Messages - vDiplomacy

Chat archive

26 Mar 12 UTC	Autumn, 1867: NMR of a strategically central player, grounds for a negotiated draw? What say you, Franco/Spaniards? Do you have yourselves some honour?
26 Mar 12 UTC	Autumn, 1867: (begins dirty continental European secret negotiations) I'll get back to you with my coordinated response.
26 Mar 12 UTC	Autumn, 1867: Thanks
27 Mar 12 UTC	Spring, 1868: France? Spain?
29 Mar 12 UTC	Autumn, 1868: this is ridiculous
10 Apr 12 UTC	Autumn, 1872: Dear France and Spain, You are the scummiest, most point-whoring players I have ever come across on either of the sites. The chances of two people coming together in alliance, both so identically shameless as to take repeated advantage of a NMR country in an alliance against them, whilst keeping completely silent while other players point out the game-ruining nature of this and request a fair draw, must be astronomical, and yet I have had the displeasure of experiencing it. I hope you're very happy together, and proud of yourselves. I spit on you.
10 Apr 12 UTC	Autumn, 1872: Dearest England, I am sorry that you are upset, but I make no apologies for my actions in this game. The suggestion offered by you on 26 March, that we draw after Confederacy entered CD, is ludicrous. The idea of four people drawing a game after 20 days of play, simply because a fifth refused to show up for the game, is the definition of unfair. I know you disagree with this, but what constitutes “fair” for you is a dream. Reality consists of an unending array of surprises, both positive and negative. While we may hope that our reality contains a majority of the former, it must also contain the latter. To cease all activities whenever misfortune arises, would be to set a precedent whereby we cripple our lives. A real sense of satisfaction comes from striving against misfortune and succeeding in spite of it. Inherent in that is the risk that we fail due to events outside of our control, but I firmly believe that it is better to have tried and failed then never to have tried at all. I suspect this puts us in different worldviews; however, I also don’t believe every kid should get a trophy just for showing up, and that too makes me unpopular in some circles. What I’m trying to say, simply put, is that you and Russia got a raw deal when one of your allies stopped showing up. I would have to be a blind fool to not see that. The difference between us, though, is that you seem to believe that this one act by one person should negate all the work done by four others. I disagree. I believe you and Russia should have readjusted your strategy (which you did do) and continued fighting (which you have been doing, and quite well I may add). Oh, and in regards to your allegation that Spain and I are “scum” because we kept “completely silent” in lieu of your pleas: recognize that silence is a response. If you ask a question to an opponent and they say nothing, it may be because they have nothing to say to you. Again, I am sorry that you have become upset by the game, but please recognize that the only person with whom you may rationally be angry is the former-Confederacy player. They are the only one who has done you wrong. There’s no need to “spit” on Spain and I, even metaphorically. We have a word for people who let their emotions get the best of them: “children.” Respectfully, France
11 Apr 12 UTC	Autumn, 1872: Your victory (as opposed to a stalemate draw) hasn't been built on the back of defeating other 'players' so much as it has been built on the CD (twice!) of a player who, on the balance of probabilities, would have been able to construct a stalemate line and force a draw. I'm not denying that often the quality of a game can withstand a few CTDs, but the obvious parameter of whether it is game-ruining or not is whether or not it substantially favours some players over others. Most players I encounter seem to feel this way - that worthwhile victories come from beating players, not carcasses - so I'm genuinely surprised that you seem to be under the impression is commonplace/unproblematic. Remember, I don't seek to negate 'all the work done by four others' - what I'm advocating is a 4-way draw. You profit, but not disproportionately to the amount of effort required to win. The point is that Russia and I could not 'readjust our strategy' to beat you or force a draw, because the weight of numbers meant that we would keep getting ground down - whereas, if those numbers had continued to include CSA, we would have had enough to force the draw, as I said above. I'm not actually 'upset', I'm really just expressing how I honestly felt about your conduct thus far (albeit with a view to being provocative enough to actually wrench a response out of either of you).
11 Apr 12 UTC	Autumn, 1872: I don't negate anything you've said, other than contesting the one-sidedness of the "unfair advantage". I fully recognize the frustration from the Confederate's slapping you with a double disappearance. But that's what makes this game so much fun-- there are a million things totally out of your control. In my mind, it's no different than if they had stabbed you, convinced you it was a mistake, then stabbed you again, in terms of screwing you over. I've been in games where I was alllllmost at the point of breaking away, when a second-place ally attacked me and dragged us down so that a third player won in the end. While France and I have been in negotiations from the beginning, which must be acknowledged, at the same time from my point of view there was probably a point where France perfectly reasonably could have snatched up some of my Caribbean SCs, just as I imagine from his point of view he was probably worried with my recent string of build phases that I would invade from Central America. The point is, a lot of this game is communication, and a lot of it is just getting screwed by chance or other people's decisions. So in the end, CSA ditching, twice, is just part of that.
11 Apr 12 UTC	Autumn, 1872: If you find disposing of a dead player's carcass fun, I can't contest that. But I'm telling you that I am not having fun in this game any more, and haven't since CSA dropped out. If the interest is fun then I strongly advocate drawing starting a new game. People not entering moves is not widely considered an area of strategic consideration - again, because convention suggests that if the CD is highly distortionary it's better for gameplay is the game is restarted. Your other points aren't really directly relevant to what I'm objecting to - of course you and France derived much of your advantage from good play and working together, if you think I'm contesting that then you're missing the point entirely.
12 Apr 12 UTC	Autumn, 1872: Is everyone having fun?
14 Apr 12 UTC	Spring, 1873: The Confederates picked a strange time to return...
17 Apr 12 UTC	Autumn, 1874: Im a new guy
04 May 12 UTC	Spring, 1881: congrats to the winner team
04 May 12 UTC	Spring, 1881: You've played a classy game, Russia.
04 May 12 UTC	Indeed! This has been one of the more enjoyable games I've played. Don't worry, Russia, my East Arctic embargo will sail home now that peace has been accomplished and those pesky colonists (and Brits) have been put in their places--Speaking French and Spanish!
05 May 12 UTC	thank you very much, I've enjoyed it too much.