prev <-> next
[2009-08-26 14:10:03] - http://angrypeons.com/displayLogEntry?entryId=7 if anyone wants to discuss the recent diplomacy game a little further i've provided a little outlet to do so. - mig
[2009-08-26 14:06:06] - Heh, I was being a little facetious. I was mostly joking that they sounded a lot more like astro-turf than the other side did in that article. -Paul
[2009-08-26 13:57:16] - i doubt paul was being facetious. ~a
[2009-08-26 13:51:55] - I take it Paul was being facetious. that's why I got confused about "astroturf" - vinnie
[2009-08-26 13:47:21] - paul: astroturf by definition has to be from misleading origin, but the origin of those signs is blatantly from a pro-Obama political action group - aaron
[2009-08-26 13:44:21] - a: nope but my former roomie did and I think I ended up with her study books... Or maybe it was a different friend but I think I have like 5 GMAT books, I considered getting an MBA a few years ago but I dont think thats the path I am headed down. ~Gurkie
[2009-08-26 13:40:35] - paul: "distributed by President Obama's political action group" means it's not astroturf - aaron
[2009-08-26 13:38:45] - vinnie: it's a little more obvious in the business world, as the textbook example is usually employees of a company posing as "ordinary" people praising a particular company or their products. - mig
[2009-08-26 13:35:30] - I'm not sure if I fully get "astroturf" in the political context - vinnie
[2009-08-26 13:18:26] - paul: no! i wish i had. it sounded interesting. ~a
[2009-08-26 13:13:06] - mig: "many carrying signs distributed by President Obama's political action group Organizing for America" Sounds like astro-turf to me.
-Paul[2009-08-26 13:04:26] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/25/AR2009082503413.html?hpid=topnews summary of last night. - mig
[2009-08-26 13:02:34] - paul: it's pretty old i do believe tho. i got it before i took the GRE to get into grad school, so like 6 yrs old -dave
[2009-08-26 13:02:10] - paul: I have a gre book that you can have -dave
[2009-08-26 12:41:18] - a: I assume you didn't go to the town hall yesterday? -Paul
[2009-08-26 12:20:16] - Aaron: As I understand it, everybody is back except for Adrian and Vinnie. I guess Stephen and Bryan are going to replace them? -Paul
[2009-08-26 11:55:37] - paul: yeah - send it to my g-mail. if you know who's game for round 2, send me that list too. we're one short? - aaron
[2009-08-26 11:21:09] - Gurkie: Thanks! I don't think I'll need the GMAT one. That would be my third option at best.
-Paul[2009-08-26 11:20:24] - gurkie, you took the gmat? ~a
[2009-08-26 11:20:21] - Aaron: Bryan has signed up to the Diplomacy website. Do I just need to pass along his username to you? -Paul
[2009-08-26 11:00:57] - Paul: I have a bunch of gmat books if you want to take that ~gurkie
[2009-08-26 11:00:46] - Paul: Assuming I can find it its yours. ~Gurkie
[2009-08-26 10:50:39] - Gurkie: I might go to the library during my lunch break today to see if they have any relatively recent GRE practice books. If not, could I borrow yours?
-Paul[2009-08-26 10:42:08] - paul: I concur with aba, Id do a couple practice tests to get a feel for what is on it and then just take it... I think I did that back when I took it. I may have a test book from 7 years back or so ~gurkie
[2009-08-26 10:38:41] - mig: yea I agree with that, the key seems to be to position yourself well without taking the lead but trying to be within catching up range of it on any given turn. ~gurkie
[2009-08-26 09:56:48] - Xpovos: Yeah, you got some great QBs and solid wide receivers, but your running back depth is a bit thin. You should probably accept my trade.
-Paul[2009-08-26 09:47:10] - super-set sounds hard - but i can't tell without playing - aaron
[2009-08-26 09:34:39] - So, I think my draft went pretty well for me, considering I didn't draft a RB until the 6th round. And even then, I picked the wrong one... -- Xpovos
[2009-08-26 09:24:41] - aba: Thanks. So you think I should grab a GRE practice book from the library and run through a few practice tests ahead of time to get a feel for the test but that actual studying isn't necessary? -Paul
[2009-08-25 23:47:31] - paul: study for - no. practice for - yes. - aba
[2009-08-25 20:12:38] - People here that have taken the GRE: Would you say it's a test that somebody should study for? -Paul
[2009-08-25 19:27:28] - aaron: kingmaker scenario? ~a
[2009-08-25 18:53:44] - the problem with power grid is that once you find somebody is close to winning you can gang up on them but usually it just results in someone else winning. - mig
[2009-08-25 18:53:41] - on the other hand, maybe we're all just rushing too much and maybe we need to just take it easy. ~a
[2009-08-25 17:26:20] - gurkie: add a clock (with a grace period or something). ~a
[2009-08-25 17:25:10] - aaron: yea the time portion is my issue with power grid, and some other games. I prefer games where it doesnt take people 8 mins to figure out their optimal move... I get bored waiting for my turn, and often times there is only so much planning you can do before its your turn. You can figure out what you can afford if no one hurts your potential moves. ~gurkie
[2009-08-25 17:23:42] - a: I think those could be fun to try, but I also think they would make my head hurt! ~gurkie
[2009-08-25 17:20:32] - a: I have looked at the ones on the set webpage dont think i have seen the wiki ones yet ~gurkie
[2009-08-25 17:19:29] - Paul: I like that idea, lets play Set!!! Heheheheh
~Gurkie[2009-08-25 17:16:59] - gah, have you guys ever looked at Set (game)#Variations?
