Leaving.
Duggy
losing... I can understand that, it destroys the flow of the game...
At the same time, it reflects reality a little... great powers have
often deposed, replaced or force leaders to quit because of they've
pushed them into a losing war...
Civil Disorder, or, even better, a replacement player reflects a
"change of leadership" in these cases... and is a nice touch of
realism.
===
= DUG.
===
Douglas T. (Doug) Massey
Paul....@jcu.edu.au (Duggy) writes:
> I've noticed people being down on people leaving because they're
> losing... I can understand that, it destroys the flow of the game...
>
> At the same time, it reflects reality a little... great powers have
> often deposed, replaced or force leaders to quit because of they've
> pushed them into a losing war...
Bull.
Diplomacy is not war.
Diplomacy is a game. Leaving a game before your role in it is complete
is the equivalent of throwing the Monopoly board across the room because
someone won't trade you Park Place.
> Civil Disorder, or, even better, a replacement player reflects a
> "change of leadership" in these cases... and is a nice touch of
> realism.
Realism, shmealism. The game isn't even remotely an accurate reflection
of reality. Attitudes like this are just rationalization for bad
behavior.
Doug
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
___, Doug Massey, ASIC Digital Logic Designer
\o IBM Microelectronics Division, Burlington, Vermont |>
| Phone: (802)769-7095 t/l: 446-7095 fax: x6752 |
/ \ |
. My homepage: http://doug.obscurestuff.com (|)
David H
"Douglas T. (Doug) Massey " <mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote in message
> Diplomacy is a game. Leaving a game before your role in it is complete
> is the equivalent of throwing the Monopoly board across the room because
> someone won't trade you Park Place.
Heh :)
I like the analogy.
Douglas T. (Doug) Massey
Thank you! I minored in Analogies as an undergraduate . . .
George W. Bush
I respectfully find flaws in the anology. Leaving the Diplomacy game
before it is finished is like leaving the Monopoly game before it is
finished. To throw the game across the room you would somehow have to
disable the judge.
I am also against people leaving but I have 3 thoughts:
1. CD on NMR might be interesting (I have never played one but I would
like to -- even if I get the shaft because I don't get the eat the
carcass)
2. If a player was so discouraged that he left the game and it hurt
your position, it is your fault for not keeping him interested in the
game (consolation, humor, plans for revenge...)
3. Sure, some people are just jerks. Oh well.
In article <bg8onu$1nfk$1...@news.btv.ibm.com>,
-------------------------------
Take, and ye shall recieve.
George W. Bush
mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com (Douglas T. (Doug) Massey ) wrote:
> Bull.
I am opposed to abandonments. But the person who posted the message
was not in favor of them. And playing in a game where Civil Disorder
occurs on abandonment sounds worth trying to me. I will see if I can
sign up for one. Different people can appreciate various aspects of
the game for their own reasons. It's fair for the gentleman to say
that he likes CD for being "real," and it's fine for me to say I like
the idea because I think it will give everyone one more thing to worry
about - makes it more "edgy." Or not. Maybe it just ends the game
sooner. We shall see.
Lots of room in this hobby for different perspectives.
Douglas T. (Doug) Massey
"George W. Bush" <w...@bitehouse.gov> writes:
> In article <bg8f4d$jhe$1...@news.btv.ibm.com>,
> mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com (Douglas T. (Doug) Massey ) wrote:
>
>> Bull.
>
>
> I am opposed to abandonments. But the person who posted the message
> was not in favor of them. And playing in a game where Civil Disorder
> occurs on abandonment sounds worth trying to me. I will see if I can
> sign up for one. Different people can appreciate various aspects of
> the game for their own reasons. It's fair for the gentleman to say
> that he likes CD for being "real," and it's fine for me to say I like
> the idea because I think it will give everyone one more thing to worry
> about - makes it more "edgy." Or not. Maybe it just ends the game
> sooner. We shall see.
That's not what I thought he said. He said:
> I've noticed people being down on people leaving because they're
> losing... I can understand that, it destroys the flow of the game...
>
> At the same time, it reflects reality a little... great powers have
> often deposed, replaced or force leaders to quit because of they've
> pushed them into a losing war...
>
> Civil Disorder, or, even better, a replacement player reflects a
> "change of leadership" in these cases... and is a nice touch of
> realism.
