Not at all, I'm saying every so often he lies too much, but he's relatively selective about when he does it... He draws his line beyond mine a bit, but close enough to mine that I still enjoy playing him and typically respect his values regarding game play...

Well from my limited experience of one game with the pair of you, MM and Babak, I would say you both extremely dishonest! Especially you MM :-P

He always lies to much to me. And somehow gets away with it, which is why I name him as one of the best opponents I've ever faced.

pshh MM might have told me one half-truth over our entire game! It probably helped that he was England and I was Austria . . .

@ MM - let me ask you something. is a 2way draw better than a 3way draw in your book?

IF, as most dip players, you'd say a 2way is better - then given a REAL opportunity for a 2way, you'd take it right?

Now I don't disagree with you that in this game, a reasonably good Turkey player would not give up a 2way and would stab for a solo - in fact, I had ZERO INTENT of giving up a 2 way (I would if the other player was able to force it). but the point is that IF the French player truly believed, falsely or not, that he had a 2way option should he not have taken it?

The point I'm making - which you REFUSE to understand... is that I was FULLY willing and expecting to draw 3way... but after the alloted 4 (or is it 6) seasons of non-movement off the defensive stalemate line. I even emailed the mods to that effect and can ask them to re-paste my email to them to prove I fully intended and expected a 3way draw.

However- MY ethos... (which differs from yours) is that one should fight to the end to get the best result... and fighting includes active and engaged diplomacy. I know you are prone to giving up near the end of games and taking the draws... and I know you are risk-averse when it comes to the near-end of games (which has been a bone of contention between us before) but MY ethics tell me to try my hardest to get the best result possible... solo if I can, if not a draw, if not 3, if not 4... etc...

In this case, that meant trying to get France to believe there WAS a real chance at a 2way... dont be jealous of the fact that I succeeded in that. My diplomacy made a HUGE difference in Dunecat's final fatal decision. and Ivo's own (lack of) diplomacy played an equally important role. and in the end, Ivo's disband gave me the win.

put it this way - I fought to the bitter end while you often choose to sit back on your haunches and accept what is...

the concept or strategy of pulling back forces, giving up centers to get a better draw is completely normal - and many on this site have done it before to turn a 5 way into a 4 way or a 4way into a 3way etc... same concept here. its a sound strategy and one that SHOULD be pursued... if anything I'd say YOU disrespect the ethics of the game in so many of YOUR games when you willfully reject options to reduce the number of drawees because you are too chicken to make a move or you bring in external concepts like "reputation" or "being nice" or "other players deserve it" into the decision making process.

You also never responded to my point about Ivo's role in all this - you refuse to accept his role as well.

let me be clear, I'm not arguing that what dunecat did was right... even if he wanted the 2way, he should have gotten a few more concessions from turkey, and protected himself better... but the fact is that he made a bad choice... maybe irrational to some - but in th end, it was the result of being subjected to diplomatic engagements from both England and Turkey - absent those, he would not have thought he had a shot at a 2way.

Keep in mind, at this same time he was also concerned that England would grab the 2way option since I'd left that on the table as well and the English late-game offensives against France probably helped convince him that England would take the 2way offer if he did not (which again, I used in both my 'global' tab diplomacy and in private messages).


@pw - that is a perfect game actually Julien and I ended up in a fully stalemated 2way draw... I think I even made a few late-game attempts to take the solo but he defended well. also - if Im not mistaken that game was anon... I did join knowing he was in it, but I did not know he was England until near the end of the game where from the content and quality of the diplomacy we both could guess who the other was... but at first, I thought julien was Russia, who I decimated by the way. but bring that link up if you want - it just shows a successfully implemented, fully stalemated 2way draw... almost a textbook case of how a 2way draw SHOULD happen. and it was a PPSC game to boot.

Julien is very easy to pick out after a few games. I've a feeling Babak is too, but we'll see if I'm right about that one. However, Julien doesn't lie as much as Babak does :)

I wasn't criticizing your points by bringing that point up: I just think it's noteworthy when two of the better players on this site end up drawing 17-17, and in the context, it was somewhat clever.

I will say one thing to back up Babak (and I have a lot of respect for both MM and Babak although babak and I have tended to get along a little better), I do think that MM does back down and shut the game down a little early in the end game, which I do think has a bit to do with his lower solo rate. Having said that, it really makes his GR that much more impressive as he gets smaller bumps from those 5 way instead of 3 way draws and still had double my GR.

I think part of MM's strategy is 'normal' for "leaders". even in global politics, super powers want stability because the status quo serves them... same with MM... his preference is to find allies who stick with him to the end so he can keep his draw rate up... its to protect his 'leader' status... maybe unconsciously, but in the end people, institutions, or even countries that are "ahead" dont want to 'shake the boat'... they want stability so they keep there place at the top.

