Alright, the guru and sage of wisdom is going to weigh in. I will admit I've read this whole drawn out forum discussion because I have nothing better to do here at work (anymore today, friday's do that to you). The short in skinny is, what...the heck, it's obvious.

frat in an elevator and blame me?

ha, make that FART
frat? wtf????

I didn't accuse anyone of anything. A player said in this thread that he did these things, it's not me alleging that he did them. I'm saying that behavior is unethical. It is. That's just a fact. Since the game in questions is not actually a game yet, it's all very hypothetical. But the situation that you guys are calling a cheating accusation is really just a discussion of what is and what is not proper Diplomacy behavior. Since no moderators stepped in to say so, many experienced Diplomacy veterans have, and find it to be completely repugnant.

I agree with drano's s suggestion that the moderator team should decide whether the activity in question is acceptable behavior here. I guess that requires the blessings of the great and powerful Guaroz, so maybe he can explain to us why it's okay to recruit your own allies to a game before it starts? Are you guys seriously taking that stance? Does this really even have to be debated as to whether or not it's okay? Absent a special rules game providing for pre-selected allies, this should never be allowed in Diplomacy. How is it even conceivable that anyone could accept this? Please explain to us morons why this is acceptable behavior so that we'll understand.

Did you mean the Great and Powerful guarOZ?

Sorry couldn't resist.

special stuff is of course excluded. a game of 7 friends playing a standard game ...cool! Heck, if they are buddies and all know one another, maybe they take turns playing different countries, wonderful! But these are not normal situations and could be taken care of with ease as the EXCEPTION. To allow this nonsense as an everyday option available to any who want it, that's very poor behavior in hobby circles. Why allow something that is frowned upon (actually, that's putting it very mildly!) to reflect on the rest of the sites integrity? Seems like we have an answer and more and more are slowly coming around. Honestly, I think most didn't think it was in bad taste, frowned upon and certainly they did not think they were cheating! I think many here have been technically cheating and had no clue they were doing so (and are now afraid to admit it) but it was simply something they thought would be fun ..."hey lets join up again, that last game was fun, we can do it again" or in picking a starting nation, "no way do I want to be anywhere near THAT joker", it's all cheating but certainly not intentional, so why allow it once you understand how it is considered by others? Or do you want to think this place is THAT special that the rules of the game don't apply here? Yes, flexibility is awesome, cheating (even when not intended!) is not so awesome, games that have prearranged alliances are not fair and not fun for the other players!

For those who haven't understood who RUFFHAUS 8 was publicly accusing, please read my previous post.


When I first joined this site last year, I joined this WWIV game : gameID=9310
It was a CYC game and some players, like RUFFHAUS 8, who are saying today that such games are unethical, had already joined that game.
So I wonder : why did those players join that game ? Were they doing something unethical ?

My second WWIV game (gameID=10660) was also a CYC game. Again, I was not the creator of the game. RUFFHAUS 8 wanted to join that game but couldn't because I had blocked him because he had been hostile and rude with me in our first game. I do know that he wanted to join that game because at least one other player of the game wrote to me in order to ask me to unblock RUFFHAUS 8.
So, again, I wonder : why did RUFFHAUS 8 want to join that game ? Did he want to do something unethical ?

What I am trying to say is that I seems surprising to me that last year it was perfectly OK to have CYC games and that now some players claim that it is totally unethical.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ RUFFHAUS 8 :

Your comments are often rather interesting. However, it is really too bad that you attack people instead of their ideas. That makes you uselessly hostile and because of that you lose rhetoric strength.

No, Retillion. You are misrepresenting the entire situation. This conversation is not about any previous game or any game that is in play. This conversations is about whether it's ethical to form alliance off the board, and then choose you own nation. You seem to think that this is okay and I do not. That's the debate. I did not say you do this. YOU said you do this. So please now go report yourself.

Even though it's unrelated to this conversation I am glad that you posted a link to the previous game though, as it highlight a clear example of the content of your character. You threw 14 supply centers on the final turn (alone) to enable a solo by another player after throwing more in seasons before that all as a result of a tantrum because you could not control every player on the board. That's unethical too, but it's your game to play the way you want to. And yes, I admit I was rude to you about this. You deserved it. That's was one of the most disgraceful acts I've seen in the hobby of Diplomacy ever.

