Obsidian Forums Diplomacy Game 1 (OBS-1)

[Reveilled]

It is fair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Votes that require majority are fair. Those that require unanimity are not.

 

Votes that require unanimity are fair, especially when we are talking about changing the rules of a game when everyone was required to agree to the previous set of rules. Unanimous agreement was required to put them in place, so unanimous agreement should be required to change them.

 

In this case, a majority vote would not be fair.

 

Anyway good chap - I trust the adjudication is going smoothly?  You just never know what a one-province-wonder can pull out of the bag; especially the ones that don't even have a supply centre mind you.  ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You'll be able to declare a draw in about an hour. I'm so glad that a day's wait was worth having my character assassinated.

[jaguars4ever]

Votes that require unanimity are fair, especially when we are talking about changing the rules of a game when everyone was required to agree to the previous set of rules.  Unanimous agreement was required to put them in place, so unanimous agreement should be required to change them.

 

In this case, a majority vote would not be fair.

In this case 6 (SIX) players voted for a restart, and 1 (ONE) voted against. Now either your definition of equitablity is flawed, or your mathematics is.

 

 

---

 

You'll be able to declare a draw in about an hour.  I'm so glad that a day's wait was worth having my character assassinated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I still love you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But not in a homoerotic kind of way. No sir - only Ghostie swings both ways!

[alanschu]

Ender, you are the one who is flat out lying. I'm going to say this once more. Read closely. I have said that I am more expereinced with the rules, and the strategy of this game. Never once have I said I am more experinced with the diplomatic aspect, or at actually playing the game. These are two distinct things, the same difference between watching the superbowl and playing in it.

 

I think you're grossly overestimating the "diplomacy" and "actually playing the game" aspects.

 

By knowing strategies, you'll put yourself a leg up on anyone that's never even seen the game before. You'll know before hand which alliances do and do not work.

 

The diplomacy aspect for the most part is just "d00d, attax0rs deez guys and I'll helpz0rs j00 OK!!!111?one?" with replies of "OK, r0x0rs onz0rs d00d" that are either the truth or the lie.

 

 

 

I still find it wierd that someone can have such extensive knowledge of the game, how it's played, with familiarity of strategies and common alliances, yet has never actually played the game before.

 

I am a big Axis and Allies fan, and read up on the manual and learned strategies and whatnot, but not before actually playing the game. Why would you read up on something and study it so intently, having a game you have no experience with and for all you know could actually be a flat out, boring, stupid game?

[EnderAndrew]

Look at what I found:

 

I'm just curious.  I've had the boardgame for a while.

[EnderAndrew]

Votes that require unanimity are fair, especially when we are talking about changing the rules of a game when everyone was required to agree to the previous set of rules.  Unanimous agreement was required to put them in place, so unanimous agreement should be required to change them.

In Fantasy Football, let's say one player decides to give up halfway during the season and wants to trade away his best players to another team to shift the balance of power in the league. A vote requiring unanimous decision couldn't happen, so an unfair trade would occur destroying the legitimacy of the league.

 

A majority or 2/3's vote however keeps the game fair.

 

In this case, 2 out of 7 players were shafted right off the bat. 6 players out of 7 were fine with a reset. 1 wasn't. I wonder if that one player had an unfair advantage because of not resetting. The GM sure implied as such.

 

So one person wanting to keep an unfair advantage in the face of 6 players who are unhappy is fair?

 

If that is what you truly believe is fair, then yes I feel completely vindicated assassinating your character.

[Reveilled]

Ender, you are the one who is flat out lying. I'm going to say this once more. Read closely. I have said that I am more expereinced with the rules, and the strategy of this game. Never once have I said I am more experinced with the diplomatic aspect, or at actually playing the game. These are two distinct things, the same difference between watching the superbowl and playing in it.

 

I think you're grossly overestimating the "diplomacy" and "actually playing the game" aspects.

 

By knowing strategies, you'll put yourself a leg up on anyone that's never even seen the game before. You'll know before hand which alliances do and do not work.

 

The diplomacy aspect for the most part is just "d00d, attax0rs deez guys and I'll helpz0rs j00 OK!!!111?one?" with replies of "OK, r0x0rs onz0rs d00d" that are either the truth or the lie.

 

Perhaps, but if I remember correctly when I originally said it, I'd only been playing in OBS-2 for a few days., which is hardly long enough to gain a good appreciation of how involved the diplomacy aspect it.

 

Also, I made no attempt to hide where I found the strategy articles that I read, I even encouraged it. It wouldn't take long to read them, either.

 

I still find it wierd that someone can have such extensive knowledge of the game, how it's played, with familiarity of strategies and common alliances, yet has never actually played the game before.

