Finished: 07 PM Wed 02 Apr 14 UTC
First Crusade (Brand new Variant)
1 day, 12 hours /phase
Pot: 150 D - Autumn, 1110, Finished
First Crusade, Anon, PPSC
1 excused NMR / no regaining / extend the first 1 turn(s)
Game won by CubanJedi (1391 D)

< Return

Chat archive


18 Jan 14 UTC Spring, 1096: Greetings from the great Russian empire. Have a good game everyone.
18 Jan 14 UTC Spring, 1096: thanks, greetings to all!
21 Jan 14 UTC Autumn, 1096: I inform all the players that Russia us 100% untrustable, so, please, take in care before having pact with him.
- in the starting turns, violated the agreement with me concerning Poland;
- moved on the contrary also to what he clearly wrote to me: "you can take Poland from Saxony";
- now he has no dignity to admit this and he's trying to mask the double violation as a "mistaken" caused by the lack of clear idea on "who takes what" when he clearly wrote "who takes what"

in Diplomacy, it's legitimate not to respect the pacts (aslo if it is very difficult that it can happen from the dirst turns...) but lying without dfignity and adfirming that was a "mistaken" it's another thing: it's an insult to the intelligence of all the other players

...just to inform you.....
21 Jan 14 UTC Autumn, 1096: is* not us
21 Jan 14 UTC Autumn, 1096: also* nor aslo
21 Jan 14 UTC Autumn, 1096: etc.
sorry for my errors but I'm angry with this childish Russian fake words
21 Jan 14 UTC Autumn, 1096: Hi everyone. Sorry to hear that the Romans are so upset. I truly understand he's angry, as I indeed made a different move than I said I would. I gave him a fair explanation, but unfortunately, he doesn't believe me. Does that make me untrustworthy? Well, the Romans might feel like that. But don't we all stab someone at some point? Otherwise it's pretty hard to win this game.

But I'm experienced enough to know that one declared enemy in this game is enough for me. So now that the Romans have publicly declared war to me, (and him being the most powerfull and most dangerous player of the game with 9 SCs), it can only be a reassurance to you, all the other players, that I don't want any problems with you and I'll stick to my words. Looking forward to combating the Romans together!
21 Jan 14 UTC Spring, 1097: stabbing is normal in FIPLOMACY, masking the stabbing behind a mistake it's not a problem of tactic but of untrustability!

I'm very happy that Russia wrote these lines for 3 reasons:
- he shows to all of you how much he is contradictory (and than 100% untrustable) in his own words because in his first lines (like in the fake messages of "excuses" to me) he adfirm: "I gave him a fair explanation" and you can remember that his "fair explanation" was:
21 Jan 14 UTC Spring, 1097: "Autumn, 1096: Ay. I know. That was very bad of me.
I was truly mistaken in spring about who was going to take what, and then in fall, I didn't know what to do with those armies, so I moved against our agreement."
so you can see that he said that...was a mistaken and that he didn't know what to do" while before he clearly wrote to me ""you can take Poland from Saxony";
21 Jan 14 UTC Spring, 1097: in the second part of his message, now, he wrote:
"But don't we all stab someone at some point? Otherwise it's pretty hard to win this game." so he confirms that the first lines of his message to you and the so called "fair esplanatiin" to me were simply FAKE WORDS and he has simply stabbed me....

I repeat: stabbing is not bad in Diplomacy, but trying to consider the other players as stupid with 2 opposite versions in nthe same public message it is!
- the second reason is that he said that "Romans have publicly declared war to me" that is completely reversing the reality: Russia declared war against me stabbing me and sending me fake words: this is legitimate but can be reversed only by a 100% untrustable player like Russia is showing to alla of you to be...!
- the tird reason is that russia wrote also "I'll stick to my words. Looking forward to combating the Romans together!" yes, you've in his own totally contradictory public words exactly the proof of how much Russia "is sticking to his words" (what words? the first lines ones or the completely opposite followinh ones? aahahahahahah!) and how much you can trust in the 100% untrustable Russia to "combat the Romans together"!

more, I underline to all of you that I've not wrote in the GLOBAL CHAT "Looking forward to combating the Russians together!" because I respect all of you and I discuss the alliances and the pact privately as per the Diplomacy logic...I'm simply underlining the 100% untrustability of Russia in order to avoid you bad surprises from him if you legitimately have or if you wish to have some pacts with him, making the error to think that he can be trustable....

