So I wonder what we've learned here, and what DDs reasoning for starting this thread was. Your original stated purpose was to see if others had received similar 'don't play me' requests and whether you were obliged to abide by their requests.

It would appear they are much rarer in larger community than they are for you.

And it seems to be the consensus that you are under no obligation to avoid people who don't want to play you.

Is that the end of this thread? Or is there other food for thought?

Babak has argued elsewhere that community norms should be followed over individual opinion (for example, on whether it is terrible sportsmanship to become indifferent to a game's outcome and suicide out against a stabber. He says yes and refuses to play me because of the way I responded to his stab.). So I wanted to find out if the community norm would be to abide by his own request to avoid him. From the feedback here, I think the community norm would be to ignore Babak's own request that I not play with him, and that I should continue to join any game I want to based on the game type, pot size, time-frames, etc.

More food for thought might be this question:

Is it terribly unsporting and childish to suicide out against a stabber? By that, I mean to throw all units at him to make sure he gains little or nothing, regardless whether other countries may take unprotected centers.

Or, is the potential suiciding-out simply a part of the game that the stabber must be prepared for and calculate into his decision making before the stab?

Is it a legitimate strategy to make your neighbors know you may use that tactic in response to a stab? Is it a legitimate tactic to carry out during a game?

Babak claims that "what you are doing is in contravention of the 'social norm' in Diplomacy", and is "so just like an adult who might cuss loudly in a toy store - your behavior is beyond uncouth... its downright revolting." And that was when he said he didn't want to play with me ever again...all because of a (failed) attempt to pay back for his stab.

So, how about it? Is there a social norm on this as Babak claims? Or do we again have opinions all over the place, as I expect?

If a stab results in your position becoming completely untenable, I've seen 3 different reactions - Whining, CD and Suicide. I much prefer the suicide - the other 2 are very annoying! I think a possible suicide should absolutely be a consideration when planning a stab. Meta-gaming sucks, and is the sign of someone who holds a grudge, so what disincentive is there against a stab except for the suicide option?

So I don't see any problem with a suicide.

Well, I guess there's the 4th option - going quietly into that good night. But I'd rather Rage against the dying of the light!!!!!

From my perspective acting kamikadze is a valid option. Rarely, but definitely an option if dark times.

Sometimes there's nothing better to play for - and if your neighbours know you'll act crazy they might also act differently and not put you in such a position in the first place. If it helps me get a better result then what's the problem?

However, I don't agree that it is ok to join games with people who have stated they do not want to play with you. I don't think there should be a rule about it - but it seems simply a matter of being civil and well-behaved? Why would you go somewhere you're unwanted?

I agree with Ivo on that last bit: Why join a game where someone doesn't want you? This situation takes care of itself.

As to kamikaze-ing? I prefer not to do it. Who knows? Someone might come along to help you out later.

The last few posts have offered two questions and I think the answers are easy.

1. What do you do when someone stabs you? Personally, I laugh it off and send them joking notes, but suicide is a funny way to go if you don't feel like trying to hold out.. Whining is for the weak and CD is for the weaker.

2. If someone asks you not to join their game, do you do it anyway? The answer to me is a clear NO. Why the hell would you ever want to play a game with someone knowing that they really don't want to play with you? It makes no sense and you can be seen as going deliberately out of your way to make them uncomfortable. It's ridiculous. If they start a game with rules and stakes that you like, go ahead and start one of your own. Do NOT join that game. You end up looking like a fool.

So what, if I'm successfully stabbed and my position is untenable, what am I supposed to do? Do my best turtle impression and be whittled away until I'm out? Or do my best to stop the one who wronged me? Either way I'm dead. If I do my best to stop the one who wronged me, maybe his other opponents will find me useful and not eliminate me.

I don't like the term suiciding, not for politically correct reasons, but more because I've already been shot and am bleeding out, it isn't suicide to try and take a last shot at my killer before I die myself.

I suppose I'll be frank. DD, why do so many people not want to play with you?

Onar/Ivo, If I like the game structure, and the other five players are okay with me playing, and maybe some of them even want me to play, then why should one individual prevent the rest of us from playing together? Or must I take a poll to see how many want me and how many dont, and how many are indifferent? And if there are half a dozen players who don't want to play with me, do I really have to avoid every single game where I see one of them?

It doesn't take care of itself, until maybe there's an option added to withdraw from a signup after someone joins that you don't want to play with.

Onary, I'm not asking if you think it is a smart tactic for you personally. Is it a *legitimate* tactic for anyone, and is it a real part of the game that a stabber has to be prepared for?

Suicide isn't a good thing, unless it improves one's position. In that case it's called sacrifice and it is a good tactic.

Going all out against someone just because of a stab seems a little excessive, doesn't it? I mean, what did he do to you? He just lied and attacked you, nothing that cannot be undone.
One who stabs an opponent does it because he wants a bigger profit, so I believe the best strategy is making the stabber understand that he missed a chance to obtain a superior result, and condemned himself to a loss.

One isn't dead as long as he can enter orders. Turtling, trying to talk with everyone to obtain some help and waiting for better times is the best option, when you are in a horrible position, be it because no one likes you or because you got stabbed.

Although I hesitate to go into great detail, as I'm currently in the game where DD is going kamikaze, I personally think it is a little childish. Its a legitimate thing to threaten in extreme circumstances to break up alliances if you are going to die anyway, but this was not the case in said game. As such its just kind of dickish. (For the record, it isn't against me.) I wonder Dipper why you think so many people have said this to you? You must be atleast partially at fault.

