Nothing to do with a Draw, you just kept attacking Turkey, even though Germany was clearly winning.

Bad form, in my opinion.

Yeah, there are no real rules about draws. You are not forced to draw at any point in time. the only times when not drawing is frowned upon is when a) Someone's personal situation necessitates his leaving the game (in a live one, e.g. my wife just went into labor) or if there is a clear stalemate line and the game has been going on for several years without any SC changing hands

My attack on Germany had failed, Germany and Turkey had allied, and it seemed to me that I was not going to win. So I thought: who do I want to win?

I suppose I could of tried to show Turkey peace by support holding them for a turn. I was hoping to get lucky up north but ended up picking the wrong things.

Don't listen to that message though. You're new to the site and we should welcome all new players. There was, however, the option of concluding a peace with Turkey and concentrating on Germany. He kept attacking you because you kept attacking him. I really shouldn't speak about gunboats, though, because I'm terrible at them. I'm much more of a smooth talker myself haha

goldfinger0303:

I think those two situations you mentioned are reasonable however in the four live games I was in people wanted to draw even though neither situation was present. As a result of two of the games I was verbally attacked (insults, swearwords).

I feel so old on this site. Everyone who seems to post on the forums is up in the 20,000s.

eliphas just avoid those people, then. or ignore them. i've gotten the same comments sometimes, as have others, so it's not just you. but if someone has a critique that's valid, accept it and think on it. sometimes i even say thanks for criticism that i don't think is valid, b/c you never know.

I'm not good at gunboats, but I don't think I'm terrible. Probably should've tried to forge peace with Turkey, seems that both of you misunderstood the other's intentions.

'I think those two situations you mentioned are reasonable however in the four live games I was in people wanted to draw even though neither situation was present. As a result of two of the games I was verbally attacked (insults, swearwords). '

Sounds like poor sportsmanship. I can't comment fully as I only have one side, but if it isn't an emergency, or a stalemate. or, people have CDed...

Maybe there were only 3 people left, about evenly matched? Sometimes people like the draws to avoid a long drawn out brawl (or someone getting gang-banged and maybe someone getting the solo after?)

+1 djbent. Better advice can't be said. Just avoid those players who trash-talk you. And Kingdroid has a point, as sometimes 3-way draws are organized for those very reasons.

And WhiteSammy, that's because you are old :p

just avoid gunboat if you ask me :p

and i'd say more strenuously a draw should always be agreed upon once a stalemate line has been reached (and all opponents on the other side of the line are voting for a draw) if one of them doesn't vote then it doesn't matter because you can still get them to stab each other (you know, tell them you'll draw once they remove the player on their side of the line who isn't voting to draw :P)

but after that there is no excuse for holding up the game (Especially if it is live)

The player (I'm assuming it was Austria) was angry because you were in a position to stop Germany's solo and didn't - what's more, in a WTA game, where you get nothing for surviving. And he was justifiably angry - I would have been too. But I never would have told you to "fuck off".

In WTA (And we can have another whole discussion about WTA vs. PPSC, and why PPSC is a horrible variant) your first goal has to be to stop someone else' solo, which you didn't do. If you don't, you get nothing, which is why people get angry when you don't.

Simply put, you had 0 chance of getting points from that game by fighting Turkey. Had you turned and attacked Germany, you might have drawn for some of the points. Turkey might have stabbed you too. But in Gunboats, you have to hope that all parties are as committed to stopping the solo as you are.

When will players of diplomacy realize that you get more flies with honey than vinegar? Too many people just love to go off the moment things don't go their way. Guys, this is a game of ebb and flow. You roll with the punches, instead of get offended by them when you play vets.

Eliphas, try and get a game going with people on the forum that aren't tools. You'll end up with a much better experience.

So tactfully put Knox, bravo.

@ eliphas: sometimes players in a gunboat will vote to draw before the "situation is present" because they can see that a stalemate will have to be formed to stop a solo in the upcoming years. they're letting the other secondary powers know that they want to form an alliance to stop that solo from happening.

@Eliphas

The site rules can be found here: http://webdiplomacy.net/rules.php

If it is believed you are breaking a rule, a mod will send you a *polite* email, not an offensive PM. Unfortunately, not all of our members have the same amount of tact.

As long as you are following the rules in the link above, we hope you will continue enjoying the site.

"Too many people just love to go off the moment things don't go their way. Guys, this is a game of ebb and flow. You roll with the punches, instead of get offended by them when you play vets."

video about gamers posted here yesterday, pointed out how social gaming is. How we as humans trust each other to sit down and play by some set of rules toward some understood goal.

If you break that trust (which includes in diplomacy the trust that you will stab people in-game when it suits you) then you annoy people and ruin their fun! You break the implicit agreement that they saw when you sat down at hte doplomacy board. (of course they never tell you what is in the implicit agreement because, like, d'oh, it's implicit... they don't know what you don't know, and in gunboat you can't even tell them!)

@Eliphas, looks to me like Turkey was the one that gave Germany the win. If he wanted you to be able to focus on stopping Germany, he should have backed off, or given support holds instead of bounces. Granted, I've only briefly looked at the game, but that's what it looks like to me.

I had that thought too Alderian.

I was Turkey - and while I may have lost the game - I certainly did not write any profanity filled messages. If Alderian or ☺ would care to take a closer look, I'd love to learn where I could have backed off with a chance of a positive result. I agree on the particular challengs gunboat provides - but in a WTA game I do assume that everyone should be on board with stopping a solo.

Well, xpedior, both you and Eliphas, in this case, could have shown at least a little support for each other in light of the oncoming solo.

By assuming that the other player didn't want to ally against the solo, you gave yourself a 100% chance of lass, while if you had made the supports and such, there was a chance he would get the message. and in a WTA, if he doesn't get the message, you all lose anyways.

In addition, smileyface assumed Austria sent the profane messages, not you.

I guessed. I didn't assume. :-)

'The player (I'm assuming it was Austria) '

By your own admission, you assumed.

Oh. Pssh. Fair enough. :-P

@xpedior, I think 1910-1911 was a good moment. You had almost eliminated Austria, and the only players left were france, you and Germany. france disbands tuscany in 1910, and he is still attacking Germany.

There was no way you were soloing this game, so there was really no point in attacking France. you could have moved Ionian to Naples, support hold Rome, take Trieste, and stop there (while hammering uselessly ont he German stalemate line).

i tihnk the point where this game was lost is when you moved into the Gulf of Lyons.

Just my 2 cents.