"No. It doesn't. Not in the example of high-pot and passworded games I am specifically talking about - and I don't think it even encourages NMRS in live games - because people don't join such games with the intention of NMRing."

Sarg, you know there are people who multi-account. Do you think those cheaters would hesitate to nmr when they're losing in order to get the game cancelled? Or do you think that everyone who gets enough points to get into larger pot games is completely honest? Seriously? Are you *really* that naive?

There's no need to be rude to me, Don.

No, I don't think I'm being naive here.

Again, I'm not talking about pug games - I'm talking about high-pot games with familiar faces, which roka(koma) raised. If someone NMRs in a game of regular faces - say, me, you, roka, Lando, The Czech, Barny, and Eden, for example - then I would of course be willing to discuss and even cancel the game.

I fully take on board your views in relation to live games - all I'm asking is that you at least try and appreciate my view on higher-pot and passworded games.

You don't need to turn nasty - said I wouldn't join games with you if that were the case because your argument has been quite virtriolic and essentialist - when we both know that incidence of NMRs and CDs is more complicated.

No need to be rude? YOU are the one who insinuated that I'm classless and have no sense of sportsmanship because I don't adhere to your beliefs.

@DD, I should have said CD, sorry, not NMR. The difference is that R/A will kill Turkey without resistance, and therefore very quickly get a lot of SCs that they can use elsewhere. If there's no NMR, they can kill Turkey, but it takes lots of time and energy, so they're not gaining an advantage over the other powers on the board who are also fighting and being resisted.

I've considered your views. I simply disagree with them, Sarg. And I remember you expressing the same view about cancelling games after an nmr in small pots and live games. It is your standard argument. So don't suggest now that you're only trying to apply it to big pot games with people you think you know. Because that just isn't true.

Okay, Semck. What if they do kill an active Turkey fairly quickly. I've seen it happen plenty. Do they now have an unfair advantage? Should the game be cancelled? Or do the other players have to adjust their strategies? Why should it be any different with a cd?

"No need to be rude? YOU are the one who insinuated that I'm classless and have no sense of sportsmanship because I don't adhere to your beliefs."

That's incorrect - you're reacting too sensitively on this issue.

My point was that I wouldn't want to play a game with you again if you prefer to play on after NMRs and CDs that grossly alter the balance of a game. I'm not saying my view is better - just that we have different, seemingly irreconcilable positions on this. Of course, if I did find myself in a game where everyone voted to play after a NMR/CD then I would respect that - likewise, if a majority of people voted to cancel a game after an NMR/CD I would hope that lone, angry dissenters would respect the wishes of the majority in that instance. That's fair, non?

Claiming that your beliefs demonstrate class and sportsmanship suggests anyone voicing a different opinion is not sportsmanlike or classy, Sarg. That's called "poisoning the well", to suppress opposing voices. It's a cheap and offensive debating tactic, and a logical fallacy. And yes, I take it personally, because you mean it that way.

@DipperDon: I think f2f is somewhat different from webdip play in the respect of CD's. If a player leaves in f2f, you can find someone to replace him immediately and pause the game while a replacement is sought. The position of the countries are not affected.
In Webdip the country has lost 2 moves by CD'ing and inevitably the board position is greatly affected.

Why did you ignore my question, Don?

Of course, if I did find myself in a game where everyone voted to play after a NMR/CD then I would respect that - likewise, if a majority of people voted to cancel a game after an NMR/CD I would hope that lone, angry dissenters would respect the wishes of the majority in that instance. That's fair, non?

What did people do in cases of CDs in Postal Play?

When a player NMRs in a postal game, the gamemaster taps a standby to play the next turn. If the NMRing player submits orders the next turn, then he remains the player of record. Otherwise, the standby assumes control.

Sarg, when did draw/cancel become a majority vote? I must have missed that one. That is essentially what you're proposing, right, that the minority accede to the wishes of the majority? If you want majority vote to rule, maybe you should propose a programming change. We'll see how well that is received. Or are you suggesting, again, that regardless what the rules actually are, everyone should play your way because you've pronounced it classy?

Draw/Cancel votes are routinely used as diplomatic tactics. I'm guessing you've been on your way to winning some games and had all the other players vote "draw". Do you always agree to go along and vote draw, just because they have the majority?

