there were a lot of hard words between you two, but if you could just meet each other and have a beer together everything would be fine

I have had this experience with a couple of players and had one page long back and forth after I betrayed someone. A big part of this game is betrayal. If you don't betray anyone and move exactly like you say you will, you aren't playing the game and you will lose.

If you can't handle backstabs and betrayals this is not the game for you. Do not take it personally or cry when it happens.

lol. Azogar is a poor sport and has poor language skills. I doubt highly that a beer together would solve it either Alamothe. I agree with both Solo and Pitirre that Azogar needs to lighten up and just chill out. It’s a game and if he doesn’t realize that then he should fine a better time sink.

We're all Diplomacy players here, so we're all got at least that in common. It's the differences that make it interesting to play, and the faceless anonymity of teh (sic) internet that gives our immoral diplomacy licence to soar.

It seems to me that players have a perfect right to choose to leave games if they find another player to be a problem... without the player they object to taking pot-shots at them outside the game.

I should also add that Diplomacy (though, granted, my experiences of the game are far from extensive) is a game that involves elements of cooperation alongside deception. If it didn't, then there would be no alliances to break or agreements to fail to honour. You might argue that agreements are only as strong as the circumstances and that the clever player takes advantage of any chink in the armour of their ally... however, I would say that if both players can see the potential for a genuine back-stab (one that will advance their game greatly) in the way the pieces are on the board and neither player stabs, then this is a victory equal, but opposite, to a good back-stab.

Roguish behaviour is central to Diplomacy, but should this be done using blunt lies and abuse, or sympathetically using tact? I refer players to Richard Sharp's book 'The Game of Diplomacy', which is availible free on the internet at Diplomacy Archive. Specifically the conclusion of the second chapter. Sharp seems to have a good and balanced view of good diplomacy etiquette.

(As for you, Signalseven, for shame! I suggest you restrict your insults to the game, where they can be mistaken for 'poor sportsmanship'. That you think language skills have anything to do with a person's character is rather sad: I'm sure there are languages you can't speak, read or write, but this doesn't make you somehow a bad person.)

Labond, is the clear solution not to give a warning and subsequently a ban to the player harassing another for doing nothing more than playing the game?

I agree that games should be layed using tact and poise but sometimes the game doesn't allow for this since there is a language barrier and time gaps betweens moves.

Signalseven didn't seem to be stating that his language made him a bad person. It seems that Azogar was rude and beligerent in more than a few occasions to more than a few people. He is not condemning him for the language barrier, simply pointing out a facet of dealing with Azogar.

He doesn't seem to understand the point of the game or know how to be diplomatic in everyday life. People like him ruin the fun of the game and after this many incidents he should be taken from the equation as well as others that multi acount, c/d every other game, and get upset over perfectly legal moves.

if he wants to be a baby.. let him, it's just a game.

Labond, I never stated that language skills had anything to do with sportsmanship. Even though they were used in the same sentence I was making two different points. Azogar has been a poor sport towards me personally and when I mentioned that I did not understand his English he replied to me that he was English. Therefore the problem was grammar.

Yes I was insulting him. Yes I do not particularly like to play this game with him because of those TWO (2) things. So I will not join another game that he is already in. If he joins a game after me then I will have to deal with it. That does not mean that I have to like it.

It is in fact my freedom to say what I like to a certain point. I did not rant or use foul language to get my point across. I simply stated my opinion of a player in agreement with others.

Your comment about “but should this be done using blunt lies and abuse, or sympathetically using tact?”. This game is not truly Diplomacy. If this were diplomacy then everyone would be working together to provide for the future of not only their country but the countries around them. Instead of armies we would be in control of farm equipment and fishing boats. We would have to gather resources and try to perpetuate free trade between our friends to make the world a better place. We would have to stabilize the economy and provide medical services to our population. The goal of the game would not be to destroy every other county by 1910. It would be to live in harmony and try to make sure that everyone made it to the next century alive and well. The name Diplomacy is very inaccurate of what this game is actually about. Unfortunately the name War was already taken by a card game. So the creator needed a new name. But what to call his game? I suppose they went threw many choices while play testing this game and decided to highlight the communication portion of the game so that people would look at the game in a positive light. But the nitty gritty of this game is that we are at war and in war people will do anything to survive.

Haun Solo, I also never stated that Azogar did not understand the game. I simply stated that he was rude. He in fact does play the game well when he is winning. What Pitirre was stating is the same as I. When the game isn’t going his way he becomes the poor sport that we are saying he is. If you can’t take the good and the bad then just find something else to do. That is the bottom line message of what Pitirre was stating. Let’s not lose focus on that fact.

Thats a really good solution Ate. We should make our small community deal with someone who is being beligerent and ruining the spirit of the game simply because it is just a game. I agree lets let anyone do and say what they want because hey, its just a game, why should we care if someone is taking all the fun out of it for others.

You misunderstand me Signal. The biggest part of this game is not taking countries and winning. It is the character interaction and trying to bend others to your whim. While he may be good at taking over countries and strategies he fails at everything else. This is why he doesn't understand the game.

