Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 25 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
jimshlif (441 D)
07 May 07 UTC
"Due now?"
I'm new to phpdiplomacy, so forgive me if this should be obvious, but what does "End of phase: due now" mean? Orders have apparently been "due" for hours without being processed.

Thanks in advance for the explanation!
3 replies
Open
Chrispminis (916 D)
12 May 07 UTC
Break!
Notice : People who are in my games may have noticed that I missed my turn. I've been having internet problems, and as such, have very unpredictable connectivity. As well, RL is preventing me from devoting too much time to Diplomacy, so until the summer starts...

I will be taking a break of phpDip. I will finish off the games that I am currently playing, to the best of my ability, but I will not participate further until more free time clears itself up. I expect to be back within a little over a month. Have fun, and good luck everyone!
2 replies
Open
Nemesis (100 D)
12 May 07 UTC
Don't forget the Diplomacy widows, Sunday.
"A man’s own actions, will from the start give him such a name that it will require a long course of opposite conduct to destroy it." - Niccoló Machiavelli, The Discourses. 1517.

0 replies
Open
aoe3rules (949 D)
11 May 07 UTC
Look what I found on Google...
ANAGRAMS (1) [HR:Sep02]
Some amusing Diplomacy-related anagrams:
"The Game of Diplomacy" -> Employ magic of death.
"The Abyssinian Prince" -> Brainy, nice thespians; Piranha by insistence; An inane, bitchy pisser.
France-Austria-Russia: Saucier anus farts air.

DIPLOMACY.AZ (1) [HR:Dec92]
Diplomacy AZ is phun,
Especially when it's all done!
Proof-reading's a chore,
And a terrible bore,
And printed, it must weigh a ton!
[Gets more and more pertinent with each issue!!]

DIPLOMACY DEFINITIONS (1) [Mike Guest and Bill Michell, 1988]
Ally: Someone who has misheard you.
Close Ally: Someone who you are blackmailing.
Bad Player: Someone who can't lipread.
"Think Ahead" Player: Someone who diplomes before the countries have been picked.
Paranoid Player: Someone who insists on being there when his drink is being poured.
Good Player: Someone who seems to win every week, but does it so quietly that no-one seems to notice.
Demilitarized zone: The Black Sea
Confidence: An Austrian who bothers to draw up a seat, or an Italian who asks what 4+1 is.
Optimism: Russian F(GOB) - Swe in Fall 1901
Trust: A weapon to use only when all else fails.

DIPLOMACY EMOTIONS (1) [HR:Apr92]
Satisfaction: That your moves went off as planned.
Delight: That your backstab worked.
Glee: The opponent you stabbed was also stabbed by someone else.
Gloating: Seeing an opponent who critically stabbed you get crushed.
Exultation: When it's you who delivers the coup de grace.
Bliss: 18 supply centres.
Anxiety: Wondering how many of your neighbours are plotting against you.
Fear: Finding that it's all of them.
Desperation: Trying to get their neighbours to stab them.
Despair: When they insist on fighting each other.
Exasperation: Just when you've fought off 2 of your neighbours, the third comes barging in.
Frustration: Getting a build when all your home dots are occupied.
Vexation: Getting a build when someone else is occupying your home SCs!
Shock: Getting unexpected support from another player.
Loneliness: Exile in Iceland.
Sympathy: What's that?

DIPLOMACY QUOTATIONS (1) [HR:Apr92]

1. Diplomacy dichotomy: Getting stabbed is as much fun as sucking lemons when you have the mumps, but stabbing someone is as much fun as switching his chocolate bar with one of Ex-Lax.
2. Famous last words of a Diplomacy player: "But you promised...!"
3. Playing Diplomacy is like juggling knives on a greased floor. Make one slip and you'll get stabbed.
4. The Ultimate Compliment: "I'm glad I'm not your neighbour!"

DIPLOMAT (2) [SS:Jan95]

1. A diplomat is a man who can convince his wife she'd look stout in a fur coat. Anonymous.
2. A diplomat is a man who always remembers a woman's birthday but never remembers her age. Robert Frost
3. How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. Karl Kraus (1874-1936)
4. A diplomat is someone who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you'll look forward to the trip. Anonymous

HELL (1) [HR:Apr92]
There is a special place in Hell reserved for Diplomacy players. It's called Carebearland. Everyone is forced to play cooperative games, with no lying, cheating, double-dealing or backstabbing allowed!

HYORK [PG:Nov93]
'Tag' used by Dick Martin, Bob Olsen and other early-80s Dipsters to denote sardonic laughter. Example: "Your mother was a simple-minded antelope, hyork hyork."

