@Jimbozig

"A survive is far and away the most embarassing result in a diplomacy game"

So if you were close to being eliminated near the start of a game (say, you were France and came up against an unbreakable German-English alliance which knocked you to 1SC) you would just give up? You wouldn't bother trying to survive?

This is the sort of attitude that leads to CDs... There are times when a place in a draw is not possible, during which, IMO, you should play for a survive. I abhor people who go for strong seconds, but I think a 1 SC survive (especially when that player has been fighting for his life for a long time) is an admirable result if the odds were against him.

Captain -

I think you've touched on possibly the only situation where a survive could be seen as an admirable result. If the only choice is survive while someone solos, or be defeated and there is a draw without you, then perhaps the survive is the desired result. Then again, if people played by the mentality that I am championing here, that situation would never happen because the people who are trying to eliminate France (in your example) would back off to fight the solo instead of surrendering the solo to eliminate France.

Guaroz -

Perhaps Gumers example of all team players being metagamers was wrong, but his statement that Diplomacy is not a team game still stands. Care to address THAT part of his statement?

Yes. If Team-game is not cheating then it's allowed.

Guaroz:
1) I´m honored to meet the creator of diplomacy.
2) "Team-players" are cheaters. If this is allowed or not says more about the site than about the players. They are still despicable cheaters that should be banned, burned and cooked in slow fire;
3) What´s wrong about prostitution? :P

So I have to ask again then:

If I were to sign up for 50 classic games, and in each of them I managed to set up a 6 way alliance that killed the other player and then drew the game, you guys wouldn't find anything wrong with that? You wouldn't be concerned that that player never realistically had a chance since I had a 6 way unbreakable alliance?

I'm obviously taking it to the extreme here, but sometimes one has to in order to show where that line of thought can lead.

"Again, if we follow Calhamer's logic that if someone solos, eventually everyone else on the board is killed off (remember, this is a game of European domination, not 18-sc domination. theoretically the game goes on until someone controls all scs), then a survive is simply a delayed defeat. And since a defeat is a defeat, no matter when you get defeated, a survive IS a defeat. "

Surviving is being defeated later, which is better than being defeated straight away. You still haven't refuted this.

Synapse: In the grand scheme of things, dead is dead. Quit playing with semantics. A loss is a loss is a loss.

Look at it this way:

Let's pretend we're in WWII and you're Germany. Does it matter if you lose in 1945, or if you extend it to 1946? You still lost, and you lost completely. No matter when you lose, you have no say in the outcome, you have unconditional surrender.

Same way with Dip. If you lose, you lose. Your forces are defeated, and your country over-run. You are ruled by the winner. It does not matter when you lose. You're trying to defend your position with semantics, a weak defense at best.

@ drano019 :

You wrote : "In the grand scheme of things, dead is dead."

Really ? If that is true, why you don't kill yourself today ?

Like you said, I'm obviously taking it to the extreme here, but sometimes one has to in order to show where that line of thought can lead.

Retillion -

You're confusing Real Life with a game. Kindly take a minute to remember we're talking about Diplomacy, not Real Life.

Perhaps I used a poor example, having used a real life country. However, in Diplomacy, there are no "people". No one to worry about memories or families or soldiers, or anything like that. Therefore, it's completely different than real life.

Again I will note that people have ignored the main thrust of my previous posts: the point about the 6 way draws. Care to address the real point?

@drano - your 6wd example - I wouldn't so much have a problem with you pushing for that. I would wonder what on earth is happening in the brains of the people you are convincing to go for that.

@drano/captain - I tend to agree with you both - and I also have a past experience to share. There was a game where I was pretty much told by two players in my sphere that neither would even consider working with me anymore (something about me stabbing too many times or whatever). There was a big power in the other sphere and I knew none of my sphere had any solo chance. My position was - work with me against the other and we canf ind a 3wd with the big power. They both rejected and so I was forced into a corner. I could either fight them as long as possible and hope to live long enough to be necessary in a stalemate, or, I could choose to help the large power on the other side try and solo. I set it up in a way that I would help him solo but his reward to me was to be my defeat before the end. Ultimately, I knew that there was a chance for me to be a part of a draw after the two neighbour powers so what they had caused. I played with this in mind.

So, I think that so long as you are alive in a game there is always a chance to be in a draw especially if one can use their diplomacy well. With that being said, I also think that being defeated has two distinct stories - a defeat in a game that ends in a solo is far and away a better result than a defeat in a game that ends in a draw.

And to touch back on the OP, being defeated in a game that ends in a "predetermined draw" is just awful, the worst feeling in diplomacy. I actually played a 36 SC victory condition on the classic map, and, there was a draw from three players that was agreed upon like 3 years into the game. Consequently, there are three players for whom I will likely never intend to play with again: http://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=6713

Those damn bastards! I share your wrath, Jimbo!

@drano

From the way you talk about this it could very well be about real life, play the game however you want, you aren't going to change the way I play it by arguing about the rules.

drano019 -

First of all, please note that I partly agree with what you say.
If you please check my profile, you will know that I play for the Win most of the time.