You ask why I signed up for that game and for the follow on game. I did so because I like the WW4 map, and because I had space in my allotted time schedule to do so. I did not create either game, and I have no idea who did. I prefer random nation assignments, and victory conditions of more than 50 on a map with 244 centers, two preferences completely reinforced by your behavior. You whined a river to the moderators who had me kicked out of a game because you chose to block me AFTER I signed up for it. That was bullshit. That was an unfounded accusation. I play every game to win. I don't chase you around looking to attack you across games. I have plenty of folks looking to get a piece of me in every game I play. You're so fucking narcissistic to think I care about what happens to you. I could not care less about you. I like the WW4 games, preferrable with rational settings. It was not "okay" last year to have these CYOC games either, but these were the game available for sign up at the time. Such games were open to exploitation a year ago as well. I didn't create the games. I just signed up for them because they were available games to play on the map I enjoy. I've since learned that such games can be spoiled by this behavior, and have been trying to share with folks why this is so. So wonder away. But the answer is that I do not like to choose my enemies and allies before a game starts. That is not ethical. That's crossgaming. You come rolling into the discussion after the fact and saying that that such behavior is okay, and that you engage in it, does not mean that I accused you of something. I think it's amusing that you'd openly admit to doing this.

Thanks for the passive aggressive attack (as you accuse me of an attack). Who have I attacked here? We're having a conversation about the ethics of choosing you nation assignment in a game and specifically certain scenarios that make this a problem. YOU stepped up and said that you feel these situations are perfectly fine AFTER many had already said that they felt such behavior was not.

@ RUFFHAUS 8 :

I understand your point of view. There seems to be a misunderstanding. Indeed, you just wrote :

"This conversations is about whether it's ethical to form alliance off the board, and then choose you own nation. You seem to think that this is okay and I do not."

So let's make thinks totally clear :
1° I agree with you : it is unethical to form alliances before the beginning of a game.
2° I do not form alliances before the beginning of a game and I do not tell my "friends" to pick up such or such country in a CYC game.
3° I appreciate to have the option to create CYC games. I appreciate them only very occasionnaly because I usually prefer random country assignment.
4° I estimate that cheating is so easy that I am not intertested in losing game options in the name of fighting cheating. I am not saying that I cheat nor that I find cheating acceptable : I am just saying that cheating is very easy.
Like I wrote before in this thread, all this conversation makes me think of the old debate of freedom vs crime control. In my opinion crime control can be a very dangerous thing because it can destroy too much freedom.

-> So maybe our misunderstanding / disagreement comes only from point number 4°.

Tom, for the record (again, for like the sixth time), I do not think that all small brewers are bad (nor are they necessarily "craftsmen"). I do not think all big brewers are good. There are good in bad beers in both cases. I do not drink Coors Light, ever. If I drink a light beer, I drink Miller Lite, and that's only in the case where I'm being cheap or it's the only option to a bunch of over hopped IPAs or girly man pumpkin/pineapple flavored beers. Yes, Tom. Any beer that tastes like pineapples is a lemon.

And I did not say that you farted in the elevator. Sandgoose said that he did,, and pointed at you. Once again, reading comprehension, it's the bomb!!

Sorry for the long wait, I was too busy last night to respond to any posts. A few of Ruffhaus8 posts directed at Retellion seemed borderline cheating accusations. I apologize if that wasn't the tone Reffhaus was meant to be showing.

Now to answer Drano's questions:
"1) Is it cheating to pick your country solely based on other players and the countries they have picked?"
It is not. To get into posts others have said, it is a perfectly legitimate strategy to leave a game if you don't like the players who are surrounding you and to rejoin as another country later on. Keep in mind this strategy is open to everyone, and so it doesn't give anyone in particular a player an advantage.

Choosing your own country on a big map is as open to this as regular games on a small map. It is not cheating to join a game because you like the players in it and it is not cheating to leave a game (so long as its still in pregame) because you don't like the players in it. It becomes cheating if you contact said players in a PM in an attempt to gain an alliance prior to the games starting.

"2) Is it cheating to arrange for people to join a CYOC game quickly in order to "force" the remaining players to be in certain spots? For example: I have 5 people ready for a CYOC classic game. I intend to open the other two slots up to anyone. I arrange for the 5 of us to be online at the same time so we can grab England, Germany, France, Russia, and Turkey, thereby "forcing" the two remaining players to be the two "traditionally weakest" (even though we all know that's not really the case) countries on the map."
That would not be cheating in and of itself. However it would become cheating if you guys all ganged up on the Italian-Austrian duo because you wanted to ally with your friends. If you want to ally with your friends, join a private game. Also, remember your not forcing anyone to join as Austria and Italy.

pumpkin/pineapple beers. lmao, I know of such a beer.

