We roll out the red carpet for the Confederate Grand Ball. A whole bunch of celebrities and......me.

Y'all are good, but if I lose I will reset to 100 anyway.... Sounds like a positive expectancy bet to me!

Aww, now I'm sad I didn't get the invite. Does anyone mind if I kick Gen Lee out and take his place? :)

I am dragging down the gr average so I would understand. ;). I was going to send you an invite but you mods have more fun chasing down multis and silencing forum boobs, it seems you're all in semi retirement!

Zultar, what was your pseudo there and the name of the game? Me stabbing you? Can't believe I did that! Or if really I did, that was most probably for your own good ha ha

Name: Peacemaker
Game: Restricted Warfare
In fact, you stabbed me and made me your bitch for a while. :)
That's where I learn that it's perfectly okay to play second fiddle for a while until it's the right time. Time can be hard, but it's good to be cold iron.

I wish I could transfer my games over. Early on, I played almost all full press games there while I played more gunboat games here (because I didn't trust that people would follow the no-press rules there since the communication box is still there and there is no anon option).

True story: I thought Julien Vergues must have been the site creator or a test player for the early games on facebook when I started because no one had anyone near your number of points nor the win/draw rate (didn't see Babak's ridiculous 50% win/50% draw rate until after I met him here).

Ha ha I'll take it as a compliment!! Well, it's only my real name, and my stats are indeed quite decent there. Met Babak on that site and he recommended to come play here.
See, with Babak there's a problem: he's such a nice chap that you would never think he could stab you, and if he does it almost makes you happy to hand over your SCs to such a lovely person.
But, yeah, true, we've had some tough games before he went to his semi retirement. I still hope to lute him back into active play though!

Thought I'd drop by here and say hello!
It has indeed been a while since my last game. Life got busy. I kept passing by from time to time, popping my head up in a few forum threads, but no open game seemed to draw my attention. Gen. Lee's invite of course changed all that: strong roster, many players I've never had the chance to face... Kinda had to give it a shot!

The "Slyster" issue... He and I are indeed RL friends and we've played a few games here together. We always made sure to tell everybody that we knew each other, so I don't think there ever was a real issue there. We have, however, been naturally drawn to form alliances in most of our games. Not that we'd set out that way... heck! I remember conversations with him where we were trash talking each other to no end around a game of cards, telling one another how we'd take the other down. Yet our styles seem to gel in such a way that we'd end up being allies quite often. Often enough, in fact, that we thought it best to stop playing together on this site. And that was well before anyone (i.e. MM!!!) raised a worry.
The thing is ... one of our last games together included MM, Babak, JMO, Draugnar and Jacob. The shit kinda hit the fan (and I think most of you will have no trouble imagining just how that could have happened with such a roster) and we ended up with a three way draw that, to this day, MM still has issues with. Well... I'm assuming he does, given that he still has the kind of reaction he had here. And I mean to be super clear: it's a warranted feeling. The reality causing this feeling might not be what MM thinks it to be, but I totally understand how it may look that way.
All that to say: I don't think that there will be any issues between the players. As far as I'm concerned, I come to this game with a fresh perspective and not a hint of resentment or 'special' feeling towards any of you. I'm very curious to get to know some of you better, and I'm looking forward to what should be a very interesting game.

On an other note: so Babak has been away as well?

@Cach - well its good to see you back. You were a player a enjoyed playing with. I doubt anyone would have qualms over you and sly knowing each other in real life. I tried contacting Babak back in January for the Masters, but he declined. He's either secretly playing a few games or just taking a break.

@Zultar and jmo - screw these guys who didn't invite us. Lets start our own mod game and invite Tom and abge. We can include some ex-mods like Alderian as well to fill it up.

You're pretty fun too, Goldie! I still remember you as Italy, making my life utterly impossible in Austria by dancing around middle Europe...

I was doing my own version of the Bohemian Rhapsody....I don't understand why you and Germany were freaking out so much. hahaha

Aww, cute. The MOD/Admin think they're better than us.

No pb at all to have two RL friends, we know it upfront and the mindset sounds healthy to me. So ur both welcome, at least from me!

There's no issue at all Julien. We just prefer to avoid playing in the same games. It's not just for how it may look to those who are in need of drama and seek any chance to stir some shit. It's mostly because we've played each other a few times and, well, we've had enough for now!!!
Anyway... the roster is set, the game soon to begin. I look forward to it all!

Hey Cach, sounds like I may need to clear the air a bit.

The fact that I will not play sly and you in the same game is not because of our last game together, that game had numerous other issues that stole the show, like Draugnar getting banned and flipping out, but being allowed to play out our game, or whatever that mess was, it's been so long I forget the details and don't care to relive it, it was all a bit too humbling, but I'd like to think I have matured a bit since then and through that experience.

