Learn your lesson from the master here Phil
Ignore the facts
Ignore the details
Ignore he truth
Ignore the lies

Confront the person, deride him, humiliate him, crush him

You should focus on the contradiction I quoted not the insult. ;)

In the same sentence you referred to me as a lame ass pussy you summarized my entire argument. Fight to the death and if you can't win screw your enemies...like make them lose as well...

I see the apparent contradiction. But when I say screwing your enemies, I mean supporting their allies into their territories in an attempt to unsettled an alliance. Or getting a rogue unit behind their lines. Fighting-type screwing of the enemies. Not just abandoning your SCs and even telling someone else which ins you're abandoning, so that they can get them with no effort ... Just out of spite. I believe in vengeance, with a fighting spirit. I don't believe in pouty giving up out of spite.

I guess in a couple words, that's what it comes down to ... Spite vs vengeance.

Nobody said anything about abandoning scs. That is weak, we can agree. But supporting another power behind their lines when the other power is at 14, 15, 16 etc may well mean throwing the solo.

And for the record, as I said earlier, I don't characterize what Devionian did as throwing the game out of spite. In his case, he was forced to continue a battle on one front while the leader attacked him from the other.

I'm talking about someone saying something to the effect of "hey, I see that you and Russia have had a game long alliance, but if you don't support me into Moscow, then I win throw my SCs, and therefore the solo to Italy.

Obviously a made up example as Italy never wins ;-)

And I didn't call you a lame ass pussy, I called the tactic one. For all I know I mis-characterized your post, but it hit a nerve that I have dealt with in a few games recently, so I had to get it off my chest.

I agree completely. Suicide and supporting the big dog closer a solo then they already are to call of the dogs are too separate things.

"Suicide and supporting the big dog closer a solo then they already are to call of the dogs are too separate things" - try thinking that 3 times fast.

You are my hero, philcore. You complete me. +1

Shut the fuck up Nigee

PE has spoken! Holy shit guys, you got PE to crawl out of whatever cave he's been living in just to tell you to shut up. You must be so proud.

"Shut the fuck up Nigee"
This is truly an honour to have such a prophetic statement aimed in my general direction from the 'Man of Mormon'.
It seems he has emerged after the Republican defeat, he is regaining his strength, maybe we could have a successful Tea Party in his honour, what a refreshing change that would be for the Right-Wingers on this forum.
But back to the body of the text, what can it mean, so many unanswered questions, so much mystery ..... but it proves one point, the man is an Enigma.

sorry, typo - I can't seem to spell 'pathetic'

@generally: I didn't follow up on this last night, but after insulting you, then finding out we basically agreed in principle, I looked back on the thread and I have to assume that you were being sarcastic when you said you were going to throw every game. Because prior to that the things you said, we're pretty much in lIne with my viewpoint.

The sentiments I expressed remain my feelings on the matter, but calling you out as the impetus for my remarks seems unfair in hindsight after reading your prior posts on the subject, and for that I apologize.

No worries Phil, you were just hopped up from being locked down so long and looking to make a splash. ;). I think the confusion was in the word "throw" the game, which could mean abandon scs or stop entering moves in one view but was meant as support the largest power to victory or purposefully screw up the stalemate because you are on the chopping block for elimination. You summed it up well with fight til the end and then screw your enemies over if you can, I will take a survive over a defeat every single time. It is the last tool a small power has at his disposal to influence the game or force their way into a draw.

Yeah, I was a little rough around the edges after my stint in county. 24 hours of freedom brought me back to reality though. I still have this damn teardrop tat though. It seemed like such a good idea at the time.

philcore, the new improved Tobias Beecher

Guys I accept the points you make but they are not referring to this game.
The reality has been distorted with lies to suit the person who threw the game.
Turkey was trying to force a fleet out of the Ionian into the Tyrrhenien to prevent a France advance, and also to support hold the Italian fleet in Tunis.
There was no takeover of Italy because it would have led to a French solo, we were actually trying to stop Italy throwing the whole game for the good of all players left.
I find it particularly disappointing that a player does this and then criticizes the forum for being unfriendly, how can you get respect by doing this is beyond me.
We could all 'do the Devonian' in future Masters games but it would just make a mockery of the competition, I'm not a Master so it is water off a ducks back to me but out of respect for my fellow players and the integrity of the competition I still tried to prevent a solo even though I had no chance of winning.
Then again maybe Julien is a Master and his solo was inevitable. I don't want the actions of one buffoon to detract from the brilliance of another.
If nobody else agrees with me then sobeit but sometimes you just know in your bones that something is so wrong, if Jesus were here today I'm sure he'd be raging....