~a[2009-08-25 17:01:02] - a: damn! -Paul
[2009-08-25 16:44:27] - paul: SET! ~a
[2009-08-25 16:43:58] - a: You can play Set against me.
-Paul[2009-08-25 16:40:54] - aaron: i want it to be me that wins. are there any games like that? ~a
[2009-08-25 16:39:54] - Aaron: It would be interesting if there was a way to make it so that you had a hand of power plants and just had to pay the price of the power plant to buy it instead of letting anybody bid on them. That way you never know if somebody can play a monster power plant on the last turn. -Paul
[2009-08-25 16:36:35] - aaron: Yeah, I can agree with that. Sometimes, when I'm waiting for my turn, I'll count how much money I'll need and everything but often I am just winging it, which has caused me to be a dollar or two short more than once. -Paul
[2009-08-25 16:34:47] - a: i appreciate games like that, if there's a time constraint, like ricochet robots or speed chess. i want the smarter/better player to win. i don't want the "less courteous" player to win, just because he had no qualms taking 8 minutes for his turn - aaron
[2009-08-25 16:31:47] - which yeah, again i really like the game - but to play competitively you need to play very very slowly, since well-crafted strategies are destroyed by being $2 short. i don't know if it's fixable. but as far as the whole kingmaker issue, i think having private $$ would help the game too. - aaron
[2009-08-25 16:29:45] - paul: i think that would help. perhaps a different auction style would be interesting too. really, the main problem is the whole "okay, i need to buy 3 houses, and four coal... three players are buying houses and resources before me... so that's 45 for the houses... and 16 for the coal... which leaves 32 for a power plant..." - aaron
[2009-08-25 16:25:47] - Aaron: It does seem like Power Grid could be improved with some kind of hidden information. Maybe if the money wasn't known? -Paul
[2009-08-25 16:25:21] - too much public information? no such thing! i guess i just like those kinds of games but especially when they are two player games. ~a
[2009-08-25 16:24:26] - aaron: All public data, bring on the inhuman calculation machines. Although that hasn't done so great for Go, yet, though they seem to have Chess figured. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 16:21:46] - power grid simply has too much public information, which really drags it out for any kind of serious play. which is why i try not to play it seriously. i was going to prefix this post with "imho" but, i think it's just an accepted fact even by power grid enthusiasts
- aaron[2009-08-25 16:20:22] - xpovos: yeah, typically german-stype board games like ticket, puerto rico, princes try to have enough hidden information to prevent you from dogging the leader too heavily - but not too much hidden information as to make the outcome totally random. - aaron
[2009-08-25 16:10:25] - vv that's me. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 16:10:10] - I need to play Power Grid. But in general, at some point there is a clear leader, and everyone does gang up. Sometimes it results in stalemates, but it's a natural result of gamestates with open information. At least with things like TTR, there's sufficient closed information that it's impossible to tell; also there's a lot less you can do to negatively impact a leader.
[2009-08-25 16:09:01] - Aaron: Oh, maybe it was you. I just remember me thinking "I've got to buy houses because the game is going to end in a few turns" and somebody (I thought it was Gurkie and Dave, but it could've been you) told me, "Miguel is going to win next turn if you do that!". -Paul
[2009-08-25 16:07:34] - paul: you were like, "okay i'll buy these two houses" and i was all "ohhhh come on! really? the only reason i bought these three houses was to stop miguel from winning, i can't even power them" and then you got on board... at least that's how i remember it - aaron
[2009-08-25 16:06:41] - paul: hey i told you!! - aaron
[2009-08-25 16:03:46] - mig: I think they ganged up on you too late. I know at least I didn't realize you were close to winning until Gurkie and Dave told me. -Paul
[2009-08-25 16:00:47] - paul: everyone ganged up on me the last game. i still won though. - mig
[2009-08-25 15:57:52] - I think Gurkie is referring to the fact that I complain that I would always win Power Grid if everybody didn't gang up on me and here I am doing the same with Diplomacy.