For me, like you say, sly and you are naturally drawn to align with each other. My best guess is that you two will ally at least 90% of the time, perhaps even more than 95% of the time. I personally prefer an even playing field, and would hope that all seven players would enter a game with a 50/50 chance of allying with or against any other player (which is more often than not impossible, so I'm just talking "in theory" here). When a multi plays a game with two accounts, the odds of the multi allying with himself are 100%. I'm not saying sly and you *will* ally 100%, and I'm not even saying I *think* sly and you might ally 100% of the time, but I'm just not willing to invest my valuable time in a game where the combination of you and sly, in my mind, is much more like playing a multi than it is playing two individual people that are completely indifferent to each other and will truly ally together 50% of the time. I could very well be wrong, but I have a right to not join any game I don't want to join. Perhaps that all comes off as offensive, but I hope not. There are people on this site I'm naturally drawn to and thus will ally with much more than 50% of the time, so it does all get very grey, but in the end I have my opinion and I hope that opinion won't affect this upcoming game either positively or negatively.

yeah I get the point of MM, I myself have a friend on fb diplo and sometimes we used to play together, but i made a point to declare it to all other players before the game AND make sure we would ally 50% of the time and not 100%..
in any case if two guys ally 90% of the time, it is only fair that they say it upfront so that other players know it and take appropriate action in the game.
I however understand that some player may not like to play such pairs of players. Nothing wrong with that either.

Though I appreciate that you took the time to write your opinion on the matter, I too feel like I should maybe make something clear: I don't care about this stuff at all!!!
The reason is quite simple: as you suggest, some personalities click naturally, some don't. Some have longstanding histories with players on this site, some don't. Though we like to believe that each game is fresh and new, that we all approach the game with a kind of 'tabula rasa' attitude, we don't. There's context. Always. In every game.
Like ours for example...
I know what to expect from you MM, in some ways at least, but not from most of the other players. And we do have our history, which just might be prompted into a situation at some point, framing our negotiations so to speak. Then, this thread gives me some insight on the ways in which Julien thinks, I can guess at some of his values, and that's going to be 'evaluated' by me whether or not I'm aware of it. The same goes for Gen. Lee, etc.
Where Sly and I are concerned, we've never ever hid our friendship from other players, we have sought out to organize games with other friends of ours, we have taken steps to avoid such issues. The fact is, however, that just like I know some of his idiosyncratic traits, I know some of Lando's, some of Tom's, some of JMO's... some of many players I've played with here and have enjoyed enough to pay attention to who they were. And in all of those cases, that information was useful in games. Did I capitalize on some of Sly's traits? Hells yes. Did I do the same with other players? Absolutely. Do most good players work in that way, whether consciously or not? I'm wiling to bet my right to play on this site that they do!!! And that includes you, dear MM!!! But either all of this is metagaming, or none of it is. Given that I think the game impossible to play otherwise, that is, by abstracting from such info, I want to say that none of it is, that it is a natural facet of the game. Diplomacy, after all, is never far from psychology...

So yeah, that's how I say that I don't care about this sort of issue. I care where there is the conscious decision to obfuscate the truth, manipulate others, and willingly cheat towards victory. To me, that's the only kind of metagaming that is wrong. But where it's a question of what you know about other people, and how this factors into your choices, that's just the nature of the game.

And I will finish by adding, MM, that there's at least one game where I can show beyond the trace of a doubt that you've capitalized on what you had understood of Sly's personality, that very same trait that has made me work with him on so many occasions. I have good reason to believe that it's information you've also used in other games you've played with him. I'm not going to flat out say what that is, of course, but I think you'll know what I'm talking about.

That's my 'two-cents' on at least part of the "meta-gaming" issue: there is always something beyond the game that frames the way we approach it and play it. Games are not played in a vat. And what we know of the players we play is significantly part of that frame. Which is why we have anon games. Which is also why we deliberately try to have "pure anon games". In both cases, the aim is to reduce the impact of that knowledge. But that's to say that is has an impact in most, if not all, cases.

On the topic of "pure anon games": I've played one with Sly, that is, I've played one where he and I were both in the game without knowing that the other was in it. I even made an effort not to care about the way people wrote: had little chance of guessing who was in it, given the set-up, and thought it a waste of time (and, also, contrary to the spirit of the game). Well? I still allied with the fucker!!! Something in our exchanges made me think that whoever I was talking to had that "trait" that I could work with, that trait I've said Sly has. And so we worked together. I never had a clue that it was him until the end.

May I add: until the last few years because the bummer was talking about moving with his wife to a new house, playing golf, etc, etc.

But that has happened when all was said and done, but very funny in the end. = )

PS: I don't even know what trait you are talking about Cach.

Yeah... that's right! You ended up making me out towards the end. I remember you laughing your ass off at me when I finally saw it had been you on the other side.

Ass.

I suppose that clears some things up. Sounds like Cach is completely okay with allying with sly 100% of the time, it just is what it is (not that Cach sets out to do that, he just doesn't care about it, so if it does then it just does). Julien makes a focused effort to ally 50% of the time with a RL friend. TheWizard got a bit frustrated with me one time, saying that I was so worried about metagaming and getting an unfair advantage of a reliable ally, that I would do the opposite and constantly do things to sabotage a possible alliance (which I don't think I took it to the extreme of 100% of the time of going after that person, but I admit I would play much differently, which sounds like, now that I think of it, why Babak got absolutely furious with me in that last game of ours, because I admitted to treating him differently than some guy I had never played before, and Babak was adamant that I should treat him like I would anyone else).

