Babak, I'm not saying you had no hand in it, obviously if you had said nothing to France all game long then you would not have gotten the solo. That said, I am adamant that there is nothing you should have been able to say to get France to play so poorly, thus the solo was 100% due to the poor play of the Frenchman.

Let me ask you this, Babak, let's say the first game of diplomacy you ever played you were in a similar position as France in this game, and there was a large Turkey close to gaining a solo and a relatively large England you were frustrated with, can you imagine a single chance in hell that you, Babak, would not have agreed to a three-way draw? It's not like England was a season or two away from being eliminated, it would have taken France several game years (probably at least five) to eliminate England, there is simply no chance in hell, any way you look at it, that Turkey does not take the solo in this example. It doesn't matter how convincing the words of any Turk are in the situation, the board speaks for itself and the solo in such a situation is 100% due to the complete and utter ignorance of France. I don't know how to state this any stronger, but I could not be more passionate about my opinion, and I'd even dare to say it borders on being a fact rather than an opinion...

Furthermore, the fact that you did not draw a game in such a position is a bit questionable, ethically, in my opinion. I know I would not have the audacity to lie to France in such a situation, especially to the extent that you had to lie, it borders on disrespecting the game itself to even try for a solo in such a position because the final outcome is merely to expose a tremendous lack of judgement on France's part rather than demonstrate any skill on Turkey's part. This is why more than one person expressed a bit of contempt about Turkey not drawing this game and dragging it out. As I've said (conceptually) in numerous games, at the point E/F had the stalemate, the game was effectively over, there was nothing more of interest to do or say assuming the players involved had the most basic sense of how to play a game of diplomacy, and if the players involved did not have the most basic sense of how to play a game of diplomacy, what's the point of playing?

PS - It doesn't matter how much of an ass France thought England was, you, as France, do not throw away a three-way draw for a Turkey solo to teach England a lesson, that's ridiculous. If France was about to die, then yes, France gives Turkey a solo to keep England from getting a two-way draw with Turkey, that's obvious, but you don't kill yourself out of spite when you obviously have a three-way draw guaranteed with a stalemate.

I created a new thread for a proper eog if anyone wants to move this over.

Very well put. Thank you MM for posting this. Had a feeling I'm going crazy.

WOW...this is the never ending EOGS.

Haven't read much, but I like MM last post... I still don't get dunecat's thought.

@MM - "Furthermore, the fact that you did not draw a game in such a position is a bit questionable, ethically, in my opinion. I know I would not have the audacity to lie to France in such a situation, especially to the extent that you had to lie, it borders on disrespecting the game itself to even try for a solo in such a position because the final outcome is merely to expose a tremendous lack of judgement on France's part rather than demonstrate any skill on Turkey's part."

Bullshit. A win is a win is a win. Did he earn it by strategic play? Fuck no. He earned it by mind fucking France. This is a game of lying, cheating, and backstabbing your way to the top. There is no such thing as disrespecting the game as long as everything is kept in the game (i.e. no multi/metagaming or hacking the other players' accounts to change their orders) and he should take pride in getting the win. I have one recently where I as France convinced Russia we would eliminate the last two SCs of Italy by dividing them up and go for the draw. We were to support hold everywhere else, but I obviously lied out my ass and won the game. Lying to win is part of the game. you should know this.

And using emotion to get what you want... Part of the game.

I dunno about that last bit, MM. Babak didn't drag the game out -- once EF got their line consolidated, Babak backed off and Dunecat made the decisive attack simultaneously. Yeah, perhaps Dunecat's bad call on the 2-way draw made the win "cheap" -- but if, as we state, the goals of the game are to (1) solo, (2) stop anyone else from soloing, (3) survive then (4) screw the guy who screwed you, you've already accomplished (2)... and then someone's miscue allows you to accomplish (1), how is it unethical to accomplish (1)? I feel like that's exactly like saying it's unethical to take advantage of an opponent's misorder to get a win (mind you, not NMR, but entering the wrong order): after all, aren't you "exposing a tremendous lack of judgment" on the tactical front (the lack of judgment here being failing to double-check an order), instead of the diplomatic front? I just don't see that as being very questionable.

But I agree with your P.S. and everything preceding the segment I commented on.