If you're playing with NMRs and CDs allowed, then you get what you
asked for. No argument.
I took his context to mean that leaving the game was okay, even
if it destroys the flow of the game (which I interpreted to mean
waiting for a replacement player) and requires a replacement player.
That infers that it's a NoNMR game and CDs are not allowed (other
than to stop the game and signify that a replacement is needed).
That's not okay.
If the original poster was talking only about games where CDs and
NMRs are allowed, then I apologize and retract my comments. If you
play in a game that allows NMRs and abandonments, then that's exactly
what you'll get the majority of the time.
Cheers,
David H
"George W. Bush" <w...@bitehouse.gov> wrote in message
> I respectfully find flaws in the anology. Leaving the Diplomacy game
> before it is finished is like leaving the Monopoly game before it is
> finished. To throw the game across the room you would somehow have to
> disable the judge.
If you leave a monopoly game before it is finished because you are doing
badly in a multiplayer game, it is unlikely that you will substantially
affect the outcome of the game. Futhermore, your position can be easily
played out (no more trades, just roll the dice and pay appropriately until
bankrupt). When you leave a diplomacy game, the game cannot continue
without you, you have effectively destroyed the game by leaving it. A
replacement will be found, but it is no longer the same game in a very
substantiative way. (Of course, there are exceptions in both cases, a 1SC
power on the brink of elimination might have no power, but I am generalizing
here).
Therefore, abandoning a diplomacy game is equivalent in many ways to ruining
it. Throwing a monopoly board across the room better equates to the damage
done in a diplomacy abandonment than simply leaving before it is finished.
David
David H
"George W. Bush" <w...@bitehouse.gov> wrote in message
> Playing in a game where Civil Disorder
> occurs on abandonment sounds worth trying to me.
To continue with the Monopoly analogy.
Playing with NMR's is like giving $2000 dollars to someone when they land on
free parking. It may make the game more "fun" for some people, but it turns
the game into one in which blind luck eclipses almost any amount of skill.
Some people like games of luck, and for them I often recommend Snakes and
Ladders. Others do not...
Offhand, I doubt that you would like NMR games. Winning an NMR game is all
about being next to the putz that leaves. If you lose its aggravating, if
you win it is unsatisfying. Its bad no matter how you look at it.
David
Roy. Just Roy.
> Winning an NMR game is all about being next to the putz that leaves.
I would disagree. I've played in 6 player games where Italy was CD,
and it did not always guarantee a win for France or Austria. In fact,
in some ways the absence of Italy strengthened the witches' position
immensely.
As for satisfying, satisfaction is what you make it. I threw a 3-way
draw once because my "ally" was bossing me around. Every turn he would
send me a list of moves I was to make, and told me that if I didn't
move EXACTLY as he wrote, the "treaty would be void" and he would make
sure we both lost. After 6 turns of that, it was much more satisfying
to see him lose, even if it meant losing myself :)
David H
"Roy. Just Roy." <soylent...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> I would disagree. I've played in 6 player games where Italy was CD,
> and it did not always guarantee a win for France or Austria.
You need very strong players who recognize balance of power issues to avoid
having the CD neighbors run away with the game. Also, you mean a situation
where Italy starts CD, which is different than a game in which AR are wiping
out Turkey when suddenly Russia goes NMR.
Or, more probably, Turkey goes NMR, AR are able to clean up their end of the
board much faster than FG can deal with England, so they get a jump on the
stalemate line, all thanks to the CD.
> In fact,
> in some ways the absence of Italy strengthened the witches' position
> immensely.
In some ways being a 1SC power puts you in a strong negotiating position.
In almost all others, its sucks. Ditto for being far from the NMR power.
> As for satisfying, satisfaction is what you make it. I threw a 3-way
> draw once because my "ally" was bossing me around.
Then you failed. You let diplomacy provoke you into getting a suboptimal
result.
> Every turn he would
> send me a list of moves I was to make, and told me that if I didn't
> move EXACTLY as he wrote, the "treaty would be void" and he would make
> sure we both lost. After 6 turns of that, it was much more satisfying
> to see him lose, even if it meant losing myself :)
Perhaps, I can indeed understand that. Personally I would have taken the
3way anyway since I try not to let my emotions dictate my results in
diplomacy, I guess it depends on the context. I would have written to the
3rd power and tried to find a way to get a 2way draw, to really shove it in
the face of that guy. I rarely play the kingmaker role... if I find myself
in that position, I try to use it to grow larger and get into the draw.