Dropping a power and resigning on to a different power to give yourself a better situation is NOT cheating? That statement can't get any more wrong! You are clearly suggesting this is the norm, therefore cheating is the norm for the site. No two ways about it, you set yourself up based upon who you are next to, THAT is cheating without a doubt!

Pumpkin beers, not bad to have ONE and only one and only if you find a good one. Pineapple beer? Nope, cascade Hops often give a pineapple "tone" just as you can describe how some beers have a hint of grass or fruit, they are not grass or fruit "flavored", different hops, different malts, these add subtle flavors you simply will not find in the macrobrews.

Bottom line, experiment with craft brews, not all breweries are good, not all types will appeal to your personal tastes but experimentation allows you to discover a wonderful world of beer options you simply will not find if you stick to the big guys only!

The other bottom line, picking your power in any sort of way that is based on the players around you ...cheating!
Early contact (made easy by CYOC) ...cheating!
anything that gives you an unfair advantage (other than your own superior abilities) is cheating!

People who refuse to accept either of these "bottom lines" are fooling only themselves!

Fasces, your clarification has only served to muddy the waters further, and provide cover for those using the CYOC option to exploit games. It's too bad that the mod term doesn't encourage a baseline standard of ethical play. I knot that you guys work hard at what you do and I do appreciate it. However, by refusing to simply openly encourage some basic standards of commonplace sportsmanship you guys are providing a haven for mischief. And it's further maddening that once again any voices of reason and Diplomacy experience are shouted down here when they attempt to voice concerns.

It's not a matter of removing the option to CYOC or not. It's about simply providing guidelines for doing so. This in itself should be common sense and easily resolved by merely adding a few lines of text in the game creation page. Then again I guess that would just result in the description of random nation assignment an 'advanced' setting like WTA is labeled, which would be further unsettling.

My point for opining on this and other various issues is not to tear down the site, or anyone here, but to help make it better. Maybe I just need to get used to the fact that you guys want to run a site for below average players, and establish baseline standards for mediocre players who have no aspiration for ever getting better. I'm not playing games here because of the level of outstanding competition. I'm playing here because it's fun, and I want to help people understand the hobby.

Oh, and pumpkin/pineapple beer still sucks no matter who brews it.

I don't understand. You (collectively) had eight pages to convince people of things. A moderator came in and clarified the issue. Unfortunately, it was not the clarification you wanted.

I ask this. Is there someone on the site who could disagree with you and it would satisfy you? Or are you going to disagree with anyone, regardless of their rank or position?

This moderator is some sort of god and can't be wrong? He says something and it's gospel, we can't disagree? This practice is not standard protocol elsewhere, at least nowhere that prides themselves on game integrity. His statement flatly claimed cheating was accepted here and we happen to think cheating should not be approved, from the top or from any others.

And yes, he did say cheating was allowed!
his quote:
"it is a perfectly legitimate strategy to leave a game if you don't like the players who are surrounding you and to rejoin as another country later on."
Sorry, he is flat out wrong! This is in fact text book cheating, because others can also cheat it becomes acceptable? No, your god is misinformed and wrong, no two ways about it, he is encouraging cheating and that sort of behavior flavors the entire website when allowed to happen!

Unless someone complains for a certain behaviour, you cannot possibly know if these certain people prearranged the countries and exploited the pick your own country mode.
worse yet, to arrange with your buddies after the signup, to play for a 6man draw after you eliminate Cypeg first. But hey why should I report this behaviour!

and the last note was meant for Retilllion (gameID=15120). DO you think it is a circumstance that Ruffhaus, me, and probably others believe your actions are murky? And zlso that (gameID=9310) game where you dumped 14+ was a disgrace. We were playing one very interesting game and you spoiled it just because..