LIE (1) [MB:Jun80]
The telling of an untruth is one of the most overused diplomatic procedures, yet sometimes is unavoidable. The value you hope to gain from the lie must be balanced against (1) The chance of it being discovered too soon, (2) The loss of credibility (3) the possibility that the same result could be accomplished, albeit more slowly, in a more "diplomatic" manner.

LIFE (1) [HR:Oct02]
Those regular, recurring events that are usually unavoidable and serve only to interfere with the playing of Diplomacy. Eating, sleeping, family (especially children) and work are the worst offenders. Paradoxically, work also brings in the money that is required to maintain the ability to play Diplomacy...

LIGHTBULBS (1) [MN:May94]
How many Diplomacy players does it take to screw in a light bulb?
John Doucette:
Seven, unless they're named Loeb, then it takes nine.
It depends on the variant of the lightbulb.
Two, but it takes them a week to negotiate it.
Only one, if you give him Hall of Fame points for it.
One can do it, but it takes years, and a one-way lightbulb is much more satisfying than a three-way one.

Timothy Ferguson:
A: It doesn't matter how many you have to change the bulb, none will trust the others to hold the chair steady.
(taken from a rec.games.diplomacy post, 26th May 1994.)

LIMERICKS (1) [HR:Dec92]
In Diplomacy to be a winner,
one must be a terrible sinner.
The teller of lies,
Grows to a frightening size,
While the virtuous only get thinner.

PLAYING TOO MUCH DIPLOMACY (1) [BJ:Sep95]
You Know You've Been Playing Too Much Diplomacy When...
You're lying in bed (half asleep) with your significant other. Your hand is resting on her (or his) stomach. You consider moving said hand to a 'more sensitive' area, but decide that you can't because:
A. You can't remember the 3-letter abbreviation for that province, and
B. That move will never succeed without support anyway.

QUOTATIONS (1) [MN:Feb93]
"The principle of give and take is the principle of diplomacy-- give one and take ten." - Mark Twain

"The sign of a good negotiation is when both sides walk away aggravated." - Kevin Gershan

"If you had had the decency to lie to me, we could have worked together". Steve Hutton, as Turkey, to Robert Lowes, as Austria, during the finalists' tourny at Can-Con 1988. (From Passchendaele 70, October 1988.)

"Any time two allies stab a third, at least one of those allies is making a mistake." (Michael Sany, RGD post 2nd March 1996.)

RETREAT FROM PORTUGAL (1) [MB:Jun80]
Diplomacy's rarest manuver. Needs more skill than has ever been had.

RUSTY BOLTS (1) [MN:Apr93]
An exercise in irony on the hobby and its members. They were first ran, originally intended as a one-off, by Ken Bain in _NMR_! from 1982-1985. In 1986 Nick Kinzett took them over. Each year there were ten different categories, although the categories changed from year to year.

Example categories: The Chris Tringham Nearly Famous Award for Upstart of the Year, The MidCon Tony Wheatley Award for Being Who They Are, The Forden's Epitaph Award for the Least Regretted Fold or for the Most Eagerly Awaited Fold, R.J. Walkerdine Award for the Most Boring Topic of Correspondence, The Gary Piper Award for Tact and Diplomacy, Fairy Sopwith Award for the most absurd game of 1985, The Andy Blakeman "Protest in Earnest" Award for Redundant Prose, Wright-Donley Award for the Most Spectacular Con Attendee, The Mike Benyon Brass Award for Delay or the Least Plausible Reasons for it and The Nick Kinzett award for Anything Not Yet Mentioned.

In 1988 and 1989 the winners received real Rusty Bolts! [Mark Nelson, your humble AZ creator, has won a couple of them.]

SMALLEST ISSUE EVER (1) [JM:Jun92]
John Walker published an issue of _The Alamo City Times_ that measured 2 inches by 2 inches!

TERMINAL TUNISITIS (1) [MB:Mar82]
The result of a country being permanently reduced to a sole unit, usually an army in Tunis or Portugal. It may survive there a long time. [HR:Oct02] This gives the player the chance to deluge the others with silly press, since s/he doesn't have to worry about strategy...
4 replies
Open
Rait (10151 D(S))
26 Apr 07 UTC
Another piece of demographics - males/females
I just got into a funny experience-sharing with one of the co-players here - both of us have been accused of beeing gay boys during the 'diplomacy' :) This brought me to an idea that for some reason people assume that all the other people here on the site are male