 

I am a big Axis and Allies fan, and read up on the manual and learned strategies and whatnot, but not before actually playing the game.  Why would you read up on something and study it so intently, having a game you have no experience with and for all you know could actually be a flat out, boring, stupid game?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*shrug* Originally, I had intended to play the game with my friends, and so I read up on the rules, but it turned out none of my friends were intersted enough to play. Personally, I found the strategy articles quite interesting to read, so I read them, even after it was obvious that I wouldn't be playing any time soon. Plus, knowing the rules and strategies meant I could study the maps of various variants, which I enjoy doing.

 

In any case, you're partially correct. I do happen to find Diplomacy fairly unenjoyable to play, and probably won't participate in any more games as a player.

 

I've never given anyone a tarot reading, either, but I reckon I could do it without looking at a book listing the meanings of the cards. I just happen to enjoy learning about things I find interesting, even if I don't have a use for that knowledge.

[Reveilled]

Look at what I found:

 

I'm just curious.  I've had the boardgame for a while.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So now we're resorting to out of context quotes? That's low, Ender. Really low.

 

The first post of the first thread on Diplomacy, entitled "Anyone ever played Diplomacy?":

I'm just curious.  I've had the boardgame for a while, but I've never been able to find enough people to play a real game.

 

For anyone who isn't aware of what I'm talking about, Diplomacy is a game sort of like risk, except that the board covers only Europe at the start of the 20th century, and the entire game is focused on diplomacy, alliances, betrayals, lies and deceptions.  You try to convince the other six players that you're on their side, in order to manipulate them into trusting you and doing exactly what you want them to do.

 

It sounds like a brilliant game, but sadly I've never been able to play it.  Maybe someone has an interesting story or two to share?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[EnderAndrew]

Did you play up how knowledgable you were? Yes.

 

Did you attempt to completely downplay it later? Yes.

[Reveilled]

Votes that require unanimity are fair, especially when we are talking about changing the rules of a game when everyone was required to agree to the previous set of rules.  Unanimous agreement was required to put them in place, so unanimous agreement should be required to change them.

In Fantasy Football, let's say one player decides to give up halfway during the season and wants to trade away his best players to another team to shift the balance of power in the league. A vote requiring unanimous decision couldn't happen, so an unfair trade would occur destroying the legitimacy of the league.

 

A majority or 2/3's vote however keeps the game fair.

 

In this case, 2 out of 7 players were shafted right off the bat. 6 players out of 7 were fine with a reset. 1 wasn't. I wonder if that one player had an unfair advantage because of not resetting. The GM sure implied as such.

 

So one person wanting to keep an unfair advantage in the face of 6 players who are unhappy is fair?

 

If that is what you truly believe is fair, then yes I feel completely vindicated assassinating your character.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is not a problem with a unanimous vote, this is a problem with the initial rules which authorise such trades.

[Reveilled]

Did you play up how knowledgable you were?  Yes.

 

Did you attempt to completely downplay it later?  Yes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ender, you really ought to know that constructing strawman arguments, accusing people of backpedalling when you can't answer a rebuttal and taking quotes out of context doesn't mean you are right.

[EnderAndrew]

This is not a problem with a unanimous vote, this is a problem with the initial rules which authorise such trades.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is why every league I've ever seen requires a majority vote and not an unanimous vote.

 

You said plainly that as a rule unanimous is fair, but majority isn't. I made two clear examples, one within Diplomacy, and another outside of Diplomacy in a similiar play-online game to demonstrate how it isn't fair in either case.

 

You're trying to side-step the facts.

[EnderAndrew]

Ender, you really ought to know that constructing strawman arguments, accusing people of backpedalling when you can't answer a rebuttal and taking quotes out of context doesn't mean you are right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=experience

 

Experience is a synonym of familiarity.

 

Were you considerably more familiar with Diplomacy than any of the other players? Yes.

 

Did you brag about your experience? Yes.

 

Did you outright lie and get caught in it when you said you had less experience than me? Yes.

 

Who here doesn't answer rebuttals?

[Reveilled]

I thought I was the one arguing semantics?

 

Ender, we've been over this, and you know it. Even in the post we're arguing over, I said that I "know the rules back to front". I have never denied this. All I have said is that I had less experince than you at actually playing the game.

 

Tell me Ender, why did you take a half sentence from my first post out of its context?

[EnderAndrew]

So now we're resorting to out of context quotes?  That's low, Ender.  Really low.

No.

 

You said that everything you learned about the game stems from what you saw online. Actually owning the game for a while, having the manuals in hand, and discussing the game with your friends constitutes having knowledge of the game well before researching it online.

 

It demonstrates that you lied yet again.

[Reveilled]

So now we're resorting to out of context quotes?  That's low, Ender.  Really low.

No.

 

You said that everything you learned about the game steps from what you saw online. Actually owning the game for a while, having the manuals in hand, and discussing the game with your friends constitutes having knowledge of the game well before researching it online.