-Paul[2009-08-25 15:56:33] - mig: Yeah, in retrospect, you kinda lucked out that Turkey lasted as long as he did. It prevented Aaron from stabbing you. -Paul
[2009-08-25 15:55:39] - I hate paul because he likes obama so darn much - vinnie
[2009-08-25 15:38:07] - And i think if we hand't messed up and let Turkey survive for so long, I might had both Austria and France swallow me up. - mig
[2009-08-25 15:37:10] - I'm still rather amazed I managed to surive the game in a not all that bad position. By all accounts France should have annihilated me if he was a little more decisive about it. - mig
[2009-08-25 15:36:21] - xpovos: so there was, you are correct. - mig
[2009-08-25 15:27:59] - mig: No, I think there was a two year delay between Russia and France. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 15:16:31] - I think the stabs were all in consecutive game years as well. - mig
[2009-08-25 15:15:25] - xpovos: correct, which is why I started playing for a draw instead of enabling him to get a solo. - mig
[2009-08-25 15:13:04] - mig: Technically you won just as much as he did. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 15:12:45] - aaron: Totally agreed, nothing personal. I was in a bad position. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 15:12:02] - gurkie: who hates paul? ~a
[2009-08-25 15:12:02] - gurkie: i don't hate paul. I just hate losing. - mig
[2009-08-25 15:11:50] - gurkie: We hate him because 1) He's good enough to win and 2) he backstabbed three people this game. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 15:11:21] - aaron: I knew it at the time, too. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 15:11:15] - xpovos: it was nothing personal but i really needed stop england from getting stp to prevent the stalemate. in the end he took it anyway with your help (grr!) - aaron
[2009-08-25 15:10:42] - mig: Yeah, my moves were based on AUS/RUS moves that were going to be a hammer against the anvil that Paul had put up my backside the previous year. I offered Paul a shot at Russia instead. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 15:10:14] - why does everyone hate my boyfriend? its okay for him to win once in awhile (so long as im not playing) ~gurkie
[2009-08-25 15:10:07] - xpovos: i guess you might have figured out in hindsight, but i may as well tell you that my illegal order in supporting your attack on warsaw was deliberate... i'd sided with russia at that point and was trying to win his trust so we could divert our attention to defending against paul - aaron
[2009-08-25 15:09:14] - aaron: Once more, in my case it was because the alternative was literal death. I'm not thrilled that I had to help Paul, but I did live several years longer because I did. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 15:08:24] - there wasn't really any guarantee that you would let him live as long as he did anyway, so whatever he did it was somewhat risky. - mig
[2009-08-25 15:05:25] - he could have tried to get France to help him, he could have stood his ground for maybe a few turns and possibly gotten Russia on his side? Not saying he was wrong or anything doing what he did, I thought his reaction to your stab was rather interesting, but he did have other options though. - mig
[2009-08-25 15:01:10] - mig: He didn't have much choice. -Paul
[2009-08-25 14:57:23] - paul: andrew didn't! - mig
[2009-08-25 14:56:24] - mig: Yeah, everybody seemed perfectly willing to stop fighting their mortal enemies to fight me just because I back-stabbed them.
-Paul[2009-08-25 14:54:30] - aaron: Dewey and I were in a position that we could back off from each other very easily without too much fuss. The alternative (Paul winning) was enough motivation. - mig
[2009-08-25 14:54:29] - Aaron: I tried pulling that routine too, but nobody listened to me.
-Paul[2009-08-25 14:53:49] - Aaron: I am too. It was pretty masterful work by you, although I think you had some luck too. I just needed one thing to break my way and nothing seemed to. I really thought there would be a bit more residual fighting between Italy and France. -Paul
[2009-08-25 14:52:17] - pretty rare to see, "ha ha! i have two of your home supply centers!" followed in literally the next year by, "okay! let's be friends!" but it happened twice this game - aaron
[2009-08-25 14:51:39] - paul: well, i was pretty pessimistic about getting france/italy to back down, and i wasn't sure if there was a good way to back off from russia without leaving myself open.... in hindsight i'm really amazed any of that worked - aaron
[2009-08-25 14:49:28] - Aaron: I thought I could make it to 18 supply centers before you could rally everybody to slow me down, but I was wrong, and that was really annoying. -Paul
[2009-08-25 14:48:43] - Aaron: Yeah, I thought I was in good shape when Germany was practically dead, Russia seemed to be dying, I was racing across France, and you guys were still fighting Adrian. -Paul
[2009-08-25 14:48:20] - paul: i mean a lot of games come down to that race between e/f/g and a/r/t, and then the winners duke it out. and if a winner emerges in one triangle too quickly, it's game over. but, i wanted to be that winner
- aaron[2009-08-25 14:47:11] - paul: i was really annoyed by how quickly you wiped out germany/france and how long it took me to wipe out russia/turkey. i wasn't even sure if i was going to finish off turkey by the time you hit 18 - aaron
[2009-08-25 14:45:44] - Aaron: Heh, I understood it wasn't personal. I was just surprised you didn't at least try to lie to my face about being allies against somebody.
