Drano – it takes two to troll – Tom is *just* as guilty in his behavior – he hasn’t made a new valid point in pages, and simply here to insult people and tell them they are stupid because we disagree with his point of view, like a bully on a playground. If we wants to demonstrate his Diplomacy prowess he should challenge the players in the thread to a game of WTA. Otherwise, he’s just as full of <digested food remains> as anyone else

I am done beating a dead horse but please note I did not resort to trolling behavior and also note your statement that nothing new was added is wrong. I posted examples from other sites and asked for someone to do the same from the PPSC side. That side has no answers only to troll. (and guys, the part where we were talking about skull size was an obvious joke on both sides, it seems like a few thought that was real?)

For now I will drop this because I posted my reasons and gave my examples. The other position has done nothing to back their side and until they do, there is nothing more to say. If someone should post a well reasoned argument to allow PPSC based on rules, based on hobby standards, based on how it is done elsewhere, THEN we can DISCUSS things. But the PPSC side clearly has no answers to date. I honestly would like to see a real reason based on these things!

hmm.. I missed the fun but I gave up reading after all this rant.

But let me give you my 50ent.
swearing is educational i.e. I learn new american expressions or generalisations
swearing is strategical sometimes
swearing can relief the soul as you die horribly on the game battlefield.

We cannot fix the problems of the world nor do I expect the world to be all sugary.
If I meet someone who is really annoying I simply avoid/dont speak to him again.
Same with this site.
I get bashed by some I swear others but all is water under the bridge the moment I choose to play a new game and be part of this community

yet WTA and 99% rate must be the default setting so that we dont fall into traps, and new users, teenagers make their own games not troll the upcoming games

Tom - I could make a thousand arguments as to why someone might want to play PPSC, but as you have clearly demonstrated, you a closed-minded petulant child in all likelihood who has extrmely misplaced/misinformed ideas about what is/is not important in the world.

You also, though trying to present yourself as some intellilectual mountain, continue to play a game style you do not like, and further you apparetly do not know how to be persuasive in yoru press, and thus fail at said game style...

So given the obvious picture one can easily paint about you – why would anyone try to make an argument? So you can troll and rant some more?

Krellin -

While you're right that Tom hasn't made a new valid point in pages, it also stands that no one has actually countered his points yet, which is why he is consistently reiterating them.

The main point of note that hasen't been refuted:

- PPSC is not accepted anywhere else in the Diplomacy community. No where else (save webdip, which as Tom mentioned, vdip is based off, so does it really count?) are people rewarded more for losing the game than "winning" as part of a draw.

Now I understand that this is a variant site, which is part of the reason I stuck around, because I love variants. And if PPSC wants to be developed as a variant on the rules, by all means, charge forward. That said, rewarding losses (throwing solos) more than wins (draws) is not just a variant, it's changing the basic rules of the game. By changing the fundamental rules of the game, you truly change everything about Diplomacy and how it was developed. As it has been stated before, the idea behind a solo at 18 SCs is that that person goes on to conquer the entirety of Europe, thus, no one "survives", and everyone is eliminated and defeated. Obviously, we know that isn't the case, and there are small stalemate lines that can form with less than 18 SCs, but since the entire idea of a solo at 18 SCs is that everyone else would be eventually eliminated, it truly is a fundamental part of the game that giving up a solo = you being eliminated. Therefore, giving more rewards for giving up a solo (where again, it was assumed you'd be eventually eliminated), than for surviving in a draw (where you are not eliminated) is absurd. If PPSC is to remain, then I reference my previous posts and claim that it should still reward points as solo>draw>survive>eliminated in game. Or perhaps the idea of others where in a draw, points are allocated per supply center instead of equally, that would still be PPSC-ish.

Just thought I should mention. If you like to play PPSC, it is the default at webdiplomacy.net.

It's also nice that tomahater isn't there and won't berate and vilify you for playing the game the way you like to play it.

The points could/should be rewarded similarly to tourney scoring (IMHO)

You can debate exactly how those points should be distributed and there are many many different ideas for this but the basics are the same...
Solo, winner takes all, "survivors" (I hate that term) get nothing
Eliminated, you get no points
Draw, the points are split by the remaining players

Again, how points are split in a draw can vary a billion ways and you can have a lively discussion over that alone!

must...stop...urge...to...reply
why the continued trolling? We are trying to discuss things, who is berating who here?

