Diplomacy

[quozl]

I could go in this time if there's room. Put me last on the list.

[Kinseth]

1. Kinseth
2. Wriggz
3. Vegie
4. Dok
5. Kevindola
6. Ranior
7. quozl

[Dad_Scaper]

Everybody can be first or last or whatever on the list. That doesn't matter right now.

[All Your Pie]

I suppose I should also mention that, while I never had anything explicit that told me France was Ranior, I had a pretty good idea of that given the verbosity of his first few presses to me. We almost never get to work together in CoN, so it was a fun team-up.

Slap me on the list as well.

[Dad_Scaper]

Oy, you guys are struggling to follow instructions.

1. Kinseth
2. Wriggz
3. Vegie
4. Dok
5. Kevindola
6. Ranior
7. quozl
8. AYP

[Kinseth]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Oy, you guys are struggling to follow instructions.

1. Kinseth
2. Wriggz
3. Vegie
4. Dok
5. Kevindola
6. Ranior
7. quozl
8. AYP

Dok is ranked too high!

[Dad_Scaper]

[quozl]

1. Kinseth
2. Wriggz
3. Vegie
4. Dok
5. Kevindola
6. Ranior
7. quozl
8. AYP
9. Dad_Scaper

Am I doing it right?

[Dad_Scaper]

No! I said no!

*Sigh*

It depends on what you were trying to do, I guess.

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by Ranior

Then in that very same message you admit you mostly simply don't trust me. You think my talk about Russia beating you primarily is me trying to manipulate you. You'll have to forgive me for this next part, but GAHHHHHH. Coupled with your metagame talks a bit earlier, this is part of the reason I sometimes do hate playing CoN's--people think I'm constantly manipulating them to my own ends to the point where they seem to never want to trust me just because I have built up such a reputation as a great manipulator. Sure, I do think I'm pretty good at tricking people in CoN and playing as a puppet. But I'm also a skilled player who can really see what is going on as a warrior, yet often warriors allies in Con ignore me because of reputation It would seem that in this game, you essentially did the same thing where you were so afraid I was manipulating you that you essentially ignored my constant warnings as someone crying wolf rather than me actually pointing out the probable outcome of the game.

Just a tip, I have never played a CoN but there was something about the way you wrote your messages that I instinctively did not trust. At the time I was not speaking with Austria about anything we discussed, and was basically ignoring their option on France in general since anything they said would be self serving.


There is nothing I can point to, and maybe I'm writing a story to meet the facts, but I offer the feedback regardless.

[Dad_Scaper]

Wriggz, in Diplomacy, don't trust anyone. At least, not based on "trust" alone. In one article about Diplomacy, my friend Andy Bartalone was quoted:

Andy Bartalone, a Potomac Tea & Knife Society stalwart from Bowie, says of one friend, "I would trust him with the payoff mortgage on my house -- in cash. But I wouldn't trust him to stay out of Belgium."

The key is, you have to work with people you don't trust, but you have to discuss common goals and work toward them anyway. I wrote at some length above about how an Italian might not "trust" Austria not to take VEN in S1901M, but the Italian might still be able to persuade Austria not to take Venice by persuading Austria that it's not in his interest to do so. The point is not to trust someone to give you charity, the point is to trust someone to do something in the person's own self interest. Because they are doing things in their own self interest, sometimes they will do things with you, and sometimes they will do things that you can take advantage of for your own benefit.

Does that make sense? It's an important distinction. So, if you're getting messages from someone you don't "trust," but the person is still making an argument that's relevant and is something that might be important for you to know, you might benefit from listening. It's not someone else's fault that you didn't see the writing on the wall, when they tried to warn you and it was right there.

[kevindola]

Originally Posted by Ranior

But please understand it's very rough for me to hear that I wasn't doing enough to warn you or explain to you that Russia was going to win. I repeatedly and consistently were warning you that Russia was in the better spot compared to you and that you would likely lose to him or draw. All of your press never made me feel like you actually thought you could win, you entirely were playing for the draw with Russia by the end and largely were just hoping he wouldn't stab you. Then you flat out admit you don't trust my words as you think I'm just manipulating you....

I won't belabor these points much more than has been. Constant and repeated stating that Russia is in a better spot is different than explaining to me that by doing the following moves Russia will be in an unbeatable spot. As an example you had mentioned Russia threatening my home centers, but I could not see how with us bouncing at GAL and me having a threat of an additional home center build that I kept waiving.

As for trusting your words, I didn't trust your words because I didn't believe I had seen anything out of you that would indicate you would do something reckless. I do not believe you would have moved a fleet towards England long term as we were discussing. I firmly believed that after you had secured whatever portion of France you needed, I would be next. That was based on how I watched the game unfold and the moves between you and England and the discussions you had with Italy. I could give specific examples, but it was my interpretation of the game play. My conclusions were also flavored by how you played the first game, but certainly current game data entered into it. There was no premeditated forgone conclusion of my decisions.