What about the situation in which you can't get a draw?

In gameID=76142, I repeatedly warned both Austria and Germany that I was perfectly willing to throw the game if either or both made an attempt to force me out. Germany listened (to a point), but Austria repeatedly shifted units in my direction without warning. I eventually offered Germany Iberia, making true to my threats to Austria, and by the time he realized he needed me, it was too late to stop the solo.

If you can participate in a draw, you should never throw the game. It is just a game and hding a grudge against someone else therebye throwing the game is stupid if you can get a draw out of it. Now, if you are going to be elimination.ated and throwing the game gets a survive, even in WTA, throw it and screw the guys who are screwing you.

This one is actually not that difficult to answer, Mr. Scott. It's acceptable to throw a WTA game under any circumstances where the benefit of forfeit outweighs the benefit of stalemate, where your potential allies are unreliable, where any number of constraints are affecting your ability to play, where any of your potential allies has done something to draw your ire, where your expected foe has done something to ensure your conceit or where there is no reasonable expectation of a turn around.

In short, most people who throw a game are probably doing so with justification. I might add that it is not advisable to assume that just because you are unable to divine an adversary's motives for behaving a certain way, does not mean that their actions have no reasonable grounds.

Its always acceptable to throw the game if that is how you want to play. Probably not wise, but noone has a right to tell you how to play.

Al:
1- when does the benefit of forfeit outweigh the benefit of stalemate? A draw is a more optimal outcome in game terms than a loss in all circumstances.
2- unreliable/annoying allies: I don't see how this is justifiable, unless you are the small player in a three- or more way draw. I can understand ghug's point that you can use the threat to preserve your position, and the follow-through when all is hopeless (as draugnar pointed out). But if you not in that position, it seems unsporting.
Tom:
1- that is lazy logic, my question is specific to sportsmanship. Of course everyone can play however they want. However, people play this game with the expectation that others will play the game with a similar set of shared values, such as the desire to win, and barring that, draw. Imagine playing baseball in a league. No one is forcing a tam to play hard, but they do because they want to win, and they like the competition. Otherwise, they eouldn't play in that league. If people invest a fair amount of time and energy into playing this game, and many of them take the competition seriously,then to have someone throw the game wastes all of their efforts.mthat seems to me like he poorest sportsmanship imaginable, short of blatantly cheating.

If you believe it can advance your position by making you win where you wouldn't have or be in a draw where you would have died.

Otherwise it's against the spirit of the game, in my opinion.

The informal rules of conduct in diplomacy for me are simple - you must achieve these objectives, priority order:

1) solo
2) be part of a draw, with as few members as possible
3) survive (if you cannot prevent someone else from soloing)
4) prevent anyone from soloing (if you cannot prevent your own elimination)
5) fuck over the guy that fucked you over (if you cannot prevent someone from soloing)

Any measures outside of cheating may be employed to achieve these ends. Throwing the game is one of them. So is chainsaw diplomacy, etc etc.

Ghug: first acceptable answer for reasons to throw a game that fit within the parameters of the game's competitive intent, I saw that live in Boston last year, in a game that Crazyter threw to Babak because she felt Thucy was trying to eliminate her from the game.
Draugnar: also a good response. I forgot about the guy who is really just going to low anyway, where taking an SC to stay alive in the endgame is justifiable.

I can see myself throwing the game, or threatening to, or starting to, to achieve any one of those five aims, and in fact I have done so in the past, often to great effect. I endorse the tactic wholeheartedly. It's a dangerous one, of course, because if you gamble wrong you will let someone else solo - meaning you are nixing the possibility of #1 and #2, but sometimes it is the only choice you have.

I believe you remember the game I mention, Thucy, though your story may be different from Crazyter's...

I have thrown a game in which I did not believe I would be included in the draw. I've also been eliminated in a game in which I thought I would be included in the draw.

It comes down to whether you think you can trust the grand alliance to not eliminate you. If you have good reason to not trust them, then screw them. If you aren't sure, make your best guess, but I'd err on the side of screwing them.

After all, THEY need to see that it is in their best interest to ensure you stick around.

Adlerian: so you're saying that when the little guy in a multi-way, there may be arbitrary-seeming behaviors based on whether he/ she thinks it likely to be included in the eventual draw. I can see that. How about when not the little guy- would there be cases where the same logic applied?

Sorry about the typo on your name... Small keyboards...

Thucy, I disagree with the order of your 4 and 5. But it depends as there are two scenarios.

Are you being eliminated by the soloer and the others are good solid allies that just aren't in a position to keep you alive? If so, then stop the solo sure.

Or, are you being eliminated by the others to reduce the size of the draw, then screw them.

I also disagree with your condition on 2. I do not equate a smaller draw with a better draw. A draw is a draw. Everyone failed to win.