Of course, all that has nothing to do with my original point. I love
getting a solo victory. Lets say a solo was worth 10 points on a "Ego
Satisfaction Scale" (ESS). If I got the solo but my main enemy NMR's
halfway through the game allowing me to win, then the solo would only be
worth about 4 ESS points, and probably less. Throwing games to spite hated
enemies gives maybe 1-2 points on the ESS scale, though I guess it is
slightly subjective :)
David
Douglas T. (Doug) Massey
"David H" <som...@somewhere.com> writes:
>
> "Roy. Just Roy." <soylent...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> draw once because my "ally" was bossing me around.
>
> Then you failed. You let diplomacy provoke you into getting a suboptimal
> result.
I don't know about that. That might have given him more satification
than participating in the draw. There's something to be said for that.
The bossy ally clearly failed, though.
Duggy
> Leaving a game before your role in it is complete
> is the equivalent of throwing the Monopoly board across the room because
> someone won't trade you Park Place.
Not at all.
Leaving the game is the same as leaving a game of Monopoly because
you've mortgaged all your property and can't reach "GO".
Leaving the game does not distrupt the board, and possibly cause
damage to your game and house.
> Realism, shmealism. The game isn't even remotely an accurate reflection
> of reality.
I didn't say it was accurate, I just said it happened in reality.
> Attitudes like this are just rationalization for bad behavior.
Maybe, but I've seen worse things happen.
More than once I've seen a player "give" their pieces to an opponent.
That is deliberately
leave centers undefended to one player while defending against others
just because they wanted to leave.
Civil disorder is annoying, but it's part of the rules.
A new player is interesting. Allies change, etc. That annoys some
players, but frankly should player that think that linearly really be
playing at all?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> I respectfully find flaws in the anology. Leaving the Diplomacy game
> before it is finished is like leaving the Monopoly game before it is
> finished. To throw the game across the room you would somehow have to
> disable the judge.
Exactly.
> I am also against people leaving but I have 3 thoughts:
We all are.
> 2. If a player was so discouraged that he left the game and it hurt
> your position, it is your fault for not keeping him interested in the
> game (consolation, humor, plans for revenge...)
If it hurts your position, how good a player are you?
I mean, it's a change of circumstance, just like an a friend turning
on you. You plan for it, you hope it doesn't happen, but you be ready
for it.
> 3. Sure, some people are just jerks. Oh well.
Yup, and you don't play with them again.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> If you leave a monopoly game before it is finished because you are doing
> badly in a multiplayer game, it is unlikely that you will substantially
> affect the outcome of the game.
Untrue. Your properties become open again, and sets become easier to
gain.
I've been there and it screws the game royally.
> Futhermore, your position can be easily
> played out (no more trades, just roll the dice and pay appropriately until
> bankrupt).
Who decides what to mortgage and when?
What you're describing is just like "civil disorder", it's playing,
but it ignores major part of the game.
There is no difference.
> When you leave a diplomacy game, the game cannot continue
> without you, you have effectively destroyed the game by leaving it.
It can and does. There are rules for doing so, and I've seen it done
successfully.
> A replacement will be found,
Not always. Hardly ever in FTF, unless it's a ex-player, and that has
it's own baggage.
> but it is no longer the same game in a very substantiative way.
"the same game"?
You play one game, the whole game?
Wow. I usually play ten.
> (Of course, there are exceptions in both cases, a 1SC
> power on the brink of elimination might have no power, but I am generalizing
> here).
Usually does, hense the leaving.
Then again, I've seen (and played) a single piece that's a right pain
in the arse of whoever I blame for my defeat causing them to have to
change thier game...
> Therefore, abandoning a diplomacy game is equivalent in many ways to ruining
> it.
Changing it, yes.
Mostly for the worse, yes.
Ruining it, no.
Destroying it, no.
> Throwing a monopoly board across the room better equates to the damage
> done in a diplomacy abandonment than simply leaving before it is finished.
You don't play monopoly much, and I wonder how well you play
Diplomacy...