Also - if you go read MM's statements to me in our game (I posted some of them in the EOG thread), you'll see his gaming philosophy is that a 3 way daw is not much different from a 5way draw... I simply could not disagree more. He also thinks its "unethical" to stab a game-long ally. He also thinks in the game of diplomacy, people who "play well" or "play to the end" should be rewarded by the map leaders with a place in the draw just because its the 'nice thing to do'... this runs counter to every single tenant of the game of Diplomacy...

I have the utmost respect for people who fight to the bitter end or who put up a good fight from a bad position - but respect =/= deserving a place in a draw. I think that is a ridiculous notion...

if you have not yet checked it out, read the EOG thread:

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=690638#690638

How do you know that what MM posts in in-game messages (or even in the forum) represents his honest gaming philosophy?

Sometimes it is in one's interest to represent a different gaming philosophy if one thinks it can help them reach a draw.

I mean, he does ,ead the site in points and GR while playing mainly WTA anon games. So he its not like he is always coasting to 5 way draws or anything like that.

sorry, those last two sentences are rife with typos.

Damn, so little time, so much to say... For now, I'll merely reiterate:

0%

It's called statistical insignificance to the point of irrelevance, there is no statistical correlation between the Turk's actions and France throwing away the game.

To be clear, and peterwiggin please correct me if I'm wrong, but when you say "he always lies too much" you are referring to Babak, correct?

Frank +1

Yes, Babak. He's very good at lying in games. He seems pretty honest outside of them, however.

Also, in reference to the EOG thread, whats the etiquette for copy and pasting private press in the forum after a game has ended?

It is a lot of fun to read but I feel it is sort of unfair for the player whose press is being shared publicly. It definitely hurts his or her ability to credibly take up different positions in future games. And yes, I know most top-level games start off anonymously but I'd wager most do not end anonymously.

frank +1 as well - same thought i was having.

but there's a larger problem with your argument babak. if you make this argument:

"I have the utmost respect for people who fight to the bitter end or who put up a good fight from a bad position - but respect =/= deserving a place in a draw. I think that is a ridiculous notion..."

you then basically discourage people from fighting to stop a leader on the board from soloing out of fear that they'll simply be eliminated from the resulting draw. if i'm a smallish france fighting a smallish england, why should i stop attacking england to keep germany from soloing, knowing that subsequently germany italy and england will eliminate me so they have fewer people in the draw? at the end of the day, if someone has played well, has fought well, and has been an enjoyable fellow player, the idea of simply eliminating him or her to have a smaller draw is really messed up. yes there are moments when it happens, but i personally don't think that keeping that person in the draw is counter to the spirit of the game -- to the contrary, it's precisely the spirit b/c it encourages more fluid game play, shifting alliances, and a fun time.

on the flip side, people who refuse to stab a game long ally can be challenging to play with, b/c it takes out a key aspect of diplomacy and makes it more about tactics, which is less fun to me. i think there are times to stick with your ally through thick and thin and there are times when you need to look out for your own self. neither one is more right or wrong or "how to play the game". but i do think people need to also both be wary of being stabbed, but also willing to stab, and to forgive and work with those who have stabbed them. that's what makes the game the most fun, to me, when alliances are constantly shifting and you don't know who you can trust and it's just a blast :)

djbent +2

djbent +3

MM -999,999,999,999

=P

soo....

it seems some people think I should not post any of the 'private' messages sent to me in any game... even though the game is finished, and those messages were already sent.

I have a different philosophy - I feel it is completely legit to re-paste private messages on the global tab as this is often a very important tactical step... yes, it does burn bridges and has high in-game costs, that's why most players dont use this tactic too often - but I consider it COMPLETELY legitimate. nothing wrong about it. in fact, in an FTF game once, a player used his phone to record someone saying they'd stab their ally, then played it for that other player... (that was one hell of a game by the way)... completely legit and within the rules in my opinion...

so that said - something written to me can be posted in the global... global is also available for anyone to see it at any time (it is public) hence any private message can be made public - there is no rule against doing this.

the examples I provided in the EOG thread are not even the really fun stuff - the actual lies the tactical plans... but rather some general observations players provided me in-game which I chose to share...

so i'd like to hear some feedback from you all about what you think of this... in the 3rd section of my EOG, I have even more of these included, and before I post that I'd like to hear what people think.

I think it is tacky to do while the game is in progress and think the same thing of people who copy and paste private messages to leak to another person, but I also put no stock in them because they can easily be faked.

After the game, to do just the fun quotes is probably OK, but there is still some sense of propriety that should be followed to be a "classy" player. Again, it's within the rules and you can do as you like, but this is one of those grey areas where my opinion (and we all know I am scum) drops of a person who does it excessively.