-Paul[2009-08-25 14:44:37] - Aaron: It was a lot earlier for me, like after the second turn. Once I saw that Miguel wasn't going to stab you and stay in Trieste (and hence, that you were allies) and that Russia and Turkey weren't quite on the same page... I knew you guys were going to be a problem. -Paul
[2009-08-25 14:43:55] - paul: that was just my perception, that you were about to take over the entire atlantic and i needed italy, france, and russia to put up a front or the game would end really quick... that's the only reason i shut down communications so quickly, it wasn't personal - aaron
[2009-08-25 14:42:51] - paul: yeah likewise i think it was around 1903/1904 when i decided - ok rumania's not worth it i need to cut russia some slack because paul's about to take over the world
- aaron[2009-08-25 14:41:53] - a: Although I think it ended up having the opposite effect in the end, because Aaron and I ended up as enemies as soon as we bordered each other and hardly had any diplomacizing between us. -Paul
[2009-08-25 14:41:08] - but i do agree that snap judgments do play really heavily into 1901, and although i don't think you were a victim of it yeah i'm obviously biased - aaron
[2009-08-25 14:39:33] - a: I don't know if it made a difference for you this game or not, but I know what you're saying. I kept a wary eye on Aaron all game even though we didn't share a border until late because I knew he was an experienced Diplomacy player. -Paul
[2009-08-25 14:35:35] - a: well, i don't think that affected you this game. vinnie was pretty much an immediate ally, and you slammed my johnson in the car door in fall 1901 so i was pretty much out of the diplomatic picture - aaron
[2009-08-25 14:32:58] - a: it's unfortunate you had to be turkey because almost every power nearby has good reasons for eliminating Turkey early. - mig
[2009-08-25 14:32:53] - aaron: well i don't think you understand me completely. i'll try to rephrase. if a person thinks you're a weak player it won't matter whether your play is strong or weak. ~a
[2009-08-25 14:30:16] - *sigh* stupid enter button. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 14:29:56] - a+vinnie: I certainly can't complain
[2009-08-25 14:28:07] - Vinnie: It's ok. Diplomacy certainly isn't a game for everyone. -Paul
[2009-08-25 14:27:37] - vinnie: that's okay, i appreciate you helping get the game off the ground. congratulations on your victory
- aaron[2009-08-25 14:26:12] - yeah I don't think I want to play another game, sorry guys. I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would - vinnie
[2009-08-25 14:24:49] - a: i agree that i would much rather ally with a strong player than a weak player. in my previous game as germany, i was going to ally with france but his plan of attack was terrible, so i allied with england instead. - aaron
[2009-08-25 14:19:27] - paul: i rarely get that far. ~a
[2009-08-25 14:19:02] - a: You're probably right about that in terms of the early game, but it definitely is not true in the late game.
-Paul[2009-08-25 14:18:46] - it was a conversation on aim and/or gtalk. ~a
[2009-08-25 14:18:31] - no it was 1902ish i think. ~a
[2009-08-25 14:18:17] - Aaron: By the time I realized that Dewey could sneak into Portugal and hold Spain against me, it was too late. -Paul
[2009-08-25 14:17:22] - Aaron: Yeah, that was probably my biggest mistake. For whatever reason, I thought I was already able to keep Dewey out of the whole MAO/Portugal/Spain area and so left it alone while I tried to grab all of his home territories to cripple him. -Paul
[2009-08-25 14:17:21] - a: no, i don't, i'll have to check my e-mail.... my plan from 1901 was to pacify you and italy while i attacked russia - so i'm not sure whether or not it affected my plans - aaron
[2009-08-25 14:16:57] - a: No, registering multiple accounts or playing multiple countries (unless it's a varient, e.g. Two-player, and both control three countries and Italy is neutral) in any sense would be unethical by my standards. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 14:16:17] - paul: yes, i agree, especially if we're talking spring 1901. although in some cases it's obvious. like if i send miguel an e-mail outlining that i'm moving into tyrolia this turn, and i want his support - and he forwards it to you so that you can counter it. with those kinds of communications.... there's often no strategic value in lying - aaron
[2009-08-25 14:15:07] - aaron: i did it with you. do you remember? ~a
[2009-08-25 14:13:51] - a: no it's not - aaron
[2009-08-25 14:13:45] - paul: if you're being ganged up on (and a strong player), you can often find an ally that won't back stab you. if you're seen as weak, no one cares about back stabbing you because the retribution is perceived as minimal. ~a
[2009-08-25 14:13:27] - paul: now that the game is over, i wanted to say i was really surprised you didn't go more aggressively for spain! it seemed like the stalemate-breaker and you really just let it hang in 1908. i had to fight and fight to get dewey to defend spain instead of going for marseilles, and in the end it was moot - aaron
[2009-08-25 14:12:52] - Aaron: I can see that, although with the second instance, you have to ask yourself if I am really lying to you or if I am just telling somebody that I will turn on you to gain their trust. -Paul
[2009-08-25 14:11:20] - aaron: except that it's all easily faked. ~a
[2009-08-25 14:10:57] - a: Hmmm, I don't know if I agree. Being seen as weak can be helpful if you are a country England, for instance.
-Paul[2009-08-25 14:10:12] - personally, i think it's more fun to hear "paul is lying to you" and i have to judge, hmm, would he be the type to lie? versus, "paul is lying to you, come look at my g-mail screen" and it's like - well ok, don't have to use my brain for that one - aaron
[2009-08-25 14:09:53] - paul: being ganged up on doesn't seem like the real threat in diplomacy. the real threat is being seen as weak. ~a
[2009-08-25 14:09:00] - paul: i don't feel as strongly about it as a did a couple of hours ago. it sidesteps the design of the original game, by diminishing the deceit angle - in the same way that gunboat diminishes the design of the game, by diminishing the diplomacy angle - aaron
[2009-08-25 14:08:50] - paul: me too? i'm guessing vinnie is the other one? ~a
[2009-08-25 14:08:27] - xpovos: "i'll register two accounts to ally them" you would really allow that? what about "i'll register five accounts to ally them"? ~a
[2009-08-25 14:06:57] - a: If it makes you feel any better, I'm pretty sure Andrew and Dewey are going to be gunning for me next game.