And I'm sure you've also seen players attempting to deceive others by appearing to nmr and then entering orders at the last second or minute. Going back to Rokakoma's hypothetical situation: If a player deliberately doesn't enter orders to try tricking others, and sets his alarm clock for ten minutes before an early morning deadline, but fails to wake up, he nmrs. Should that game be cancelled for the sake of misplaced and naive sportsmanship because the dufus failed in his deception and screwed himself?

JimTheGrey, you failed to mention that many 'zines have/had houserules whereby countries with less than five (or less than x) centers went into permanent civil disorder because no standby was called. This happened frequently and I don't remember any rules about cancelling the game when just one player dropped. Players knew what was going to happen and the good players knew how to deal with it.

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=88762#

Hey Sarg, the above game just ended. Austria got stabbed in 1910 and immediately nmr twice giving the win to Italy. Should the game have been cancelled after the first nmr, so that Italy couldn't benefit from an unfair advantage. I mean, E/G ended up screwd by this Austrian civil disorder, didn't they? It's so unfair. Shouldn't there be something DONE about this kind of thing? Or...is it maybe just part of the game that we play?

"Sarg, when did draw/cancel become a majority vote? I must have missed that one. That is essentially what you're proposing, right, that the minority accede to the wishes of the majority? If you want majority vote to rule, maybe you should propose a programming change. We'll see how well that is received. Or are you suggesting, again, that regardless what the rules actually are, everyone should play your way because you've pronounced it classy?"

No, that's now what I'm proposing. Please stop being so adversarial towards me, I don't like your tone (and no, before you ask, there's nothing I can do about it, I just don't see why you have to be so vitriolic - this is meant to be a healthy discussion).

You asked me if I would respect other's views - and I said yes - so I'm just turning that around and asking if you would respect people's views if everyone in a game wanted to cancel? It seems strange that you want to press me on such things but won't concede anything yourself.

DipperDon, just because it's part of the game we play doesn't mean it has to be. I'm not going to say what's right or wrong, just what I prefer. I personally don't see an NMR as a reason to cancel or draw, except if it happens in S1901. A player can and should take his or her own responsibility to dig themselves out of the hole that the NMR created, and it happens for legitimate reasons. A CD however unbalances everything, and I prefer to draw after one, so I can see who the CD nation was and have that resign on their record. I've won because of CDs, and it's not fun. I've lost because of CDs, and that is some of the most frustrating shit there is. In the end, I want an enjoyable game. You have a point that it's up to the other players to stop whomever benefits the most, but in that case, the game still only becomes a boring rush for stalemates since all dynamics are lost. Instead of a flowing, interrelated board of active agents, you have a blob of vulnerability that immediately becomes the focus for everyone, no matter what you were doing before.

"In a real war would you know whether your opponent or ally will actually "move"? You just have to deal with it."

I don't want a real war. Wars are horrible fucking things. I want a board game. An enjoyable one, that doesn't only revolve around who can push any advantage that falls into their lap. Others have other philosophies, and they have the right to them, but I tend to avoid them if I can. There are enough players on this site for everyone to find people to play with. Avoiding someone doesn't really impact them too much.

And lastly, I refuse to just sit and watch stuff I hate in a game I love and shrug my shoulders saying "That's just webDip!" I'll speak up against CDs. Tell people my opinions on the matter. Not because I'm right, but because I feel strongly and I might just influence someone. I hate complacency and I refuse to define my game around what I perceive to be a problem just because it's there, when I have the option to speak up against it.

Don, you post so many questions I clearly can't keep up :P :)

"I don't want a real war. Wars are horrible fucking things. I want a board game. An enjoyable one, that doesn't only revolve around who can push any advantage that falls into their lap. Others have other philosophies, and they have the right to them, but I tend to avoid them if I can. There are enough players on this site for everyone to find people to play with. Avoiding someone doesn't really impact them too much." -Vaftrudner

+1

Sarge wrote: "Please stop being so adversarial towards me, I don't like your tone..." Again Sarg, I don't think you want to be adversarial, and you don't want an adversary. You want everyone who doesn't agree with you to just cave in, because you think you have a lock on the truth. Remember how when a certain game started how you admonished everyone that they should all ready up because that was the "classy" way to play? Geez, dude, who made you the authority on what is classy when deciding whether to ready or just save and think about if until deadline? And this thread is no different. Anyone who has different ideas on whether to continue a game after a nmr is showing poor sportsmanship? GET OVER YOURSELF.

