We have players here right now who say they never stab and keep alliances all game. And if you ask them privately, I'll bet they'll admit it helps them with lots of other players. Do you think they should all be banned?

Oh, and you did say it isn't against the rules to not stab. I just showed you where it explicitely is against the rules to not stab in certain circumstances. Seeing as that fell in the "such as" examples, I believe it clearly shows that there may be other times.

But we would need a mod to make this decision clear as we are clearly going to continue to disagree.

And there are other punishments besides banning and until the mods gave a warning about it, I wouldn't expect *anyone* to be banned, just warned that they should keep their reasons for staying allied within the game.

Wrong about that quote, Draug. It does not say its against the rules to not stab. It says that if you're not willing to stab a friend then **you can't play with them*. The means there is never an opportunity to not stab. Not the same thing as forcing a stab. Not even close.

@ CSteinhardt, I understand your explanation of the Meta gaming rule,
in the "positive "sense that you have expressed it.

How do you apply it in the "negative" sense ?

player a has a bad relationship in a dip game with player b
can player a , if they join a new game , that player b then also joins
can player a then, without mentioning his previous experience with player b
to the other players make all his alliances based on a "revenge" strategy, including
"set up to doublecross" alliances with player b ?

2nd "hypothetical"
player a thinks player c is a fascist fool from Forum discussions
player a joins a game that player c then joins
can player a base a game strategy of "get player c " and make alliances accordingly,
including "set up to doublecross alliances with player c" based on his dislike for
player c's "political / religious / other views expressed of a Forum debated,
on the basis that player a never dicusses with other players the "causes" for his
dislike of player c ?

In the above 2 hypotheticals player a has a "passive" role, in the sense that he joins
games first and players b & c join after him.

If player a joins games that players b & c have joined first with "evil intent",
as it might be described does this change the answers ?

Well, let's just agree to disagree. I believe motive determines whether the action is a crime or not (i.e. criminal intent) and you clearly do not have any remorse for your offensive motives.

From my view, Major, both scenarios are illegal metagaming. Even if Player A joins first, he should never let his heart rule his head and let outside anger influence his actions inside the game. I'v eplayed with players form the forum I hate and who hate me here, but I've always been willing to ally with them if the game situation called for it.

Draug, the rules also call for common sense. Set aside your desire to enforce non-metagaming rules for a second. Is it common sense to ban a player who just wants to be seen as a reliable ally in Diplomacy? Who says he's not going to stab no matter what? In a game that is mostly about working with other people, you would ban someone who just decides to do it really well?

intent is a key factor, and I agree that in the 2 hypotheticals given, if player a joins a game that players b and c have joined first, with intent to either help or harm based on external to game issues, player a is clearly meta gaming.

Not so simple if player a is the passive player, what if he joins a series of games that player b in particular then subsequently joins, do we expect player a to behave like
some "devoid of emotion" Spock & ignore continual backstabs or offensive messages
from player b ?

Please note< I am clearly using "hypotheticals" there is no reference to any player, including myself, or the way any player, including myself, plays the game

@Major: Here's what I think is the principle that should be applied:

It's important to Diplomacy as a game that alliances are fluid. This does not mean that every game must involve a large number of stabs, but it means that every player is independently out for their own gain, and that as a result, every alliance is potentially breakable, given the right temptation, and similarly, any alliance is possible, given a strong enough confluence of interests.

So, the principle, to me, is straightforward: if you are, for any reason, incapable of playing the game in a way that tries to get the best result possible for yourself, you shouldn't be playing it. The only exception I see are tournaments in which the rules explicitly encourage intra-tournament multigaming, such as team events, and in that case, the same principle applies: each team needs to be out for themselves.

For that matter, remember that Diplomacy is a seven-player game. A, B, and C might know the history, but D might not, and just wants to be able to play a Diplomacy game in which D's result is determined by how skillfully he played the game. Surely D has the right to play games determined entirely by the game itself, and not by who insulted somebody on the forums.

In any event, webDip is a community that has agreed to be a place where games consist of seven players who are each in it for themselves. There are other places to play Diplomacy with different house rules, but those are the ones on this site, and players here are expected to follow them.