@ RUFFHAUS 8 :

Once again, you attack people instead of ideas. One can wonder why you attacked me in your previous message : why are you so obsessed by me ?

1° You wrote :
"Well, after looking at the game the started this conversation it's fairly clear why chavismo holds the opinion that he does for PPSC. He was rewarded with points for complete failure"

RUFFHAUS 8, have you really studied that game ? Have you forgotten that this thread was about Fischfix, France's player, complaining about your friend DEFIANT, Slavic Nations' player, being rude because Fischfix dared to write 3 short words in the Global Press of that game :
"happy i survived!"
[Fischfix's EXACT WORDS]
To start with, isn't is preposterous that a player (DEFIANT) feels bad because another person is happy ?

Regarding "chavismo being rewarded with points for complete failure", do you realize that he gained 18 -Points ? If the game had ended in a Draw, he would have gained, at the most, 14 (=82/6) D-Points. Does anyone really believe that chavismo could possibly have broken the holy-sacred-spirit-of-Diplomacy-as-it-should-be-played just for an additionnal 4 (FOUR !) D-Points ?

2° You wrote :
"This game is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the PPSC scoring model.

Anyone who loves Diplomacy should have absolute contempt for this."
[YOUR EXACT WORDS]

And so, RUFFHAUS 8, if you have so much contempt for PPSC games, would you please explain to us why you have joined this PPSC game, which was finished some 48 hours ago :
gameID=19804 ?

What's more, that game was a Choose Your Country Game, which you and your friends pretend to contempt too.
And also, in that game, you even chose France, which is one of the strongest countries in that Variant !

Yes, please, RUFFHAUS 8 : explain to us why you joined, as France, some 6 weeks ago, a Chose Your Contry PPSC Imperial game.

"That said, rewarding losses (throwing solos) more than wins (draws) is not just a variant, it's changing the basic rules of the game"

So what. I could argue that every variant map is an aberation that should be eliminated, as they do not match the carefully designed balance of the original game.

Build anywhere - there's a variant I love - *totally* screws up the game - I suppose you want that gone, too?

I wonder if any of you grasp that this ***IS A GAME***? For little Tommy to et himself worked into such a froth over a VOLUNTARY ACTION (joining a game) and another VOLUNTARY ACTION (chosing to judge his self worth or the worth of others on the admittedly flawed/arbitrary point system) just make him look ridiculous.

Bottom line is, when you play PPSC, EVERYONE is playing by the same rules - therefore it is fair, and you have to play your game differently than WTA. YES!!! It's a different game!!! SO WHAT!

I see people put together different games all the time where they artificially impose rules that change the game. I suppose you would all have these people for Diplomacy treason?

Tom is the type of guy that would walk through a store with an AK47 and mow everyone down in the ice cream isle for choosing anything but vanilla, because everyone know vanilla is the best and only flavor of ice cream.

Petulent child.

Nobody is arguing it isn't a different game. WHO CARES if it is a different game - don't do it if you don't like it - he's pissed becuase he got his butt kicked, but is *clearly* the most intelligent diplomacy player ever....leading one to wonder why he joined the so-seriosuly-flawed game in the first place. He has **zero** credibility by playing a game he claims to hate, and then complaining about it.

Repost from the last page since a lot of people seemed to miss Oli's last post.

"Hey everybody,
this thread is getting more and more useless and slowly people start to use personal attacks to make their point of view more clear.
Please calm down. This is an everlasting discussion and will never reach a consensus.
So please accept that there are different opinions about this and let this thread die." -Oli

Let me futher poijnt out -- the piont system - which is the core of Tomyboys complaint - DOES NOT EXIST IN THE BOARD GAME. Therefore, all his specific complaints that people on this site are hoarding points...it is an invalid argument, by his own assertion, as the board game is a stand-alone, singular instance. Leading one to the obvious conclusion that this is just a pride issue, not a game issue, for Tommyboy.

"So what. I could argue that every variant map is an aberation that should be eliminated, as they do not match the carefully designed balance of the original game.