I would like to know how many male/female players we actually have here? Is Diplomacy really a boys game? I have to admit that in FTF games I've played more with girls than boys....
51 replies
Open
LucusVonLucus (1551 D)
12 May 07 UTC
rules clarification
In the game CROOK, I moved into a neutral SC in spring (Spain) then moved the same unit into another neutral SC (Portugal) in Autumn and Spain went back to Neutral. Is this correct? The same thing happened to Turkey; he moved to Bulgaria to Greece.
If this is in Error could Kestas help us out?
2 replies
Open
your majesty (970 D)
12 May 07 UTC
Game WWIII is stuck at "due now"
please fix it as soon as possible :)
0 replies
Open
posseman (105 D)
12 May 07 UTC
New Game: Full Character
This will be a full character game, all players will communicate as if they were the heads of their countries. No predetermined allies and please follow through and complete the game.
0 replies
Open
Civil Disorder
After how long does someone become "civil disordered"?
1 reply
Open
braddles31 (100 D)
11 May 07 UTC
error in games of play
WHY does it still count games that you are out of, such as when one plays Austria in a game and is eliminated and cant join more games as "you are playing too many"
why doesnt the system recognise that you are NOT active in those games and delete them so you can play another game?????????
hmmmmm
3 replies
Open
figlesquidge (2131 D)
12 May 07 UTC
What happened?
Kestas, I know you log all moves to help in confusions or possible rule errors, and I'm wondering if I could ask for help here. In one of my games (#701), Russia and Austria both claim to be allied with me. However, I know that one of these supported a hold by Germany - who was supposidly a shared enemy. Could you tell me which of the two sent a support hold please.
The units in question are Mid Atlantic Ocean, one of my fleets and either Spain or Portugal.
3 replies
Open
Writhdar (949 D(S))
12 May 07 UTC
Game for mature adults (of all ages)
"Vercingetorix" is being created for players who can act maturely and responsibly - no obscenities or other undiplomatic speech, no pre-formed alliances, no multiple identities. Role playing (pre-WWI European diplomats) and a sense/knowledge of history would be welcome.
0 replies
Open
Evilduck (322 D)
11 May 07 UTC
An Error
An assertion, $this->mode != DIPLOMACY or (count($this->USERMEMBERSHIPS) == 7 and count($this->MEMBERSHIPS) == 7), was not met as required..

Whenever I try to go to my games I get the following error. The problem may well be on my end because my browser recently wiped all my saved favorites
>.< (d'oh)

I'm running Firefox
2 replies
Open
zoople (100 D)
10 May 07 UTC
Newbies
Hi people, I'm relitively new to this game. I've played a few games before, but still a bit innexperienced. Is there any newbie areas or newbie guides? It mostly so that I know the protocols of play so that I don't hold the game up or ruin it.
2 replies
Open
Smokodanko (618 D)
11 May 07 UTC
Been Gone, sorry for inactive games
My connection has been screwy all week, so I'm guessing I missed several turns. Sorry to any allies who needed me to be active.
0 replies
Open
Chrispminis (916 D)
03 May 07 UTC
Last to post wins!
Ah! Since the phpDiplomacy community has grown so much, I think it's time our forum got it's own "Last person to post wins!" contest.

The rules are simple. The last person to post in this thread wins.

The goal?
1. Create a thread where any sort of discussion can happen.
2. Create the longest thread.
3. Explore the unknown regions of incredibly high post counts, and see if there truly is an end of the thread.

Oh, and don't spam, so keep double posting down to a minimum.

Oh, and I'm winning. :D
Page 2 of 5
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
The Mahatma (1195 D)
05 May 07 UTC
Nachoooooo
Locke (1846 D)
05 May 07 UTC
Well genes are all very interesting but i am surely not the only on that is delighted that the Conservatives won about 852 council seats and labour and lib dems both lost heavily?
I realise not everyone on this site is British but those who are, what do you make of it?
Worldbeing (1063 D)
05 May 07 UTC
Appalled.
Look at all the Conservatives have done for us...ruined our economy several times through history, inspired loathing and hatred for Britain in the international community, brought misery to millions....
Then again.... Labour aren't so good. Bundled us in with the fanatics of the international community; no, not Iran and her fellows, but the insane American administration. Helped with the slaughter of literally hundreds of thousands of innocents across the globe, noticeably in Iraq. Crumbled the last remains of democracy in this country away by ignoring the people when we demanded our say on the war in Iraq.
And the Lib Dems....well, I almost thought the Lib Dems had a chance at the last election. They seemed to have a good, positive outlook, and made not insignificant gains. But then they lost all their momentum with a controversial leadership election, and chose an leader who, undeniably, is not best suited for taking them forward. After the general election, there were all the cries of "The start of true three-party politics in Britain", and interviews with the Lib Dems along with the Conservatives and Labour, but now who comes up on the news? The Lib Dems aren't important any more.
Our area is mainly populated by stupid people. People whose parents were miners in the years when the Labour party stood for the people, the workers, and significantly the miners and their fellows (steelworkers, shipbuilders...all the industries Thatcher killed off), and are now so stupid they don't realise that "New Labour" isn't a people's party any more; indeed, it's arguably more right-wing than the Conservatives, and the argument comes from where the conservatives are, not where Labour are.
In our area, there are seven seats. The seven candidates for those were all Labour party candidates, and not one of them had not been nominated by another of them. If that's democracy, then democracy isn't good enough.
Chrispminis (916 D)
05 May 07 UTC
As kestas says, evolution in terms of natural selection is based solely on genes.