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> If you're playing with NMRs and CDs allowed, then you get what you
> asked for. No argument.
Yes.
> I took his context to mean that leaving the game was okay,
Not OK, but not the ruin of the game.
> even if it destroys the flow of the game (which I interpreted to mean
> waiting for a replacement player)
No, I meant the flow, as in, it was heading one way, now it's heading
another.
> That infers that it's a NoNMR game and CDs are not allowed (other
> than to stop the game and signify that a replacement is needed).
> That's not okay.
I never said any such thing.
I meant that CDs reflect countries going falling apart after deposing
a losing war leader, and that new player refected a new leader being
brought in to replace an failing one.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> To continue with the Monopoly analogy.
> Playing with NMR's is like giving $2000 dollars to someone when they land on
> free parking. It may make the game more "fun" for some people, but it turns
> the game into one in which blind luck eclipses almost any amount of skill.
> Some people like games of luck, and for them I often recommend Snakes and
> Ladders. Others do not...
Most people I know play "Taxes go to Free Parking" and you get
whatever's there. I've actually refused to accept that money.
Sure, it puts you in a position where everyone else it getting a free
lottery and you're not, but it's not how the game is meant to be.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> "David H" <som...@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:<ZadWa.4965$mv6.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>
> > Winning an NMR game is all about being next to the putz that leaves.
> I would disagree. I've played in 6 player games where Italy was CD,
> and it did not always guarantee a win for France or Austria. In fact,
> in some ways the absence of Italy strengthened the witches' position
> immensely.
Exactly.
Taking a country being played can be easier if they leave themselves
open to you...
A single army can do a lot of damage to them, and take centers by
itself.
Against a CD country you've got to send two units in to take anything,
and the neighbour on the other side can set up a wall with a single
defending piece.
A country in CD gives no one a magical win.
And as I said, I've seen players who weren't allowed to wimp out
physically give someone the win.
===
= DUG.
===
George W. Bush
<som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> If you leave a monopoly game before it is finished because you are doing
> badly in a multiplayer game, it is unlikely that you will substantially
> affect the outcome of the game. Futhermore, your position can be easily
> played out (no more trades, just roll the dice and pay appropriately until
> bankrupt). When you leave a diplomacy game, the game cannot continue
> without you,
Unless the power goes CD on NMR. The printed rules provide for this.
That is the game of Diplomacy. I don't like abandonments, but there
you go.
> you have effectively destroyed the game by leaving it.
I take it that your game experience is destroyed. "Changed" might be a
btter word for me.
> A replacement will be found, but it is no longer the same game in a very
> substantiative way.
It is changed. When I take over abandoned positions, I like to think I
make it a better game.
> (Of course, there are exceptions in both cases, a 1SC
> power on the brink of elimination might have no power, but I am generalizing
> here).
>
> Therefore, abandoning a diplomacy game is equivalent in many ways to ruining
> it.
I respect you opinion but I don't share it.
> Throwing a monopoly board across the room better equates to the damage
> done in a diplomacy abandonment than simply leaving before it is finished.
Well, I guess we don't need an analogy when the subject itself can be
comprehended directly. No one likes abandonments. If you go CD on NMR
then someone gets to eat the carcass and this unbalances the game and
the game play of the players has to adjust. If you wait for a
replacement (the solution favored by most players), then we all sit
around waiting for too long.
I don't like abandonments. But I find the Monopoly Toss analogy weak.
George W. Bush
<som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> "George W. Bush" <w...@bitehouse.gov> wrote in message
>
> > Playing in a game where Civil Disorder
> > occurs on abandonment sounds worth trying to me.
>
> To continue with the Monopoly analogy.
>
> Playing with NMR's is like giving $2000 dollars to someone when they land on
> free parking. It may make the game more "fun" for some people, but it turns
> the game into one in which blind luck eclipses almost any amount of skill.
Why did folks let that player get so discouraged that he abandoned the
game. I would do my best to keep him engaged. Especially if he was
going to become $200 for someone else. Not always possible of course.
But his abadnonment is not blind luck.
> Some people like games of luck, and for them I often recommend Snakes and
> Ladders. Others do not...
Stay away from Diplomacy then. Because despite all our shrewd hunches,
the issue of how the simultaneous moves will come out is effectively a
die roll to the players. Good players even make an effort to try to be
unpredictable. Some might use dice. I will, next chance I get. Maybe
you will be on the other end.