thanks Russia for your words in the GLOBAL: the best confirmation to my thesis that I can have! all the players will be enough intelligent and clever to read YOUR words and to judhe freely.....
21 Jan 14 UTC Spring, 1097: you spelled turd wrong.
21 Jan 14 UTC Spring, 1097: HRE. First of all I believe copying words from any private chat into global undermines diplomacy, we should never know for sure what anyone said to anyone but ourselves. Secondly, a major part of diplomacy is tricking your opponents and one way you can do that is by lying about why you made moves that you made. If Russia attempts to cover up a betrayal that is fine, you can assume it isn't the truth, tell people he has betrayed you and move on with the game. There is no need for such anger when he didn't break any rules. Also note that such ridiculous rants are very unlikely to sway people to your side. People are less likely to side with you after an outburst like that. You are free to tell people about the betrayal in global chat if you want people to lose faith in Russia and similarly Russia can declare he wants you dead in global chat. But lets not copy/paste words from private messages and lets keep the ranting to a minimum.
21 Jan 14 UTC Spring, 1097: agreed. plus copy and paste is still editable. so it's not 100% believable e.g.

~Mon 10 AM Autumn, 1096: Seljuk Turks: Hello Almoravids, you can have all of my lands. you smell like honeysuckles and have a big penis.

see, i just added one of those sentences to his real message.
21 Jan 14 UTC Spring, 1097: it's a pity that there are some difficulties in reading for someone......and these persons are not able to read what the Russian player wrote in the PUBLIC chat (not in the private one....)!

for the people that have some reading problems, I repeat the parts that are NOT taken from the "private" chat but directly from the previous message of the Russian player (that is only able to invent that I copied in a fake way) in the PUBLIC chat ....

perhaps, somebody can think that also the public message that Russia wrote in the PUBLIC chat with its clear contradictions is created by me... ahahah!

Russian first lines in the PUBLIC chat: "I gave him a fair explanation"
Russian second part of his message in the PUBLIC chat: "But don't we all stab someone at some point? Otherwise it's pretty hard to win this game."

It's also a pity that somebody think that underlining the contradictions in the messages of a player, to show that he is not trustable it is not a right (and perhaps a duty) of information and a legitimate tactical act in Diplomacy; making confusion between information and creation of offensive alliances....; my only objective was and is to show, using the public chat, to all the other player how untrustable Russian player is, not to ask them in the public chat to form a "sacred alliance" against him....

if somebody (starting from my neighbours France) can trust in Russia more than in me, also after the Russian contradictory message with fake words that he wrote, it's obviously his/their right to have any pact with Russia...simply I adviced all, so don't be surprised if Russia will offer you pacts that will be discovered as untrustable in the next future....

concerning my angry, it's not related to the betrayal that is 100% legitimate in Diplomacy, but to the denying of it and to the inability of being ashamed for the contradictions in his own PUBLIC messages, because I perceive these acts as a proof of lack of dignity of the author and as his tentative to consider all the other players as stupid people that are not able to see those contradictions, no more, no less

concerning the "private" messages, can somebody copy to me where is the rule in Diplomacy that forbid to use those messages for information and tactic objectives in the public chat?

last but not least, it's a pity that somebody writes: " If Russia attempts to cover up a betrayal that is fine, you can assume it isn't the truth, tell people he has betrayed you and move on with the game" for criticize me when I exactly did it: I told to the people (showing with examples) what Russia did and Russian contradictions in the PUBLIC chat message gave me the possibility to prove my observation (I like so much proofs...), without inventing novels and tales like Russia is still continuing to do..........

in any case, my dear neighbour France, I'm exactly "moving on with the game", and from the answer (in public chat and in private chat) to my messages here I'm also understanding better who can be trustable and who cannot in the game, who is understanding what Russia is doing and who prefer to defend his PUBLIC contradictions...and this is useful, very useful for me in "moving on with the game"..., really!
21 Jan 14 UTC Spring, 1097: Yeah France! the man has been wronged and he's trying to help that we don't suffer the same fate. there's no need for you to berate him for it. damn.
21 Jan 14 UTC Spring, 1097: Get your blues right HRE, that was Seljuk Turks. The French are more concerned with getting an Almoravid envoy to come visit, full of the scent of honeysuckles and large "holy relics."
21 Jan 14 UTC Spring, 1097: ^hahaha
21 Jan 14 UTC Spring, 1097: What are you saying Almoravids...? you just copy/pasted exactly what I said, disproving your own point!
21 Jan 14 UTC Spring, 1097: And sorry France, I kind of screwed you over there haha
21 Jan 14 UTC Spring, 1097: ah but you said that on Tues not Mon. Pow!