Society may be a byproduct of human nature, but it still has the immense power to overrule it. Law and order are a society of honest individuals attempting to combat dishonest ones. Not every human is born the same, and so human nature varies, society is the sum of individuals who share common interests, and those who do not share these interests may be penalized so harshly in that society that they are forced to suppress human nature.

Our genes "know" that the world is constantly changing, and so they have us equipped with the ability to learn, and imagine, memetics if you will. And since memes can reproduce much faster than genes can, they are often more reliable survival tools. Knowledge is not passed on by genes, but the ability to learn is. So in that sense, human nature can be overridden if it is disadvantageous for the current environment.

If one applies some basic concepts of evolutionarily stable strategies to society, one can easily see, that a society made of exploiters cannot function, and a society made up of all honest hard working people, as envisioned by communism, would be extremely vulnerable to infiltration by exploiters. The most stable society would be that in which, no matter who was introduced to the society, society's construct would remain functional and penalize any deviation from the model.

And of co-operation... it is almost always selfish. You may co-operate with someone, but you do so to increase YOUR chances of survival, not theirs. Altruism, other than kin altruism, cannot exist through the natural selection of genes. For altruism to exist, a particularly strong meme, or some trauma must effect the brain in such a way that it overrides all genetic selfish instruction. Of course, this is not passed on to the next generation through genes, and so is temporary, and must be taught again to persist through generations. The other way, is if somehow, a complete lack of selection pressure exists, in other words, nobody dies before they get to reproduce. Of course this is highly unlikely, and as soon as selection pressure came back into play, altruism would suffer immediately, and get wiped from the gene pool. Kin altruism is an entirely different thing altogether however.
Tucobenedicto (100 D)
05 May 07 UTC
What are genes?
kestasjk (64 DMod(P))
05 May 07 UTC
A Dawkins fan chispminis? :-)

On recent polls in the UK, well I don't think new labor have done too badly. If it wasn't for Iraq they'd have been a good government overall and I think Brown has done well for the economy, so I'd be interested to see how he does as PM. I wonder if there's any way for me to place my vote from Australia..
Zxylon (0 DX)
05 May 07 UTC
Im curious about the different political parties in Britain and what they stand for. Since Im an ethnocentric American I only follow American politics. (I do plan to take a class on world politics) Im tired of hearing about the irrelavant issues of Abortion or Gay rights. What are the issues in Britain. Thanks ahead of time.
Tucobenedicto (100 D)
05 May 07 UTC
Gordon Brown = Good
Locke (1846 D)
05 May 07 UTC
Well i am no expert but there are basically two parties in Britain, the Conservatives and Labour (equivalent to the republicans and demorcrats) with a third major party the Liberal Demorcrats in the background.

Historically Conservatives were champions of the rich, wealthy and privaleged. You could have said that they aimed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, The last great conservative prime minister was margaret thatcher who eventually had to go due to massive unpopularity.

Labour was unelectable for many years in recent politics because they were so out of date, but new labour stands for many things, the labour party grew from trade unions and championed the people and the workers. They won a landslide victory in 1997 and that meant that Tony Blair became prime minister but could govern much more like a president. Labour has now been in power 10 years and many feel they have lost their way and they introduced many thatcherite policies that proved unpopular. The war in iraq was a big killer for them and they lost a lot of popularity because of that, Tony Blair has finally announced he's leaving and he should go soon, which will mean the chancellor Gordon Brown will take over.

The Conservatives are the party i support and under David Cameron they have done very well, they are now more liberal than ever and they are putting enourmous pressure on Labour. I think that they should win the next election because it would bring a much needed lift to the country. Labour are crippled now by their own legend, Tony Blair was and Gordon Brown will be drunk on power and the entire party is racked with scandals and they try to implement unpopular policy.