> Offhand, I doubt that you would like NMR games. Winning an NMR game is all
> about being next to the putz that leaves. If you lose its aggravating, if
> you win it is unsatisfying. Its bad no matter how you look at it.
You may be right.
George W. Bush
<som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> Then you failed. You let diplomacy provoke you into getting a suboptimal
> result.
>
Oh my. No. He succeeded. In having fun. By playing how he wanted to
play. Not how you think he should play. Diplomacy is like another
thing: Do what feels good to you and your adult consenting partner and
don't let the finger-wagging prudes make you feel bad.
David H
"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> "David H" <som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
> > If you leave a monopoly game before it is finished because you are doing
> > badly in a multiplayer game, it is unlikely that you will substantially
> > affect the outcome of the game.
>
> Untrue. Your properties become open again, and sets become easier to
> gain.
We don't play with that rule :).
> Who decides what to mortgage and when?
Thats the only sticky point, we do it from most profitable properties to
least.
> You don't play monopoly much, and I wonder how well you play
> Diplomacy...
I probably play both games substantially better than you do... not that it
is relevant to the discussion.
David
David H
> In article <RYxWa.796$Ji1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "David H"
> <som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Then you failed. You let diplomacy provoke you into getting a
suboptimal
> > result.
> >
>
> Oh my. No. He succeeded. In having fun. By playing how he wanted to
> play. Not how you think he should play. Diplomacy is like another
> thing: Do what feels good to you and your adult consenting partner and
> don't let the finger-wagging prudes make you feel bad.
He succeeded in having fun perhaps, but he failed as a diplomacy player. If
you lose because of some emotional outburst, then you have lost. End of
story. There are no victorious losses or close losses or bad losses... you
either win or you lose.
Some people also draw occasionally :)
David
David H
"George W. Bush" <w...@bitehouse.gov> wrote in message
> Why did folks let that player get so discouraged that he abandoned the
> game.
Agreed, that is a diplomatic failure as well. If I want someone to stay I
bombard them with press. If I want them to abandon I have sometimes ignored
them completely to get them disinterested in the game.
> Not always possible of course.
> But his abadnonment is not blind luck.
A good point actually, it depends on the reason for leaving. It could be
technical or real-life related, in which case no diplomacy would have
helped.
> Stay away from Diplomacy then. Because despite all our shrewd hunches,
> the issue of how the simultaneous moves will come out is effectively a
> die roll to the players.
Try payola then, substantially less luck. Much better game. No silly
draws.
> Good players even make an effort to try to be
> unpredictable. Some might use dice. I will, next chance I get. Maybe
> you will be on the other end.
Thats fine, luck with help in battles, but it won't win you the war.
David
George W. Bush
<som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> He succeeded in having fun perhaps, but he failed as a diplomacy player. If
> you lose because of some emotional outburst, then you have lost.
Sigh. You win by playing.
George W. Bush
<som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> > Good players even make an effort to try to be
> > unpredictable. Some might use dice. I will, next chance I get. Maybe
> > you will be on the other end.
>
> Thats fine, luck with help in battles, but it won't win you the war.
>
> David
My point, of course, being that your implication that there is no
chance in Diplomacy is false. Not that using dice will win the game.
David H
> In article <HxIWa.1266$Ji1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "David H"
> <som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
>
> > He succeeded in having fun perhaps, but he failed as a diplomacy player.
If
> > you lose because of some emotional outburst, then you have lost.
>
> Sigh. You win by playing.
Perhaps you win by playing. I win by capturing 18 dots.
David H
> chance in Diplomacy is false. Not that using dice will win the game.
Of course there is a certain level of chance in diplomacy. However, in most
circumstances, appropriate moves/press can mitigate or otherwise complete
negate the damage done by a streak of bad luck.
Again, I highly recommend payola for those people out there who don't like
any luck at all. I may be wrong, but I don't think payola has any elements
of chance.
David
George W. Bush
<som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> "George W. Bush" <w...@bitehouse.gov> wrote in message
> news:030820030117581895%w...@bitehouse.gov...
> > In article <HxIWa.1266$Ji1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "David H"
> > <som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > He succeeded in having fun perhaps, but he failed as a diplomacy player.
