Seriously? I don't like the fact that a player who got a hard earned second place(who actuelly fought to win) get nothing to show for it.

(By the way, live game anyone? It's in my profile if you're interested.)

1) People who won't stop pestering you even after you've exchanged like 50 messages on a subject (usually based on his opinion of what you are doing).

2) People who think Diplomacy should be played in one particular way.

3) 7-way-draws. I think draws should only result because you really are matched. At _most_ it should be a two way draw. If there really were a 7-way-draw, it would be because the players don't realize that you can't win the game without relying on someone else. That's what makes it so fun, not knowing if you are going to really eat it when the turn ends and you find out if what your "allies" said they would do is what actually happens. I agree that planned three-way-draws are really annoying (why cheat in a game played entirely for fun?), as are idiotic 'permanent alliances." But, duh, if you can really lead someone along for that long and then stab him and take the win, then good work!

4) Games in which a player only makes orders enough to not go CD, but only that often, so that everyone has to suffer

These aren't the bloody olympics. If the game didn't end at 18 centres, there'd be no one on the board to claim silver or bronze.

Right as it comes down to the neck and neck, the player that "fought hard but which just a half a year behind" was already a loser and the winner won years before.

There is no part of a loss that a player cannot prevent. You make your own luck and if you lost, you've got no one to blame but yourself.

There are times when you get up against people who absolutely refuse to listen to reason, and will kill you regardless of what you say to them. I realize this is an extreme case and does not happen often, but there are times when people decide that you are going to die and that is that.

This is also known as metagaming.

Oh and TheSleepingBear - I wholeheartedly agree with #2.

That was me that said that^^

@Geofram -

"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."

I ask again, WTF does that have to do with playing for a draw? You opponent was playing for strong second, not a draw.

@ZaZa

"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."

And this happens in both PPSC and WTA, and the sites percentages bear out the fact that it happens *more* in WTA.

@Draugnar, I wasn't ranting about that in respect to a draw, that was a completely separate issue about a player looking to get as many points from a PPSC loss INSTEAD of trying to win at all.

My biggest pet peeve: either France or Germany insisting on a trench warfare.

I mean, seriously! Am I the only one that see that a Franco-German War is just trench warfare with neither side gaining.

It depends what England is doing and saying.

I'll agree with you though, often the benefit of a Burgundy war isn't to either of the participants, but its great for everyone else.

@Le_Roi - "There are times when you get up against people who absolutely refuse to listen to reason, and will kill you regardless of what you say to them. I realize this is an extreme case and does not happen often, but there are times when people decide that you are going to die and that is that.

This is also known as metagaming."

No it isn't if there reasons for seeing you die are contained within the game (i.e. you stabbed them one too many times in that particular game and they decided you have to die, even if they die too), then it is *not*, by definition, metagaming.

^Even with England thrown in the mix, Germany will not fall to the Anglo-French alliance for several years. It is much better for France and Germany to destroy England quickly, then France moves against Italy, while Germany moves against Russia.

My pet peeve is people who dont realize that the game ends after someone reaches 18 centers because it is assumed they will take over the world from there (although technically there are some smaller stalemate lines that make this not strictly true).
what this means is that a strong second is just the last person who would be eliminated.

1) People who whinge after you stab them
2) PPSC (maybe gunboat PPSC is passable though)
3) People who don't finalise in gunboat/anonymous
4) Those who go CD, but then occasionally pop-in to destroy your plans while ignoring all your communication
5) People who hold grudges. In one game, a 1901 Ven-Tri move sent Austria on a crusade to take me down while effectively handing all his territory to Turkey. Not. Happy.

And... for something a bit out of centre field... People who have 1000s of points but then play 5 games and then they have the temerity to whinge about people going CD. If you've got the points... USE THEM!!!! (and save our ears from your criticisms of a system you don't use to its full potential)

Oh, I'm on a big rant now. I hate people who bag Kestas for not responding within 0.34 seconds every time they forgot to read the rules. This site is not run for profit - we should be encouraging mods/Kestas and being supportive of all the time they put in. ("Thanks guys" (and/or girls))

I've seen too many "does not finalize" statements, and I'm gonna argue it (granted, gunboat is the exception to the rule):
Finalizing an order should be, at best, a diplomatic tool. "I'm set up as you suggested, and to prove I'm loyal to you, I'll finalize it."

I can't tell you how many times in a game more than 24 hours that I've convinced someone else to switch from against me to my side because their ally just assumed everything was peachy when they made the agreement 2 hours after the turn changed. People's minds change, and long turns is where you can CONVINCE them to change!

Finalizing isn't worth it except for the following conditions:
1.) Gunboat games
2.) Everyone else finalized
3.) A retreat phase where your retreat is obvious without any chance of causing issues
4.) Retreat/build phase when you have lost your last SC in the autumn diplomacy phase.
5.) The rule or two I forgot or missed ;)

"4.) Retreat/build phase when you have lost your last SC in the autumn diplomacy phase."

Yep, and this happens all the time. OMGNSO was especially hilarious in that regard.

Akroma- I feel like the GFDT final may be headed in this cold-blooded suspicious deadlock direction.

I know when I have a shot at winning a game, and I know when I don't. More often than not I don't, so I play for the three way. If I have a shot, I take it. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Failing to stop winners is my pet peeve. Tru Ninja now has a very undeserved solo in the Masters thanks to incompetent players.

@jarrah - what does anonymous have to do with the finalizing? Gunboat I get, but Public or Private press games, whether they be anonymous or not, can have lost of things happen and no one is under any obligation to finalize if they have options and can use the time to maybe finagle what they want/need.

@Draugnar/fortknox: I totally agree. As a rule, I never finalise in non-gunboat games.

In gunboat&anonymous games, I always finalise immediately. Unless you're away and you're trying to time your logins to get your moves in, there's absolutely no point in not finalising immediately.

I cannot stand it when people use "text spelling". They have a full freaking keyboard!!!! There is no need to use abbreviations! Also, mis-spelt words drive me nuts.