The lower level the game, the more you see set in stone alliances like that. The elite players are always playing with their own interests ultimately in mind, which means playing to win.

Speaking for only me personally, I find that I enjoy the game more when I adhere to my personal ethical code, which is essentially that I won't outright lie. My challenge then is to be very careful about what I say so that I don't preclude myself from winning strategy and tactics. That means that all relationships in the game are conditional. I don't like to use terms like "ally" or "alliance" because they are way too open-ended. What I do is cooperate with another player under clearly stated terms and conditions.

That being said, I find it gratifying to work with a trustworthy player and aggravating to deal with a player who is not. Sorting that out is an interesting part of the game.

I make a living on this site by taking advantage of "morally upstanding" players.

Give me your mortgage payment in cash, and I'll pay your bill for you. Give me a shot at three open centers, and I'll take them...when it's in my best interest to do so. It's just a game.

Play Axis & Allies if you want game-long alliances.

But I think this GAME can teach , more about some of the ethical questions of life well beyond the game

It's better at teaching goal setting, planning and arguing persuasively than it is at teaching ethics.

So just to be clear, i am not saying stabbing is not an option, and if you have played with me before, you know that im more than willing to do so..hehe...but does if have to always be one way?...i dont think so

If you leave your credit card behind at our bar game on the 10th, you can count on me not to order a round of drinks on you and to make sure you get the card back. That says more about us as people than whether we lied to you about support into Belgium. ... Look forward to seeing you at the Lion!

No, it doesn't have to be only one way. Sometimes it's much better to talk someone else into stabbing you. :-)

@JTG--I'll be there

For me, sometimes esprit de corps sets in when I've worked with others to, say, stop another player from winning the game. When that happens, I'd be hard pressed to work toward cutting them out of the draw. But if I can win the game by turning on them, then esprit de corps can screw itself.

I'm on a game by game basis. Although I always try for th solo when possible and resent people who play for a survival. Not even a draw. A pitiful survival. Might as well give up and go back to checkers at that point.

I agree on game by game basis, but I never resent people. It's still a game, and everyone has different ideologies about how they want to play.

To my mind, this is THE issue in the game -- to stab or not to stab. I feel that forming and maintaining a quality and mutually beneficial alliance is a lot more fun than stabbing and then spending the rest of the game fighting off the kamikaze attack by the stabbed player. Personally, try not to stab unless in doing so I completely eliminate the other player.

I've found that many newer players in here have the idea that stabbing is the essence of the game. Although I understand that sentiment, at least in theory, I feel this is like saying that football is about hitting people. Stabbing has it's place, but as I said above, many times a stab does little more than create an irrational enemy hell bent on revenge at any cost.

In terms of preventing a stab, I try to play with a constant eye on homeland security -- even if it doesn't allow me to grow as fast as I might otherwise. Alliances in which both parties protect their home SC's appropriately tend to last and be hard to break. Other will squawk at the allied players, but if he's protected himself well, a stab is suicide.

Just my $.02.

Well said MM

It depends on whether or not there is actually a good opportunity in the stab. Stabbing just for the sake of stabbing and prolonging a game makes no sense. If a stab can be pulled off that re-adjusts the balance of the game in the favor of the person commiting the stab - the possibly. As you say, it is a game about winning. Personally, I never play with the idea of points or GR or whatever in mind. I play for the challenge of trying to achieve a victory.

Don't you?

Thanks ssoren!

To elaborate a bit regarding bad stabs. First of all, I don't regard an initial lie as a "stab" per se -- like Italy jumping into Trieste in '01. But what really annoys me is the frequency with which I see players (mostly newer players) make stabs that just make no sense. Not only do they only gain one SC (which is usually never enough for me to stab) but in doing so they strengthen their position short-term, but do it severe damage long term.

It reminds me of the chess lesson that I learned from a very very good player: "To take is a mistake." Now, obviously that come with some caveats, but in general, you see GM's build pressure on a position and try to force the other player to release the pressure. By contrast, you see a lot of less skilled chess players take, and take, and take everything they're presented with, no matter where it leaves them.

I think similarly in Diplomacy. Many times NOT taking from an ally accomplishes far more than taking that one SC ever could. As Don Corleone said, "keep your friend close, but keep your enemies closer." I see a lot of players that just cannot resist an open SC, like a bass striking that shiny lure swimming by.

Not to pick on michigan man but I want to further this conversation.
In http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=146188 he moved directly away from his home centers in the s01 because a western triple was arranged. Very soon after I stabbed him because of how much easier that path of expansion was compared to attacking Russia. Then we reconciled for a few years before I stabbed him agian to go for the win.
The second stab he considered to be "a dick move" but I was simply playing by my intent to always try to win or if that fails then to force a draw.

Is this the type of stab the OP is talking about? Because if it is then you won't see to many games won..

Seth,

I re: the game you highlighted, you say your "path of expansion" was much easier [in destroying the WTriple] yet look at Russia. You made no attempt what so ever to go north, so I find your assertion a bit ify.

The Western Triple, specifically, requires all parties to forgo gains for position, in my opinion. This usually involves leaving Belgium, Holland, and Portugal open early on so as get into position. You, like many other before you, lacked the discipline needed to accomplish this in this game.