It's all very fascinating to me, how everyone views and does things differently, suppose that's the spice of life, and the spice of a game of diplomacy! :-)

Mark, if I'm not mistaking, I don't believe that's what Cachimbo intended to say, maybe the way you interpreted him.

From my point of view, Cach was saying that it is normal in a Diplomacy game that some personalities click more than often, and that sometimes you don't even know who someone is, but you find out afterwards that it's actually someone you know very well. Just like some players, because you have less affinites with, you ally a bit less. He wasn't saying it's ok to ally with me a 100%, that's misinterpretation.

It's not because you click more with certain types of players that there won't be an opportunity to try or stab that someone you click with. For example, you and Dave Bishop. You did ally more than 90% in the games you played with him, but did that change the fact he tried to stab you when he saw the right opportunity to do so later on in the games? No. Same goes for you.

So, from my side of the story, like you said in your first post

" There are people on this site I'm naturally drawn to and thus will ally with much more than 50% of the time, so it does all get very grey".

And that is exactly the point of the discussion. Yes there are people you always get along with most when doing diplomacy talks, but it doesn't mean that you'll take away stab opportunities just because you click with someone.

I know my last sentence might refer you back to our very first game together, but I did mention this kind of play was done as a statement and that it wasn't the kind of play I would do every game.

And again, I'll let Cach answer about this interpretation, but since your last comment included me in your thoughts, I found that it was important to clarify.

I predict a shitstorm. This should be fun.

sly, I think Cach was saying it's okay if he ends up allying with you 100%, the point is that Cach doesn't plan to do that ahead of time, he just plays the game and if you two are drawn to ally 100% of the time, so be it, it just is something that happens, whether it's you two or any other guy Cach may happen to click with. Cach is secure enough in his own play that he doesn't care how it looks to others, 100% or 0%, he just plays the game for what it is.

I certainly did not ally with dave bishop more than 90% of the time. I think my last game with dave (maybe second to last), he ruthlessly stabbed me, and I suicided against him, and we both died. Given that, I would have needed to play him at least 10 other games to have allied with dave "more than 90%" of the time, and I would have had to of allied with him in every one of those 10+ other games. I have played 4 or 5 games with dave, I'm thiking it was 4, and we both died in one due to fighting each other, so your statement is clearly false. I'm not bickering about 75%, 3 out of 4, I think that's somewhere in the "grey area" of somewhere between a pure indifference of 50/50 and a multi of 100%. I think you and Cach will literally ally at least 90% of the time, in 9 out of 10 games, and my best guess is that you will likely ally *literally* more often than that, which, for *me*, is too much like playing against a multi, it's out of the "grey area" and into the danger zone. For me. To invest my time in a game. Not interested.

ghug, this will be child's play compared to that shit storm of a game we have been talking about. If you have a few hours, and haven't read it before, feel free to skim through the global press of that dreadful game:

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=73022

I haven't read through it since we played (i.e. since I lived through it), and we finished mid-January 2012... Gives me the chills to even think about going back and reading through, what a frackin' nightmare... But, *damn*, got to love a game (i.e. diplomacy, not that game specifically) that can draw that much emotion out of people!! :-)

Haha ghug!!!
If a shitstorm there must be, a shitstorm there will be.

But you won't find me working any further at creating the conditions for one. MM can interpret what I said in any which way he wants. So can Sly, for that matter, or anyone else. I feel I was pretty clear that I just didn't care about the issue as I think that this whole notion of 'meta-gaming' isn't a clear one and generally presupposes too much. There's always a context to a game, we always import significant stuff into what we do, Diplomacy included. There's always a 'meta', which really just means a 'beyond', a more than, that is... a significant context.
As for the rest, though we could debate about it, I just fail to see the point. Especially if the conversation is to happen by constantly radicalizing the other's positions. At the end of the day, that necessarily means ignoring aspects (sometimes important) of what the other said. So I'm electing to ignore all of it ... partly because I don't want to further burden the context leading us into our game this Sunday... partly because I don't have the time to play those games.

And I've never forced you or proposed you that kind of game either. And never will I. I never am forcing people into doing something they wouldn't like. You have your right to think what you want regarding this, but I just felt like I needed to clarify my thoughts, and maybe interpret what Cach intended to say. But since I'm not in Cach's head, I'll let him answer this. If that is Cach's way of thinking, it clearly isn't my way and that's why I wanted to clarify after your last message. ;)

Hey Mark, my lighter is out of gas now. Care to borrow me some? ;)

Fine, fine... we don't want the kids crying, do we now?

The only thing I need to say is this: I never quantified any of my propositions and claims. Therefore, reading me as quantifying any reality, much in the way you gave percentages MM, is more than likely an inadequate interpretation and a misleading presentation of my thoughts.

Folks, how about you just play the game that you have all agreed to play instead of dragging up past games and possibly making yourself biased coming into the game?

Those other games are over and over a long time ago. Let them go, and just enjoy the caliber of competition in this particular game. :)

Wait... that's what I was saying!

It does sound much more authoritative coming from an admin though! ;-)