> If
> > > you lose because of some emotional outburst, then you have lost.
> >
> > Sigh. You win by playing.
>
> Perhaps you win by playing. I win by capturing 18 dots.
And that's all very well. But if you would start off with inclusive,
tolerant statements like this rather than your categorical statement
that the person who posted is a suboptimal player, save keystrokes.
To reprise a discussion which has probably been aired here many times,
there are at least two objectives. One is to capture 18 centers.
However, in terms of the real world, that one victory for most players
gains them nothing: no money, no job, no cuddles ... nothing. It is
suboptimal behavior, when they could be collecting recycyable cans by
the roadside for money. So by definition, almost anyone who plays or
wins a game of Diplomacy is a Loser. The other objective, and the
real, underlying objective for playing Diplomacy, is to have fun. I
have fun by playing. I win something by playing. That's my real
motivation. And of course I play to win. So do you. But proclaiming
this as if it were the prophet of this divine truth is silly. No one
need to be enlightened that 18 centers is the objective. But unless
you are winning more than 50% of your games, David, you are a
suboptimal player by your own definition.
Unless you just enjoy playing.
Duggy
> "Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> > "David H" <som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> > > If you leave a monopoly game before it is finished because you are doing
> > > badly in a multiplayer game, it is unlikely that you will substantially
> > > affect the outcome of the game.
> > Untrue. Your properties become open again, and sets become easier to
> > gain.
> We don't play with that rule :).
It's in the Mortgage rules. Then again if some house rule works for
you, I guess that's great.
> > Who decides what to mortgage and when?
> Thats the only sticky point, we do it from most profitable properties to
> least.
Which opens up and closes down the game again terribly quickly, all
the scary exy stuff is out first... leaving the rubbish for later.
> > You don't play monopoly much, and I wonder how well you play
> > Diplomacy...
> I probably play both games substantially better than you do... not that it
> is relevant to the discussion.
I think it is relevant as it seems you can't see the difference
between a major change in game dynamics and complete end of the game
and possible damage to the board and house.
Diplomacy is a game based around changing dynamics. You expect it,
plan for it, and hope it doesn't happen.
===
= DUG.
===
Antonin Dvorak
I guess that means I could cause 27 civil disorders without a problem
if I truly wanted.
sounds like fun :-)
"George W. Bush" <w...@bitehouse.gov> wrote in message news:<310720032252056547%w...@bitehouse.gov>...
Roy. Just Roy.
> Then you failed. You let diplomacy provoke you into getting a suboptimal
> result.
Perhaps. But I was talking satisfaction, not success. The former does
not always require the latter.
If someone chooses to attack personally, messaging "You're a failure"
or "You're a suboptimal player", he's much more likely to be the
recipient of a nasty stab, or attacked outright. If it's the choice
between sharing a draw with a bully, or helping the leading player
solo by attacking the bully, well, I choose the kingmaker role.
I've done a few devastating stabs - I'm always sure to press to let
the attacked know that it's nothing personal. In fact, I compliment
them on their skill at becoming such a threat that I had to attack
them. A few kind words are usually enough to make sure the losing
player still feels that there's something in the game for him to stay.
Not always, but then again, what is guaranteed in Diplomacy?
That Guy
> In article <607b1d7a.03072...@posting.google.com>,
> Paul....@jcu.edu.au (Duggy) writes:
> > I've noticed people being down on people leaving because they're
> > losing... I can understand that, it destroys the flow of the game...
> >
> > At the same time, it reflects reality a little... great powers have
> > often deposed, replaced or force leaders to quit because of they've
> > pushed them into a losing war...
>
> Bull.
>
> Diplomacy is not war.
>
> Diplomacy is a game.
I agree.
Tim Miller
Antonin Dvorak <defibri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>My dedication on the USIN 1378.
>I guess that means I could cause 27 civil disorders without a problem
>if I truly wanted.
>sounds like fun :-)
Yes, this is why the dedication point system does not work. A couple years
ago I wrote up a new system based on ontime and CD percentages, but I
haven't seen any GMs really using it to restrict admission to games.
It also hurts that the Judge default point values are ludicrous -- on NZMB
I have a much stricter +2/-6/-100/-100 system, but I can't tell if it has
made any difference.
-Tim Miller