However, I estimate that it is my freedom to choose to NOT win a game sometimes, even if I could easily achieve the solo. For example, if some other player(s) have saved me earlier in the game from elimination, I may want to share the Draw with them.

My previous message makes sense. What I meant is that things have the importance that one gives to them. If some players think that a "Survived" is better than a "Defeated", why don't want to let them think that ?

Also, I wrote my previous message as a support to Synapse. Semantics do matter : a word has one meaning, another word has necessarily another meaning, even if the nuance is very subtle, even the difference cannot be understood by some - or even most ! - persons.
I would even say that there can be a difference between a "Defeated" result and a "Defeated" result ! Indeed, for example, being eliminated in a game that ends in Draw is not the same as being eliminated in a game that ends in a solo.

To address your question about 6 players making an unbreakable alliance against the 7th, here is my answer : it is MY honest judgement that will tell me if my actions are honorable. Of course, we don't all have the same judgement. Is is bad or is it an enrichment ?
In your extreme example, the situation will find very quickly an easy solution : the 7th player will very quickly stop playing with the other 6 ones who will have lost a partner and who should then understand that they have themselves sabotaged each of their games by their misconduct.

Driving so short response for now -

General cool: if that is your play style, I will be happy to never play a game with you ever again.

Retillion: unless one plays all password protected games, or quits any game joined by someone with an opposing philosophy, one can never be sure they won't end up in a game with those 6 way drawers. Especially in anonymous games. And considering its the "draw" mentality that triumphs over the "win" mentality due to strength in numbers, that's practically ostracizing "win" mentality players to the metaphorical "corner" for doing nothing more than trying to play diplomacy the way it was created

Don't text while driving. :)

Also, that is not necessarily my play style, although I will go for a survive over a defeat. If I have an ally who has been my ally all game and has worked really well with me, the biggest problem I have with going for the solo is that I feel like a jerk when I stab them and even if I do win because of it, I don't get the same warm feeling as playing to the end with a great ally.

drano019 -

Please, don't text while driving : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrtIBU5Pal0

You are right : partly because of that, I never play anonymous games and I mostly play password protected games.

Another question : let's imagine a game in which you are a very small country and you have the choice between :
1° sacrificing yourself in order to prevent a solo. The game would end in a Draw but you would be eliminated.
2° working for the leading power. The game would end in a solo but you would survive.

Which option would you choose, please ?

There is no situation where those would be the only two options. Negotiate something better, and, if you can't go down trying. It shouldn't be about whether the game ends as a solo or not, it should be about trying to find a way to be in the draw and if you are not doing that you are "giving up" which in and of itself represents very poor sportsmanship.

Fundamentalist crap.

As I said to captain meme, that second option is the perhaps one exception to the survive=defeat thought in my mind . I would still have a very difficult time making the choice, and it would likely depend on how the game had progressed up to that point. If the attempted soloer had stabbed me all game and the others were working with me, I'd be inclined to sacrifice myself. If it were the opposite, I'd possibly allow the solo.

In the end it boils down to part of my philosophy. Play to win. If you can't win, draw. If you can't draw, f*ck over the person who screwed you. Since in both situations I'd be "dead" by calhamers logic, I'd want to screw over the person who screwed me. At least then my death gets satisfaction.

disclaimer: my response only applies if you force me to choose those options and thise options only. As Jim said, there's usually another way

"death is death"

"At least then my death gets satisfaction."

Try to make your "philosophy" make sense before you dictate it to other people.

Huh? You make no sense synapse. I said if I HAVE to die, I want to at least get satisfaction from it by f*cking over the person who screwed me. What part of that doesn't make sense

Then again, death is never a certainty, except when faced by unbreakable alliances who care not about winning

Because you said that death is death and no other factors should be considered. If you're adding satisfaction to the mix, well, maybe it satisfies me to draw in the manner you just described.

I've read the thread back through carefully, and I really can't see a single tangible reason why I shouldn't draw when I want.

you're comparing apples to oranges. My analysis of satisfaction is ONLY valid if I'm FORCED to choose between two ways of dying. If being included in the draw is at all possible, it trumps satisfaction by a long shot.

As for a tangible reason, I guess if the creator of the games words aren't enough nothing is. Nothing will satisfy you synapse. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Maybe if Jesus, or Buddha, or Barack Obama, or Colonel Sanders said to play for the win, you'd listen. But I bet not, because you don't care about how the game was intended to be played by its creator. You just want to do what you want to do .

+110% Drano

PPSC is an interesting variant, but we are doing a disservice to new players in making it the default option over WTA due to the completely external factor of vDip points. Why not simply put a limit on the number of games new players can sign up for until X amount of phases are played and just have an integrated rating system, similar to the great new one Oli created, but one that weighs PPSC accordingly with WTA? Is there no way around vDip points? Are they really that essential to the site?

And if you like to play to draw or surviving is important to you, there's a great variant for you -- PPSC.

(Not that I advocate playing to draw in any variant where winning is the primary goal, but at least for those who do, PPSC is more of a forum for alternative objectives to those of the board game, which have been consistently played for 59 years now.)