-Paul[2009-08-25 14:06:27] - a: Sad, so we need to find a replacement for you too? -Paul
[2009-08-25 14:05:45] - and interestingly most of the stuff we're talking about is omitted, as far as showing someone your orders, or forwarding someone an e-mail, or forging someone's communication - aaron
[2009-08-25 14:05:19] - Aaron: I also don't feel too strongly about it, and would be fine with trying to not do it in the future, I just don't quite understand the outrage over doing it in a game which involves so much deception and back-stabbing. -Paul
[2009-08-25 14:04:58] - xpovos: and by "the rules" i'm talkin bout the diplomacy.ca house rules here. - aaron
[2009-08-25 14:03:56] - xpovos: heh, yeah, that's called "cross play" and it's addressed in the diplomacy.ca house rules. i agree that "blatantly illegal or unethical" is vague, and everyone's gonna draw the line differently, that's why those rules are there to say, "look, here's what we'll ban you for" - aaron
[2009-08-25 14:02:09] - Aaron: Er... I said that last part wrong. I don't think it goes against the spirit of the game necessarily. -Paul
[2009-08-25 14:01:39] - Aaron: Assuming I understand you, I think I would agree with 4a, letter passing is somewhat of an aggressive move against somebody in the game, but I don't think I believe it necessarily goes against the ethics of the game. -Paul
[2009-08-25 13:59:26] - Do you guys mean 4a? It seems to me like if you believe 4b then you HAVE to believe 4a... -Paul
[2009-08-25 13:57:41] - xpovos: well, i think "illegal" would be like, stealing someone's laptop
- aaron[2009-08-25 13:57:39] - I'll sac this game if you give me the next. I'll surrender if you give me money. I'll register two accounts to ally them. Etc. Inside the context of the game (of Diplomacy) I have an extremely high tolerance. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 13:56:38] - To me, blatantly illegal is something clearly written out in the rules, so a blatantly illegal move would be a GM adjusting a dispute incorrectly intententionally to alter the gamestate. Other than that, Diplomacy, is pretty hard to 'cheat'. Unethical, for me that's metagaming. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 13:55:17] - Last sentence: "Don't reject any tactic until you've tried it (except blatantly illegal or unethical ones, naturally.)" This about says it all. Define blatantly illegal or unethical ones. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 13:45:39] - http://www.diplomacyworld.net/old/letterpassing.htm actually i just read this and now i'm 4b and 1. but still... grrr! letter passers! - aaron
[2009-08-25 13:41:54] - xpovos: yeah, i'm 4b, 1, and 2. you know, it's funny, i don't care about the issue a whole lot. but talking about this much is making me think i care... this message board does something to me i swear! - aaron
[2009-08-25 13:40:47] - gurkie: Tomorrow the chat should be largely post-football draft discussion, so that should be clean for you. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 13:40:18] - aaron: Yeah, the scabble issue (and poker, I'm not familiar with the aimbot issue) bug me. Same as using a chess computer in chess unless stated prior to the game. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 13:39:21] - Aw... everyone agreed to the draw proposal? I'm bummed. I guess I shouldn't be as it means I'm theoretically active again. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 13:38:02] - or for that matter, using dictionaries for online scrabble... grrrr - aaron
[2009-08-25 13:37:05] - aaron: Definitely 4b, and a hint of 1. And I'd be skeptical of usage for 4a, but would need to play it by ear, I think. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 13:35:14] - paul: hmm okay. that's cool. it's globally a very polarizing issue, if you google it you find hyperbole like "letter passing: cause for hanging?" i think it's up there with using aimbots for counterstrike, or puppeteering in online poker - aaron
[2009-08-25 13:31:53] - paul: mmmm. nah. it's weird because i'd almost consider playing with strangers. i feel like i'm typecast with you guys. ~a
[2009-08-25 13:31:26] - Aaron: I certainly don't think it ruins the game or is unethical, of course, I think it's fine to lie and back-stab in the game so maybe we just disagree here.
-Paul[2009-08-25 13:31:24] - or to split up 4, let's say 4a. letter-passing is unethical within the scope of the game (i.e, like backstabbing someone), and 4b. letter-passing is unethical outside the scope of the game (i.e, like registering for three accounts to play in the same game) - aaron
[2009-08-25 13:30:04] - Aaron: I think it changes the game a bit, but I'm not sure I believe any of the others are true. -Paul
[2009-08-25 13:29:04] - aaron: "well, what's wrong with giving someone your password and letting them submit your orders for you?" you can easily fake everything else. ~a
[2009-08-25 13:27:33] - paul: i think you're playing devil's advocate to an extent, but just to be sure, do you agree with the following statements? 1. letter-passing changes the game 2. letter-passing makes the game slightly worse 3. letter-passing ruins the game 4. letter-passing is unethical - aaron
[2009-08-25 13:24:29] - paul: well, i think they're related... if forgery is trivial, then letter-passing's less of a problem. but you're right, the site doesn't prevent letter forwarding at all. - aaron
[2009-08-25 13:21:25] - vinnie: HAHAHAHA!!!! I filter myself a fair amount at work... I dont want any key stroker logging bad words... ~gurkie
[2009-08-25 13:19:47] - Aaron: Wait, are we talking about forging or letter passing? I feel like the online communication that the site uses doesn't prevent letter forwarding at all and only makes forging a little more difficult. -Paul
[2009-08-25 13:19:36] - :O - vinnie
[2009-08-25 13:19:21] - how interesting, I guess adrian implemented a censor on the board. fuck shit cunt ass bitch motherfucker - vinnie
[2009-08-25 13:18:57] - pierce: sorry I said "coming to" I didnt mean it... I meant going to hang out with you while you logged in to do the draft... ~gurkie
[2009-08-25 13:18:45] - paul: hmm, it's still possible. i guess i feel like making the communication lower tech reduces the likelihood that someone's going to bother forging someone else's message - aaron
[2009-08-25 13:17:39] - Paul: You cry easily! When I kick your @$$~gurkie
[2009-08-25 13:17:19] - honestly I have been crying on this site since healthcare got brought up... I like light and fluffy... Taking over the world and politics are not light and fluffy.... ~gurkie
[2009-08-25 13:17:11] - Gurkie: Ah, you cry easily.