Build anywhere - there's a variant I love - *totally* screws up the game - I suppose you want that gone, too?"

Krellin -

This is where the difference lies. Variants do *not* change the inherent rules of the game whereas PPSC does.

Consider this:

Little league baseball plays on 60' base paths. Major leagues use 90'. Little league pitches from closer and does not allow lead offs, majors do. These are the equivalent of Variants in Diplomacy. However, the same inherent rules apply. You are still out on force outs in little league and the majors. You are still trying to score more runs than the other team. These are totally 100% ok, since it does not change the underlying aspects of the game.

PPSC is akin to saying: Ok everyone, you can get a victory by scoring more runs than the other team, or, if the other team scores more runs than you, you still get credit for getting a certain number of runners to third base. You have changed something understood by everyone who plays baseball, and as such, it is no longer baseball, but something different.

@ drano019 :

How about Gunboats Diplomacy ? Are they a Variant ?
In my opinion, they are something terribly different from Diplomacy ! Indeed, in a Gunboat, the rules of the game have been changed : in a Diplomacy game, players can say (almost) anything that they want. On the contrary, in a Gunboat game, it is prohibited to communicate other than with one's moves.

In my opinion, there is a MUCH LARGER difference between a Diplomacy game and a Gunboat game than there is between a WTA game and a PPSC game.

The only "problem" is that there are points. People like them and want them. And so they exist. Why not, after all ? But then we must accept that there will be some points system distribution and that it will not reflect perfectly all the different aspects of all the possible ways that we can play Diplomacy.

The only true solution is :
1° Players should only join games that they like.
2° Players should should truely not care about points.

Retillion, since you either are an absolute moron, incapable of understanding the issue, or a self absorbed and insecure bully, I will elaborate for you. I called you out on this because you are the chief abuser and manipulator of the PPSC setting. You are the #1 point whore on the site. That's been clear from your arrival and very first game, and you've gone on to new heights of shame. That's why you get mentioned here. You love the type of games like the one that began this thread, because you thrive on gaming the PPSC setting to get you better results than you could in a regular (WTA) game.

As you've noted I have indeed played in PPSC games, and I have discovered that some players are point whores just like you. The difference here is that I recognize that flaws in it, and how it cheapens any victory. I don't create PPSC games here, and have long lobbied for the default setting not to be PPSC. You on the other hand shouted down all requests for this with you inane BS about fairness. I played in some PPSC games because it used to be the default setting, and because assholes like you petitioned for it to remain so - and for WTA to be labeled as an 'expert' setting. The result was an overwhelming majority of games were constructed as PPSC, and if you wanted to play a particular variant, the you had to accept what was offered.

In the game you reference above, I chose France, because it's a challenging nation to play, and because I had not played France before. I had played Britain, Holland, Turkey, Brazil, Mexico, and Japan. As you very well know I do not like choose your own country games, and have argued against them, and specifically against you about them. However, I did not create this game, and the choice was to accept the choose your own game or not play. That is why. Did you have some relevant point to make? I guess you thought that question was uber clever, right? The answer to your question is that I signed up for the game because super douches like you have influenced the direction of the community for so long that only options are for games with PPSC and chose your nation. However this particular game was anonymous, so your implication that I chose a nation next to a friend, ironically something you are very adept at, is inaccurate. As it turns out I did not have any friends in this game, but I did face off unawares with your personal shieldman MAK. He didn't have you telling him what to do or offering him points for your victory this time though. However, when I do have friends in games that status gives them no more chance of alliance with me than it would with you, someone that I despise more than anyone I've ever met in decades of this hobby. I've gone to the mat with my friends every bit as furiously as I would with any other player.

If you're really so worried about my ethical make up and consistency or action to belief structure, then ask the Britain and Russia players from that game how I reacted to their offers to let me win if they could finish strong alongside me. Their offers caused me to attack them rather than cooperate with them because I'm not a points whore. I play to win. Would I have won this game if it was WTA? Maybe not. I'm not promoting it as some grand achievement. I was able to win because some of the players didn't care about preventing a solo, but I didn't play my game that way. I played because this was the only Imperial II game available at a time when I had time to play. If their had been a WTA game with random nation assignment, then I would have chosen that game.

