But on the flip side, abandoning a game because someone else is going to win is also poor sportsmanship. Why should a player with a great position be denied a win just because someone else didn't get orders in?

Just playing devil's advocate here, not saying I totally disagree.

I agree, unless the CD doesn't help the player in question. For example, if you're winning as Turkey, and England CDs, is it really poor sportsmanship to keep playing?

nah, you are playing with other human beings who have invested significant time into a game. noblesse oblige is a necessary characteristic in this case. If you push on to win against everybody else at the table because one person left; then you are being childish. If you are obsessed with points and victory at the expense of the other people who ARE still at the table; who lose for structural reasons BECAUSE of the CD with no ability to recover; then you are both a poor sportsman and a child.

Agree Hirsute. its not. Just like its not when a 1SC country CDs. Thats normal. But when a major power in mid game CDs; or even two; and you keep pushing; then that is gotesque misconduct.

In the game we just played, I don't think England showed poor sportsmanship. I think that was fine. The player whom I had an issue with was Italy. Italy is the one that CDed right when the outcome could still have gone either way. Also, you, as Turkey, didn't seem to want to show him you were interested in cooperating over the stalemate. You took Trieste and then backed out of it. A little late to show your goals. As Russia I expected you to take Warsaw because you didn't show me you udnerstood the importance of the stalemate. Curtis earneed that win. More due to the fact that france played a really poor game than due to its CD. Also more due to the fact you and Italy couldn't get your acts together to put up a unified front than due to Italy's NMRs. Plus if you had blocked him out of Tuscany it would have been stalemated a lot easier.

sorry, it was this game that pissed me off:

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=43359

France CD should have been instant draw with anyone who has an ounce of dignity and perspective.

I mean, if you guys (Italy and Turkey) had played properly in the endgame it would have been an easy draw. I am pretty frustrated after this game but noen of it is directed at England.

In case anyone cares: gameID=43359

I suggest you alanlyze more closely that late game. Italy's NMRs were crucial.

Its still my position that the game should have been a draw after France. Simply because if France had defended himself then I would have at the very least been a much different position

France played a horrible game while he was there. It wouldn't have changed much. I agree that Italy's NMRs were important, but I don't see him cooperating with the stalemate. I've played many games with Linkoura before and he struggles with this aspect. You did nothing to convince him to help you anyway. Also, do you think you can convoy Greece to Apulia if Ionian isn't ordering it or what was that about?

I'm really sorry for the end of the game. I had been disturbing by some friends and I totally forgot the game. =(
(And excuse me for my bad english)

@numberzero:If someone goes CD, the players surrounding the CDer have a feeding frenzy. It's rare that a CDer has more than 2 or 3 SCs and he's usually under sustained attack and losing, so the one who wins the SCs would probably have got most of them anyway. If there's more SCs going begging, then someone else usually takes over the vacant place anyway.

Early CD - the game should be restarted. Late CD - play on and play to win. Luck of the draw I am afraid.

It doesn't matter really matter how many SCs a player had as long as it's more than one - a CD hugely affects the game. Sure a bad player who CDs would probably lose in the end anyways, but even a bad player can hold out longer than a CD'd player. It's not the fact that they'd lose the SCs anyways, it the speed at which they lose them that matters to the game in general.

The game in question was decided before France CDed. Turkey and Italy were engaged in a game-long battle. It just sped up the process and forced a faster reaction. A reaction that came far too late. I really hope everyone has learnt something from this game.

People have been known to deliberately cd when they get a Great Power that they do not like.

What is that supposed to be? An excuse? Anyone who does that should never have joined this site to begin with. There are other sites out there that allow you to pick a preference for which country you want to control.

@Hairy - It is bad sportsmanship, and it is widespread on this site. Giving in to such a cancellation or draw request reinforces this.

It looks like Italy's NMRing was the reason Eng won, not France going CD. The units were in place to hold the Ion-Nap-Rom-Ven-Tyr stalemate on the last turn.

@mapleleaf: if that's the case there needs to be reprecussions for such actions. If a user does that multiple times they should get a warning and if they continue to do so they should be banned.

@ Hirsute: If people would password protect live games, players could be screened by the game's creator, and denied if they have a history of CDing. If we're not willing to put in that little amount of effort for ourselves, why should the Mods go out of their way to help?

