In fact, the only goal listed is to win the game by any means necessary. So the fact that we restrict multigaming, metagaming, kidnapping people's pets, etc means we are violating the official rules.

Wait! I didn't know we weren't allowed to kidnap peoples pets on this site.

YCHTT: See Section II: Object of The Game: http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/rulebooks/1992AH3rd.pdf

Devonian, You said " I disagree that I should be allowed to dictate how others should rank their priority," and "If I find out they would rather take second place than draw, I will definitely try to accommodate them." Both these statements indicate you are okay with someone placing a survive above a draw, and even a solo. I argue that that the objective of Diplomacy is to solo first, and draw second. All other objectives should only be played for when one can do neither of the first two -- unless clearly stated that priorities are different in a variant. Hence, you are giving an okay to play outside the rules. In a football game between an NFL team and a high school team, while the high school team may value the touchdown more than anything in the world, their value does not change the rules and their 'survive' was not their main objective, it was only a result.

@ G-Man :

You wrote :
"Official rules clearly state to play to 1) solo, and 2) draw."

That is false. It is only your interpretation. Indeed, on page 4 of
http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/diplomacy_rulebook.pdf
you can read that the rulebook states exactly :

"OBJECT OF THE GAME
As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it’s considered to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that Great Power is the winner. However, players can end the game by agreement before a winner is determined. In this case, all players who still have pieces on the game board share equally in a draw."

That is the exact text of the official rule book. It does not state at all that players should play for such or such goal. The rules only state how the game ends.

The text that you give states exactly the same with a few different words.

I think that the disagreement here comes from the fact that some players see it as an obligation to play in order to win, whether it is Diplomacy, football, chess, or whatever. These players show the rulebook as a supposed "proof". The rules of a game, or of a sport, do not dictate that players should try to win. No, the rules simply state how to win or how a game, or a contest, ends.

It is always interesting to read that some people (or players) dictate that other people (or players) should act (or play a game) in such or such way.
One of the richness of humanity is the variety of different ways to see things. When one sincerely believes that one specific thing should be done only in one specific way, don't you think that there is a possibility that he might be wrong ?

Players could play seriously with other goals than winning. For example, one player could have the desire to test a specific strategy even if that costs him the game. Wouldn't that be a valid and honorable goal ?

You have mentioned chess. As a former chess tournament player, I can tell you that there are many reasons for which a chess player would prefer a draw rather than a win. I will give you three examples that happen frequently :

• In order to be paired with a less strong opponent in the next round of a tournament, a player can prefer to score a draw, which would reward him 0.5 rather than a win, which would reward him 1 point.

• A player may prefer to have an easy and fast game in order to have a day of rest during a tournament. For example, in a foreign country, I happened once to be paired with a friend of mine (we were 4 players that went together to that other country). We didn't care much about playing a chess game together, which we could do anytime since we lived in the same city, and, instead, we immediately agreed on a draw which gave us a day of vacation which we used to visit the city of that foreign country in which we were playing.

• A player is sick, has a hangover or doesn't feel well. He doesn't show it, only he knows about it. He knows that it will be difficult and painful for him to win the game so he may offer a draw to a supposedly weaker opponent after the game has reached a certain point. The supposedly weaker player is more than happy to draw with the strongest player while this one is free and can go away in order to take care of himself.

These are only three examples that I have personally seen frequently but there are many other reasons why a player would prefer a draw rather than a survive.

I will tell you now one interesting story that I have seen. Chess tournaments are often held in hotels in which most of the foreign players have a room. In one rather strong tournament that I played in (there were several International Masters), one of the strongest players was a young and very attractive woman. She was always dressed in a very sexy way in order to try to disturb or distract her male opponents. And also, when she had lost a game, she usually ended up in a very bad mood. One day, she was paired with a male player who was supposedly a little stronger than her (at least that is what the Elo score was telling). The man, whom I knew personally, told me, that morning, before the game began, in a mysterious way : "I will lose the game and I will win !".

And so, those two International Masters played the game and the woman won a difficult and fascinating game. She was very proud of her. After the game, they both analysed it while having a drink together. Later, they spend the evening together and...
And you now understand what he meant when he had told me "...and I will win !".

You see every one has his own priorities and motivations...

Those who want to dictate how others should rank their priorities simply fail to understand some aspects of life (or of a game) and reduce their own chances to achieve their goals, for example a solo in a Diplomacy game.

Retillion, you are correct, as in the Chess example, when such objectives are agreed upon. The agreed upon goal of a standard Diplomacy match is to play to solo. The rulebook indicates a second goal, to draw, in the event all players agree to that. There is no mention in the rules of playing for different objectives. If someone has a real-life issue, such as the death of a loved one or a bad illness, we all understand modification have to be made to the game, because real life takes precedence over the game. Otherwise, if you have a Chess tournament and someone wants to throw matches to specific players as an objective to see how that affects the tournament, is that beneficial to the tournament, the game, and the community?

If we're playing for sex instead of ranking points, well..that changes everything. Now we need profile pictures.

G-Man - It statesxplayers,may do that. It does not prioritize that outcome above a survive nor does it state it as an actual goal. It says they may do that. Nothing more. If it were intended to be the second highest goal it woukd state such. E.g. If the players find themselves facing a potential solo, they should attempt to block this solo and force the dominant player to a stalemate.

P.S. Retillion, Solos and draws end games. The draw is listed as an objective under the "Object of The Game" section. That means that a draw is an objective for players to play for. And since all players share equally in a draw vs. a solo, where one player wins, it is regarded as a secondary objective. And if you're going to play a game with someone the whole purpose of having rules is so that we're all not each playing different games.

