reached somewhat naturally, then there wouldn'T be anything to sneeze at.

Babak'S whole point is basically: dave screwed himself over tactically totally. However, that is not punished by MM. Maybe just cudos to dave for making the number one rated player throwing a win away.

I admit that I am not thrilled by that action. I looks for me like a bad move by MM.

Maybe this is the only way to play on the website, making alliances across single games and making meta gaming wherever possible, eliminating the other groups and gaining rating and points by this action.

We should consider disallowing non-anonymous games!

Really? Disallow non-anonymous games? I think before we start throwing around terms like meta gaming, lets all take a step back. It is none of our business how MM wants to play. None. He had an ally that he wanted to reward. Good for him. Would I do the same thing? Probably not. But I don't know all of the ins and outs of the actual diplomacy. Unless you can prove he cheated, this is kind of beating a dead horse. And coming on the forum to bitch and complain how someone played, after they beat you, is not very cool.

I'm not sure how such situations should be handled. Flashman's opinion is probably the closest one to mine -- if it were a tournament game, MadMarx's moves in the last turn would be definitely poor sportsmanship and perhaps even against the rules. Basically it's the same as if a soccer player intentionally kicks a ball into his own goal in order to lose an already won game. If you do that in a tournament soccer game, you will be probably banned from the active play for a couple of years.

On the other hand, in a friendly game everything is possible and the understanding of sportsmanship depends on players involved. If all of them agree, everything is OK. If they don't (as Babak here), it's still an issue. Such things should be probably discussed and agreed *before* the game to avoid future disappointments.

Regarding this particular game, I'd be actually more disappointed by Dave's play, because Germany enabled MadMarx to win the game. Looking at his moves in Spring 1909, Dave is either a weak, or an un-fair player. As Babak, I would blame Dave, not MadMarx, and I would avoid playing with Dave in future games.

My story is basically that is screwed up big time in the last couple of years tactically, and tried everything I possibly could to convince MM to draw it with me anyway. I will not try to defend my tactical play at that point, as it was awful, but I suppose in the end I managed to get the result... I think I've learnt a lot from it as it was my first attempt at a 2 way draw, and my first high pot game..
@MarekP I think avoiding playing with me is an overreaction. Yes, I screwed up big time near the end of that last game, but I played the rest of it well (stab on France was good), and I certainly don't play like that in many game and I'll never make that mistake again.