hehe ^^ yeah

dingle seemed to go off the chain for a bit there i remember that.

and he always struck me as so mild mannered.. was a surprise.

w/e

If someday it should happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list, I've got a little list,
Of Diplomacy offenders who might well be underground,
And who never whould be missed, who never woouuuulllllllddddd be missed!

;)

(But hey--I finally made the top of SOME kind of list!) :p

Few points to pick up on.

I have stated that Obiwanobiwan has a different interpretation to metagaming than me. In a nutshell we were playing in a league and he suggested I need to do something in game 1 in order for him to trust me in game 2. The ghost ruled in Obi’s favour and whilst I disagreed with the Ghost I respect his right to make that call.

I think the game is most enjoyable if it is played between people who have a shared understanding of the rules and those rules are consistently applied. I’m happy to play in a game with obi and others if it is clearly understood that we try and blank out everything that is outside of the game and I’m quite happy to participate in games where metagaming of any kind is allowed. I’m playing in one such game now. What I’m not happy to do is play in games where some people think “don’t metagame” and others try to. It disadvantages some players.

I can understand that new players might not get it and part of the role of the mods is to lead them onto the right path. But what about the victims? What about the people who invest time and effort into the game only to find it hasn’t been a clean fight? What about the players who have been playing in Mr Luka and Jak183’s games who now have to cope with some CDing players or new recruits? What about new players who play legally from the getgo but then leave because they ended up playing with someone who was later lead onto the correct path?

And what about me? I’m not casting myself as a victim here, I’m old enough and ugly enough to look after myself, but my experience of the league was dramatically affected by Obi’s actions – should he be allowed to walk away scot free because he’s young and hasn’t yet developed a moral code and I’m just some old guy that should suck it up?

I’m quite happy for alternative solutions to this problem to be explored, maybe we should give junior membership to all players until the reach 10 games and then wipe their records and give them full status provided they feel able to understand the rules and are prepared to except the consequences of transgressing.

@figles – I like the idea of removing points that have been ill gotten but until that is technically possible it isn’t a solution. Also what about the legal gains that only happened because of ill gotten gains? If Agent K ‘stole’ 300 that allowed him to play in bigger games that he won fair and square he would have benefited from ill gotten gains to a degree greater than the points that would be removed.

@ Maniac: "I have stated that Obiwanobiwan has a different interpretation to metagaming than me. In a nutshell we were playing in a league and he suggested I need to do something in game 1 in order for him to trust me in game 2."

That's appalling conduct if it's true. Clearly metagaming and clearly unacceptable.

Shame on you, Obiwanobiwan.

"I think the game is most enjoyable if it is played between people who have a shared understanding of the rules and those rules are consistently applied."

Yes, that is entirely fair and valid, and in any game other than a league where the stated goal was to win the league rather than to win each individual game of the league i'm sure even obi would agree with you.

@Jamie: the legaue rules specifically state that you consider the position within other games of the legaue when making your decisions.

And to my memory what obi said was 'If you're being untrustworthy in game 1 why would i trust you in game 2?'

Which even seperate to the league environment is something you would consider. I'm only defending Obi because at the time I felt Maniac overreacted. (i was obviously in both game 1 and 2 at the time)

Also Obi can defend himself if he is here, but until then i stand by my comments. (without direct quotes i think the 'nuthsell' version as we remember these incident does, i think, demonstarte why we differed in the first place)

Right, I have no interest in an argument (for once) because frankly it serves no good purpose adn can have no good outcome for me...or really for anyone else--except that Maniac gets to grind his axe agains those four or so people on his list...of which I was the top of...so really it's just prolonged bickering about a game that was finished long ago, I lost, and I think he actually drew or won, so really I don't see the need to enter into a dialogjue back and forth here.

Even if I did, orathic pretty much has already said everything already: I didn't feel Maniac was being very trustworthy the first time around, so when he came a-calling for an alliance that was virtually the same, just different ends of the board, I naturally said that he didn't seem to have kept his word the last time he tried such an affair, why should I trust him now.

In any case, that's my take, and really, for once, that's my concise, finished, complete take, because, again, I'm not making a case out of a game I lost--espeically when, again, the other party here won por at least tied...or at least did better than I did--and frankly, as odd as it may sound to use a record in such a manner:

Does my record LOOK like I chear and try to bloat it here? Hell, this is a game and a good place to shoot the breeze here, not something I take so seriously that I bang on about a game that was months ago and, quite frankly, I find it somewhat odd and slightly pathetic that there's a need you have, Maniac, to continue to harp on about such a thing and, what's more, make the Diplomacy equivalent of an "Enemies List."

I'd suggest a name change to perhaps "Nixon" or "McCarthy" to reflect such a demeanor...but really the name you have right now reflects your obsessive and viondictive nature quite well, I think...