-Paul[2009-08-25 13:16:45] - paul: I think aar was saying I would cry cause of all the diplomacy talk... ~gurkie
[2009-08-25 13:16:27] - me cry ~ gurkie
[2009-08-25 13:14:36] - aaron: I'm confused. How does using the online tools make letter passing not possible? -Paul
[2009-08-25 13:13:55] - maybe trying to be super-sneaky and communicate only by written notes which you show the person face-to-face and then burn afterward - maybe that's a different kind of fun that i can't appreciate - aaron
[2009-08-25 13:13:24] - paul: again, not saying it's not fun, i'm just saying in the interest of keeping the game fun, it's more fun if you can just talk to someone or e-mail them or text message without wondering how they're going to take advantage of it. - aaron
[2009-08-25 13:11:32] - paul: well, sure. i don't think it makes the game more fun, and i don't think it makes the f2f game more fun either. other people in the forums have said if they know they are playing with a "letter passer", then they just restrict all communication with that person to using the online tools. that's basically the behavior you're encouraging - aaron
[2009-08-25 13:05:36] - Aaron: It wouldn't be a prerequisite, just something people could do if they were trying to be sneaky. Just like how somebody could try using their iPhone to record a discussion they are having with somebody in a face-to-face game. -paul
[2009-08-25 13:05:20] - you could fake a letter passing to get someone to make the wrong moves, if you were working with the person whose letter you were passing. that would be kind of cool - vinnie
[2009-08-25 13:01:40] - but, yeah that could be why the site keeps the official player-to-player communication so low-tech. they don't even let you reply, or quote, or include those little ">>>" marks in responses... maybe because they want to discourage people from trying to fake those kinds of communications - aaron
[2009-08-25 13:00:39] - paul: i don't think knowing how to forge SMTP headers or impersonate someone's voice over the phone should be a prerequisite to playing diplomacy
- aaron[2009-08-25 12:59:00] - again, not a big deal with a friendly game between of all of us it's not a big deal, but I definitely see it as a big issue for playing against random folks online. - mig
[2009-08-25 12:57:41] - paul: also considering how much length the site goes to preserve people's privacy regarding email, I think it might also create an issue if they didn't explicity frown upon it. - mig
[2009-08-25 12:56:05] - mig: Yeah, I agree. I think the letter forwarding rules and whatnot are more attempts to preserve the feeling of a face-to-face game than anything else. -Paul
[2009-08-25 12:53:36] - paul: i don't think that specifically breaks it, but the site does seem to have rules to try and preserve the spirit of a face-to-face game. - mig
[2009-08-25 12:52:04] - mig: I can see that, but to me, that just modernizes the game and doesn't break it. Like Andrew said, emails can be faked, and I think any ally would understand it if you said you had to pretend to back-stab them in order to more successfully back-stab the other person. -Paul
[2009-08-25 12:51:45] - the game's over? strange i didn't get an email. - mig
[2009-08-25 12:51:42] - the game's over? strange i didn't get an email. - mig
[2009-08-25 12:49:09] - In a face to face game, I can say, "hey paul, aaron told me this" but you really have only my word to go on. It kind of changes the complexion of the game if everybody forward emails they received to others. - mig
[2009-08-25 12:48:39] - Aaron: Why would Gurkie cry? -Paul
[2009-08-25 12:48:09] - Aaron: In fact, I think that would've probably had been more fun for almost everybody involved than our current stalemate mess. -Paul
[2009-08-25 12:47:49] - I think the letter passing thing has to do with principle i believe that makes diplomacy an intriguing: you never know what the other person is thinking. Letter passing kind of kills that part of it because it's documented proof of what one is thinking. - mig
[2009-08-25 12:47:47] - Aaron: It can be a no-fun situation, but I don't think it's a real game-breaker. In retrospect, it would've made a lot more sense for France and I to have remained allies the entire game rather than me backstabbing him and I don't think we would've been making the game "no-fun" if I had gone that path. -Paul
[2009-08-25 12:46:20] - paul: well he still has to write them down on his own, and there's always the slight chance he can change it. If you log into his account and toggle for him, he can't really do anything about it. - mig
[2009-08-25 12:45:13] - also i hope gurkie doesn't check the message board today or she might cry a little
- aaron[2009-08-25 12:45:05] - i saw the germany thing as more scorched earth than anything else, it was just amusing to me. - mig
[2009-08-25 12:44:16] - paul: and no matter what, i agree it's a no-fun situation. like miguel said it irritates me when two people are so codependent that they may as well be one country. i haven't really been in that situation before, although i think i may have been perceived to be in that situation before (like my last eng/ger game) - aaron
[2009-08-25 12:44:05] - mig: Does it matter if the orders are in my handwriting or if I dictated to him exactly what to write, though? -Paul
[2009-08-25 12:43:07] - paul: well, if his level of trust is 100% then yes it's the same. if his level of trust is 99% then it's different. even your imaginary friend would probably question if you were like, "well i'm going to do a 2-for-1 into your home territory because it's the best way to guarantee a bounce with Russia" - aaron