Again, I find a disciplined alliance far more rewarding than what you did in that game. As I see it, any hack (not that I am calling you a hack) can do what you did. But it takes a special player to see the eventual outcome that being disciplined and true to your word will produce. It's very much like the chess analogy I discussed above. Problem is, sometimes (as here) in chess taking DOES work, and thus fuels players to keep trying it.

Stabbing in Diplomacy should be a tactic, much like supporting a unit into an SC. The stab should net you at least one build (preferably two) and should cause the victim to either get no builds or have to disband. If your stab does not allow you a build or at least reduce your victims numbers, then it is a poorly planned venture and you should hold to your alliance.

I have played with people, as I'm sure you all have, that either have strong moral convictions about lying and stabbing or are completely ambivalent about others and there feeling.
I myself, have done both. I play to win and I've learned to play for the draw. I will admit that for a while I was concerned about my GR, and not as much anymore. Sometimes it is more fun to see an alliance through to the end, because it's a harder thing to do the make the stab. Just my opinion

Seth,

Look back the the position after Spring '01 ... Everything was perfect. Germany (me) had Warsaw (which is rare) and you had the convoy to Norway. As it turned out ... you would have taken St. Pete and possibly Moscow in 1902.

Western triples don't work on this site, because like MM said, you need foresight to get position over just being greedy. WT will probably work better in F2F or if the site finally let's players have group Messages in games.

Russia was in shambles instantly and the WTriple was in full effect. Now, I take no issue with you stabbing later should you choose to. But I don't think you ever had any intention to see the alliance even past the first year. I think you say the open low countries and couldn't bring yourself to talk about their division, and just started your march towards a solo. So be it, I guess we play with different motivations.

Exactly ssoren!

Similarly, how many times do you see Italy's complete inability to control his desire to take Trieste? Despite the fact that doing so basically assures any R/T alliance of gaining traction -- not the mention the clusterfuck it creates in AH and the Balkans. It's one thing if you've got support from R or T and you decided to try a Crusher. It's cliche, and usually ends up sinking both AH and I in time.

Mm as we agreed in that game France was incompetent, granted that was the main reason I ended up soloing, we would have never been able to really break turkey down until one of us got past him anyways. To be honest I prize that solo more than I would have prized a strong two or three way draw with good allies. I want to try to win and I suppose that is the distinction between the way we are seeing this issue..

And yes mm I indeed did intend to follow the alliance through to begin with, as you say though I was tempted by what were obviously easy gains and decided to go a different path. Basically, as you put it, I couldn't restrain myself.

I understand your desire to win, I want to win too. However, having played this game for about 30 years, I've found that "winning" is usually a byproduct of at least one alliance.

As I said, the initial lie isn't a stab. So I don't consider what you did a stab, per se. You lied, and never had any intention of a) seeing a WT through; nor b) being allied with me. Fine. What you basically did was play off nothing but greed, and you were extremely fortunate that France was too incompetent to help me make you pay for breaking the alliance so quickly. Again, in studying the game, you made a very very poor decision to abandon the alliance so quickly, but it actually worked out for you -- that happens sometimes. I think more times than not you'd be pushed back and crushed, this was the rare instance in which you were successful.

This thread situation sounds familiar

I'm sure it's familiar to a lot of people.

I think that when this comes up (as it frequently does) people forget about a pretty simple fact: if you get stabbed and it actually hurts you, it is your fault. Whether or not the other person is playing well, it is your fault.

As far as an actual answer to the question, I very much consider this a game and play to win essentially no matter what. I'm willing to lie, manipulate, whatever, but there is one thing I still try to do and that is respect my opponent's time. I know that when I play (and I'm not right now) I'm not just thinking about the game for the couple minutes I check it at the time but that it is something that becomes a very real part of my life. So I try to keep that in mind while I play- in particular, if I make an agreement with a power that will die no matter what unless I keep my word, I try to keep it because I feel like it is overkill to string someone along for weeks when in a very real way they aren't even playing any more.

I'd like to add a few comments to the table.

First, the game is primarily about getting to 18, but not always. I don't mind a gam-long alliance, but such alliances are dictated by the board, not by me deciding it as such. In each game, players should always weigh their options. If a stab is beneficial, take it. If it's not, don't. The game is entirely about creating and taking opportunities. If an opportunity to stab doesn't arise, I'm not going to stab. If the opportunity does come up, I may stab. I may not. Timing is everything.

Therefore, if you're seeing game-long alliances, either they are that way out of necessity, ignorance, or the fact that someone is new to the game.

Second, michigan man stated that it's better to remain in a game long alliance than to face a kamikaze player the rest of the game. To this, I have to say that if someone is willing to kill themselves getting back at you then either (a) the player is new or (b) your diplomacy has failed.

It can be a good tactic to throw yourself at the stabber if it means you can get them to change. However, I've been in many situations where I initiated a stab on someone and later had to convince them that I would back off so that we could work together again.

In other scenarios, that same guy would get stabbed by a different player after I stabbed them and I turned around to work with them so that I could benefit more greatly from their units--just to stab them a second time or not at all.

I believe it's better to take risks. You win some and lose some, but can't win if you can't put up a risk to try.