I think MM is being a little harsh by saying that credit for the win is 0% Babak. I am no math major, but even I can see that does not make any sense.

I think putting the win down the Babaks "mind-fucking France", as Draug says is overstating Babaks "mind powers" - Babak was not Darth Vader using the dark side of the force to bend weak minds to his will. I don't believe that Dunecat is that weak-minded.

I think it was a valid win though, albeit in a flawed game. As Draug says a win is win.
Babak won because:
1. He played well
2. Dunecat played atrociously
3. Ivo (a top-notch player) forgot the most important element in Diplomacy is to be a diplomat.

Could the game have ended differently? Yes. If Ivo had been more careful not to offend Dunecat it would have been a draw. Simple. (Dunecat can confirm/deny this).
Yes. If Dunecat had not given up and thrown the game (that is what it looks like). It would have been a draw.
Yes. If Babak had decided to draw. BUT on this last point he had no moral obligation to draw. Babak had a sense that he would have his way and he rightfully exploited it.

President Edend, regarding the goals of diplomacy, as you have stated:

(1) solo, (2) stop anyone else from soloing, (3) survive then (4) screw the guy who screwed you

I do not agree on point 2. MM agrees with you. But I think you are both wrong.
Point 2 should be "if you can't win draw". Which is very different from stopping someone else from soloing. If you are about to die anyway, why should you try to stop some else winning? If were to reduce the goals of diplomacy to a single statement this is how I would describe it:

play to maximize your position

All of the other principles such (1) Play too win (2) Play to draw (3) Play to survive (4) Influence the game in anyway you see fit. These principles are a consequence of the maximize your position "super-principle".

I think it is important that all players have a shared understanding of the goals of diplomacy. When they don't we have these arguments and the game is less satisfying (an example of this discordance is the whole WTA versus PPSC debate - the goal of PPSC is to maximize your points).

I didn't say mind control. He manipulated France emotionally and lied to him I'm sure, then exploited it to his advantage. That is a mind fuck, if ever there was one in this game. And I applaud Babak for pulling it off, especially against players of such notoriously high caliber.

MM - I guess you and I will have to completely disagree on a number of the points you made above, but certainly you are entitled t your opinion (certainly not your own facts). I think Draug, PE and spyman said what i would have said just as well if not better than I would have said them, so I'll leave it at that.

but one point I will contest vocifourously is the idea that I took an 'unethical' win... not in the SLIGHTEST... it was a solo opportunity and I believe I managed it through the eye of a needle to get it there... if Dunecat had held the line ONE more season, I would have drawn and the mods would have forced it anyways... that was the 4th season of them holding a stalemate line and he moved. the idea that I should pass up the chance to solo, even at the bitter end simply because it might offend someone's conventions of decency is laughable... this game is all about getting the solo - and the rulebook CLEARLY states that everything is kosher... in FTF play, it is even ok to write and show one set of orders to an ally then submit another... or to eavesdrop on other players... everything except bringing out-of-game elements into the game is considered completely legit.

If anything, Ivo is the one that cheated by posting this thread before the game was finished in the hopes of bringing outside-of-game influences into the game to affect the outcome... but that's just nitpicking.

one final thought... although the solo was almost a foregone conclusion, had Ivo disbanded Nth or Ech instead of StP to SHOW France he wanted the draw he could have still stopped me. even in the end, he could have moved 4 units to face off against StP to pull my 18th back... but he simply threw his hands in the air, came on the forum to post about an ongoing game, and gave up.

so in reality - Ivo is the one that gave me my 18th in stp for the win... by disbanding that unit.

I see your point. I don't feel like it changes anything of substance with my argument here (as we were talking of players who would be stopping the solo by drawing), but it is a better stated form of what I was trying to say, so thank you for the correction.

PE, I think it is an important distinction though. Some players on this site, I gather, do agree with the way you stated the second principle and not with my statement of the second principle. How you view this principle can have a big impact on the game.
For example, if you are down to 1 SC and you have a dilemma: either make a draw happen, but a draw that you will not share in (because you are defeated) or help someone win in return for a survive. If we accept the goal (2) stop someone from soloing - then you must throw yourself on your sword. BUT if we accept the goal (2) play to draw, and since you can't draw we move on the principle (3) play to survive. Thus in order to maximize your position you help someone else solo.