Well, that's all--if anyone's up for a discussion about Life, the Universe, Everything, or hey, maybe a live game tonight, then I'm all for it.

*I am obiwanobiwan and I do NOT approve of this message, as it was silly, silly, far too silly, it began as an attempt to show how ridiculous a certain list was in hopes people would GET ON WITH IT, but now, seeing as it's dead, pushing up daisies, tearing down the curtaina and joining the choir, this is an ex-post...well, can't approve of such depravity, but I suppose I must permit it, written too much now to do otherwise, haven't I*

i think you'll find that we all lost that game, though i mostly blame my sitter for not playing for me... (hte only two Cds on my record) which reminds me, that must have been July when i went on holidays...

@Orathaic - you are quite rigth that the league rules specifically state that you may consider the position within other games. I understand that to mean something different to what Obi and evidently yourself understand it to mean. For example if someone won game 1 then the others may deliberately try to prevent him/her winning game two to help with their own league positions - I have no problem with that at all. But I don't think people should say for example i'll support you in game 1 in return for your help in game 2 or anything approaching that level of metagaming. Now, I've already said that the Ghost agrees with your/obi's definition. I'm not saying that Obi's definition is wrong, all I'm saying is that it differs from my definition and unless we share an understanding of the rules, it is impossible for us to play together.

It could be that in future people will need to affirm which interpretation of the rules they subscribe to in order to ensure they are playing with like minded players.

I note that Obi has never accepted my definition of the rules and has defended his actions to the hilt, which leads me to suppose he is unlikely to change his style if we were to meet in any future leagues.

PS @ Orathaic - you are close to being on my list :)

@obi - the fact that you actions doesn't help your record really is besides the point. Society generally punishes the inept thieves, murderers and conmen; the good ones generally go free.

For the record, I didn't call you a cheat, I said that your interpretation of the rules is different from my own. This isn't some side issue; a shared understanding of the rules is essential for people to enjoy the game. Rugby players and soccer players can play each of their games merrily, but if a rugby player picked up the ball in a game of soccer (and then couldn't understand that it was against the rules) neither he or the other players would enjoy the game at all.

@Obi's actions in the league are acceptable for the leagues. He was trying to get the best League position possible. Had he said something about doing something in a game outside of the league for him to trust you in the league, that would be wrong. But if both were league games, a certain amount of collusion and metagaming is expected and acceptable.

@Maniac - realize that an interpretation of the meta rules in the leagues is totally different from a person's view of acceptable actions outside the leagues. I would never (and I'm sure Obi and Orathaic agree they wouldn't either) try something like a cross game deal. But you have just said that Ghost considers his actions acceptable as well. So it seems you have less a problem with Obi (ororathaic or now me) and more a problem with the leagues. So it's easy. Don't play in the leagues.

@Maniac - one final note. Obu shouldn't have to change his actions in future leagues. He didn't break the rules. The league manager (Ghost) said he didn't. I support you having the list, but get over yourself and just don't play in the leagues if you don't like that style of play. It's what's gotten me from D to B and I won't change either as it is part of that system just as sure as taking a dive is part of soccer, body checks are part of hocker, drawing a foul is part of basketball, dusting the batter off the plate is part of baseball, and even trying to draw the defense offsides without a real "false start" is part of American football.

@Draug - I haven't checked in depth but I was under the impression that the games are *supposed* to be played independently.

You can't do preset cross game alliances, but you are allowed to consider position and form alliances to influence the league leaders. Both Obi and Orathaic say Obi didn't demand help (as Maniac put it), but made an observation that he wasn't about to trust Maniac after being stabbed. Had he not verbalized it, it wouldn't even be discussed here. I made the sam,e alliance in two games because it made sense and allowed the two players in the alliance to see themselves to the top two positions so we both moved up to B. We didn't go into it expecting to do this, but found ourselves in the right position in games 3 and 4 to be the co-point leaders. If anything, that would be worse than refusing to ally in one game cause you were stabbed in another. Ghost knew what we did and hasn't had an issue with it at all because we didn't precollude. Instead our initial goal was to determine who would be involved in the last couple of draws so the one guy who could win it all wouldn't. I.e. we considered his position and everyone elses and made certain they didn't get enough pounts to win or strong second C2.

@Draugnar & others here is the direct quote for referrence:
Spring, 1901: Depends on how Game 1 bodes...if we can come to a good alliance there and work together well, then yeah, I'd love to do it twice...but if you snarl at peace efforts there and attack, how can I trust you here, when we're in much the same position, just West rather than East?

We can be a dynamic duo in this tournament or Capulets and Montagues- I'll leave it to you, though the former idea is far more attractive to me...

The point is that I and some other considered this to be a lot more than considering position - before a move had been made in game two, I was asked to become part of a dynamic duo for the tournament.