I could not more significantly disagree with Numberzero. After studying the game move by move, it summarizes as this: From 1901 to 1907, England stabbed first Russia, then France, then Germany. Down south, it eventually boiled down to Italy versus Turkey.
In 1907, when Turkey and Italy saw the CD of a major power occur (and at that point, 2 piece Germany had been CD for a year, did they use good strategy and patch up their differences, to counterbalance what any nube could have predicted what would happen with a CD? No - they fought for three years, and in 1910, faced an England that had fed for three years. And then they blamed it on poor sportsmanship on England's part. CD's will happen - they do happen in more than 40% of the games played. Would you really want 40% of games cancelled? The minute that CD's occur, It is a player's responsibility to rearrange their alliances to counter them. I can't feel badly for a player who sticks his or her head in the sand when there will be an obvious problem down the road.

As a further example of poor strategy, I point out Turkey's stab of Russia, taking St. Pete from them, when clearly Russia was holding the line against England up north. Turkey chose the short term advantage and ignored the long term consequences. No, he couldn't have known that France would CD. Yes, he could have known that England was gaining strength up north and Russia could have counterbalanced England - and then when the CD or other events happened, England would have had one more capable enemy up there. Just paying attention to your little corner of the world, and put your head in the sand....And reap what you sow.

@trip: very good point.

@indybroughton: If I understand your game summary correctly, good sportsmanship would have been if England, upon seeing he would gain a huge advantage not due to strategy but due to a CD, offered a draw or cancel. It would then be up to the other players to continue or not.
That being said, you should always play AS IF the game is not going to be cancelled or drawn in such situations, and I couldn't agree more that players need to ally against any player who is gaining an advantage due to a CD.

@trip: I still think it would be nice if there was a built-in feature to punish people who intentionally drop out of games. I propose this because I doubt everyone is going to want to go through the trouble of screening their games.

As a player in the game, I believe Indy is absolutely correct. Thats how I saw it exactly.

I agree, Hirsute, something is desirable - personally, I think there should be a visible measure after their name showing the number of times they have CD'd, or the percentage. Sort of a scarlet letter. Having said that, no, I didn't state clearly my opinion if you took from it that England should have offered draw or cancel. I don't think it's reasonable for a player to have to offer draws or cancels in 40%+ of the games. I think it adds to the strategy requirements if players are expected to change their alliances based on changes in the environment, whether CD's, allies who are lousy tactically, illogical or venal opponents, opponents who refuse to stab each other, etc. If there were a way to put a robot player in for a CD player - an AI which would simply defend itself - I'd immediately vote for that. But until then, if 40% of the time, players are expected to draw or cancel a game which they poured time and thought into - I'd not stay at that site.

Speaking of which... the site improves from suggestions such as the above - but how many of us have helped by contributing as little as $5 through Paypal?

Lando, Link, Indy, Figle, Mapleleaf, Hirsuite, Number, Groza, Speaker, Spyman?
If believers in good sportsmanship...be a good sport and contribute $5 today:


https://www.paypal.com/au/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=PnseYiLU9bApHSgplafu0a_NgpGHzS2ZUJYbD0UjUy2B8wZ1pJYCLSLTFPG&dispatch=50a222a57771920b6a3d7b606239e4d529b525e0b7e69bf0224adecfb0124e9b61f737ba21b08198ad5733caaf944cbac24b2728ea935a7c

or click on Help...and then How to Donate..

bump

I think it's situational. If I end up in a game with two early CDs I'll always suggest a draw, if people don't take it, and the game continues, I will attempt to win same as in any other game. I don't think you can blame me for that.

Early CD's, yes, game should be drawn or cancelled. If CD after 1903, no, I've already put in time arranging alliances and probably stabbing someone, and I'll be damned if I'm going to offer a draw because someone else is a bad sport

amen to that

I disagree. CDs are part of playing this version of Diplomacy. Winning isn't everything, having fun playing is. I agree, often a CD is a game changing event, but I look at it as sport to see how I can react to the changing situation.

If everyone else wants a draw I will agree, but I think it is best to play on in most cases and see who can take the best advantage of the situation.

What I don't like about playing on in a CD situation is that it can be the case that no matter how well I play I can be defeated by someone who has made huge gains not by strategy, but because someone else quit. I enjoy a challenge - it's the reason I sometimes replace players who have CD'd, but when I invest time and thought into a game I don't want to lose that game because of a CD. Likewise I don't want to win because of a CD - that's a hollow victory. It's not as if there is a finite amount of games on this site. If a game gets majorly screwed up because of a CD and you gain because of it, offer to draw or cancel and start a new game. If the other players would rather keep playing, fine, keep playing - anything else is poor sportsmanship IMHO