Suiciding is a good policy for alliance breaking. It is your duty to ensure the country survives and if suicide is the way to do that, stab away!

DJ, with you it was because you erroneously thought that I had a goal of a four-way draw very early in the game. That wasn't the case. You had asked me what I *expected* to happen, and I said what I expected to be the end result, based on what I was seeing. It wasn't what I was trying for, but it was a realistic expectation given the flow of the game to that point.

For the others, I've explained why, I think. Some of them don't like that I make game-long alliances. For one, it was because of a devastating stab. For another, he thought I had a personal grudge because I targeted him twice and didn't ally with him. One was because I kept a promise to my ally to go to 17-17 and he was eliminated.

Maybe, DJ, it's because I'm just not a wishy-washy player. I tell it like it is, and maybe some people just can't handle that.

Or tell me if you have a different opinion.

DD - this is a personal thing - maybe for you it is more important that you protect your rights (e.g. insist that you have the right to join the game) and prove the other person wrong to 'blacklist' you, or show that you're superior to such nonsense in the first place.

For me, this is like going to a party where one of the hosts does not like you and has told you to keep out - but all the other people are great, maybe it was them who invited you, and the house has a great pool...

There'll be other games/parties etc.

In situations like this, from my experiences with people, it is the guy who backs out first that has more class.
Just my two cents :)

Noirin - of course suicide is a bad idea in general - but it's the threat of being suicidal that is important - this is a valid diplomatic weapon. And, for the threat to be considered real one has to be ready to actually deliver. Hence, sometimes it makes sense to ruin someone's game if he ruined yours and there's nothing better to do anyway :)

I certainly have a different opinion as to why I started avoiding games with you. We had pages of detailed discussion of game strategy, and if all you got out of that was the one line summary above, then I can see I clearly wasted my time and see no need to rehash it here.

I was just curious why you get so many requests and no one else does.

I've kept promises, had 17-17 games, stabbed in the first year too, yet never received such a request. I was just wondering why.

Ivo, if Babak creates a game, I wont' join it. That would be like he's the host.

But if someone who doesn't like me shows up at a party we're both invited to, even if they arrive first, why must I be the one expected to leave? Granted, that I might do so just to avoid him and an argument, but honestly, the classy thing would be to never make such a statement in the first place. Saying "I won't play with you" is the more childish part of this, from my perspective. It's the classic childish act to take the ball and go home, refusing to play, when you start losing or think you're not getting your way.

But you know, you have every right to your opinion, and I do see your point. I really do. My point is that there is *no* community norm, as the varied responses on the question have shown.

Ivo: yes, the threat can be used, and one can also decide to suicide one or two units to get something in return ;)

What I mean is that systematically going kamikaze won't help but increase the number of games in which you die.

Yes, of couse, that would be plain stupid - we're not talking about acting kamikadze as your main strategy - the point was whether it is a valid option at all - which it is.

Dj, sorry to see you think you wasted your time. There was a lot more to it than that, I'll admit. But the basic reason is that you don't want to play with someone who goes into a game with a draw as the goal.

Well I've never had the (dis?)pleasure of playing DipperDon, but I've never been blacklisted, nor have I blacklisted someone. If I ever blacklist someone, I don't think I'll tell them. I think I'll just quietly foil all their plans in any games we happen to meet. That would give me more satisfaction. >=D

My most emotionally traumatic experience with another player was also in my favourite game ever and the anger and tension definitely added an interesting dynamic to the game. I was quick to forgive, though I had suspicions the other player was not as quick, but we eventually reconciled over our mutual defence of WTA over PPSC. I wish he still played here.

Regarding kamikaze's, I don't condemn them, but I certainly don't condone it. I've never kamikaze'd, nor have I threatened to. I have been kamikaze'd against, but it was ultimately futile, so I didn't really feel that bad about it. I think there are more subtle and more effective means to achieving revenge if you're into that, and I'm more of the school of turtling when stabbed. I always give kudos if I think I've been very well and jolly stabbed and I think it's more effective to stay in the game as long as possible and see if the diplomatic climate changes. I've eked a couple draws doing this. That said, habitual kamikaze is just a stupid strategy... the only reason I would ever kamikaze is to avoid being predictable.

As a mod, I feel I should say that discussion of why DipperDon has been blacklisted so much should be left to private conversation between DipperDon and the blacklisters. I have a feeling that the reason is quite different in the mind of DD and the blacklisters and that it can't end productively. You *can* carry on if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it.

>>CM, you said "I don't condemn them, but I certainly don't condone it."

For the record then, it sounds like you do not believe there is any community norm on the issue....that it is not a "right or wrong" issue, but one of personal preference. I'm counting votes, and it sounds like you abstain. If I'm wrong, let me know.

"As a mod, I feel I should say that discussion of why DipperDon has been blacklisted so much should be left to private conversation between DipperDon and the blacklisters."

I would agree with this, except for the fact that DipperDon started this thread. And for what its worth, when I told him I would rather not play with him, it was not an emotional decision; we had a lengthy and not-unfriendly discussion regarding it. And I have played games with him since then; at a certain level, there's no avoiding him in games if you want to play games over 101 point buy-ins.

DD, as the consummate Diplomacy player, why are you counting votes? Why not try to satisfy everyone? Why are you not trying to figure out what is most to your advantage?

I agree with Ivo.

DJ said "at a certain level, there's no avoiding him in games if you want to play games over 101 point buy-ins."

A factor to consider, yes.

And if I were to avoid six (or more) people who want me to, how easy do you think that would be?