I am not in any tourneys right now and do miss the opportunities they offer.

I would consider joining a new tourney as long as the external rules are made clear and binding. I am therefore willing to explore possibilities.

@TGM: What is this supposed to mean?

"I would support an unrated game option on the site, and I would port that into Ghost-ratings too."

If I read it correct, you will take any un-rated games and rate them anyway. You are a Jesuit after all.

@flash: You don't read it correctly: he said he would port support of the option to GR, not that he would port the unrated games.

He's still a Jesuit... ; )

And thanks exonian for the help. Muchly grateful.

Ivo, in your example above: even if one or more players get eliminated during play, if the end result is a draw, all seven go back and try again to get a solo? That is an interesting concept.

Whilst there is an argument for cautious play, there is also a clear argument for aggressive and creative play because even if a risky early gambit fails, it is in the interest of the remaining players to stop a solo. Perhaps this could be given a test run?

exonian is correct as to my meaning

@flash - yes, hopefully people will quickly realize not going for a solo when in a hood position is only wasting the position - so until someone really breaks loose and comes close to winning, there'll be at least a couple of nations always eager to avoid draws.

Who really cares? It's like a jury in survivor or Big Brother. There is no right or wrong, just what you value personally.

A 3-way alliance, with all players working towards a draw, will usually create a 3-way draw. That is the conscious decision made by all 3 players: That working as a team will overcome 4 divided factions. Usually, this is true. To discount that this alliance, if held together, spells doom for all 4 players playing against the alliance (unless they form an alliance similar to this alliance), would be unfair. It is a legitimate tactic in this game.

I personally believe that it is hypocritical for a player to denounce morals and lie in a board game, yet cry foul when players refuse to be open-minded and nice to everyone, in a board game! How can you say that their accomplishments, for recognizing that more than one person working together as one indefinitely, should not be valued yet your accomplishments, created by a lack of morals and honor, should be appreciated! There is no "way the game is meant to be played" except by the rules that come with the instruction booklet.

Now don't get me wrong, I believe that going for the solo is more interesting. Playing the field is more fun. But if you're going to get self-righteous, then don't play. You're ruining it for all the mature people

Well said Trustme1.

There is no right way to play Diplomacy. The game is about lying and even "cheating" if you can get away with it. We have some rules on what is cheating that are enforced by the mods like holding paused games for ransom or claiming there was an error in processing. I still think this shoud only be investigated if the person who claimed the error asked the mods to do it and it should be allowed as long as the mods don't have to investigate, but I was overruled.

Anyhow, unless there is a site rule or official rulebook rule being violated, pretty much anything goes.

I would think someone creating a ranking system would fall under the "anything goes" category, so I still don't get what all the fuss is about. Seems to me there are much bigger challenges in a game to deal with compared to a ranking system, but we do all see things differently and must move forward as best we can.

If, as you say, anything goes, then we should have non-ranked games as well.

Personally, I hold that there are limits to cheating. Hacking an account and multi-accounting are two activities that I suspect those who do like rating systems would abhor.

It is Sicarius who goes on the other side of this debate. He argues for anarchy yet plays a game that has rules. I always found that rather amusing.

Hence my statement "unless there is a site rule...being violated, pretty much anything goes." It was a conditional statement that was taken out of context *twice*. Hacking accounts and multi-accounting have site rules explicitly *against* them. But I already agree we should have unranked games.

Draugnar, the "tournaments" have specific rules as well. However, they are not always enforced.

Trustme and MadMarx your statement only goes to show that wins should be clearly worth more than draws which they are not in most of the "tournaments."

MadMarx, where will I go? Well, I could create a new account here with a new IP. I could just go play other games, I am TheMasterGamer after all (I have played some game or another nearly every day for the past month). I could just go where I am better able to control the integrity of my opponents.

Where the Leagues are concerned (are they torunaments of sorts?), a win is individuallt worth a minimu of twice what a draw is worth. There are 12 per game divided evenly amongst all the "winners". So unless you win outright (where you get all 12 ) the most you can get is 6 for a two way draw.

In the Masters, only the win counts. Draws are worth nothing.

I can't speak for any others as those are the two I compete in.

Ignore all the typos please...

TMG, as TGM pointed out, as far as GR goes, a WTA solo is worth 4.5 - 5.5 times a three-way draw AND the entire point of this thread was to see if people thought bumping that up a bit (so a WTA solo was worth a bit more than that in GR) was reasonable.

As far as the TMG Masters goes, the only reason I joined that tournament was to play six different people in eight straight games and I never had any intention of trying to win the tournament based on tournament rules, I've just played those games as if they are regular games since the format was what attracted me. Well, I'm not too good at winning WTA games, which isn't to say I didn't try, it just wasn't the one and only focus of my play as the rules suggest it should be, but I digress.

Hey, you're not allowed to create a second account! ;-) I wish you luck in finding what you are looking for, but I am nervous for you if you are adamant about controlling the integrity of your opponents, that reeks of the self-righteousness Trustme1 mentioned earlier, implying that you are 100% correct (or at least nearly so) about the definition of integrity in playing on this website and anyone that disagrees is wrong... Oooh, I really dislike that kind of statement, like finger nails on a chalkboard, makes my body shake with frustration...