[2009-08-25 12:42:57] - Aaron: It doesn't even have to be that blatant. I mean, if you told me that Vinnie didn't want to play anymore and had given his password to you to control his units, I would be a little miffed and would probably call foul, but I don't think it will ultimately make a difference in this game. -Paul
[2009-08-25 12:42:18] - paul: well not really, in a face-to-face game he still has to willingly submit him. if you entered his orders on the site, well you're literally doing it for him. Also we might call foul if we see his orders in your handwriting. - mig
[2009-08-25 12:40:34] - Aaron: It has nothing to do with a hive mind. If I had a really naive friend who was playing Diplomacy and we were allies early on and he basically just asked me every turn what the plan was and never listened to everybody else because he was doing well while listening to me, that's essentially the same thing as if I controlled his units. -Paul
[2009-08-25 12:40:29] - mig: I remember that, but I felt it was more they knew each other better so had a starting point we didn't. I saw them stab each other a few times by the end of some games. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 12:39:23] - paul: so basically, the hive mind thing. yeah, if there were theoretically a person who literally fed in the orders someone else told them without thinking, that would be identical to giving another person their password. however, the situation is too unrealistic for me to care - aaron
[2009-08-25 12:39:07] - Although if we're talking about automatic allies and unbreakable alliances, I seem to recall the guys who had that diplomacy club that we played with a few times, I remembered they seemed to always ally with each other regardless of what powers they were even when it made no sense. That always seemed to irritate me. - mig
[2009-08-25 12:37:57] - paul: if someone always depends on others for their orders 100% of the time, I think it's more of an issue that they're just a bad player. - mig
[2009-08-25 12:37:03] - ...diminishes as the amount of trust increases. - aaron
[2009-08-25 12:36:47] - paul: well, I guess i still don't 100% understand your hypothetical. if you're saying, "two people who share a hive mind and have no free will," then fine that's identical to one person. but that situation doesn't exist. if you're saying, "two humans who trust eachother very much", then yes there's a difference no matter what, and the size of the difference... - aaron
[2009-08-25 12:36:01] - Aaron: I think we're thinking of different things here. I'm not talking about two people who don't want to back stab each other. I'm talking about one person who basically is always going to the other to ask what he/she should do this turn. -Paul
[2009-08-25 12:35:59] - I'm torn on gunboat. I'd have to play it before I fully judged it, but initially I have heavy suspicions. And I wasn't looking at ITA/AUS so much as I was ENG/GER. I guess it's our nature to be more introspective. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 12:34:41] - paul: yea, i don't completely understand the appeal of gunboat diplomacy yet. it seems sterile to me. - aaron
[2009-08-25 12:34:37] - Aaron: Heh, the Italian/Austrian alliance did briefly come to mind, but I don't think it applies here. I definitely believe that you two were thinking on your own and would backstab if it made clear sense. -Paul
[2009-08-25 12:34:08] - paul: that's not true, if they're suspicious of eachother, it will be different for everybody else of the game. their unified force will be weakened by their need to "watch their backs" - aaron
[2009-08-25 12:33:29] - Aaron: Gunboat diplomacy seems to completely ruin the game. The whole point of the game to me isn't supposed to be tactics or even necessarily strategy, but the actual diplomacizing. -paul
[2009-08-25 12:33:04] - paul: even though you're not directly calling into question the italian/austrian alliance of this game, i want to say that i would have definitely stabbed him if it was in my best interest along the way. i deliberately fed him supply centers close to my home supply centers so that i could wander in at a later date. but, rus/tur were stubborn, so i couldn't stab ita - aaron
[2009-08-25 12:32:43] - Aaron: Sure, and that's fine for them, but no matter how suspicious they are, it's going to be the same for everybody else in the game: one unified force. -Paul
[2009-08-25 12:31:42] - well i guess rule is a misnomer, it's really more of a guideline. - mig
[2009-08-25 12:30:39] - paul: ok fine. it's not the same thing. both people have free will, even if they choose not to exercise it. if they're in a position where they're in a 17/15 supply center split, they're going to be suspicious of eachother no matter what their history - aaron
[2009-08-25 12:30:38] - also remember the rules are in the context of people on the site playing who generally don't know each other. I don't see such a thing as much of a problem in games where we are all friends playing together, but it would be different if I was playing with some random people. - mig
[2009-08-25 12:28:15] - there are threads on that topic too though, about unbreakable alliances killing the game. it's one reason many diplomacy veterans prefer gunboat, where identities are concealed and formal diplomacy is forbidden. it makes it harder for those kinds of alliances to form. - aaron
[2009-08-25 12:27:57] - a: Are you coming back for a second game of diplomacy if/when we decide to have it? -paul
