@ Draug that would be a good idea, but cancelling would still not give the offender a points penalty. In my view this would deter at least some of this unsporting behaviour.

So make cancel only return.points to active or eliminated players as well. Then those who stayed in but felt the game was tarnished could keep it off their record while the offenders still lost their points.

>>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. <<
Just caught up on the thread and saw this.

It's been a long time since I've played anywhere but in Andy Lischett's Cheesecake. I believe he always calls a standby, regardless of center count. I don't recall such a rule in any of the other places I used to play -- Maniac's Paradise, Dogs of War, Down at the Mouth, I Still Live, Carolina Command and Commentary, Rebel and Hoodwinked -- but those were just a handful of the zines that used to be out there.

Many zines had modest subscription fees to help offset the cost of printing and postage, but you could usually get it for free by agreeing to be on the standby list. The standby system worked pretty well for the postal hobby.

Where did you play back in the day, just out of curiosity? It's possible we crossed pens.

DipperDon,

I believe that you are wasting our time. This discussion is considered resolved.

Lone Star Diplomat, Perelandra, Appalling Greed, So I Lied, and probably a dozen others off and on that don't come immediately to mind. I don't think we ever met, though.

But it's been a long time, and my memory is getting pretty bad...

Found an old issue of Perelandra from Feb '87. House Rule #3 reads: "A player who NMRs in consecutive issues of Perelandra has resigned and a standby will receive his position, unless the player has less than three centers at the time of the second NMR. These small-power exceptions will go into permanent CD when a player drops out."

I remember this kind of rule varying from zine to zine with as high as four centers going into cd. But I could be mistaken about the upper limit being four.

@rokakoma:

"I think PE made a good point, so did MajorMitchell. It's not clear whether NMR/CD is is a bad thing at all."

I don't think that's what either of them are saying. In fact, I don't think I've found anybody but Draugnar in this thread who defends NMR or CD as some sort of tactic. I'd like to think that we can all agree that when you sign up for a Diplomacy game, you are implicitly promising to play it until either the game ends (somebody wins or an agreed draw) or your services are no longer required (you have no orders to submit).

I see no justification for a 1-center power taking their ball and going home instead of finishing the game. I agree those aren't the cases that lead to complaints, but it's only because they are less destabilizing, not because they are justified. Anybody who signs up for a Diplomacy game does so knowing that there is a substantial chance they will end up as a small or eliminated power. After all, the majority of players end up that way.

In, say, a pickup basketball game, if a player walks off the court because their team is way behind and inevitably going to lose, you wouldn't invite them back. Can anybody actually defend a small power choosing to take their ball and go home instead of playing it out?

When you point out that people don't argue, I think what you mean is that the other players don't feel their game is spoiled by a small power CD, and there I agree with you. But that doesn't mean anybody likes playing with a poor loser, especially in a game where even very strong players lose more than than win. So, I don't think you're going to find people to argue that CD reflects anything other than poorly on the player who does it. The only debate being had is over how the other people in the game should react.

Which, I might add, raises another possibility: letting players create games only open to players who have 0 resigns, resigns below some fraction, ...

"When you point out that people don't argue, I think what you mean is that the other players don't feel their game is spoiled by a small power CD, and there I agree with you. But that doesn't mean anybody likes playing with a poor loser,"

If the other players don't mind, what is the harm in quitting at one-center? If they don't mind, and maybe even sometimes do it themselves, why would they call the quitter a poor loser? This is what I find irritating about you and some others on this site. You guys seem to think that your way to play is the only right way. And anyone who disagrees has no sense of sportsmanship, isn't classy, or is a "poor loser". You've got your way of looking at the game, and don't accept any other.

In a private message, you referenced my low win percentage as evidence that I'm a weak player. I've responded with an explanation that more than two years ago when I started playing here I deliberately built up a large percentage of draws with game-long alliances, many ending in 17-17 draws. (Which is another example of how what you think you see about me is misleading) That was to gain a reputation as a good ally in a time when there were no anonymous games. I was attacked and denounced by Babak and others who said that I was metagaming and using PPSC games in an unsportsmanlike way. They thought their way of playing was the only right way to play also.

So after getting burned out and leaving for a couple year, I come back and pretty much nothing has changed in the purist camp. You guys think you have patents on how the game should be played and view anyone deviating from them as poor players or poor sportsmen. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Don, they're right. As you have explained, you made and/or kept an alliance for reasons outside of that game, in order to improve your chances of making alliances in other games. That is metagaming, by the definition given at http://webdiplomacy.net/rules.php:

"You can't make alliances for reasons outside a game, such as because you are friends, relatives or in return for a favour in another game."