Yes, I've analyzed the game that started this thread's debate. I don't have any issue with Defiant's reaction to the French player's global press. That doesn't mean I wish the player unhappiness, you toad. It means that the system is broken and that players are playing games for VDip points rather than for results. The French player's global press is but one glaring example of that. That's the whole thrust of the argument. But you don't understand that because you're just a narcissistic points whore, who knows better, but does not care.

amen Drano!

and still these PPSC supporters make claims that are unsupported.
Yes variants are different but they are played the same way ...to be won
and the basic game you all accept, it took Mr Calhamer many years and many tweaks to get it right, nothing wrong with making fixes to things that don't work. PPSC doesn't work. We have seen examples where players threw the game not for revenge but rather for points. That shows the system does not work as intended.

As far as points in general
Because the original game had no points does not mean they can not apply. Points are just like a variant, a minor change to the basic rules. Points can be awarded as long as they do not change the spirit of the game. In fact, I see no reason variants that DO change the spirit of the game should not be played, you simply can not award points to those games. Diplomacy has tournaments all the time all over the place, we have face to face tourneys and we have online tourneys. (and I sat on the organizing committee for several online tournaments on several web sites) in both venues points are awarded, points (and rankings based on similar) have been a part of Diplomacy almost from it's inception, they simply are not in the rules because the rules discuss how a single game is played and points are not required for a single game of course. Points are a part of Diplomacy, no question about it, the points are not a part of this so we can change as we like argument has no truth behind it

The argument FOR PPSC is simply not there. We all understand why you want this option, it rewards more points for doing poorly. No doubt some will want to claim finishing a strong "second" is not doing poorly and should be rewarded. i think we all "get that" feeling, but that feeling is not part of the way the game was designed and is not an accepted method of play anywhere else. The game is lost when another wins, there simply is no second place. Even the stats show a "survival" stat, you did not "survive" you LOST and this sort of thing has created a culture of people who don't care abouit winning, they start wiuth every intention of winning but once that becomes a lost cause, they play to finish second and that is not how the game was designed. that is not an "opinion" it is a fact (sorry, it IS a fact) and this throwing games for "survival points" only eats away at that basic game principal.

@ RUFFHAUS 8 :

As always, the less you have to say, the more RUDE you become.

Just one note. You wrote :
"I played because this was the only Imperial II game available at a time when I had time to play."
[YOUR EXACT WORDS]

"When you had time to play" ? What a funny comment ! You are so OBSESSED with Diplomacy that you perpetually play games : you ALWAYS have time.

But much more ridiculous/interesting is your comment about that game being being the only one "available" ! RUFFHAUS 8, are you really one of those poor innocent victims who never does anything wrong ? Are you really incapable of creating games with the parameters that you like when such games aren't "available" ?

With your comment, you are trying to look like not being responsible for the choice that you have made. You know, even if you behave like - or if you pretend to be - an irresponsible person, you still are responsible for your choices. And your choice was to join, as France, some 6 weeks ago, a Choose Your Country PPSC Imperial game.

I have to say i understand the argumentation of the pro PPSC and the pro WTA.
Imho it doesn't really matter what is the "one" correct way on playing a game. There are variants of all games. I am personally undecided what game i would join.

When playing WTA (& often PPSC) i really hate that everybody is trying to draw right away... In PPSC, yes it's bad if people help others winning, but i also rather survive then get wiped out.

BUT what is clear to me, and is stated a hundred times is, that the point system is the problem. And as both game types can't be fully compared maybe we need different stats for both types as i already pointed out before:

Have a table with
WTA games (20 games - 500 )
- Victories
- Draws
- losses

PPPS (20 games - 500 )
- Victories
- Draws
- survived
- losses

BTW: Why i say it doesn't matter what is correct.
WTA might be the official variant, but if most games are created PPSC i would consider that more common/accepted and "succesful" here on this portal.

You can pretend the imperial system is the one correct system in the world but when the metric system is used by 95% of the worlds population it's not reasonable to change... if you know what i mean ;)

Yes, didigoose : the only problem is points.