"Don, you post so many questions I clearly can't keep up" yeah, being forced to defend your positions with logic instead pronouncements is a bitch, aint it.

""Don, you post so many questions I clearly can't keep up" yeah, being forced to defend your positions with logic instead pronouncements is a bitch, aint it."

Oh, DipperDon, I was trying to be friendly.

"Anyone who has different ideas on whether to continue a game after a nmr is showing poor sportsmanship?"

No. That's not true. Please read what I have said. I think people should decide on their own games what is best for them. Please, stop.

"I think people should decide on their own games what is best for them." Ya jknow Sarg, I'd believe you meant that if you hadn't been saying the complete opposite up until this point. Up until that sentence your statements have all been aimed at cowing others into following your directions. Okay, I'm done. Maybe.

Don, to me it's a question of why you're playing Diplomacy. I play Diplomacy because it's a game in which luck does not play a role; in most wargames, simply listing the orders is insufficient to reconstruct what happens, but in Diplomacy, it is. Skill is the determining factor.

When you play a game of Diplomacy well, you are paying close attention to what every power on the board is doing. Might Turkey be eliminated quickly? Yes, but generally in a way that the other powers can see coming and react to. Why is this something that other powers can see coming? Because strong players do watch the the moves, assume that every player is attempting to achieve the most satisfying result they can get, and project how the game will unfold. They have to -- balance of power is critical to a well-played game. And we're attracted to Diplomacy because it's a game in which the player who exhibits the most skill should get the best result.

Where the calculation changes is when a player stops attempting to achieve the most satisfying result possible for them. I don't mean suicides against one of their neighbors - from a situation in which there is no hope of escape, that might indeed be the most satisfying result possible. Rather, I mean situations where a player trades a result in one game for another (we consider that cheating) or stops attempting to achieve anything (CD). These are unpredictable actions outside of the rules of the game. And, in a well-played game, they have wide-ranging ramifications; in a recent game it was correct for me as France to top attacking Germany because Turkey went into CD in 1903.

So, is there a genuine disagreement here? Yes, I think there is. But I think it's a disagreement to a large extent arising from a gap in skill. Players who tend to look only very locally at what's going on see a CD as a random event, usually not really affecting all that much, and from a power who was going to die anyway. And hey, as a weaker player, something that randomly gives a boost to one or two players while hurting the others evens the odds a bit. Stronger players see it as an event that transforms a game that's entirely skill into a game that's a mixture of skill and luck, in a way that means the player who played the most skilled game does not achieve the best result.

So, Don, I certainly respect your opinion. I believe you're honestly expressing your views, and I understand why you've arrived at them. However, I also think that as you improve as a player, you'll start to feel differently. And that anybody on the fence about this might want to ask themselves why stronger players seem to find CDs more unbalancing than weaker ones, and if that might be pointing to something they can improve in their own gameplay.

In the interest of helping to arrive a solution that everybody might accept, though, let me throw a somewhat more radical idea out there:

I have been doing some work on developing Diplomacy AIs. From what I have seen in live games on this site, the best current AIs are capable of generating orders within five minutes and would be at approximately the 25th percentile of live gunboat players on webdip. Would an acceptable solution be that an NMR in a gunboat game leads not to all holds, but rather to an AI-generated set of orders, with the AI continuing to play until a human takes over the power?

Steiny, you think I have a different opinion on this because I'm an inferior player compared to you and Sarg? roflmao Hey, man, thanks for the laugh before I go to bed.

What an arrogant ass.

Don, no one is calling you all these things you keep attacking us for. You need to chill out.

Sarg, there is no other way to interpret what he said. Seriously, can you not understand he says my opinion will change as I become a better player.

Hey, Chucky Steinhardt, the last time I played face-to-face was a WDC in 2000. I came in ninth out of 141 players. Lemme see....where did csteinhardt finish...oh there it is...48th. Yeah, you're so much better than me that your opinion carries a lot more weight. Not. Asshole.