Obsidian Forums Diplomacy Game 1 (OBS-1)

[Reveilled]

You bragged up your experience repeatedly, not just in one joke.  Then you flip-flop and when called on it, you argue semantics.  But there is no arguing that you were pushing one message, and then a completely contradictory one.

 

The very art of back-pedalling is to fight over semantics so that it might seem like the two contradictary statements might possibly both be true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You've always been the one arguing semantics, and when that fails, you outrightly lie about what people have said.

 

There's no contradiction. I have experience with the rules and tactics of the game. I had little experience with the diplomacy of the game, and with actually playing it.

 

If you see a contradiction here, then surely you have no problem with continuing to play, as the game of tactics it would be from here is therefore little different from the game of negotiation it was before.

[EnderAndrew]

Why argue?

 

You've established yourself as the type of player I would never want to be involved with in a game and now you attempt to misdirect blame and call me a liar?

 

Let's examine this.

 

You swear that you voted to reset the other game, as you claim you wouldn't want to push for a game that isn't fun for other players.

 

What are you doing here? Contradicting your statements yet again.

 

Which to believe?

 

And I'm the liar?

[Reveilled]

Why argue?

 

You've established yourself as the type of player I would never want to be involved with in a game and now you attempt to misdirect blame and call me a liar?

 

Let's examine this.

 

You swear that you voted to reset the other game, as you claim you wouldn't want to push for a game that isn't fun for other players.

 

What are you doing here?  Contradicting your statements yet again.

 

Which to believe?

 

And I'm the liar?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If it's no fun for you, convince Kaftan to give up. Until he does, I as the GM have to take his enjoyment into account too.

 

Just as I'm sure Mets was in favour of the restart, but didn't have it because someone voted against it.

[EnderAndrew]

I sent a message to all the players asking if they were comfortable with declaring a draw.

 

And I have submitted moves.

[Baley]

NeVar sUrenDar!!!!!!111

[Loof]

Wow this is reaching codex level of silly arguments .....

[metadigital]

The Ottomans are not dead!

 

 

Ender, Reveilled@ you guys should take a bitter argument off-line, as it isn't in the spirit of the game or gaming.

 

[Skynet]

I've got a better idea. How about they just apologize to each other, acknowledge that they are each probably partially at fault, and attempt to not make the same mistake(s) in the future?

[jaguars4ever]

Given that Kaftan doesn't have a supply center that is silly.

 

You're just being obstinate for the purpose of being obstinate.  I sincerely think that you fail to understand the purpose of a game is to have fun.

 

Whatever.  Moves have been submitted.

 

Don't expect me to ever play in a Diplomacy game that you are involved in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Just because you don't get to re-triangulate the pretty maps doesn't mean you should start TKing on me n00b!1! I am teh dipmeister you dirty h4XX0r!1! "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fixed.

[Reveilled]

Given that Kaftan doesn't have a supply center that is silly.

 

You're just being obstinate for the purpose of being obstinate.  I sincerely think that you fail to understand the purpose of a game is to have fun.

 

Whatever.  Moves have been submitted.

 

Don't expect me to ever play in a Diplomacy game that you are involved in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Just because you don't get to re-triangulate the pretty maps doesn't mean you should start TKing on me n00b!1! I am teh dipmeister you dirty h4XX0r!1! "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fixed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Brilliant!

[metadigital]

I think my TOMBS analysis has taken over the "real" Jags ... *pinkie*

[EnderAndrew]

Are we not restarting the game then Meta?

 

Naturally the one or two individuals who profited who vote against it - but would be against a competetive game, against a fair and equitable game, and most of all against a fun and enjoyable gamer for everyone else.

 

That is why I was under the impression it would be restarted under majority vote as opposed to an unlikely unanimous vote. This is afterall the most democratic way to do it.

 

I shouldn't really tell tales, but I might hint that one player was threatening to take his bat and go home ...

 

I take it this player is currently benefiting from the meta-gaming handicap of everyone else?

 

"

 

Note that meta say HIS bat and not HER bat.

 

Also : The itallics used and everything else is completely UNEDITED.

[metadigital]

Now, now Ender. I really can't be drawn on this. And you shouldn't be asking. Show that you are a good sport and take your lumps.

 

I can neither confirm nor deny any player's vote. (It's not fair.)

 

The player is always capable of owning up, though I doubt that will happen (and probably not for the reason that you will jump to first ...).

[jaguars4ever]

 

*wags finger*

 

"I did not have diplomatic relations with that Meta"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Or did I?"

[metadigital]

GOLD

[EnderAndrew]

Reveiled stated in the other thread that he is against forcing players to be involved in a game that is not fun, but contradicts that here.

 

He made a big to-do about his knowledge of the game, and then contradicted it later.

 

Given his trend of going back on what he said, and the fact that he alone defended continuing the game I find it hard to believe that he voted to reset the game.

 

Either way, he has demonstrated that he is not the type of player interested in keeping a game fun and not a player I want to play with. Back-pedalling only serves to hammer than home even more.

 

Reveiled said lying out-of-game was bad form, and thusly he is being called on it.

[metadigital]

This just means that everyone has to kill Reveilled in game 3. "

[jaguars4ever]

Don't forget game 2. "

[metadigital]

I am not permitted to be partisan for Game Two.

[Reveilled]

Reveiled stated in the other thread that he is against forcing players to be involved in a game that is not fun, but contradicts that here.

 

He made a big to-do about his knowledge of the game, and then contradicted it later.

 

Given his trend of going back on what he said, and the fact that he alone defended continuing the game I find it hard to believe that he voted to reset the game.

 

Either way, he has demonstrated that he is not the type of player interested in keeping a game fun and not a player I want to play with.  Back-pedalling only serves to hammer than home even more.

 

Reveiled said lying out-of-game was bad form, and thusly he is being called on it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[EnderAndrew]

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?

[Reveilled]

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}>

 

First of all, could you show me where I've said it? I can't seem to remember, and I would hate to say anything further on the matter before I can ensure that my answer can't be twisted by you into something which is nothing like what I intended to say.

[EnderAndrew]

I'll hunt the quotes down. I'm looking right now, and one thing that I found interesting was when the players went absent to begin with, you suggested that the countries should just be vacant.

 

Surely you wouldn't suggest anything that would give you an unfair advantage in the game?

 

The bulwark of your arguement is that it isn't fair to the players to do anything that doesn't have a unanimous vote, so something that unfairly supports one player can't be overturned, even if six people would object.

 

Yep, that's totally fair. I don't think you understand or care what fair is.

[Reveilled]

I'll hunt the quotes down.  I'm looking right now, and one thing that I found interesting was when the players went absent to begin with, you suggested that the countries should just be vacant.

 

Surely you wouldn't suggest anything that would give you an unfair advantage in the game?

 

Here it is:

 

I think we should just leave their places vacant.  " 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Anyone else notice anything about this post that might suggest it was not intended to be taken seriously? Anyone?

 

The bulwark of your arguement is that it isn't fair to the players to do anything that doesn't have a unanimous vote, so something that unfairly supports one player can't be overturned, even if six people would object.

 

Yep, that's totally fair.  I don't think you understand or care what fair is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is fair.

[jaguars4ever]

It is fair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

 

---

 

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. ^_^