Players who use the way most people read things to trick you to think one thing when they mean another. I don’t mind that. I what I mind is them then trying to claim that they didn’t think you would interpret what they said that way and it’s your fault because they weren’t trying to trick you when really they were and knew full well how you would read what they wrote. I don’t take being lied to personally but if someone lies to me and then tries to make it out to be my fault…

Players that don't listen to what I say!!! ;)

Seriously, though, my biggest pet peeve is when people hold grudges. The first person you stab (or the person that stabs you early) can be your best friend and a reason you win the game if you can brush off what happened early in the game and work together.

I find that in 'lower' level games, allegiances can last almost through the game (and sometimes do!), but in 'higher' level games with really good players, allegiances can last a turn or two and flip. Knowing who your friends are and taking advantage of situations instead of wallowing in something that happened a year or two (or five) ago is just a stupid way to play.

On the other hand, you shouldn't be a pushover (I learned that lesson in the tourney when I waffled and flipflopped FAR too much), but you shouldn't hold a grudge.... play smart, not with anger!

Akroma : "the best games end in 7-way draws, not because of agreements, but because no one manages to defeat the other before 1930"

Now -that- would be something :D

I'd love to see the communication after such a game. I'm sure it is full of malice towards one player in to one country, and sweet as hell to another. That would be a blast (almost to the point of being mentally and emotionally exhausting) :)

@SunZi - Do you mean to say that our language is devolving? That eventually we'll pick up the Bible and see "u" instead of "you" and instead of laughing we'll be saying "lol" to eachother?

I doubt it. "U" and "LOL" were not created because their counterparts needed replacing, they were created out of a desire to save time. And when saving time is not a necessity of your communication, it is still not acceptable to use these abbreviations and this is generally agreed to.

You won't write a college term paper or a court motion with this jargon, and if you do, you'll never be taken seriously by your professor or the magistrate again.

I hate people who play for a 3-way draw from the beginning. Don't get me wrong, I've been in some three-ways (and some of them involved Diplomacy) but almost invariably as the weakest partner, struggling to keep people out of a solo.
It gets my goat to be the fourth, fighting to stay in and to hear the other three agreeing to a three-way just as soon as they've got rid of me - surely in that situation someone could manouvre into a position to solo by keeping me in the game, maintaining an unstable equilibrium rather than knocking me out and facing a position where any two can keep the remaining one down.
Hrumph.

Well LOL is more than just laughing. it means Laughing Out Loud just a ROTFLMAO mean Rolling On the Floor Laughing My Ass Off. It's an acronym and if we are getting rid of acronyms when we type, then we should lose IBM and start typing International Business Machines or lose NCR and type National Cash Register or lose the biggie, US/USA, and type United states or United States of America.

Draugnar, you can't honestly believe that LOL and the others are used in their literal definitions any longer.

They all mean the same thing.

In a reply it means: "I find your remark humourous or I believe you want me to find it humourous, so in either case, I will acknowledge your comment with the least amount of effort required."

In your own message: "I want you to find this humourous OR I am speaking seriously but because I am unsure how you will accept my remark, I will add a safe fall with these letters." Often a smiley face is used for the same purpose.

LOL, Geofram. And by that I mean "I find your remark humourous or I believe you want me to find it humourous, so in either case, I will acknowledge your comment with the least amount of effort required." :-) (and by that I mean "I want you to find this humourous OR I am speaking seriously but because I am unsure how you will accept my remark, I will add a safe fall with these letters.")

If people type like idiots I treat them like idiots. lol :)

And what do you mean by that, Hibiskiss? ;-)

lol ;) :3 ^___^;; 3: o.0 ,_, ^.\~\

<chuckling quietly to myself> and I actually was chuckling.

Hibiskiss +1

omg gtfo ru4real? rotflmao @ #Hibiskiss. k ily ttyl <_<

Geofram and I experienced a good two or three years in an online community where typing lol was considered the equivalent of beating someone mother to death and the lazy expression of thought that it truly is.

I use it pretty much only to be ironic.

lol

for a while i stopped laughing and just said "lolz" instead. all my friends got so angry at me. so then i stopped. but it was funny, and i was laughing out loud, but inside...

I always get really annoyed with players who talk normally during a game, but only after you've talked to them first that season. In 36 hour games, it works out that I get on near the start of the turn, send messages to everyone and get good replies. Then next turn, I can't get on until half way through, and no one has talked at all. It feels like I'm the only one putting effort in.

'Honoring a great alliance.' Just win the game, please, thank you. It's not a team game. If you can win the game, do so.

@ZaZa - that is your opinion. Some people have a sense of honor and will draw if they feel their allies have held up their end. And nobody give me the whole "PPSC promotes draws" because we have already shown that draws occur more often in WTA. PPSC only encourages strong seconds and actually discourages draws.

Strong seconds are first losers. That's why, a while back, I suggested there to be non-drawable games. Because playing for second is for cretins.

What does playing for second have to do with a draw?

And in WTA, you are correct. Strong Second is First Loser. But again, I ask what the hell this has to do with draws?

Some people play to eliminate others to get a larger pot from the draw. That's why. Some people don't play to win, they play to help them and their allies for a 'glorious' draw.

I agree that an alliance can be honoured through a whole game, that a draw doesn't have to just be a way to end a stalemate, and that neither ruin a game.

But I hate that PPSC contributes to the frequency of that happening.

I was having a blast racing another player to 18 in a gunboat game (we were both at 14) but I soon realised that he's not trying to stop me from winning after I pulled ahead, he's just going to make sure he gets 16 and the most points possible. Ruined the fun of the game for me and stole the pride of my win.

In other words, down with PPSC, no more for me.

I hate it when you're jumped at the very beginning of a game, and there is no possible means by which you can win... I was France in a game, and Germany, Italy and England all formed an alliance to wipe me out in the first year. I hate that...

Usually that's a fault of the person that got jumped...
The game is still going on though, so I won't comment.

I am getting trounced in a quadruple nation "alliance?" against me but I can't comment anymore as the game is still going on.

Very fair, I am unaware of any reason or insult by which I would have been faulted, but, I do agree, usually it is the fault of the person that got jumped. Still, though, the idea of wiping someone out from the get go doesn't sit well with me, personally, whether or not I was the jumped in this particular circumstance. Seems, to me at least, that Diplomacy is a game in which one should be allowed the wiggle room to attempt to succeed.

Oh, another one: I don't particularly like WTA games.