> Turkey was trying to force a fleet out of the Ionian into the Tyrrhenien to prevent
> a France advance, and also to support hold the Italian fleet in Tunis.

Trust me, it's for your own good. Now hold still.

For "the integrity of the competition I still tried to prevent a solo even though I had no chance of winning"

NB: Why is a doomed player obliged to side with the weaker powers? In terms of winning or losing the game, the doomed player has nothing to gain or lose. For the doomed player, it is all intangibles. One such intangible is spite. If the only thing the doomed player gets out of the game is revenge, well at least that's something. Perhaps it's more than the satisfaction of preventing a solo. Depends on how much animosity there is. Either way, the doomed player loses. The intangibles decide the course of action.

I find it strange that the flat-out *assumption* is that someone who is trying to prevent a solo should expect support from doomed players. What is the virtue in preventing a solo?

Well, in the Masters, a solo scores one and a draw scores zero. So depriving your opponents from a solo is most definitely a relative advantage, not only a virtue.

More in general, I would say you should always play to win. And not losing is the first step to winning.

@TheMinisterOfWar "...in the Masters ...depriving your opponents from a solo is most definitely a relative advantage, not only a virtue. "

Now I see why that applies in Masters as far as relative advantage. I don't see why it's a virtue as well though.

"I would say you should always play to win"

My assumption here was that a doomed player was going to get nothing in terms of game play; i.e. no way to win.

With that said, in a non-Masters, one-off game, where a doomed player truly has nothing to gain or lose within the game, what is the virtue in preventing a solo?

(Is the relative advantage case TheMinisterOfWar described being carried over into games where it doesn't apply?)

The first objective in a game of diplomacy, be it a stand alone traditional game, bizarre variant, or prestigious tournament, is to enjoy yourself.

@Octavious I totally agree. But the topic of this thread is a doomed player "throwing" a game "out of spite", as if he shirked some responsibility to help stop a solo. I don't see why helping stop the solo should be expected, especially when other intangibles (such as revenge) are in the mix. (On the assumption that there really is no way for the doomed player to win and no relative advantage to be gained in the Masters.)

Nonsense Octavious. The objective is victory.

@TheMinisterOfWar Sorry to spam the thread, I only just now put together the fact that relative advantage in the Masters rules was thrown away *and the game in question was under those rules.* That muddies the waters. I'll start a new thread with my specific question when there's a concrete game to point to. (Half my motivation was earlier complaints about supporting a solo in another game where there was no relative advantage to gain/lose.)

@ tendmote

It's a tricky one. Let's assume for a moment that the best route to enjoyment lies in trying to win the tournament The argument that in order to boost your chance of winning the tournament you must prevent rivals scoring at all costs is a strong one. Indeed, when I was in the Masters last time it's the philosophy I played by. However I am also a great believer in every player having their own natural style which they must be true to in order to maximise their long term potential. Now, if it happens that your style includes an instinct to tear apart those who have betrayed or wronged you (by your own definition of the terms) then it may well be better for your cause to act on these instincts rather than simply follow the rule of maths. The demotivational impact of seeing a complete turd earn a draw over someone you like earning a win may hurt your chances of tournament success more than one man clocking up a solo.

Wash your mouth with green soap pronto

@Octavious Agreed again. I'm recommending neither supporting a solo nor stopping a solo; I'm taking issue with the apparent fact that stopping a solo is what is *expected.* Supporting the solo raises the price of antagonizing another player. If it's an anonymous game, it changes the atmosphere a bit going forward; players you antagonize seem a little more likely to want to make you lose, even if someone else solos. People's expectations should adjust to what actually happens, regarding the risk of antagonizing/stabbing/whatever. The price of doing so was fairly high in this game. That should inform subsequent games. Strategies evolve.