So you're looking for weak players to steal points from? Count me in :)

This is a good point, we should encourage all noobs to play in 100 point a player games so that they put a few more points in circulation. It is the Webdip equivalent of quantitive easing/getting credit and then spending it all with no intention or ability to pay it back ..... any noobs fancy a 99 point buy-in gunboat?

Interesting, Al. Does that mean you generally try to ally with those you see as the most competent rather than those you find easiest to manipulate or those you just happen to get along with?

Also, what counts as a senior player? I'd always just put it down to a mix of games played and time spent as a member, but other people seem to use different measures. It often amuses me how Nigs puts so much emphasis on that silly gold disk of his as a measure of his contribution to the site when he never or rarely mentions that his contribution in terms of numbers of well fought games is truly huge and rather impressive.

I don't see how this game would be any different from any game I play here.

I learnt to play this game online the hard way ...... by not reading the rules and playing every game to win or die, I learnt the support/hold function about 150 games in and the convoy some games later, it was obviously a poor short term strategy leading to terrible stats and low GR and no points, but I tried in every game and most of my CDs were falling asleep mid-game at the pc whilst playing at 3am or 4am in the morning.
I don't mind if people don't contribute to the site as long as they don't mind me pointing out they are cheapskates, quid pro quo.
Anyway I think we should encourage noobs to play lots of live games using all of their points, it doesn't matter to them if they lose as they get replenished back to 100. If they win they get a great start with loads of points, we should actively encourage this high-pot strategy IMHO.

Octavius - Thank you for soliciting my opinion. I'm caught off guard by this. There are plenty of better players around to collect strategic advice from. Nonetheless, I actually tend to form treaties based around situational ethics. I don't form alliances. I tend to view my fellow diplomacy players as falling into one of two categories - victims and servants.

You did raise the issue of likeability, and to confess this does absolutely inform my decision making, but usually towards the end game. There can be no better motive, in my opinion, for murdering a fellow player than them not having troubled themself to have observed social grace. And I am frequently willing to spare or even defend a player, even a weak player, who has been properly flattering, useful and obedient.

You also put to me the question of how to recognize senior players from junior, one which I am most singularly unqualified to answer. I could be prepared to reply that I know senior players when I see them, but that is of course a cop out.

Player list:

1) Al Swearengen
2) Steephie

Are there any other players interested in joining, either as raiders or as victims?