[2009-08-25 12:27:09] - Aaron: Why is it irrelevant? Because it's in effect the same thing? -Paul
[2009-08-25 12:26:38] - paul: but yes those kinds of "unbreakable alliances" also hurt the game. a lot of people (myself included) are against them. it's a vicious cycle at a place like diplomacy.ca - people can look at your game history and be like "oh! you were in an unbreakable alliance, so i can trust you. let's be in an unbreakable alliance this game" - aaron
[2009-08-25 12:25:56] - Aaron: Cool, thanks for the heads up. Like I said, I didn't know the whole letter passing thing was a grey area. -Paul
[2009-08-25 12:24:30] - paul: i could enumerate the differences are but i don't feel like it because they're obvious. instead, why don't you tell me why those differences are irrelevant? - aaron
[2009-08-25 12:21:25] - obviously it's not unanimous where that line is, so everyone has their own code of ethics... i just wanted to bring it up to clear the air just in case anybody was doing it and didn't even realize other people thought it was "wrong" - aaron
[2009-08-25 12:20:42] - Aaron: Well, sure, if somebody just gives up and gives control of their territories to another player, that player is being a bit of a jerk, but how is it any different from a player who is always a puppet to somebody else and does whatever that person tells them to do? -paul
[2009-08-25 12:18:17] - somewhere in between gunboat diplomacy (i.e no communiction at all) and letting someone outright control two powers directly, is a line which when crossed, kind of kills diplomacizing in diplomacy. here's a forum post about it on diplomacy.ca - aaron
[2009-08-25 12:13:10] - a: well, what's wrong with giving someone your password and letting them submit your orders for you? - aaron
[2009-08-25 12:06:31] - Whereas a photocopy of a handwritten letter is a little more telling. -- xpovos
[2009-08-25 12:06:06] - I can understand it, but I also am too much of a techie to believe that a forwarded e-mail is really forwarded, or even if it is, that it has been forwarded unaltered. But that's the thing with Diplomacy, there is inherent deception and unwritten lines you aren't supposed to cross. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 12:05:17] - a: I'm mostly on your side, though, in that I don't see it as being a huge issue. -Paul
[2009-08-25 12:04:30] - a: I'm not 100% sure, but my guess is that if this thing was common, it would seriously discourage any kind of back-stab plotting because people would always be afraid that their letters would be passed on to their enemies (or allies that are about to be back-stabbed). -Paul
[2009-08-25 12:00:15] - what's the problem with letter passing? how would that harm the game? or the screenshot thing? seems like a rule in search of a problem. ~a
[2009-08-25 11:47:16] - a: Oh, cool. Since I rarely need to scroll down that far, I hadn't seen that yet. It'll be interesting to see how that works; if it helps anything. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 11:45:28] - oh sorry, "done" was referring to the search bar at the bottom of the page. ~a
[2009-08-25 11:39:20] - a: I saw. Yay! Thank you. It's a nice feature. So, thanks also to pierce for inventing it. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 11:39:01] - a: By fun, you must mean brain-twitchingly painful. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 11:35:54] - xpovos: done. ~a
[2009-08-25 11:33:10] - oh hah i had forgotten about the "previous entries" feature. they are fun to read. ~a
[2009-08-25 11:28:01] - Xpovos: Nah, it certainly stopped my forward momentum, but it just caused me to fall back to a defensive position which I don't think they can penetrate. Honestly, my own miscalculations did more damage to my chances of victory. -Paul
[2009-08-25 11:26:40] - a: I think it's more convenient on the front page, albeit maybe confusing for newer users. Maybe put it at the bottom of the page? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 11:19:06] - xpovos: the previous start line went away, didn't it? oops. i'll fix that. as for the search box, i put that under the "entries" link above (though i'm not sure that was a good decision, i'd like feedback). ~a
[2009-08-25 11:11:34] - Paul: It does appear that my death may have sewn the seeds of your destruction. I can't say I'm terribly broken up by that... -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 11:05:45] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8219022.stm public cameras in london not particularly effective in solving crimes. - mig
[2009-08-25 10:32:08] - a: I know the site is constantly going through upgrades, and iterations to make it better, which I appreciate, but what happened to the 'previous start' line and the search box? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-25 10:01:31] - obama is going to kick us all into soccer jail with his fake astro-turf. ~a
[2009-08-25 10:01:08] - a: We are talking about health care reform, but I thought Vinnie was referring to the "astro-turf" itself as being inactive, not that it was actively arguing against action. -Paul
[2009-08-25 09:57:47] - and i thought we were talking about healthcare reform. astro-turf is a metaphor, right? ~a
[2009-08-25 09:55:16] - a: Ah, I was getting a different mental image of the "astro-turf" just sitting around lazily doing nothing. -Paul
[2009-08-25 09:49:43] - inaction isn't always a bad thing. if i was convinced that healthcare reform was a bad thing, then inaction would be what i would argue for. ~a
[2009-08-25 09:27:08] - Vinnie: That's a lot of media coverage for inaction, then.
-Paulprev <-> next