I think you might have misunderstood: I am not commenting on any specific instances between any players in any games and, as such, I agree with your solution (Haun) as a form of solution in general.

Equally, games do not always allow for (though should not prevent us aspiring to) tact where language barriers are the case and there is only rationed time for discussion.

My point was simply to express that (1) there is nothing wrong with some trust cooperation alongside the necessary defection in this game and (2) that attacking a person's character, as distinct from their behaviour, in public, is rather poor.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, Signalseven, that you were expressing a dislike rather than expressing the thought that because someone has poor language skills they cannot be agreeable. However, I fear you may have misunderstood my comments concerning cooperation: I'm not saying that diplomacy is ALL about cooperation - it clearly isn't - as if everyone cooperated in a game then there wouldn't be a game. However, there is some cooperation. There is also a responsibility for civility and empathy on the part of players when they defect (hence the 'sympathy and tact' when breaking the news), as well as the same responsibility on the part of those receiving the news to accept it with with good-heart, or else bravely and gracefully. Whether this is or isn't the case in the present instance, I cannot say.

True, it is also only a game and should be treated as such. However, it is one of those games that can hurt peoples' feelings sometimes and, in as far as it does so, is not merely a game, any more than the expressions in this thread are merely something to read.

People can get feelings hurt over any stupid thing you can concieve. That does not qualify anything, including this game, as more than a game. It is just a game and nothing more. If you are getting your feelings hurt over any game you have real problems and need to quit that game.

By the way Labond, china called. They want their wall back. j/k

Solo. Don't pick on Labond even in jest. My post was a much bigger wall of text than his. I am insulted that you did not notice.

Labond. We may not be on the exact same page but we are in the same chapter. Pitirre's original post was that people need to just chill. Yes people can get thier feelings hurt n this game. No matter how much tact you use people will still be offended when you stab them. If you can't just roll with it then don't play. The answer is not to be a child and throw a fit.

this thread is too long, but i just wanted to say that some of you guys are taking this game far too seriously.

chill out hombres

So having an opinion on something means we are taking it seriously. Not wanting something we enjoy to be ruined by someone who has a chip on his shoulder is being too serious? Im glad you could take the time to post in here to insult everyone. Way to add to the conversation.

lol. Signal's right: don't pick on me: I might spit out another speech ; ).

You've got a point, Solo, but don't you think that Diplomacy is structured in a way that invites emotion sometimes? Chess, though a game where there is plenty of bad-blood, isn't structured in such a way as to invite it due to its clear rationality.

I suppose when I say the game, I mean the particular game that is being played more than Diplomacy itself - those players and that board rather than the rules as written. If, hypothetically, I was so upset by a game that I attempted to murder all the other players, then I suspect it would have become more than a game for me, and for everyone else if I was successful.

I think we can agree, Signal: these are only games, though games of a social kind. I'm not sure that one is always offended, as the stab is to be expected, sooner or later, but your right that it is no good taking it personally.

There's nothing wrong with taking things seriously, just as long as they are resolved.

Well I agree partially with you Labond. Sometimes when I get attacked by a long time ally all I can think is "that son of a bitch" but thats as far as it goes. Getting really angry as some people do is unhealthy and is only made worse by playing a game like this.

My point is that some people need to realize they are projecting their emotions and its not fair to people here just to play.

And its a good point, and I agree that such people are not playing as responsible players should play.

Azogar is a good guy. Sure, stabs are a part of the game, but after 4 times in a row, a guy might get a little upset.

With all due respect Pearson, its like playing halo and getting upset when someone kills you twenty times in a game. If you are getting upset over a move in a game, stop playing that game.

Pitirre is guilty of whining.

Case closed.

Trying to look like an internet cool guy by dismissing a valid point from a player brought up in an intelligent manner. I don't know about anyone else Karkand, but I think your witty and charming. Wanna grab dinner sometime?

Honestly, this should not be a problem. If Azogar responds to pitirre's actions by behaving in a certain way, this should be perfectly acceptable within the games. Azogar is not overreacting: you are, pitirre.

actually, what i'm trying to say is that if this conversation played out in real life over what happened in a game, i would still think it was ridiculous!

Dinner sounds fine. Its on you, right?

-Internet Cool Guy

I know I'll do anything in my power to make pitierre lose is any games I play with him, just because if I ally with him and he ends up losing anyway I know he'll come to the Forum to bitch and moan about how I didn't do enough to give him the win he so richly deserved just for being him.

I think we need a massive pact between players on the site to immediately attack any and all forum whiners. Maybe then they'll go away.

I will buy but you have to come back to my place for coffee afterwards

What is the point in that Wooble? It is yet another childish "solution" in this more or less adult conversation.

Any game that requires the interaction of complete strangers is going to have it's whiners. Solution: Don't finish reading, read all the replys, or reply to said post.

Wooble, you are willing to not actually play the game to grief someone. Not only that but you say he's crying about not winning. That has nothing to do with the post and you are being immature. Grow up.