What about America, I am going on to study government and politics next academic year, but how does that work? whats the difference between the Republicans and Demorcrats? and what do you think about Geroge Bush?
fastspawn (1625 D)
05 May 07 UTC
I can see that chrispminis is influence heavily by Richard Dawkins sort of reasoning. I cannot profess to be an expert on his work, having only read "God Delusion".

The way Dawkins reasons is inductive. While i concede that in real life no such thing as "deductive" reasoning can occur since it leads to first and final answers (hence reductio ad absurdium), certain lines must be drawn between what we do know, and what we believe. How does Dawkins know that true altruism does not exist? Its the same reasoning as the God Argument. Or the Spaghetti Monster Argument...
Zxylon (0 DX)
05 May 07 UTC
Well first of I HATE GEORGE BUSH. That aside, the Democrates and republicans have changed their ultimate purpose since the foundation of America.

The Democrats focus on "small business" and try to fight for more government and less business. They failed in the last presidential election in 2004 primarily due to John Kerry who lacked the ability to unify the party. This election the Democrats are plagues with a minority (african american) in Barak Obama and a woman Hilary Clinton (wife of the former president Bill Clinton). Many worry that neither candidate are suited for President because of their social backround. I am a huge supporter of both Hilary and Barak. The election race has started historically early because of bi-partisan hatred of GW Bush.

The Republicans historically are for "big business" and want less government intervention. This year GWB is unpopular and he cannot run again legally. The major candidates are Rudolph Gulianni from New York who is more liberal (he has been photographed several times wearing womans clothing) and John McCain. Neither of them are strong candidtaes either.

Major issues include the WAR in Iraq, national security, dependance on foreign oil, economy, gay marriage, and abortion. The last 2 are overpublicized and should be irrelavant to the election. Most people are gaining popularity for getting out of Iraq, increasing budgets on security, creating new jobs in America to prevent outsourcing, against Gay Marriage and Pro Life (against Abortion).

Well that pretty much sums the basics up. If you want any more info let me know.
Locke (1846 D)
05 May 07 UTC
Thanks Zxylon, thats really quite in-depth in comparison to mine! if you want to know any more just ask. it's also interesting george bush is so unpopular.

I still have some questions though, if you don't mind. What is the role of the houses of congress and ??????. are they like the houses of parliament and the houses of lords in this country, (i.e one can block the other) or do they function completely differently? Oh yeah and how important are senators?

And do americans hear much about European politics, in Britain we hear most of the major stuff that happens with you and i wondered if it went both ways.
AntoniusRex (1136 D)
05 May 07 UTC
To put it bluntly: I am utterly flabbergasted with these posts.

Some days ago I have decided NOT to write any post here, just because it is a "LAST TO POST HERE WINS" thread, and I assumed that most of the other fellow site-dwellers would also choose the same nonchalant and blasé way of facing such a thread. But then I realized that this thread insisted in popping up in the forum, growing steadily.

Curiosity was then stronger than dogma, and I had to peek in.
I'm glad I did it, so I could change my mind with a good reason (only dead men stick to their beliefs): I really was astonished by the vigour of some opinions here. I also believe that these opinions are only possible because some kind of democracy exists here, regardless (and this is the novel element) of nation and origin of the poster. I particularly enjoyed the "I HATE GEORGE BUSH" one (wink@Zxylon). Such a libel can only be possible in a truly global community. Furthermore, these opinions are sound and well organized. And they are centered in politics! Fascinating.

This, I think, can be linked to another thread I happened to see in this site: someone asked about the psychological profile of dip players. I guess one could learn a lot from the answers of THIS thread. Dip players are generally, in my opinon, people who recognize the value of opinion-making. They are extensively trained in people-managing skills. And they make good politicians as well.

So, I fall gladly in the trap of being the last to post in this thread - at least for a short time. But not without sending a few messages:

Communism? That's the perfect system. It only requires that everyone has more than it needs, i.e., it only works if we're all rich.

Movies? The ones that are larger than life; mostly european, some japanese, some independent american... the best movie, for me, is the one that can tell me a meaningful story in a few hours. I have many favourites.

British/English electoral system? from an outsider, it all looks dominated by the monarchy. Are you british subjects aware of this?

America? Well being a dip player I'm always aware of the early leader sydrome. When something gets too big, it is only natural to expect that its peers will envy it and collude against it. George (and whichever) Bush is only a pretext.

