My thoughts are:

yes, stabbing is an integral part of the game and one of my goals is to get a hot-head to cuss me out after a stab. It means that the stab was truly effective. I hate to ruin a game for someone but if they go to the length of cussing me out for it, then they seriously need to re-evaluate what this game means to them. No offense to those that are angered by a hearty stab.

"Just as stabbing is a valid tactic to the game. Bad mouthing, complaining and all that jazz are also perfectly valid tactics. "

stupid tactics are allowed. So if you stupidly alienate someone after they stab you that is your choice.

I like the idea of chewing them out with a few choice words mixed into a very clear reason why it was a stupid stab. I'm one to congratulate someone for a well played stab that might lead to a win or at least eliminate me without costing them the draw. But then there is Crazyter and hellalt and some of their stupid stabs.

J/K hellalt, not so much with Crazyter. She always stabs me and costs us both the game. :-)

@orthaic

You didn't read the article I proceed to link that explains how it can be used as a tactic did you?

@TruNinja

"one of my goals is to get a hot-head to cuss me out after a stab. It means that the stab was truly effective."

This is complete and utter nonsense. The fact that someone is angry at being stabbed means absolutely nothing.

If you come away from the stab in a substantially better position then the stab has been effective. Nothing else is relevant.

Something that is worth repeating occasionally is that Diplomacy is a game. In any game, be it D&D, Sardines or Twilight Imperium, the primary goal is not to win but to have fun and facilitate fun among the other players. Yelling and screaming, or being yelled and screamed at, is not fun. Take the stab, be a good sport, and learn from it. As others have pointed out, small-potato stabs are often counterproductive. In my experience, stabbers are often players who excessively fear being the stabbee and drag a decent alliance into the mire. But it is part of the game, and setting up a really nice stab (or preventing one) is itself pretty darn fun.

hmmm....

Is stabbing an "integral" part of the game?

First, what is a "stab"?

IF a stab is attacking someone that you have TOLD (honestly or not) you will ally with, then YES, it is part of the game, as you should tell every other player on the board that you will ally with them. And you have to attack someone...

IF "stab" means to betray one of your "real" allies, then it gets stickier.......
........I think of a stab as an attack on one of my "real" allies, as in an ally that I can take to the final draw, and trust that if we stay committed to the alliance, we actually can draw. A stab against them may lead to a solo, so it has merit.

BUT, as BESM can attest, dip players have long memories, and what happens in one game affects our play in later games.

"F a stab is attacking someone that you have TOLD (honestly or not) you will ally with, then YES, it is part of the game, as you should tell every other player on the board that you will ally with them. And you have to attack someone..."

Yes that is an important distinction. Let's face it, you can't be completely honest with everyone "Sorry England [says France] I would work with you but I have already promised Germany that I will help him attack you".

"Diplomacy is a game. In any game, be it D&D, Sardines or Twilight Imperium, the primary goal is not to win but to have fun and facilitate fun among the other players. Yelling and screaming, or being yelled and screamed at, is not fun. Take the stab, be a good sport, and learn from it. "

+1 Ges

I disagree. While I play to have fun, I have the most fun winning. This is true of poker (my favorite game) and this is true of Dip. I couldn't crlare if my winning by whatever means necessary results in others not having fun. All I care is I win.

Well I can't help it if someone doesn't have fun, I suppose, but I am not going to go out of my way to make sure they don't have fun, outside of trying to win. And I always feel really bad when I stab (but pleased with myself if it turns out to be the right decision). Honestly I feel so guilty. Bottom line is, I want everyone to have fun. I like people and I like diplomacy.

If you want everyone to have fun, play a cooperative game where the players all win or lose against an NPC, like in D&D or some pansy-ass kids game. Diplomacy is a cutthroat game of deception and manipulation. Like poker and chess, it's a competitive game. It has the mind game manipulations of poker with the strategic and tactical aspects of chess. It isn't for the feint of heart or for those who pass out flowers at the airport and spew "peace and love" everywhere. It *is* for the driven competitor who wants nothing more than to "Crush his enemies. See them driven before him. And hear the lamentations of their women."

Might I recommend Arkham Horror if you opt for a cooperative game. Games where you can get devoured or lost in time and space are the best. Complicated, but fun.

I enjoy the occasional "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer" game where it's everybody against one othe rplayer, who plays the big bad, as well as "Betrayal at House on the Hill" which is a similar "All on 1" game. But I like playing the bad guys in those games.

Betrayal at the House on the Hill is awesome.

It's a bit off-topic, but I agree that "Arkham Horror" is a spectacular game (if long) -- super-tense, fun and surprisingly smooth-running despite its 10 million pieces. BtVS is also great (I love playing the baddies, too).

Back to the topic, though: Draug, I love the airport-flower thing. Why, I was just in DFW last weekend with a basket of daisies. I also understand the mind-game aspects of Dip, chess and so forth. But in the end, even these games are at base cooperative. We are essentially trading time (sometimes, too much time) for fun. If mind-games in the form of yelling, trash-talking and swearing reduce the amount of fun received per unit of time invested, fewer folks will play Diplomacy or any other game. You'll end up with a small pool of victory-obsessed players yelling at each other.

My wife is coming back today from a week in Dallas for work, she said she punched the crap out of some daisy basket guy in the airport because that's how we roll in Motown. Sorry about that.

"If you want everyone to have fun, play a cooperative game where the players all win or lose against an NPC, like in D&D or some pansy-ass kids game."

Lol. Cool story bro.

Def; Integral; necessary to the completeness of the whole.

Stabbing IS NOT a “integral part of the game“ because “stabbing“ IS NOT necessary. One can play and win without ever stabbing. However, stabbing IS an element and a possible option during the course of a game. One problem/issue that often occurs or becomes a point of contention is what is considered “stabbing”.

As one example; I agreed to an alliance with a player in a 24hr turn game. In doing so I had certain expectations of that other players actions as my own existence was partially predicated on that other player doing certain things. With 5min left on a turn that player still had not shown up and I advanced on him because I knew other players were going to do the same and I was unwilling to sacrifice my own strength/position against the agreement to an alliance. I don’t consider my actions a ’stab’ because that other player didn’t uphold his end of the alliance in the simplest of terms; participation.

The fallout was that I was bombarded with profanity and accused of stabbing.

@Sacred: Your wife has a mean left hook. I hope you have the house clean and in good order when she gets home . . .

Carpy, whatever lets you sleep at night. I would consider it a stab though.

Stabbing IS necessary if:

you intend to solo, it's WTA, and no one is an idiot who lets you win on purpose

Thucy, so you're saying stabbing is necessary if you want to play Diplomacy.

Well some people don't think you necessarily always go for the win - I think this is bunk.

I bet they don't try for check mate in chess either.

i'm not saying i do... but some people would say soloing is not the sole objective - they see drawing as a legit option.

i say it is only an option if you are forced into it

I'm starting to consider the existence of stalemate lines as a major flaw of the game.

Maybe you are right manganese. Could a board be designed without stalemate lines?

I think there has been a few attempts. I think the general requirements would be no anchor points (no Switzerland and no map edges). Maybe world diplomacy don't have them, I don't know.