Draugnar, you are wrong, I am right. Nobody that has ever played the game of diplomacy should ever do what Dunecat did, much less anyone on this site, I do not recognize it as official game play, it is unacceptable, period, end of story. :-P

Seriously, I equate this game to the Turk taking a solo only because someone else NMR'd, some will applaud a never give up attitude, I say, in the words of Simon Cowell, it's "self indulgent nonesense."

As far as priorities, I think we're splitting hairs a little bit here, when someone is about to solo, the way to stop them is to form an alliance and force a draw, it's somewhat implied that each person would want to be included in that draw when stopping a solo.

If it was always about stopping the solo, there would be no "4) screw the guy who screwed you" in the order of precedence, If I'm not part of the draw, I'd rather see to it the bastard who kept me out doesn't get in it either.

I would agree that Dunecat fucked up. He let emotion get to him and Diplomacy is about using other's emotions against them while keeping yours in check. He didn't do that. But Dunecat didn't NMR or CD, thereby giving a cheap win to Babk. Babk manipulated him and got the desired result. It's only a stalemate if the alliance hold true. That;s why a single nation 17 versus a 2 nation 17 isn't a true stalemate and you should call upon the mods to draw it if, after 4 or 5 years, no SCs have changed hands. But Babak did not wait for a NMR or accidental screwed up order to steal the win. He manipulated. You shoudl have written the mods and asked them to intervene before he managed to get in Dunecat's head.

Oh, and "3) survive" is not in my play book. survive oir defeat is the same thing to me. So if I can't solo or draw, I want someone fucked over.

Exactly Draug :-) The fourth principle opens up the possibility of a last ditch survival tactic. You have the power to throw the game. Sometimes this can enough to make the other powers stop and think "hold on - we had better include this guy in the draw too". This is a valid tactic.

yep!

Babak, FYI, I made my last post before reading the post you just made. Anyway, it is a fact that you, as Turkey, were never going to two-way draw this game near the end, that you would stab for a solo, that is a fact.

As far as your approach to the game being unethical, I admit that is clearly my opinion, and why you and I have had serious disagreements in the past.

There is no such thing as "ethical" vs. "unethical" when it comes to Diplomacy, unless it breaks the "law" (i.e. site rules). This did no such thing.

Really Draug? What about a live game, for example, where two powers NMR on the first moves? I think there is ethical obligation to restart/cancel.
But with regards to MM's comment about Babak. I don't really understand, but then again I am not privvy to their game history together.

Would this be a good time to dig up the PPSC game where Babak and Julien shared a 17-17 draw?

+1 peterwiggin

uh oh

@spyman: yeah, it is an important distinction. I only meant that it didn't change my specific post about this specific situation. to clarify -- I think my stating of the terms works fine for others (i.e. MM, who I believe does hold my statement), but I actually behave as you've stated the terms myself. just to make that distinction.

Thanks bent . . . I think that's my first.

@spyman - NMRs and CDs are exceptions that prove the rule. :-)

When I say unethical, I mean that it is so far beyond what I'd consider acceptable, that it is sooo blatantly disrespectful that it becomes taboo. Many people on this site have lied to me. Some of those people have followed up that lie with another lie. A smaller group have lied repeatedly for several seasons in a row. A handful of those people have lied to me every season of every year of every game we have ever played and it is with these people I take exception. At some point the lies become disrespectful, in my opinion, which is to say I'd rather not ever enter a game with this type of person. I clearly take the game seriously, but I also extend a bit of respect to my fellow players, and there are lines in the sand that I have no interest in crossing even if I'm allowed by the rules. If others are interested in crossing those lines (that I admittedly have drawn), that's fine, they can just do it in games I am not involved in (if I have any say about it, though I do join anonymous games and expect that type of play, I just don't want to know about it ahead of time). To me, it's similar to being allowed to have every other word you type be the f-bomb and cursing to no end and adding heavily tainted family references that have no place in a civil game, it's unethical and wrong, in my opinion.

As far as Babak relates to this line of thinking, he understands that I feel he is prone to dipping his toe into these sort of rough waters from time to time, and for that I have an unrelenting urge to slit his throat the moment I get a whiff of his unmistakable stank!

(haha, just livening up my description a bit here, for emphasis/fun!!)