And the rept: do you think it is worth to bring new people to a world that is apparently doomed? And if you do, why do you think that way?
hiimme333html (100 D)
05 May 07 UTC
okay, my randomness will defeat all of your posting:

pie is tasty. anarchy is a form of government. books can be black. that tree is big. you park on a driveway and drive on a parkway. iceland is green and greenland is icy. norwegians come from norwegia. (wait, that can't be right...)

i hope that didn't count as spamming.
Locke (1846 D)
05 May 07 UTC
Ah, it may look dominated by the monarchy and this was the case unitl the English Civil War in 1640s. Short history lesson: King Charles 1st believed he could rule by divine right, that is directly by gods will, he dismissed parliment twice and this angered them enough to raise an army and declare war on the King. In short Charles lost and he was executed, but a parliamntry general named oliver cromwell ruled as 'lord protector' instead. This did not last long and the monarchy returned with Charles II, however the king never tried to rule without parliament again.

Queen Victoria built the largest empire the world has ever seen and she was an extremely powerful woman, but when she died and the empire was lost there was no reason why any future monarch should be so revered.

The monarchy gradually lost its power and nowadays Elizabeth II rules merely as a head of state, she has no real power and many less patriotic people think that the monarchy should end with her. However some of the upper-class authority remains with the house of lords who are still influential.

Sorry if that was a bit simplistic but i wanted to show that there are many reasons why England is not dominated by the monarchy.
Zxylon (0 DX)
05 May 07 UTC
In response to the Congress question. There are two houses of Congress the House and the Senate. The house is composed of over 400 members. Each state is seperated into districts based on population and the number of represenitives from each state varies by population. They play an importance balance on presidential power and work together to create laws with the senate. They are the equalavant to the house of commons.

The Senate is not based on population . Each state has 2 senators making 100 total and they are also directly elected by the people. They were originally more like the house of lords but after a consitutional ammendment they are no longer voted into office by congressman. They have a longer term of office 7 years as compared to congressman 2 years. Every 2 years 1/3 of the senate is up for elections. These elections are sometimes referred to as midterm elections. The Senate work with represenitives to create laws although Senators, due to their numbers, have more power and influence. During ties in presidential elections the senate decides who will become president. If there is a tie in the Senate the Vice President Breaks the tie.

In order of succession to the President if he dies or resigns : 1. President 2. Vice President. 3. Speaker of the House of Represenitives. (Majority leader) 4. President Pro Tempore of the Senate (Senate Majority Leader) 5. Secratary of State. 6. Each member of the presidential cabinet in order which the office was created.

Congress also can impeach presidents and the Congress will act as a court. They also confirm or reject presidential appointees to the Supreme court.

Whichever party controlls Congress also can balance the Presidents power. Right now we have a Deocratic Congress and a Republican president. Very little is being accomplished because of constant stubborness between the branches of goivernment. The other day the Congress proposed a bill to fund the WAR with a stipulation that we would begin withdrawing troops by late 2008. The bill passed but the president Vetoed it which means it the bill dies. However, if the Congress can get 2/3 of the Congress to vote against the veto the bill will still pass.

Throughout history, the Congress could control the government. If they have enough members in their party in office.

Right now the country is waiting patiently for the 2008 pres election to begin so we can break this stalemate and end the war in Iraq.
Zxylon (0 DX)
05 May 07 UTC
One change I must make Senators only are in office for 6 years NOT 7.
Zxylon (0 DX)
05 May 07 UTC
One more thing. Americans dont hear very much about British Politics. All we know is how we affect you or you affect us. I do know Elizabeth II is in Kentucky to watch the Kentucky derby (a horse race for those of you who dont know), Tony Blair is increasingly unpopular, and British people hate George Bush : ) and the war in Iraq : ) THATS ABOUT IT.
Locke (1846 D)
05 May 07 UTC
wow, thats really interesting, i had no idea that america is so keen to pull out of iraq, the british news programmes often make it look like we are only in iraq because America demands our presence. In reality it is probably George Bush bullying Blair into staying, when the both lose power those two deserve each other.
Locke (1846 D)
06 May 07 UTC
Another question, being a bit of a historian i was wondering if americans, particularly educated ones such as yourself, are jealous of Europes rich history, after all, yours only goes back a couple of hundred years.
Tucobenedicto (100 D)
06 May 07 UTC
I'm not. I'm doing a research paper on the Turner Thesis, which, for those who don't know, was a 19th century essay regarding the role of the frontier in American history. Frederick Jackson Turner basically argues in it that the reason America has been so successful on the global geopolitical stage is because of it's expansionist policy. This lies in stark contrast with European nations which, obviously, are extremely constricted by the geography of the continent.

He also states that the frontier has shaped how Americans view themselves and the rest of the world. I completely agree with this, because one must ask how different North America would be had it been colonized the way Africa or South America was, dozens of little states instead of a few large ones. It's an interesting question that requires a very long answer.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm proud of America for the exact opposite reason you're, presumably, proud of Europe.

