Obsidian Forum Diplomacy Game 2 (OBS-2)

[metadigital]

Deadline: One Hour to Go.

 

Please make sure all your orders are in for Fall 1901 turn, by the move of the hour hand.

 

Thanks

[Reveilled]

Come on! The suspense is killing me.

[metadigital]

I'm thinking about whether to ...

 

 

 

 

 

... add a nice little spreadsheet of positions and possibly a nice graph, so there is a nice split-level effect ...

"

[Reveilled]

I'd honestly preferred you just listed the moves.

 

Better still, convert the moves to notation and don't list the results. If I'm the only one who can understand it, so much the better. "

[EnderAndrew]

I'm still confused as this thread states that unless people voted otherwise we were reverting to Spring. Then we got no notification otherwise.

 

I know people did vote to revert to Spring. What happened?

[thepixiesrock]

I voted to start over.

[Darkside]

Oh hell, I forgot my orders! *beats head against wall repeatedly*

[metadigital]

No, I said that if I didn't hear from people, I would assume their vote was to restart. As it was, I heard from everybody (except Nartwak ) and it was not unanymous to restart.

 

So, in all fairness and good conscience, I could not restart your game unless all of you agreed.

 

Anyway, I have sent the results to you ...

 

ENGLAND

F NTH - Nor

A Wal - Bel

F ENG C A Wal - Bel

 

FRANCE

F Bre - ENG

A Par - Bur

A Mar - H

 

GERMANY

F Den - Swe

A Ruhr - Hol

A Mun - Bur

 

ITALY

A Ven-Tri

A Rom-Apu

F Nap-ION

 

AUSTRIA

F Alb-Gre

A Ser-Tri

A Bud-Tri

 

TURKEY

A Con-Bul

A Smy-Con

F Ank-Hold

 

RUSSIA

NMR

 

Okay, remember the first post has the updated status of the game.

 

Please supply your Build orders by noon (UTC) Friday. Failure to submit will mean no builds ...

[Reveilled]

Wow. What a mess. This game seems almost surreal.

[metadigital]

(A Ven is missing from that picture) "

 

Wow.  What a mess.  This game seems almost surreal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

D'Oh!

 

Thanks, I have fixed that.

 

(Incidentally, the correction that I sent out was due to me abbreviating the mis-spelled Burgundy ("Bergundy") in Germany's orders.

 

I thought it was a move to Berlin (which is also contiguous with Munich).

 

This just underscores the need to check abbreviations. (And it was easy to trace in the audit trail, because the orders were written in full.)

[Darkside]

August 3rd, 1901

Russian Forces at a Standstill

The Russian Army and Navy have been forced to halt due to lack of orders. Sources say that this unfortunate setback is due to Lady Darkside sleeping in. It is the opinion of this reporter that our Empress is lazy, irresponsible, and unfit to rule.

-Joseph Guchkov

 

August 4th, 1901

Mysterious Murder, Conspiracy Theories Abound

 

Reporter Joseph Guchkov was found dead in his apartment in Moscow this morning. Cause of death as well as other information is being withheld. Some people claim he was silenced by the Russian government. Coincidentaly, they are all wanted for treason.

[Deraldin]

mis-spelled Burgundy ("Bergundy") in Germany's orders.

 

I thought it was a move to Berlin (which is also contiguous with Munich).

 

This just underscores the need to check abbreviations. (And it was easy to trace in the audit trail, because the orders were written in full.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oops. :"> I swear that was an E on the map. "

[metadigital]

mis-spelled Burgundy ("Bergundy") in Germany's orders.

 

I thought it was a move to Berlin (which is also contiguous with Munich).

 

This just underscores the need to check abbreviations. (And it was easy to trace in the audit trail, because the orders were written in full.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oops. :"> I swear that was an E on the map. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Deraldin]

I was looking at the colour map... was a little hard to read.

[metadigital]

Well, as you sent orders in full, it was not really a problem.

 

It is also nice if people use all caps for bodies of water, too.

 

Then again, as long as I can decipher your instructions you can send it in encoded in morse on toilet paper.

[EnderAndrew]

I don't think it makes for a particularly fair game when 3 of the 7 nations were denied a turn. I don't think many people would enter a game under those circumstances, and I'm curious who really opposed going back one turn.

 

That being said, I'm going to continue to play, but I'm not entirely happy.

[jaguars4ever]

Not to mention that it's truly poor sportsmanship to deny a restart when only 1 move has been played and vitually 50% of the nations are placed at an inherent disadvantage.

 

Futhermore, the rejection of the majority vote in favor for the restart was flat out ignored under the premise that it lacked unanimity. This course of action defiles any semblance of a democracy. Clearly if the vote lacks unanmity then one can't choose a course of action opposing the majority vote. If anything, the game should be aborted. That, or it should adere to the majority vote.

 

I can only fathom at why a player would want to join a game which lack the very abilty for them to compete equitably. But despite being less than thrilled, I feel I should at least be responsible for giving Nartwak some chance by the time he recovers.

[Reveilled]

Only one nation was "denied" a turn, and we aren't even sure about that, as we don't know the circumstances of Nart's disappearance. For all we know, he just decided not to come back to the forum.

 

Both France and Turkey deliberately decided they were going to hold in position that turn, as they told us in previous pages. They weren't denied a turn, they conciously chose not to play.

 

 

Changing the rules of the game should require the agreement of all players. It's not fair to the players if a group of them can get together and just change how the game is played on the basis of a majority vote. Everyone signed up for this game on the understanding that after Spring 01 is played, Fall 01 is played, and also on the understanding that if you drop out, you stop playing and someone takes over from where you dropped out. Diplomacy isn't a democracy. It's a game. And as such, the game has to be fair to all participants, not just most of them. Unanimity is the convention of Diplomacy, as well. Unanimous agreement is required to end the game in a draw. If even one player with one centre votes against it, there's no draw. Similarly, unanimous agreement is required to change turn length. Unanimous agreement should be required to change turn order and unit positions.