In essence, people will exploit the CYOC mode. but what to do. It is on everyone to watch the game and try to prevent those alliances from becoming dominant. In some games it is possible when good players are in. In other games, it is just a pain to watch as some players cant even recognise this

@ cypeg :

gameID=15120 was not a Choose Your Country Game. And there was no such thing as "to arrange with your buddies after the signup, to play for a 6man draw after you eliminate Cypeg first." [YOUR EXACT WORDS]
You almost didn't answer me at all in first turns of that game. AFTER THAT, AS A CONSEQUENCE, I proposed to other players, who were communicating correctly, to cooperate against you.

gameID=9310 was the first game that I finished on this site. When I started that game, I did not know one single player. I certainly did not have any pre-arranged alliance with anyboby.
At a certain time, there was a possibility that one or two players could make a solo. I found a solution to prevent a solo, which should be your goal in a Diplomacy game if you can't win, shouldn't it ? My solution was to *threaten* to give some of my SCs to my ally so that he would win IF a "Draw" was not voted. I thought that the other players like you and RUFFHAUS 8 would be forced to vote "Draw". Some players, my ally and I voted "Draw". You, cypeg, and RUFFHAUS 8 refused to vote "Draw", although you knew that you were going to lose the game. It was you right. And it was also my right to give my SCs to my ally : I would rather see my ally win the game instead of one of my enemies.
That trick is absolutely allowed by the rules. If you or RUFFHAUS 8 find it unethical is only YOUR problem. Diplomacy is a game were it is allowed to lie : most of us agree with that. However most people will agree that lying is unethical.

I will tell you now what I think : you and RUFFHAUS 8 and possibly other players in that game, were just shocked by my trick of threatening to give some SCs to my ally and you were too proud to admit that my threat was real and ALLOWED BY THE RULES. You really make me think of children with a big mouth who start crying as soon as things get really nasty. It looks to me that you haven't seen much of what's possible in a Diplomacy game.

Talking about ethics in a Diplomacy game, which once again allows lying and betrayal, is very interesting but is also a kind of nonsense. The only thing that we should all agree about is that everyone plays the game within the limits of the rules. The rest is just personal preferences.
For example, I don't like players who are rude and hostile in their communications. Some think that such behaviour is acceptable, I find such a behaviour "unethical". Well that is only MY problem and it is my responsabilty to either accept that or to choose to not play with rude people.

No Retillion. We were not shocked by the threat. We were shocked that you threw more than 14 SCs away from a completely competitive position away to another player that intentionally allowed a solo, and the ONLY reason for this was because you could not control the board. This was no t not because you'd been stabbed, and your game was over, or because you wanted to punish those that betrayed you. You threw the solo because you wanted to control the game and ran up against players smarter than you and they refused to allow you to have your every way. You threw a tantrum and subsequently the game. You're a disgrace, and absent an apology for that and your dubious behavior since, you always will be. That's not a cheating or a lying accusation. That's just a fact. You're just a disgraceful gamer. But there is no rule against throwing a game. So no one is accusing you of cheating in that game, which you appear very proud of. Are you happy? Please feel free to brag away on how disgraceful you were.

Yet if you come onto this thread and blatantly admit to engaging in behavior that many here and any sane person would see as cheating, that's on you. Complain to your protector, Guaroz, He will order the other moderators to come silence us. Because this site is all about whatever Retillion and Guaroz want.

Hawkeneye, What don't you understand? Yes, the discussion has gone on for 8 pages. Apparently you have not actually read it, or just had your mind made up from t e beginning. The moderator that posted most recently absolutely did not clarify the matter at all. It's not a matter of whether I like the clarification or not. He intentionally ducked the matter. The only helpful comments from the moderators have been that the CYOC feature will remain, because it allows for the ease of creating special rules games, tournaments, etc. I think that makes perfect sense. However, they have intentionally ducked the entire matter of players who collect allies off the board and then choose their nation assignments. This behavior does go on here, and at least one player has admitted to doing exactly this right here in this thread. That is what the thread is about, and why it has gone on for eight plus pages. That and there has been no clarification as to whether or not the moderators find this behavior acceptable.

Maybe it shouldn't take eight pages of debate to decide this. You're right. That's ridiculous. It shouldn't have taken eight posts. Kaner406 (a moderator) weighed in with a very helpful explanation as to why the CYOC option was available. Had he simply worded his item #3 paragraph more strongly, it would have put the entire matter to rest. He says there that he chooses not to play in CYOC games that do not offer a special rule necessitating it. That's because kaner406 is an honorable player. But knaer406 the moderator is either being indecisive, or is being held back from making a definitive statement about the ethics (or lack thereof) behind choosing your own country. That's his choice as a player. But as a moderator, he could have suggested that it was wrong to choose nation assignment based on you positive or negative feelings for a player. Eight pages later the moderator team has still been conspicuously absent on this matter. Why? You're right Hawk. It should not take eight pages.