Also, you really thought we want to stay in Iraq? Support for the war is down to something like 20%. What can you expect from the BBC, I guess?

That's another question I've been wondering about, actually. How do you feel about being forced to pay extra to the BBC if you want to own a TV. Does that strike you as a little monopolistic?
Worldbeing (1063 D)
06 May 07 UTC
I'd disagree. Expansionism always played a great part in human history, and Europe's no exception. From the early domination by the Romans, yes we were split into a myriad of states. But those states were constantly, seeking to expand; whether that be physically or simply gaining influence, whether by war of diplomacy.
Then you got what is rightfully called the colonial era. Nations like the British and Spanish, and the Dutch, Germans, French, Portugese, carved out vast empires in Asia, Africa and America. Really, North America only escaped the splits because there were only three powers- Britain, Spain, and France- with significant holdings. We see the same in Asia, where imperial India was a single, vast colony of Britain. In Africa we saw fighting between all the countries, and the same to a lesser extent in South America, which split them up.
But; is expansionism good? Romans, Mongols, Aztecs, British, Spanish, USA; none are exactly famed for maintaining amazing civil liberties. Every single one kept slaves; to take an example, once Britain gave up on expansionism, if only because they were limited by running out of space, we abandoned slavery, started to spread education and democracy around the world, and generally improved.
But the US, as a policy of global expansionism is adopted, begin to be hated by the whole world, feared, and loathed. They abandon liberty; abandon democracy. All in the name of liberty and democracy. Guantanamo; rigged elections; Iraq, and Iraqi oil.

What would I expect from the BBC? The best coverage in the world.
They're not at all biased; they always give a fair and reasoned viewpoint that a commercially-owned service could ever provide. We pay for what we use; if you have a television, you will almost certainly watch BBC programs on it.
Who trusts Fox News? Gullible fools and Republicans. Who trusts the BBC? Damn near everyone who isn't a conspiracy theorist. They don't have a hidden agenda; they aren't paid by a person with an ideology, they're paid by 60 million people who can't make up their minds what ideology to use.
The BBC deliver excellent, accurate, and unbiased coverage of important issues.
Tucobenedicto (100 D)
06 May 07 UTC
The difference between Fox News and the BBC is that one doesn't have to fund Fox News if they don't want to. If you live in England and own a TV, you must pay a licensing fee that goes directly to the BBC, no matter how you feel about it.

Now, the fact that you called the BBC "unbiased" is downright hilarious.
Locke (1846 D)
06 May 07 UTC
In the 19th Centuary it was said that 'God is an englishmen'

We had the greatest empire that the world has ever seen, greater even than the Romans, in fact we were one of the few european countries whose fate did not directly depend on Rome in the middle ages.In the 18 and 19th centuries the colonies were thriving and India was the jewel in the crown of our imperial success. Britains navy was extremely powerful and we beat the great tyrant of Europe-napoleon bonaparte in the decisive battle of waterloo. At it's peak 25% of the world was under British rule.
Our culture and ideology was exported around the globe and we brought peace and stability to countries that had long seen only war. In 1870ish we were the worlds greatest industrial power with over 30% of industrial output and our policy of free trade made us rich without having to enforce our authority, people traded with us because they wanted to and not because our government made them. The Americans as a fledgling democracy undoubtadly looked at the british model and marvelled at its success.When america was only young britain was old and great and steeped in history, people were prophising that 'the sun will never set on the British Empire' surely america wanted to eminate this success

The east india company was the worlds first multi-national company and look how america has thrived on that model.
The british empire was the pinnacle of greatness that no country will ever achieve by conquest again. Even now we retain sovereignty over 14 countries and we have an enourmous amount of respect around the globe.

AntoniusRex (1136 D)
06 May 07 UTC
Actually, the first empire that coined the "sun never sets" phrase was the Spanish/Habsburg empire. Sorry about that, you anglophiles.
krokodil (823 D)
06 May 07 UTC
Locke : "In the 19th Centuary it was said that 'God is an englishmen"

Said by whom?
An Englishman I assume.
Zxylon (0 DX)
06 May 07 UTC
I am absolutely interested in European History. There is a national high school complaint that international history is lacking. In high school I took a college level AP US History which teaches you in depth about the History of America. This is possible due to the limited timeline. My school doesn't have AP European history while many schools do.