 

It demonstrates that you lied yet again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The manual that came with the board is twelve pages long. I have a manual in hand, but it is the one that I linked everyone too, printed out and stapled. Considering my friends weren't interested enough to play, what do you think the chances are that they were interested enough to learn anything about the strategy of it? And I bought the board off eBay, after researching it online.

 

The fact remains, you still took the quote right out of context. You even inserted a full stop at the end, instead of elipses, in order to make it seem like it was a whole post.

[EnderAndrew]

I quoted the relevant text.

 

I'm demonstrating that you lied about first learning about the game online. The rest of the post wasn't relevant to that point.

 

Quoting it out of context suggests that I altered the spirit of your post.

 

All I am saying is that you owned the game, and talked about it with friends, and that contradicts other statements by you.

 

You can attack my style of posting but that doesn't change the fact that you've been caught in another lie.

 

Again, who doesn't answer rebuttals?

[Kaftan Barlast]

 

 

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! )

[Reveilled]

You don't.

 

Ender, you are the one who is flat out lying.  I'm going to say this once more.  Read closely. I have said that I am more expereinced with the rules, and the strategy of this game.  Never once have I said I am more experinced with the diplomatic aspect, or at actually playing the game.  These are two distinct things, the same difference between watching the superbowl and playing in it.

 

Now, stop lying about what I have said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yup. Uh-huh. Whatever.

 

Do you even have a back-pedal for saying that you aren't for forcing players to play a game that isn't fun?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Some answer that was.

[EnderAndrew]

You could have used this one:

 

[EnderAndrew]

Some answer that was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're not very good at misdirection, but you sure like to use it all the time.

 

You accused me of lying with no proof. The mods have told me that when you accuse someone of lying you better have proof, otherwise the comments are considered flames. I present proof how your statements contradict. I quote you.

 

Have you proven that I lie, or do you merely attempt to divert blame?

 

And your analogy was so ridiculous that I threw out a humorous remark. Your comments usually don't merit serious discussion, but if you must know, you said:

These are two distinct things, the same difference between watching the superbowl and playing in it.

That is apples and oranges if I ever saw it.

 

The average person who views the Super Bowl couldn't suit up for a high school game, let alone a college game, let alone a semi-pro game, let alone a pro game, let alone the Super Bowl. How does that apply to a game we all were able to play immediately?

 

You have said that you feel I picked up the game rather quickly. It doesn't take much to learn the ins-and-outs of this game. Yet, even still I made mistakes and illegal moves which you caught. The reason you catch such moves and haven't made any mistakes as a GM is because you do have a greater knowledge of the game than any of us.

 

You tried to downplay that knowledge after bragging about it. Then you back-pedalled and lied about the whole affair.

 

You then claimed that you only knew the game from the website, only to contradict statements that you own the game and discussed it at great length with friends.

 

You also made a statement that you "never saw a game where that happened" making it clear that even if you haven't played the game, you have seen entire games.

 

Does that make you more familiar than players who haven't even heard of the game? Yes.

 

Is familiarity a form of experience? Yes.

 

Are you more experieneced? Yes.

 

Did you lie about it? Yes.

[Kaftan Barlast]

You could have used this one:

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

neg. no pwnage has yet been detected.

[EnderAndrew]

He has been caught lying 3 times, and his only answer is to call me a liar. No actual facts, proof or anything like that. I have an open and shut case on him and all he has done is back-pedal and misdirect.

[Reveilled]

You have lied about me lying. Several times. When I establish that I did not lie, you pick a few more posts that can be twisted to show a supposed lie, and claim again that I have lied.

 

I have never, Once, in all my time here, claimed that I was not expereinced with the rules and strategy of this game. Show me one post. One post. One single post where I have claimed this. Go on. I dare you.

 

Also, I have made mistakes. For one, I got Jags build order wrong a turn or two ago, and I have been allowing people to move fleets to spain when the coast was not specified.

 

In any case. I've adjudicated F06. Germany is in civil disorder after three NMRs. Would you like to declare a draw, your imperial majesty?

[EnderAndrew]

I quoted you contradicting yourself. I made it explicitly clear where and how you are lying.

 

And that makes me a liar?

 

Yes, Jags and I are declaring a draw. And now that this game is officially over, you're on my prestigious ignore list.

 

I can repeat another 50 times how you lied exactly, but pathological liars won't admit when they are caught in lies. I am completely and utterly confident that people will see the truth in the matter.

 

[Reveilled]

I quoted you contradicting yourself.  I made it explicitly clear where and how you are lying.

 

And that makes me a liar?

 

Yes, Jags and I are declaring a draw.  And now that this game is officially over, you're on my prestigious ignore list.

 

I can repeat another 50 times how you lied exactly, but pathological liars won't admit when they are caught in lies.  I am completely and utterly confident that people will see the truth in the matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmm...no quote. Strange that. Maybe I didn't say that after all.

 

On the bright side, now that Ender is ignoring me, maybe I won't have to defend myself against his oversimplification of my arguments any more.