Regarding the CD / NMR debate.

I'll make this a "hypothetical" so it clearly does not refer to any player.

player "daffy duck" has certain countries he likes to play and others he does not enjoy.
he gets a "horror run" of countries X & Y the 2 countries he most dislikes playing in
low points, open games ( & does the points pot size affect answers ?)

"Daffy Duck" plays them "Diceman" style, so for each unit he writes out the possible
moves, and uses a dice to make the choice of move for each unit.

Can he play this way secretly, with his plan being a quick exit from the game ?

Can he play this way, semi secretly, letting one or two other players know
his "strategy" ?

Can he play this way openly, announcing his "strategy" in global chat
prior to spring 01 ?

MM +1

@ CSteinhardt, thanks for your response.

Would you would define the "gain" that every player is independently seeking
as being simply, and only, control of the maximum number of sc's possible ?

People play games for many reasons, what about some lonely old fart perhaps
like myself, racked with pain & suffering, with no family or friends to talk to,
hounded, persecuted night and day by religious fanatics,
who in return for a civil conversation with another player from another part of the world,
someone exciting, interesting who brings a brief glimmer of happpiness into the life
of the boring old fart, ( cue violins, sorrowful with a touch of redemptive hope )

might not that old fart be allowed to play so that this new friend gets a good result and the old fart doesn't really care how many sc's he controls, because for a brief few glorious days he had some happiness ?

What about someone who has a job where they are in a junior position and there is honesty & trust involved, for example they work in a Bank.

At night they can indulge an alter ego, who lies and steals (sc's), replies offensively to
strangers messages via internet diplomacy ?

Please remember, I am playing "Devils advocate" with this discussion, and there is no
inference about any actual player(s)

Rules generally state a principle, hypothetical discussions help clarify the
"how do we apply the rule in a specific set of circumstances " questions
that helps me get a better handle on how to play within the rules
so thank you for your comments CS

The "Diceman" strategy is something I only just contemplated,
To the best of my knowledge it is as yet without compliance approval,
from any authority, nor has it undergone controlled test experimentation
by myself, although some other bright sparks may already be using it, those
despicable anarchists.

It could certainly be useful to "explain" a sudden backstab to other players

"I'm still your friend, the dice just didn't fall your way" sort of flannel

@DD - Can't you read? I didn't say to ban them. I have already answered this question so quit repeating it like a fucking parrot or a broken fucking record.

@Major - If you want to play a game that way, go play Axis and Allies. That sale of play ruins the fun for those who play the game with through motivations intended and expressed by it's creator.

@Major: I think one of the weaknesses of Diplomacy as a game is that the goal isn't a bit more clearly defined, at least in the original ruleset. It's designed as a zero-sum game, but if different players have different goals, the game doesn't work so well.

On webDiplomacy, this problem is solved by using an explicit scoring system. So, in a PPSC game, the goal is to acquire the most centers possible at the time the game ends, and in a WTA game, the goal is to get 18 centers, or, failing that, be part of the fewest-player draw you can get.

Maybe that's actually a better way to think about the problem with multi-gaming. Diplomacy, like almost all games, is intended to be played such that the goals for every player are known and are in conflict with each other. When you allow outside influences to alter your goal, that's no longer true, and so the game doesn't really work as intended.

The "diceman" idea has a similar problem. Do I like drawing Austria in a gunboat game? No, I don't. But I signed up for a game implicitly promising that I'd do my best to win, and knowing that 1/7 of the time I would be asked to play Austria. The other players deserve to play against an Austria doing its best to win, even if my best as Austria is often ineffective. To go back to the pickup game analogy, this is like agreeing to play a game, choosing teams, and then deciding that because the three best players ended up on the other team, you're just going to sit down on the court and let the others play 4 on 5 until it ends. Would you be invited back to play again?

Basically, if you're playing against me, I want you to bring your 'A' game, and I want to find out whether I'm good enough to take your best shot and win anyway (knowing that no matter how good I am, I'm going to lose more than I win in a seven-player game). I don't think you'd be proud of a victory against six "dicemen", right? I think it's only fair to you that if you win, you can feel that you've won something, and I ask the same in return.