The Object of *every* amateur game is always to have fun. This is implicit in the social contract of boardgaming. This is a social site. I don't understand why it is so difficult for some people to grasp the implied goal of social gaming.

G-man, "I argue that that the objective of Diplomacy is to solo first, and draw second. All other objectives should only be played for when one can do neither of the first two -- unless clearly stated that priorities are different in a variant."

At first glance it may seem that I take a softer stance on this than you, but I am actually much more committed to it. While you spend time convincing them to play harder, I'll skip that step and go for the win (or draw).

YCHTT, A draw is regarded as only giving you a share of the victory, whereas a solo is the entire victory. Further, across games and sports, a draw is not regarded as being equal to a victory. It is generally regarded as not being a loss, but not being as strong as a victory. The rulebook does not state that a survive is an objective no more than it states that the last person eliminated is superior to the first person eliminated. A survive is meaningless in terms of the rulebook and you'd be better off playing for sex :-)

Also, I've yet to see anyone use this community in an attempt to get laid.

That reply was meant after gmans first response to retillion. Apparently I missed a few posts, it seems dr recommended beat me to the punch regarding a sex joke

The objective of the game is not the objective of every single player. If a player chooses to throw the game to another player, he is still playing towards the objective of one great power controlling the board, that great power just happens to be someone other than himself.

Really YCHTT? So it's okay for an NFL team to throw games, since they are playing for a team to win the game? Or a chess player to throw games to all Russian players, since they are playing for a winner of the tournament?

To clarify YCHTT, I agree with you IF a player has no opportunity to solo or draw, but not as an objective from the start of the game.

Sports,are not board games. And yes, it is perfectly acceptable for a chess player to throw a game if it betters his teams chances.

To quote Felix Leiter, "I'm bleeding chips here and won't last much longer. I'll stake you."

Long and,short of it. Sports are not games in the strictest sense. And professional sports where money is on the line has actual rules against this, clearly stated. Look at baseball. They have a rule that explicitly prohibits gambling. Diplomacy has no rule exclicitely prohibiting throwing the game.

Another example is sandbaging in Spades. Do too much and you take a 100 point penalty.

Until you show an explicit rule that states you cannot do something, it is legal to do.

Regarding: "If a player chooses to throw the game to another player, he is still playing towards the objective of one great power controlling the board, that great power just happens to be someone other than himself."

I'll have to take G-man's side on that one and disagree with that statement. That sounds a lot like metagaming. Especially if it is at the start of the game.

I agree that doing it from the start is wrong. But if they are, it is likely for metagaming or multigaming reasons which this site's rules prohibit. But after a stab, even if they have a chance to be in the draw, it is not against the rules for the player to decide to punish the stabbed by throwing the game. It may be stupid on their part, but no rule states you cannot do that.

And I should say that this purely an acedemic discussion from my point of view. I've been a 1 SC nation that ended up part of a three way draw by solid communication to eliminate several others still in the game. I promised to be the big guys king maker for a survive over a defeat then he let me get big enough to stop any progress he might make against me and force him to draw.

YCHTT, Amen! There is a big difference when doing it from round one as opposed to doing it in response to allies stabbing you. I see it as consequences for their actions, if they can't handle the response, don't make the move. I think I enjoy the social aspect more than the tactical, you can play tactical games against computers, this is more enjoyable. For the casual player such as myself, the rules I pay close attention to are to not bring feelings from one game into another (cross-gaming/meta-gaming). Do not play with someone you know personally on an open game (which I don't know anyone else nerdy enough to play here anyway, so that is easy). And when a Mod says not negotiations before the game starts, that means NO negotiations before the game starts. As for all the other rules debates over the wording and where it is from, every game is different. If you say you play every single game the same, then you must be a robot. There are games I feel a great sense of loyalty toward an ally who took good care of me, if I am being bombarded from another direction, and it is obvious I cannot resist, I may offer SCs to that ally to keep them out of the hands of my enemy. You're full of crap if you call that meta-gaming. It's simply repaying loyalty of a player DURING THAT GAME. Next game may see that player as your enemy (but due to the social aspect, we can still give each other smack talk while fighting, without getting personal out of respect). I am here to match wits with people from different backgrounds than myself, if you are here for the "purity of the game" so be it. But don't judge those of us here for the fun of it by your standards. If you want everyone to by like yourselves, create a site and only allow those in who think the way you do.

I do realize that I am speaking to like the Godfathers of vDip... But don't make the site available to others if you are going to be disappointed by the game play of those who join an open site.

Samj, I don't think anyone wants everyone to play alike, be alike, or have some kind of purity of the game. The issue up for discussion is WHEN it's okay to throw a game -- see the 1st post in the thread.

OK, so once again I feel like a newb.. Didn't page back all the way, and thought the thread started where they were discussing where it says survival is not a valid goal. I apologize. And if I'd known RUFF had started the conversation as he did, I would have kept my big mouth shut since he stated at the start what I had in mind. Consider my wrist slapped and I am restricting myself from posting for awhile!

Sent back to the first Reply of this Post - not the locked Post - one comes across "cross-gaming."
Given the low Number of active Players, & high Frequency of Interactions in this Website's Games, it would be droll to post in the Forum that some Players' Styles are not known to other Players.
Ergo, the Montypythonesque cum Kafkaesque awards should go to the lady Player with the biggest Teats, not the "last Man standing" in each Game.
Exception: serious Games.

What does female child rearing glands have to do with Diplomacy?

I really didn't understand any of that last sentence.....