[EnderAndrew]

Says the player who profits largely from 3 players being denied a turn.

 

2 of these players did not opt to not move. They stepped in to take the shoes of other players. Can you honestly say that in any Diplomacy game you've ever seen where Turkey just decides to completely hold in the first turn?

 

Again, sour grapes aside, I will continue to play. However I am convinced the only player who was opposed to repeating a mere one turn is the same player who would have the most to lose if everyone was on a level playing field.

 

Unanimity is not a convention of Diplomacy. No where in the rules is unanimity ever mentioned. I can argue Diplomacy revolves around majorities.

 

Whatever.

[Reveilled]

Says the player who profits largely from 3 players being denied a turn.

 

2 of these players did not opt to not move.  They stepped in to take the shoes of other players.  Can you honestly say that in any Diplomacy game you've ever seen where Turkey just decides to completely hold in the first turn?

 

Again, sour grapes aside, I will continue to play.  However I am convinced the only player who was opposed to repeating a mere one turn is the same player who would have the most to lose if everyone was on a level playing field.

 

Unanimity is not a convention of Diplomacy.  No where in the rules is unanimity ever mentioned.  I can argue Diplomacy revolves around majorities.

 

Whatever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When a player comes in as a replacement, they come in at the point the other player dropped out. They don't get to start all over again. Whether or not I've seen Turkey hold completely in the first turn is here nor there. There's plenty of opening strategies I've never seen played in Diplomacy. There's an opening for England where all three units are ordered to Yorkshire (which is equivalent to ordering every unit to hold), and it has been used. So, I've seen a game where England effectively ordered to completely hold on the firs turn. Why not Turkey?

 

I didn't say Unanimity was the rule. I said it was the convention. As far as I know, there's no rule that says North goes at the top of a map, but by convention, that's where you usually find it. I can't find you a place in the rules where something is decided by unanimity, but it is conventionally accepted in the hobby that all changes to the rules after the game has started have to be decided unanimously. If you want evidence of this, look at turn length changes and how draws are decided. Show me a single place in the whole hobby where after the game starts the rule changes are decided by majority rule.

[EnderAndrew]

And I didn't say rule. I used the same term you did, convention.

 

The point of a game is to have fun. Most people wouldn't enter a game intentionally slanted, but you wish to preserve a very slanted opening. That tells me everything I need to know.

 

Remind me not to sign up for a game with you in it again.

[Reveilled]

And I didn't say rule.  I used the same term you did, convention.

 

The point of a game is to have fun.  Most people wouldn't enter a game intentionally slanted, but you wish to preserve a very slanted opening.  That tells me everything I need to know.

 

Remind me not to sign up for a game with you in it again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You mentioned the rules, and I wasn't talking about them. If it was in the rules, it would be a rule, not a convention.

 

You also assume that I voted against restarting.

[metadigital]

Says the player who profits largely from 3 players being denied a turn.

 

2 of these players did not opt to not move.  They stepped in to take the shoes of other players.  Can you honestly say that in any Diplomacy game you've ever seen where Turkey just decides to completely hold in the first turn?

 

Again, sour grapes aside, I will continue to play.  However I am convinced the only player who was opposed to repeating a mere one turn is the same player who would have the most to lose if everyone was on a level playing field.

 

Unanimity is not a convention of Diplomacy.  No where in the rules is unanimity ever mentioned.  I can argue Diplomacy revolves around majorities.

 

Whatever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is coincidental that AUSTRIA profited from the continuation of the game. And it is sour grapes to cast aspersions from a point of ignorance. I would suggest that you do not know how Reveilled voted, so please do not assume.

 

I would also ask you not to make a guess as to who did or did not vote to continue or restart. That is poorly-concealed bullying, and I won't have it in the game.

 

For something as important as the restart of the game I wanted to ensure unanimity. The game was well advertised, everyone was aware of the rules.

 

It hardly has made a large impact on TURKEY, especially as RUSSIA did not submit a move for Fall.

 

Anyway, try to play the game from a "disadvantage"; who knows, you might find the game a little more interesting if you have to work together with more people?

 

Remember, it is only a game.

[Archmonarch]

If anyone not already involved in OBS-03 would like to join, please post in the relevant thread.

[metadigital]

I don't think it makes for a particularly fair game when 3 of the 7 nations were denied a turn.  I don't think many people would enter a game under those circumstances, and I'm curious who really opposed going back one turn.

 

That being said, I'm going to continue to play, but I'm not entirely happy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Feel free to drop out, if you prefer. I would rather have only those who want to play, playing.

Not to mention that it's truly poor sportsmanship to deny a restart when only 1 move has been played and vitually 50% of the nations are placed at an inherent disadvantage.

 

Futhermore, the rejection of the majority vote in favor for the restart was flat out ignored under the premise that it lacked unanimity.  This course of action defiles any semblance of a democracy.  Clearly if the vote lacks unanmity then one can't choose a course of action opposing the majority vote. If anything, the game should be aborted. That, or it should adere to the majority vote.

 

I can only fathom at why a player would want to join a game which lack the very abilty for them to compete equitably.  But despite being less than thrilled, I feel I should at least be responsible for giving Nartwak some chance by the time he recovers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is no more virtue in the tyranny of the majority than in any other tyranny. The alternative is that the game is played by those who want to play under the present circumstances.

 

If not, wait for the next game. Or become the GM of one, for others, and make your own decisions.

 

As Nartwak didn't appear for two turns in a row, normally (without substitution) his place would be vacated.

 

Again, if you really don't like the game as is, please don't play.