Whilst I accept that people can have differing opinions, I think that is part of the problem - we should be 100% clear what is and isn't acceptable and then keep to the rules or form two fractions, one which allows metagaming and the other fraction that forbades it.

Well, I don't see the issue. He makes it very clear that any cooperation you expect from him will be modified by a lack of trust. I'd have said the same thing in the leagues. It basically says "you don't screw me and we'll be good friends throughout this season, but if you do, I can't trust you." This is no different than remembering a players style in past history and using it against them. And that is not considered unacceptable metagaming. Had he said "I'll through you the win in game two if you get me the win in game 1" that would be breaking the league rules. But he didn't. He merely pointed out that, if screwed, he won't be able to trust you.

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. That's what the message was.

I will start by saying that I suck too badly to play in leagues. However,

@Maniac: It is not a single, well defined, fine line between meta-gaming, and perhaps trying to build alliances from turn 0, or knowing that person A is more trustworthy than person B, and therefore an alliance with A is favourable. Therefore, we cannot be as you define it, '100% clear what is and isn't acceptable'

I have to agree with Obi, and Maniac here. Maniac seems to be arguing for the purity of the game itself (which, sounds perfect, but could never happen really in a consecutive set of games), while Obi is simply stating an undeniable truth, (to use an analogy) if something bit you, don't pet it again. That's how our brains are hardwired to survive.

When I play a game with a friend/stranger/acquaintance - people I've had good or bad relations with before, I try and wipe the plate clean, and think merely in terms of the current game by reading strategic positions etc, but it is a lot harder to trust an alliance, simply on an "emotional" level, with someone who has stabbed you before. The trick is not to hold it against them, because they saw an opportunity and did what was best for their country (hopefully it was a strategic stab), and I would do the same to them if I had the chance, or right circumstances. This could be applied conversely as well, by not stabbing someone you've had great relations with, when it would behoove you to do so.

Anyway, this is my first post and I'd like to give everyone a big hello, and that I hope to join some league play in the future once I have some more games under my belt.

Ignoring the conversation, I have to add Duce II and SSReichsFhurer. (gameID=12239)

i believe dingle yelled at me for not voting draw and winning based off of a civil disordered country. said it wasnt fair or something.

oh yeah otto von bismark got snippy with me one game. but i was being extremely lucky. probably would play with him again though. i really don;t think i have a don't play with list

I find myself in the rather unusual position of having to say that I agree with MM, almost completely, when he says that...

the punishment must be worse than the crime. His analysis is correct: if the punishment merely fits the crime at best, then given the fact that not all bad behaviour will get picked up and dealt with, it is actually worth a new player trying it on.

Wow MM, did I really say that?

@ orathic: "@Jamie: the legaue rules specifically state that you consider the position within other games of the legaue when making your decisions."

Really? Wow. That seems against the whole spirit of the game to me. I'm quite glad I don't play in the leagues if that's the way they approach it. I'll stick with my smug position of having spent most of this year in the top 100 of the Ghost-Ratings list. That's enough of a league for my liking.

@JECE: I would rather not play with someone whos nickname is "SSReichsFuhrer", but that's just my Opinion since I am German. No Idea whatsoever why to choose such a name -.-

holloway: There have been several threads on that, actually, but I'm annoyed at him, obviously, for other reasons.

@Jamie - the league is one big over all game. To move up you have to win more than just a game and, in fact, winning a game early makes you a huge target virtually guaranteeing you won't win the league. In fact, in the league I was in this year, there was one player going into game three who had been in both draws from 1 & 2. He was the big points leader and eneded up not winning because of that. You have to weigh how much more is left in the league against the gains you are making so far. You want to be in striking distance, but not be the target.

So, in a way, the league is one big metagame of sorts. If you like playing each game individually, then definitely don't play the leagues. Instead, play the anonymous GFDT where you play two anonymous games against different players and do your best in them to move to the next round.

@jamiet:
Yes, a leauge game is a meta-game of sorts, which everyone agrees to play to begin with. This is fine so long as everyone knows what the rules are (which was an issue where Maniac became annoyed because Obiwon interpreted the rules differently to him - but to say obi has a different take on meta-gaming when it was 'league meta' rather than 'single game meta' seems a little... oh well )

It's a different expierence, and i think i've gotten to know a lot of people much better by playing them 4 times together than i would have from just random one-shots. This and the fact that it's not anon is something i like about leagues.

So I enjoy playing 'league games' not to get to the top of the league per say, but to have high quality games against the same people which leads to intense competition (as you modify your behaviour in the second/third game to counter who you deem to be the biggest threat from the first game... and you get to know your opponents and tell who is pulling whose strings...

A different expierence than 'GR listed' top 100, which impacts very little on how i play/expierence my games.