once again, lost in this discussion is the plain fact that we ALSO have the problem where players are also allowed to make alliances with others before the game starts. You can say it's not allowed but there it is, we know exactly what power we are playing and know who is playing other positions. Good players will of course be noble and not discuss things but can we say this about all players? Can anyone honestly say this NEVER happens here? Then address this, you are back to the plain fact that picking a power based on who your neighbors are , that's CHEATING! A moderator said it was perfectly acceptable, he said cheating was allowed on this site! This "practice" is not one of opinion, it is simple fact, arrangement of who plays where is gaining an advantage and as such is CHEATING, there is no room for cheating on the site, there should be no room for making cheating easier, but here we have both being not only allowed but apparently encouraged!

FYI, I was one of the founding tournament directors for the Redscape patriot Games tourney that ran about 6 or 7 years straight. The tournament was a team tourney that drew players from many other websites (many from here). One of my responsibilities was game assignment, it was on me to arrange for who was playing who. Guess what, some teams, after seeing the assignments, would come and ask to switch players around.... maybe Bob was playing Germany is game A, he didn't know any of his neighbors. One of his teammates, Stan knew a few of the others in Bobs game and hey, Bob knew some in Stans game! They asked to switch assignments/games. According to THIS site, this would be perfectly acceptable behavior! That would be considered CHEATING and was not allowed, if it were allowed we would have had a revolt on our hands, players knew what constituted cheating and gaining an unfair advantage most certainly IS cheating!

I don't really care who here says it isn't, if they say its acceptable, then they are saying the site accepts cheating as a common practice, and if they do it themselves, yes they too are cheaters! Maybe it's simply an issue of being ignorant to reality and they don't think of it as cheating, doesn't matter, they are ignorant of standard practice and are making a bad decision siding with cheating as a norm!

@Tomahaha: "do you allow games that encourage foul language? games that encourage players to insult each other? games that encourage NMR's? why play games that encourage cheating?"

I'll answer your questions one by one:
Yes.
Yes.
Sure, although I don't see the point.
Hell no! But allow it? I don't see why not. As long as all players agree to cheat.

As for further posts: I think that if there's even just one player who wants to play with the option, the option should be kept. You rather see the option gone because a couple of people abuse it.

It's a matter of opinion and the only thing that annoys me is that you act like there's only one answer.

huh?
so if only one wants to allow cheating then damn it, we should allow it!
Maybe you don't understand, there is a thing called "integrity" there is also something known as "standards" this practice ignores both. AND, if you want to go by what the moderator stated, he believes you should allow cheating on this site!

If cheating and lack of integrity is "your thing", then by all means, if any ignorant people want to keep going as is (and yes this indeed IS ignorant) then you are right on track to blow any an all sense of fair play!
...don't like who joined next to you, quit and rejoin next to someone you like more!? This is CHEATING

oh, and that is not an "Opinion", it is a fact, this is considered cheating, no question about it, no opinion, simple FACT

@ Tom :

Before playing Diplomacy, I was playing another game which involved too a lot of diplomacy : that game is "Twilight Imperium". In that game, one of the first things that players do is to decide where they will sit. In other words, the rules book says that, at a certain time, just before the game begins, the players decide next to who they will sit. Since the rules book says so it is certainly not cheating in that game.
I know that "Twilight Imperium" is another game but if chosing your neighbour is allowed - and even mandatory ! - in some games, that shows that it is not necessarily something wrong.

Also, I happen to have here at home an old paper version of the rules of the game Diplomacy. It simply states that countries will be assigned randomly to the players. The rules book does not say anything at all about the CYC option. And so, who said that quitting the game and rejoining it later with another country is cheating ? What "authority" said that ? You ? Someone else ?

That makes me think that many times, many people believe that their opinion is a fact.

countries will be assigned randomly means just that, you don't get to pick. You can certainly make provisions for this as long as it does not lead to any sort of advantage gained.

Who says quitting and rejoining in a more favorable position is cheating?
It's an advantage, that is not random! The rules say so themselves!
Tourneys (of which I have been a part of many on multiple sites) also do not allow this because it would be cheating. Gaining an edge ...that sir is CHEATING!

Twilight Kisses, or whatever that OTHER game is means nothing, who gives a rats ass about another game? :Let
s stick with DIPLOMACY and the rules and standards that involve this game. Anything done to gain an advantage over others (other than ones own ability) is cheating!