If this were a normal game, I'd be in it to the end and do my damndest to play kingmaker if I couldn't at least pull out a ruvive.

grrrrr survive

Where does the idiom tongue in cheek come from?

Giving up in a game throws off the balance of power. By not entering moves, you give certain countries a much easier time and unfair advantage. Instead of playing it out like you are supposed to do, since every player with a piece has a power to influence the game, you gave up, and that benefited certain people. I didn't look at the game, but league game or not, that's poor form.

@Sayjo - I would imagine that it comes from people physically putting they tongue in their cheeks as a way of surpressing laughter.

@ Maniac... Really?? lol most people just clench :P I'll just take from Wiki until I learn otherwise.

I have to say "Phooey" to anyone who claims to have some sort of privledged knowledge about the right way to play the game.. And all this "honour-bound" language seems misplaced as well.

It's a game all about diplomacy. Betrayal is one of the most common strategies, as are any other range of tactics that can convince your opponents to act in a way that suits your goals.

As I see it, a player has a right to do whatever he wants with his territories, within the rules. That includes blind stabs out of spite, retreats, surrenders, and stubborn last stands against hopeless odds. Where some of you see a bitter fight against impossible odds as noble, others might just see it as annoying. All of this individual variability is central to the psychological component of the strategy with your press. Doing everything you can to dishearten one opponent while bolstering the morale of a much needed pawn depends on everyone having this sort of flexibility.

If there were a straight forward 'right' action for every situation then the game would be far more straightforward, and far less interesting.

(The only rules of decorum I agree with are the ones explicitly discussed elsewhere..
No multi accounts.
Limits on the use of 'meta' gaming.
And no abandoning games to CD.. (which is not really a rule at all but worth promoting in my mind simply to make up for a deficiency with this website, namely that it doesn't list CDs in records and it rewards quitters with new points).

@woooooo: thank you for your comment

@Wooo:

You're obviously correct that disbanding your units/holding gives an advantage to one player over another, but who are you to call it "unfair?"

There are a whole host of other scenarios in any game where a player's actions benefit some players more than others, are they all "unfair?"

If I decide to make a stupid alliance with another power who is clearly in a position to win, and who is able and likely to destroy me, but not before the two of us destroy you, is that unfair?

If you backstab me while I'm at war with another power, and I choose to cede all my territories to the other player while launching an all-out offensive in revenge against you, is that unfair?

The game isn't fair. Life isn't fair. War isn't fair. If you don't want other powers in the game to abandon their positions, positions you need them to hold because their defense is integral to your broader plans, then you'd better consider the other player as part of your strategy. Trusting Russia to hold the East front open and occupy Germany is not always a sure thing. Bolsheviks happen.

Mr. P: in games where people count on each other for group support, it is always considered poor play to give up and give the advantage to the opposition.

"Here, you take the ball and shoot. I won't move at all. You can even aim for my nuts."

But as I was referencing in my first reply, there are no teams in Diplomacy and various levels of betrayal, frustration, and disappointment are explicitly built into the interactions among players.

A more appropriate (in my opinion) sports analogy would be Team A's frustration at Team B when Team B's poor performance in another game allowed Team C to hold better standing in a multi-team tournament, thus indirectly influencing Team A's prospects.

Even this is not quite right though because as I said above, I believe that playing for spite, revenge, and any number of other decidely social and personally determined goals, has its place in Diplomacy. These sorts of personal aims are generally unwelcome in team sports though.

One final point, since Draugnar mentioned a broader meta-game goal (not the anti-Maniac bit, but his intention to focus his energies on another league game). It is entirely common in some sports for teams to give less than their 'all' at the end of a game with a foregone conlusion, as part of a broader strategic plan to protect/rest their players for future games.

I think this is consistent with the habit of Dip players aiming for a particular record, sometimes accepting draws where they could otherwise win, or avoiding certain confrontations in some games in the hope that their behaviors will benefit them elsewhere. All of this is a form of (generally?) accepted meta gaming, which is especially common in the league tournaments I believe..

I have to agree with wooooo on this one.

In fact, in a league you think you would want to hold on to influence over the game because who wins (whether you die or not) has a direct effect on you.

Draugnar, I fail to see the class or honour involved here. Your position was not hopeless or doomed, especially given that the League games give more possibilities for a change in the diplomatic status quo, as people might revise their choices in the third game based on their predictions for the results of the fourth game. That said, you are allowed to do what you want with your units and SC’s, but I don’t see it as good sportsmanship... The real rotten cherry on top though is that you’re declaring a meta-grudge on another player based off of a simple disrespectful post. You can do what you like in-game, including abandoning your position, but so can Maniac, including disrespectful remarks. The real problem is when you decide to take it outside the game. This is far from classy and I hope you’ll suck it up and revise your judgement. I seem to recall you telling others who complained on the forum of disrespectful or offensive remarks to man up and get a thicker skin, so I never thought I’d see you here.

This is a game, and there is still (or should be) an element of sportsmanship - just because the game involves deceit etc etc doesn't mean we should all be immature (and I'm not saying you are at all Draugnar, I'm replying to Pinguin's post).

Dropping out of a game seriously unbalances the game in general - it isn't fun. If you are losing, fight to win, and fight to stay in the game - don't bow out and ruin it for others.

When I first read the comments from Maniac in game, I laughed at them. I thought it was an attempt at humor. Nothing more.

I'm not going to say that this is Draugnar being a drama Queen again but...

Oh shit I said it. :S

there are more meta than we expected. i am playing this one player who spoke to me a few times and never spoke again...and sort of let himself die..even when there is an open shot against another player, he won't take it and rather let someone else take him.

I know how it feels, drag. it's like you've wasted your time....

@ChrisP - are you basing your comments on me being disrespectful on Draugnar's interpretation or have you read the comments?

@ maniac - I think its irrelevant - chrisp's point is more that if someone is insulting in a game, it doesn't (and probably shouldn't) come out in the real world - not specifically commenting on whether or not your comments were disrespectful or not.

Sorry, I meant to say *doesn't need to (and probably shouldn't)

Maniac,
Yes, it is irrelevant. I don't think it was a slight at you, but making a point to Draugnar.