Babak, I'm going to comment on things you've said to me, but in the mean time, would you answer my question? Has there ever been a day in your diplomacy career, from the first day you were explained how the game worked, that if you were an ~8 center France, and you were on a stalemate line with an ~8 center England, while there was an ~17 center Turkey, would you have ever gone for a two-way draw with Turkey?

next you guys need a 8313 point game. That way the 7 best players on the site go all in.

djbent - "at the end of the day, if someone has played well, has fought well, and has been an enjoyable fellow player, the idea of simply eliminating him or her to have a smaller draw is really messed up."

djbent +1000

@djbent + 1001
I don´t see what is the point on getting a smaller draw when there is a clear stalemate line or if I know I can´t win the game anymore. A draw is a draw, it means you can´t win both also nobody else can and this notion on having a smaller draw being that good have much to do with harvesting points and GR points and it´s one of the things that made some players leave the site.

So, I'm guessing eliminating for the smaller draw in tournaments like the GFDT and the Leagues is acceptable though, considering that those points are across multiple games for the win of the tournament or league.

djbent +1116

"We live in a society!"

Again, I think there are ethics in this game, at least the online version (I don't play F2F enough to care or to be qualified to comment). Perhaps something like adultery is a good way to relate my thought process. Adultery is not a crime in the US, people don't go to jail for committing adultery and many people do it. That does not mean I do it. In fact, I don't even consider committing adultery an option, there's a 0% chance of it happening. So, for the most part, I'm going to spend my time hanging out with people that don't commit adultery (or at least that I don't know do it) and all those that enjoy committing adultery all the time can hang out together (or at least without me) and they can hang out with murderers, rapists, terrorists and other completely self-absorbed people that don't give a crap about anyone else. So, similarly, if someone wants to lie every season of every year of every game, or if someone wants to use their cell phone to record a conversation in a F2F game, that's fine, they are free to respond to the "rules" of the game however they want, but that does not mean I want to ever play a game with them in it, and the beauty of online diplomacy is that I can keep my own personal blacklist and avoid certain people that have a much different view of how to play than I do, and we'll all be much happier for it.

The way FTF solves this problem is that even if there are 5 players left and its obvious who the 3 BIG powers are... someone can propose a 3way draw... then all 5 players get to vote for it. in the vast majority of cases, the 2 smaller powers will vote for the 3way draw knowing that this WOULD be the actual outcome if they spent another few hours to get to that point...

anotherwords - in FTF - there is a "concede" option for the smaller powers when its obvious the game will end in a draw.

A voting system like this is something I suggested a while back, but not in the dev forum.

@MM - we do not live in a real "society" - we live in a webdip society. one based on the game of diplomacy. in real life, I agree with you, my ethics would make me act a completely different way - in fact, in real life, I NEVER lie in the fashion I do in a game. And that is the point. we are playing a GAME.

the Game has its own rules. its own 'ethics'. the ethics of 'getting the best result'. and on webdip, we have a meta-game as well which is to harvest points, GR, and prestige... and that is reality whether you, myself, or some others don't like it... thats simply a fact... those things have 'value' in our little 'society' here.

so your real world ethics are wonderful (including your irrelevant point about adultery) but this is not the real world - this is DIP WORLD... where the 'ethics' of 'game results' are supposed to dominate... now if you choose to bring in your own moralistic tendencies to the game, that is wonderful and you will probably have more people 'like' you online. but I have enough people who like me in the real world... I come to this site to play this GAME and to play it based on an agreed upon set of standards ... which for all 'games' is "results".

so... the logical conclusion of what I wrote above is that one SHOULD strive for a smaller sized draw... if some people choose to ignore this element of the 'results' goal of the game, thats up to them... its just like the guys who choose to let someone solo because they care more about 'revenge' or about 'trying something' instead of going with the 'best result' which is to stop the solo.


so in essence - if you are upset at Dune for not trying to achieve the 'best result' (giving away a solo instead of a 3way draw) then dont be a hypocrite and try for the 'best result' yourself when you cand reduce a 5 way to a 3way draw...

but see, you MM, choose to moralize based on YOUR own perceptions of what is 'good' rather than a standard set of rationale... you want to draw the line where ever YOU feel it should be... I wont go ad-hominum on you and say this is a common occurrence among religious/faithful folks, but I will say that if your argument is that one should always 'aim for the best result' then that INCLUDES getting a smaller draw - but IF your argument is one should bring in something from outside the rubric of the game (ie. be nice) then don't get all holier-than-thou when someone else (Dunecat) brings in something from outside the rubric of the game (ie. revenge or taking a risk for a 2way) to make a decision.


I think the best solution is to figure out a technical way to do what FTF (and PBEM) games allow... which is to VOTE for a less-than-all-remaining-players draw... this would give surviving small powers the 'survive' they deserve for sticking it out and playing well, but would give the big powers the actual draw they would most likely achieve if the game was dragged out another 2-3 game years.

How many lies is it okay to tell? It seems to be a pretty grey area. It's part of the game, so I think you can tell as many as you can get away with (or as your conscience allows) That's why anonymous games were invented. The strategy of telling the truth most of the time works well for lots of players, but it's not the only strategy.