For the record, when Oli asked our opinion for a new points system, which gave this :
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/hof.php

I STRONGLY and REPEATEDLY advocated that NO such system should be created because no points system could never represent precisely the strength of the players. I also mentioned that any point system would be wrong because it would include all the MANY different kinds of games that we play here :
- WTA and PPSC would require 2 different points systems.
- Full Press games, Global Press games and Gunboats would require 3 different points system. That makes already 6 (SIX !) different combinations.
- But we also have live games, (very) fast games, (very) slow games, actually MANY different speeds for games.
- And we also have MANY Variants.
- Etc, etc, etc.

→ How MANY different tables would we actually need ?

Those who remember my opinion in that thread about a new points system know perfectly that I don't care about points and that I think that we should have none !

Understood Didigoose, but one slight error
WTA is not a "variant" in that this is the standard game. PPSC would be the variant!

And while PPSC may seem more accepted here but that may be due to "how it's always been done" and a "change is bad" mentality, it may also be due simply because a vast majority simply do not know any different and think throwing a game to another is commonly accepted. It is a quirk on this site that most certainly is not accepted elsewhere. Your imperial/metric example is apt. But you seem to have them in reverse. The standard (metric) is WTA, PPSC is like the United States refusing to accept the standard and using her own rules and measures.

Your different point idea is spot on however.

funny thing about points, they are always points of contention wherever they are used!

Sorry guys but arent you missing the obvious>
All games should be WTA. In that - we -agree that the person who solos deserves ALL points. but alas, if a draw is voted then all players split the pot! SO where is the problem?
Why really should there be a PPSC since the only difference is that in this setting the winner gets half the pot. pointeless setting then

"WTA is not a "variant" in that this is the standard game."

Actually, it is not the standard game at all: There ARE NO POINTS in the original game, period. Only a (possible) winner, and 6 losers.

So once again, your focus on the importance of points is why you have no credibility in your argument IF your argument is based upon your interpretation as to the original intent of a game involving a cardboard square with pretty printing and wooden pieces.

While I lean towards the WTA side I really have little concern what type of game I join. My main concern is that I join games with reliable and experienced players. I know some will say I haven't played any games yet but rest assured I have been playing this game a VERY long time and know how to play. Oli was right about the fact that this argument will never be won. If this site is around 100 years from now there will be newpeople aarguing over this very subject.

Krellin, you continue to either miss the point or attempt to troll.
Let me go over this yet again...

Points are not rewarded in the standard game.
No points are required to play a single game. That player wins, game over, all go home.
But where you play in a tourney setting or over and over as we do here, then a points system may be implemented. The point system should not interfere with the way the game is played ...to a solo, "Solo" not first place and when not possible, then to a draw where all "share equally in the win" ("share equally" should alone tell you that points are not out of the question). So please drop the uneducated idea that points are not part of the original game, your position is flawed at best!
The argument may very well be around 100 years from now, but only here! One reason we who do not like this PPSC format are so vocal is because this is not the norm anywhere else and it causes an attitude of throwing games in order to "Survive" yet survival is not part of the game now is it? If another soloed, then the others (who were alive up until that point) are all losers and as such simply did not survive! This "survival" mentality has run rampant and many here seem to give this some sort of desirable goal (reinforced by point rewards) and it reflects on how people play the game. If it simply did not matter, then why would people argue about allowing PPSC? Opponents of PPSC claim it can throw a game and create a care bear hugs all around atmosphere, while PPSC (most anyways) claim it should not matter...so why want it at all in that case?

oh, and points have been part of Diplomacy since it's inception where players played and were ranked in postal play...points most certainly are a part of the game. y cars manual does not mention traffic lights and speed limits but those most certainly are a part of how I drive the vehicle. Are rankings stated in the rules of chess? yet we rank chess players based on their performance...same here

I understand your point perfectly, I just think it's irrelevent, unless.

1. Please don't ever play a PPSC game. Ever. That will solve yoru personal problems.
2. Don't tell others what they can and can not do
3. Please don't tell other people what should / should not be enjoyable to them
4. Stop pretending that points have some meaning to your life or anybody elses.

By implementing these basic steps, your blood pressure will drop dramatically, and you can stop blathering at us. You are a troll.

I have to agree with krellin, why play PPSC if you hate it? Simply stick to WTA games and be done with it.