If not the little guy, then you don't have to trust your other allies with your life. Your life is safe because you are not eliminatable without giving the game away to someone else. So I see no reason to throw the game as a larger country.

I don't think it has anything to do with spite or not liking someone. At least not for me. It is all about what I think the probable outcomes are.

If I believe the choices are between a draw that doesn't include me and a solo, I'll help the solo. And the key word is believe.

Makes sense. Good answer.

Sounds like Alderian and I agree completely. But I throw one more log onto the discussion fire. If I can survive, but the one trying for the solo os my former ally amd he is consuming me, I'll do everything in my power to stop him, even taking the defeat as that is screwing the one who screwed me. My basic rule of thumb is win, draw, screw the one who screwed me. Survive or defeat is irrelevant to me.

If you're getting thrown under the bus by some other nation who is petty and wants a smaller draw (at the cost of allowing a nation to solo)... by all means throw the game to another power.

I three the game here ecause my ally didn't believe me when i said we had a stalemate with turkey. gameID=87396. Since he stabbed I decided to show him, not only would turkey win, but I was in better position than him.

Yep, right there with you Draug.

smcbride, I wouldn't say you threw that game. Germany threw it by attacking you when you had the stalemate. Not sure what he was thinking, he had so many more units tied up with Turkey than you, just stupid to attack you. So you made him pay, which since it was PPSC, didn't cost you any more than the alternative.

I think Draug had my beliefs when he wrote his first post. If I'm going to be eliminated for others to draw, I'll throw the game in attempts to be part of the draw. If that doesn't work, I fully throw the game.

Adlerian, you are right.

gameID=89589

Talk about throwing a game. What was France thinking?

France wasn't thinking ^

He really wasn't. And it's not like he's a newbie either.

"Or, are you being eliminated by the others to reduce the size of the draw, then screw them."

This is usually when throwing the game becomes a valid tactic.

Also yes, mscott, lol I'm aware of the game you're referencing......... obviously.

In that case I made a mistake, but my prioritized list has to do with goals and intentions, the actual results are sometimes a bit messier. Sometimes you just have to gamble.

I think you are always allowed to throw the game and still be a sporting player. I will illustrate with a situation where it looks like someone can get a draw, but he won’t get it if throwing isn’t allowed, but will get it if it is:

Suppose you have the situation: It is the Spring turn) Player A threatening to solo, players B and C holding him off. It may well be (with an appropriate position), that the 2 players each have two strategies: work with A or with the other of B/C. Let’s (suggestively) call these “Cooperate” and “Defect” for cooperating with the other of B/C or defecting against him:

Both cooperate and the game will be drawn
Both defect and the game is immediately won by player A (as in, he can force a win in Autumn
One cooperate and one defect, and the game moves on to the Autumn turn:

(Without loss of generality, suppose B defected against C)
B can work with A or C; C can work with B or throw the game. The payoff matrix is:
B strategy.....work with A........work with C
C strategy =======================
..work B....¦¦....A-B 2-way.............3-way......
..throw.....¦¦.........A solo................A solo.....

Here C has a chance of getting a draw, (which means he should take it). But at the same rate, player B is best off working with player A, that strategy is dominant. Nevertheless, there is still a non-zero possibility that player B will choose to work with C, so it is demanded that he take it.

This leads to the (common) assumption that in the Spring turn, the payoff matrix is basically 2-way if one player defects and the other player co-operates (we have a prisoners dilemma, in fact)

If we allow people to throw games in this situation however, then if a player defects and the other cooperates, there is a non-zero chance that player A just wins. This actually changes the decisions being made before the game is actually thrown.

In light of this, I find it odd that people complain that someone pre-committed to throw the game, and then actually did. The point in /actually/ precommitting was to make it more believable a threat, and in so doing, increase the chance of getting involved in the draw. It is the mistake of the other guy not to believe the threat was real.

Sometimes Timeless Decision Theories outperform Causal Decision Theory, so people, innately (via a sense of honour, or justice etc.) or intentionally use it.

I could come up with a more complicated and better example where the threat of a throwing of the game makes the same change to the Spring turn even when the Autumn turn doesn't have strategy dominance for player B, but I can't be bothered (it involves considering a strategy of A's where he tries to encourage a throwing by making some promise to player C to punish player B, for instance)

Aside: Timeless decision theories are interesting for AIs, where you can add code to say, for instance, "in the prisoner's dilemma, if the other AI uses the same source code as me, co-operate". Humans can do the same thing by "if I rate this human to be sufficiently similar to me in relevant ways, I will cooperate", but the water is much muddier. Except in real world examples, we /do/ cooperate.