While I hope to learn much about Europe's amazing history, The United States has a facinating history as well. We learn all about the 13 colonies and how they broke from your fine Empire. Then we talk about each president and the wars, conflicts, and economic struggle the country underwent during the 19th century. We learn all about the Civil War which is a "great" war to learn about. Then we move into the 20th century and WWI and WWII. Then the later part of the century is all about America and the USSR. The Cold War, Korean war, and Vietnam. Its quite interesting and rivals European history during the same time frame.
Sicarius (673 D)
06 May 07 UTC
oh yeah american history is great. mass genocide, slavery, and lots of corruption
Tucobenedicto (100 D)
06 May 07 UTC
Right because Europe has a rich history of tolerance, acceptance, and peace in general.

Where do you live, Zxylon? I've always been disappointed by the lack of American history in my school. This year is actually the first in which we've even covered it briefly.
Sicarius (673 D)
06 May 07 UTC
I never said it did, I was merly expressing my discontent ith the fact that certain people like to omit certain parts of history to make their country look better

Page 2 of 5
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

133 replies
arbiter bessone (100 D)
10 May 07 UTC
the spanish american war
"remember the Maine"....

....join up and revenge your country.


just started a new game. join if you want.
0 replies
Open
kestasjk (64 DMod(P))
10 May 07 UTC
Downtime
There was some downtime as I tried to speed things up by removing some clutter from some tables. Not only did it not speed anything up, I also screwed some data up in the process. There was a brief window where you may have entered orders or messages and they have been erased since they weren't in the backup.

Apologies, if things continue to be slow I'll send another ticket, and see if anything gets done :-(
3 replies
Open
dtown (100 D)
10 May 07 UTC
Quick Question
When a country is in civil disorder, does the gamemaster still wait for the them to make a move or does it just skip over them?
2 replies
Open
azapcap (0 D)
10 May 07 UTC
I got this notice
Autumn 1902, Diplomacy: Your fleet at North Sea disrupted the fleet at North Sea's convoy order.

I think it was meant the North Sea disrupting the English Channel's Convoy order as France has an army in Picardy and a fleet in the Channel.

Game:http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=1038&msgmembershipid=0
0 replies
Open
Zxylon (0 DX)
10 May 07 UTC
Mediocre Diplomacy 2
Our game has been stuck on "due now" for 2 days. If you could manually fix this, I'd appriciate it.
0 replies
Open
norwegian nerd (100 D)
09 May 07 UTC
My messages are being coverd by the map
Is this happening to every one or just me. I have to copy paste them to read them.
12 replies
Open
Zxylon (0 DX)
05 May 07 UTC
Why is Russia so powerful?
Why would the creators of Diplomacy give Russia 4 units to start and the ability to create 4 units every turn when all of the other nations in the game only have 3. Were they Communists or something : )
30 replies
Open
Druadan (100 D)
06 May 07 UTC
I'm sorry, end of phase in HOW long?
Duncan Smells: Spring 1901, Diplomacy
* End of phase: in 27 hours


Vankessel: Spring 1905, Retreats
* End of phase: in 45 hours


[Game Name Here]: Spring 1905, Retreats
* End of phase: in 47 hours


2nd battlw of kamino: Spring 1904, Diplomacy
* End of phase: in 34 hours


What's going on?
7 replies
Open
llama (379 D)
09 May 07 UTC
Away, apologies
To anyone in games with me: sorry about disappearing and holding up the games, but I'm on a road trip with very occasional internet.
0 replies
Open
Iguard52 (673 D)
08 May 07 UTC
Possible Problem
In my game, D.U. League Game #1, last phase, Spring 1908, all of my move orders were off. I told my army in Trieste to move to Serbia and it moved to Tyrolia which cut off a support move I was doing. My army in Budapest moved to Serbia when I told it to move to Rumania and my fleet in the Tyrrhenian Sea moved to Naples when I told it to move to the Ionian Sea. I know I could have put in the wrong orders, but I know for a fact that I told my fleet to move to the Ionian Sea. In fact he only move action that I made that didn't go wrong was a move to Bohemia, but because of my move to Tyrolia it didn't work. Any idea why this happened? (It didn't mess up my holds and support actions just the moves)

the game id is 837
5 replies
Open
stoni90 (780 D)
09 May 07 UTC
My Game..
My game Suck Fuck Dick...is now officially open...noobs only...
3 replies
Open
Locke (1846 D)
08 May 07 UTC
War of 1812
Starting the war of 1812 series, hopefully i will make it the longest running series on the site. Preferably intermediate to good players. Got the name from our lively discussion on the last to post wins thread.
0 replies
Open
Rait (10151 D(S))
08 May 07 UTC
The game 'The Fast Game' is hanging once again
GID 810
1 reply
Open
Zxylon (0 DX)
08 May 07 UTC
Favorite Country
Of all of the countries in Diplomacy which one is your favorite to play as.

Mine is Germany.
9 replies
Open
Page 25 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top