Further, the players and moderators of this site have determined that metagaming is against the rules, because it "gives an unfair advantage to those involved". So, yes, what Babak and others were telling you is considered by this site the only legitimate way to play.

I'm sure you can find people who will agree with your viewpoint, and there are several ways in which webDiplomacy is not the same thing as Allan Calhamer's Diplomacy. Nevertheless, webDiplomacy has made it clear that people with your views on this are not welcome here, and the owners and moderators of the site have the right to do so.

I should also point out that cheating allegations are to be kept out of the forums, so please don't accuse yourself of being a cheater in public. Instead, you should send an email to [email protected], so they can take appropriate action.

@CSteinhardt - I do *not* defend CD as a tactic. Hence my thought that anyone who goes into CD should be forced to buy back in and not get it back for free. I support all holds as a tactic and, with how the current system is laid out, that is generally interpretted as an nmr. I do not, however support a true NMR ("missed phase") as a tactic, but could see how it could be used as such. Until such time as the save button is allowed for holds as soon as you see the game screen, I don;'t think we should punish people for having the !! next to their country as they may intend to all hold. Especially a player wiht one SC and unit left.

So please reread what I wrote and don't assign support to me that I don't actually support.

No, you're wrong, and so were they, Stein. There were never discussions or agreements about future games. Building a reputation as a good ally isn't against the rules. Sorry to see you're a purist off the deep end also.

Actually, if you alter your play based on building a reputation, you are expecting that reputation to carry weight in a future game and are metagaming. CStein is correct and *you* are wrong, DD.

That's not what the rules say, Draugnar.

@Draugnar: Fair enough - I don't see a way to edit the post, but I thought you were defending NMRs as a tactic, and I was wrong. Good, so then nobody is saying that it's valid to quit the game just because you're losing. By the way, I think I've found a way to submit all holds as an orderset -- just change something in the dropdown list, change it back, and hit save.

Yes. It is what the rules say...

"You can't make alliances for reasons outside a game, such as..."

"Such as" means the following is one example, but not the only one. *Any* decision you make regarding keeping someone in a game (an alliance) for reasons aoutside the game is metagaming. It is very clear and you are cheating if you do so.

@CStein - Agreed. It is never valid to CD. It is valid to all hold and because of the game mechanics, that will appear as an unofficial NMR (as in it doesn't count towards the NMR*2 in a row=CD)

Stein and Draug, the issue was discussed by mods two years ago and determined to *not* be metagaming, or so I was told by a mod at the time. So unless the rules have changed, then building a reputation as a good ally is not against the site rules.

Actually, you have to change it, save it, then change it back. But there is no hints of this anywhere on the site and a new person would never know this.

Rules and attitudes change. Perhaps we could entice a mod to chime in using their official capacity and clarify whether what you say you heard (I've been here that long and never heard your interpretation as being valid) still applies if it ever did, DD.

Keeping an alliance for an extended period of time is not the same as making an alliance for an outside reason. Do you not see the difference?

If I ally in the normal course of a gamestart, as all players do, but choose to never stab. How is not stabbing breaking the rule? Do the rules *require* breaking alliances?

No, but if your reason for not stabbing has to do with future games, you are metagaming. If your reason is simply you feel you owe it to your ally, fine. I've done the same thing before. But you have to look to your reason. If you expect this to have a payout in future games and are doing it for that reason and that reason only, you are cheating.

You would ban a player for not stabbing? lol. You guys are just a bit overzealous.

I'm sure you didn't read what I just wrote based on timing, but try reading it now.

No Dragnaur, that is not what the rules say. They say I can't make an alliance for outside reasons. They do *not* say that I have to break alliances. They do *not* say that alliances can't continue unabated for the duration of the game. That is in no way addressed by the rules and has never been a written or verbal understanding on this site.

And yes, not stabbing can be against the rules. From the metagaming section of the site rules...

"If you are worried that you can't stab someone because you want to stay friends, then that's fair enough but you can't join a game with them. "

It makes it very clear that the reason for not stabbing must be within the game and not influenced by outside reasons.

So, DD, not stabbing can be against the rules. I just copied and pasted that from the site rules.

No, Draug, that's not what it is referring to. It's talking about people coming in as friends and that's not what I was doing. It doesn't apply. It made no difference to me who the other players were, or who I allied with,or who I attacked. I just kept my alliances once they were made. That is not illegal.