GR are hard to keep track of, Draugnar. If there would be included in the interface, then yes, maximizing your rating is a good strategy, too. It is not far from maximizing your points, though.

Your basics strategy sounds sound anyhow, though.

@Draugnar You support MY position and argue against SEcki's.

I disagree Dunecat, I met some amazing players in low stakes PPSC. Pretty much everyone on my list (see profile for details) I met in a low stake PPSC live game.

I think that if you play for second place in PPSC, you will find it hard to win. I think that it is a little easier to win PPSC or draw because of these attitudes.

I find this discussion most stimulating. It's very interesting to see how different people approach this game. That too, is kind of the point of this game.

@ SEcki Here is a great reason to read and pay attention to forum posts; just saw you join a 5 min game and I withdrew due to your proclamation\position that you will not honor\fully acknowledge alliances if established and will stab at first opportunity as winning always is you priority.

Loool

@TURIEL Read my previous posts, my very point exactly. If you believe there is only ‘one true way’ to approach this game (to win) then you do not have full understanding of the game and therefore neither a full and sincere appreciation for it.

I can make people quit games! I have the power!

Also, if you think that I stab at first opportunity, this is not what I stated at all during the discussion.

"Loool" . . . A childish\juvenile response and an affirmation of my initial and subsequent points.

@SEcki, ok I'll concede the point and correct it; SEcki WILL NOT ‘stab at first opportunity’ BUT will eventually stab anyone and everyone during the course of a game to ‘win’ regardless of an established alliance. How’s that?

The truth - and how many other players play it here. And I would expect other to do so, too. And have to hard feelings if they stab me to win.

So, this is the reason you do not want to play with me and quit a game I join? Calling my amusement childish there is funny for me, too. If you want to go on, go on.

In all fairness, i have played 2 games with SEcki in which we were allied and he did indeed hold the alliance. I am sure he was VERY tempted to break them, though (but he didnt).

It is the responsibility of the allied player not to get stabbed. If you leave yourself open for a fatal stab, or one that brings a win, you just screwed up.

Responsibility is great and greatly desirable. And we ALL make mistakes now and again. But loyalty is a higher quality that not all possess or care to possess because it requires trust and sacrifice.

@SEcki , “The truth - and how many other players play it here. And I would expect other to do so, too.”

Right, but that was not the point of the discussion and why you have backed off your initial statement\position (or maybe not?). It was your contention that there was only one ‘true’ way to approach the game; to obtain an out right ‘win’ and if you didn’t hold to that same opinion\position then one didn’t adhere to the ‘spirit of the game’. If you don’t concede that your initial opinion\position is not accurate, refuted by those like Draugnar61 who KNOW and are familiar with Allan Calhammer’s initial intention and published opinions regarding the game and that your professed and single minded approach to the game is just WRONG then there is nothing more to say other than you are either stupid, naive, ignorant, stubborn and\or some combination of the afore mentioned.

Personal attacks are also both unwise and UNdesirable. And they rarely have the desired effect. You can't beat people into agreeing with u. Even though, I do follow your argument about this game and its' origins and i agree with u wholeheartedly.

Carpysmind: New game? Join us at the BOOK OF ENOCH. 5 min phases.

@TURIEL, As a graduated of UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law; stating that one is stupid, naive, ignorant, or stubborn for continuing to hold on to a opinion\position, in light of established and irrefutable facts to the contrary, are not considered personal ‘attacks’ and even in a court of law are acceptable comments to make when arguing a particular point or position, sorry.

In the absolutist way you are absolutely correct. However, we are not in a court of law. It boots nothing to say those things even if they are (in your mind) true. It is simply inflammatory. And as i said before.... I agree with u on the content of your prior arguments about this game.

which illiterate person is a Boalt graduate? Or graduated, I can't tell which

. . . speaking as a professed "socialist" (http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=536697#536697), TURIEL. ;-)

@Acosmist ha ha ha, a typo does not an illiterate make, give me a break (on a keyboard the "e" is just above the "d"). Sorry I didn't intensely and accurately proofread my posting before hitting “Post reply”.

Oh, that personal attacks, even though I already explained in great detail my position.

I quote myself:

> So, I just define "playing for maximum EV given the rules" as "the spirit of the game" - for any game.

Is this the game theoretic backbone of any game with a winner (chess, poker, ...) that I like to play on. There is a definition of game and of strategies for a game given the game rules. If someone runs out and plays diplomacy because he likes that the other gets violent at him for not telling the truth, I have no common ground with that person on why we play diplomacy.

However, there really is no point of discussion anymore, as you prefer getting personal and accuse me of the things that you do.

@TURIEL, see why I made the comments that I did? In spite of the flaw in his thinking, SEcki continues to believe he is correct\right in what the "the spirit of the game" is and knows more than the actual creator of the game as to what that is. The fact that he thinks that one has to approach Diplomacy with the same philosophy as chess in to play it accurately\appropriately is further proof of his flawed thought process. Grandmasters, playing black and given a particular first move by white, state their sole purpose or approach from that move forward was not to ‘win’ but to induce a draw or stalemate at the first available opportunity. Diplomacy only compounds this issue\point of contention as one begins having 6 opponents as opposed to one and depending on which country you’re playing could compound ones ability to obtain a win exponentially.


I wonder and could realistically assume that he would argue with Picasso that he was WRONG in the emotions and thoughts that HE intended to invoke\provoke with respect to a particular painting if they contradicted his own?

" . . . chess in 'order' to play . . ."

Threw my hat into the ring representing the "Self-entitled nub", just posting here to legitimize it.

Truth be told, the inflated sense of self worth stems (in my humble opinion) from the anonymous nature of internet culture, combined with the warmongering, despotic personalities this noble game seems to draw like moths to a roaring flame. =]

I'm looking forward to playing with new and old players alike in TheDeacon's game!

Oh, and as for this debate on the "spirit of the game"?

Me and a friend used to have the same argument about Super Smash Bros. Melee. He used to think that Dodging (shielding and tapping the control stick) was unfair.

If it's possible in a game, then it's in the spirit of the game; otherwise there'd be specific rules against it. =]