I wish I could tag people to read the thread @dubmdell

As the beneficiary in the game Draug linked to, that actually has two 'throws' in it. Turkey had a major falling out wih Russia when Draug took over (IIRC), and basically offered me ALL his centres. I did think it was a trick pretty much all the way through (I kept expecting some kind of brutal backhand take down). However, he kept talking all the way through, and I didn't expect to gain anything other than a strong position. It's probably better than CDing, but fighting would have more fun..

With France, I was as surprised as anyone. We'd stopped talking after I made the full on solo push, but I thought I'd missed my shot in the spring. With a move to Por and a build in Bre, I don't think I could have ever taken another centre (as Draug would have been able to hold me in the east)

I'm in the Solo >> Draw >>>>>>>Survive camp. If you can't win, no-one else should eb able to either

throwing the game is only acceptable when you are trying to force the others to get the draw, with you in it, as most other people said. With the France throwing the game link, France's throw was stupid and made no sense.

However, let's say that Italy said he would draw with Russia dead, and England/France ended their fight and began killing Russia. I believe then Russia would have valid reasons for throwing the game to Italy.

and just for the record, a draw doesn't always mean you failed to win. I know some people (and somtimes myself) like to draw even though we could probably get the solo simply because we think the other players deserve it. Failing means you have to try to win.

Nah, failing simply means you didn't win. Not trying to win means you're a chump.

There are a few occasions when offering the draw when you can win could be argued as the right course of action, but they are few and far between. In fact the only one I can think of off the top of my head is when a key player in what would have been a clear draw suddenly goes CD...

i believe that when you feel as if you believe some other countries derserve to be part of the draw but simply had poor allies or something like that drawing would be acceptable even though you could easily win. And taking people out of the draw even though they were good allies throughout the whole game simply to get more points is a really dickish thing to do

And of course if there are two + players banned for multi'ing/cheating during the course of the game it should be drawn.

@ FD

If another nation has poor allies it is at least partly their fault for choosing the wrong ally. There is a strong element of luck in Diplomacy. I have played extremely well and been defeated, and played relatively poorly and won. But although I curse my luck at times what I curse most of all is an opponent who offers me charity. If my draws are to mean anything it will because I've earned them through a hard fight and cunning use of diplomacy. If not they are worthless.

I tend to agree about the dark art of cutting allies out of a draw though. Both poor form and painfully tedious.

i was refering more to when you have neighbors in full press who reply to none of your well-composed messages and begin attacking you. I think that a Turkey who manages to survive a three way A/I/R alliance against it deserves to be part of the draw

Does he deserve to be part of a draw more than the England or France who has manipulated the situation to his advantage deserves the win? Does he deserve an empty sympathy draw more than he deserves an honourable survive or defeat?

It is the way you play and the joy of the fight that is far more important than the chalk mark on the stats board. The best we can do for our fellow players is to give them the toughest fight we can.

You know, I was having a chat with a friend of mine last night, a fairly senior Diplomacy Player. Big shot from the F2F tournaments. The game came up. As he shared some of his thoughts, obviously I was inclined to listen and let him do most of the talking. He made a point of trash-talking players who play the game with any other set of priorities than a list of the type presented by Thucydides (q.v.). Even though I didn't agree, I listened to him patiently and was glad that he had the chance to vent.

That being said, I've played this cat before and I've noticed a couple of vulnerabilities in his playing style. There are some good players in the game, even a few good ones in this very discussion here, who are absolutely shut down when confronted with someone who has a radically different playing style than they do. I feel that some of the biggest champions of Mr. Scott's way of thinking fall into this camp. Unfortunately this somewhat suggests that they are attempting to demonize the actions of other people for no reason other than that it does not suit their particular purposes, and in the case of Mr. Scott at least I'd like to assume that this is not the case.
What I do feel more comfortable pointing out is that if you prefer to emphasize a playing strategy that relies on a dramatic cartel allying near the end of the match, then it is really up to you to make sure that each and every player that you hope to recruit has a personal stake in achieving your objectives.
Diplomacy is a fame of salesmanship. Is somebody directing their forces against you whilst you feel they would be better off uniting against an impending superpower? If they elect not to pursue this course of action, the fault lies with you, not them. After all, you may posses the faculties to discern good from bad and they may have become blindsided by short-term goals. By contrast you're old enough to know better.
Another thing, it is somewhat N.A.F.T. to critique another player's playing style while they're invading you -- if you've made someone sore at you whose assistance you are now dependent on to pursue a certain set of endgame objectives, you've really no one to blame but yourself.

I think this game is a good example of a player throwing a game. gameID=40604. When this game happened, the forum went crazy. I think at the time, it was the biggest ever pot and a lot of players flipped out in the EOG afterward. Essentially, Babak somehow convinced Dunecat to throw the game. I will try and find the original threads about this one.

Oh wow...

threadID=684747
threadID=690638