Draug, my apologies: my comment was directed towards MM...

flash, I fear I am a bit naive, when I said "anything goes" it was meant within a game. I meant to reference lying, stabbing, or even having your own personal strategy that may or may not be to some extent based on GR. In my mind, hacking an account or multi-accounting are clearly not allowed even if someone tried to argue in favor of them, sorry for the confusion.

@MadMarx,
The comment about a second account was in jest, although doing so would be easy enough to achieve.

Is it self-righteous to want to sit down and play with opponents you know are not going to cheat?

Playing the TMG Masters as if they were regular games is pretty much the point of the TMG Masters. All regular games should be played to be won.

Does your anything goes within a game mentality include meta-gaming as a viable option?

Within the GR, I feel that solos are over valued, but I also feel that the GR is inaccurate to begin with per my previous comments. Within the Leagues, and some other tournaments, I feel that solos are under valued.

@Draugnar,
You are correct regarding the points awarded in the Leagues and the Masters.

Question: in your opinion, how hard is it to achieve a 3-way draw in a game? What about with 2 other like minded individuals? What about over the course of 3 or 4 games?

So would you never, not even subconsciously, prefer to ally with a more-experienced player rather than a newbie? Would you not ally with someone with a 100-20-7 record rather than a 0-12-19 record? (made-up numbers, no specific people)

@TMG,

The 3-way draw is tricky if you have a guy who really wants the solo and is willing to risk it. But if you are dealing with players like me who are just as happy to draw and declare it a team victory (no comments on the "right" way to play is there is no such animal), then it becomes a bit easier. And if just one of the other two is trying for the solo, it is easier to stop him and force the draw. But if two are, then they will work together to consume #3 as they race for 18.

As far as meta-gaming goes, it depends on the type. There are clear rules against preset alliances, even in the leagues. But an awareness of one's opponents' strengthns, weaknesses, habits, and playing style (i.e. intel) is perfectly acceptable. You'd do it in a face to face game as you usually know the players in them, so why not keep that intel fresh on your mind in a game? And some metagaming (watching the leader boards both in your league and in the others) is acceptable in the Laagues as well. I was playing and helped a guy get what he needed to win the league with the agreement that he make certain I survive with a minimum number of SCs as I would end up tied for second or third against a player in another D-league at the time and needed the extra SCs to be the best in that position and move up to C-league.

TMG, we clearly disagree that your definition of cheating/metagaming is universal. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but it is clear you are a very good player and are used to people working with you and doing things you want much of the time, so it seems like there is at least potential for when someone doesn't do what you want and/or lies that you rationalize it as them "metagaming" against you rather than that person merely deciding to go another route and/or you not providing a convincing enough argument for them to ally with you and/or your plan was actually too trusting on your part and that other person attempting to take the opportunity to go against you. Furthermore, this whole concept I'm trying to describe is not a black-and-white kind of thing, as with most things in life, there is a full spectrum of where people are with one extreme being thinking that nobody "metagames" ever and the other extreme being thinking that everybody "metagames" all the time. I've had people tell me specifically they would not ally with me because of who I am, so I know metagaming exists, but I have not experienced metagaming anywhere close to as much as you claim it exists, which makes me wonder if what you are experiencing isn't pure metagaming. For example, sometimes I will ally against a person in a game that comes off real pushy/bossy/arrogant/etc. I can imagine in order to win the percentage of games you win that you MIGHT be at a different place on the "pushy" spectrum than some others care for, so they may ally against you because of your personality rather than GR/win%. TO BE CLEAR, I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, I'm not trying to accuse you of being pushy, I'm merely trying to say there is a possible explanation out there for why these people are allying against you other than what you perceive to be metagaming/cheating.

Just because the main goal of diplomacy is to win, it does not mean we all must approach the game the same way and it does not mean there is a single "correct" way to play the game. Some will focus only on winning, some will focus mainly on drawing, some will focus on GR while others will not. When I say anything goes, I mean people are free to play how they want within a game whether they are the Good Ally that is very content to be second place and see the end of the game or if they are the Ruthless Killer that does anything and everything in every game to solo regardless of the consequences.

To be clear, it is my understanding that TheMasterGamer feels that Draugnar, an example of someone that is "just as happy to draw and declare it a team victory", is a cheat, is a metagamer and does not play the game the right way and thus the very reason he is considering leaving this site. TMG, would you please confirm or deny, I am not 100% sure I am understanding you correctly and it would help our discussion if you would elaborate a bit on this point.

Maybe they won't ally with you because hey think you're an ass :P

@MadMarx and Trustme1: How do you view my attitude in how I play, if I may ask? Do I "cheat" or is my style of play somehow "metagaming" (although how a decision inside the game qualifies as being outside the game, I have no clue)?

You cheat yourself out of winning. You change the meaning of the game by relying on the draw. I know in the rules somewhere, it says the objective is to win by getting 18 supply centers. I believe it mentions a draw as somewhat of an "alternative."

I do try for the win, ZaZ. I just said I am happy to draw and declare it a team victory. But I will go for the win when I see the opportunity.