Cross-board gaming is cheating. The other issues are nonsense. LIFE is a meta-game for the evolved among us. When I have a few minutes, I'll email Kestas and get the rules changed.

Fagnaur reminds me of a lot-lawyer in a used car lot.

Lawrence Kohlberg said it best. Level one pre-conventional morality is Fagnaur's domain.

It may be nonsense to you and me, mapleleaf, but not to the Little Hitlers who want to purify the webdip fatherland. Stein wants to ban those he thinks aren't bring their "A Game", Sarg wants to exclude anyone who doesn't vote to Cancel when he dictates it, and Draug wants to force people to stab if he reads their mind and finds they are committed to gamelong alliances. As I said, it would be funny if it weren't so sad..

@DD - Why the fuck do you keep saying I want to force stabs. I said your motivces for mainting the alliance were wrong. Can't you fucking read? Jesus fucking Christ you are a fucking asswipe douche.

Have your fucking game long alliances. But do them for the *right* fucking reason. Do them because you feel the ally deserves a spot in the draw. Fuck! I said I do the same thing if an ally has proven himself. But I do it strictly because he earned it not to build up a reputation and get goodwill in future games. Holy fuck you are fucking dense!

Right, Draug. I have to do things for *your* reasons. What I want isn't important. You know best. I understand that.

No, you have to do them for the *site's* reasons. My reasons have jack shit to do with this.

Yes, for the good of the webdip fatherland. Sieg heil!

Fuck you. I have Jewish family and find that *extemely* offensive you fucking Nazi lover.

Go fuck your fatherland, you asslicking Nazi!

Don, you've got a lot of anger there. Misdirected, taking what I say out of context, etc., but these are public forums where everybody can read what I've written, so I'm content to let you embarass yourself without trying to pile on. I'm a bit confused, though, so perhaps you'll indulge a brief query?

If I've correctly understood what you've written, you have gone to great lengths to appear to be a weak player. Why, then, are you upset that I look at your record and conclude you are a weak player? Doesn't that qualify as a success?

@ mapleleaf, which set of rules are you getting changed ? The rules for webdip or
for life......?

@ CSteinhardt, thanks again for another well considered reply. I couldn't see myself
using a "Diceman" strategy, but I am allowed to falsely say to another player in a game
that I was and explain a backstab with a pack of lies using a "diceman" narrative.
I think that is the best use for it, as a confected excuse.

Oh well I had better repent my possible sin, in that there was a player I played against
who was a real stooge and quite rude. Twice he joined games subsequent to our first
encounter & I just ignored him in the messaging caper & when we drew adjoining countries I knew I could attack the other neighbouring country ( not that drawn by the fool ) first, nobble them before they could become a threat, then turn on the fools country & wipe him out easily.

It's like you know the guy on the left can't fight so you jump the guy on the right because he is the unknown quantity and probable greater threat.
This all happened when I was new to the site.
I am, if anything a bit paranoid about the metagaming rule, I now avoid playing again with players I have had really good alliances with, or massive fueds


Here's a hypothetical. Player Daffy Duck joins a game. he checks out the player history for his competitors paying particular attention to previous games the players have played, looking at opening strategies used by the other players when they are playing the same country they have drawn in the new game about to start. he notes that one of his neighbouring players seems to always use the same opening moves.

He uses that knowledge to gain advantage

Isn't he allowing information from other games to influence his strategy ?

Yes, the mods have ruled that as acceptable. We should clarify one thing. Not all metagaming is against the rules. Only metagaming that gives someone an unfair advantage is. Seeing as everyone can check out their opponents history and even chat with others who have played that person before, that information is public knowledge and fair game to use.

For instance, should I eve play DD, I would try to get into a game long alliance wiht him then stab the fuck out of him because I know he is "true to his word" and I can get the jump on him. But when I play fortknox (a mod and player I truly respect), I know not to let my guard down because his alliances are only good when enforced with a strong defense and a watchful eye. Sort of a trust but verify approach to any alliances with him.

So using past experience in game (which is why some of the top players like anon games better) is acceptable as is researching a player.

In a way I guess DD's motives really don't matter because players like me will use his "honor" against him.