| Press for Fall of 1917 in ruffians |
Movement
Message from Turkey to Russia in 'ruffians':
cal,
now what?
Meef
Broadcast message from Russia in 'ruffians':
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Master in 'ruffians':
>
>Non sequiter: who's going to WDC in Baltimore? I know Chris is going,
>and hope Christian will make the trip to defend his title. Anybody
>else? I realize it's still four months away but I'm in the process of
>planning my entire summer and I'm curious.
I figure it's about 80-20 in favour of my attending. Chris is going to show
me how to square dance and I'm going to teach him how to go down fighting
instead of reaching for the KY jelly... d;-P
Cal
Message from Turkey to Austria in 'ruffians':
Chris,
I hate to crawl but it's better than dying.
If u still will work w/ me, I am ready to stab Russia guts out.
My whole reluctance up to this point was feeling it would backfire.
The pendulum has swung and it will backfire if i do not.
Meef
Message from Austria to Turkey in 'ruffians':
Meef,
Wow.
ok. I wish you had sent me this letter before this morning, now I am going
to look mighty foolish. but I am ok with that. ;) I've looked foolish
before.
Here is what I would like to see:
F Naples -> Ionian
F Black -> Sev
A Serbia -> Rum
A Greece -> Bulgaria
Me:
A Bud S A Ser -> Rum
A Tri -> Ven
F Rom -> Naples
A Apu -> Rome
Now, if you know what Cal is going to do, the rest is easier -- I should be
able to defend one of the two German centers -- IF silesia isn't going to be
hit. Will cal defend Rumania, or can you string him along one more year --
maybe tell him I wrote to you giving him one more chance, IF you would
support me into Rumania. You can tell him I will defend Venice -- so you
can really support HIM into Bud. It is vital that he believe that I will
defend myself from Christian, so that I can! ;)
ok, let me know what you think about all this, and we can make plans before
you write Cal.
Good to be working with you finally!
Chris
Message from Turkey to Austria in 'ruffians':
commo w/ Russia has pretty well ceased so that will not be an issue.
how about:
tur:
f tus s nap - rom
f tyn s nap - rom
f tun h
f nap - rom
a gre - bul
a ser - rum
f bla - sev
aus:
f rom s apu - nap
a apu - nap
f alb - ion or adr
a tri - ven
a bud s ser - rum
a gal s ser - rum
we will swap rom and nap
i will gain rum and sev
u will loose mun and kie
f rom will disband and be outta the way
u can disband a nap
we will have enough fleets to plug up tun - tyn - tus line
i will build armies and finish off Russia quickly so we can stalemate
england and get a 3-way outta this one (maybe).
Please tweek this PROPOSAL appropriately.
Our only hope for being part of the final solution is to remain loyal to the
end.
THoughts?
> A Bud S A Ser -> Rum
> A Tri -> Ven
> F Rom -> Naples
> A Apu -> Rome
> Message from [email protected] as Austria to Turkey in
'ruffians':
>
>
> Meef,
>
> Wow.
>
> ok. I wish you had sent me this letter before this morning, now I am
going
> to look mighty foolish. but I am ok with that. ;) I've looked foolish
> before.
>
> Here is what I would like to see:
>
> F Naples -> Ionian
> F Black -> Sev
> A Serbia -> Rum
> A Greece -> Bulgaria
>
> Me:
>
> A Bud S A Ser -> Rum
> A Tri -> Ven
> F Rom -> Naples
> A Apu -> Rome
>
>
> Now, if you know what Cal is going to do, the rest is easier -- I should
be
> able to defend one of the two German centers -- IF silesia isn't going to
be
> hit. Will cal defend Rumania, or can you string him along one more
year --
> maybe tell him I wrote to you giving him one more chance, IF you would
> support me into Rumania. You can tell him I will defend Venice -- so you
> can really support HIM into Bud. It is vital that he believe that I will
> defend myself from Christian, so that I can! ;)
>
> ok, let me know what you think about all this, and we can make plans
before
> you write Cal.
>
> Good to be working with you finally!
>
> Chris
>
>
Broadcast message from England in
'ruffians':
>Non sequiter: who's going to WDC in Baltimore? I know Chris is going,
>and hope Christian will make the trip to defend his title.
The money-issue is a difficult one for a parent and student. It seems
however as Volvo will sponsor my trip to WDC, and if they do I will surely
come!
Christian
Message from England to Turkey and Russia in 'ruffians':
Meef, Cal,
I couldn't resist the temptation. Sorry for that. As to Cals question, yes
I could wait to take StP untill Chris is eliminated. I have looked at the
positions and there is no way you can stop me from getting 18 within two
years, not even if Chris is helping you. But it would be nice if you took
Chris out quickly, as we all have more interesting things to do but waiting
for a decided game to end...:)
all the best
Christian
enpress
press to a
Chris,
Yes, you are right. But instead of you cutting Tus with Rome I can cut it
with Pie enableling you to support Apu-Nap with Rome.
I am moving Pie-Tus, LYO-TYR supported by WES and MAO-NAF. That would
secure us either TYR or NAF if you move Apu-Nap. And one more thing, don't
hold Berlin. In case Cal chances to support Berlin it is better if you move
Berlin-Prussia to disqualify the support...
all the best
Christian
Message from England to Austria in
'ruffians':
Chris,
Cal writes to me and wants me to wait to take 18 until you are
eliminated...*smile*
Yes, I am moving to Ven, to LYO and to NAf. Also to StP and Fin. I thing
Apu S Rom-Nap might be the best option for you! Also, dont't hold Berlin.
If you hold it Cal might chance to support Berlin from Pru, so it�s better
if you move Ber-Pru supported by Sil.
And finally, thank you for assisting me so finely! Between daddys...:)
Christian
Broadcast message from England in
'ruffians':
My moves are in!
Christian
Message from England to Austria in
'ruffians':
Chris,
I realized it might be bad if you dislodge A Pru (as Cal might then build a
fleet in StP). Better would be if you just mover Ber-Pru, Sil-War.
Christian
Quick note.... yes, I have corresponded with the Americans and
the Canadians in this game (off line) quite a bit and I see the
game just about the way you do. I still think there is a positive
probability that the game breaks open the way Chris wants it to.
Just keep me up to date on your moving around and you can always see
TAP on the web. I assume this game will be over by the time you
start moving, but in case it isn't, I'll take over as GM, if
that works for you.
Hope to see you at World Dip Con.
Jim
>
> With Christian's convoy to Piedmont anything other than a complete
> alliance between A/I/T will put Christian in a position where he can
> force a win as early as next year. Cannot tell completely, but
> certainly Austria can throw the game to England if he wants to.
>
> The question is: why would he want to? I probably shouldn't reveal
> just yet what I've read in all the letters back and forth, but right
> now I would not be at all surprised to see Christian win. I think I'd
> be more surprised to see him not win - a huge number of things would
> have to work against him. First and foremost, The A vs. R/T
> loggerheads would have to straighten out. Why do I think that won't
> happen?
>
> I feel a bit bad for Cal - he got jobbed by the Judge on one move, and
> he hasn't really deserved the fate he's gotten in this game. It's
> very interesting. At the start, I thought Christian was the one
> player everybody should beware of. I've played with Chris before, and
> I don't think he's quite good enough to dominate a board of this
> caliber. I still don't have a good feel for Christian's playing
> style, but I hope he'll make it to Baltimore to defend his title.
>
> Advance warning: I'm going to be offline a lot of the summer.
> Although I plan to attend WDC in Baltimore, I will hopefully be
> offline for most of July and August. My next job starts in September
> and I'd like to see a bit of Europa before I fly back. And I don't
> want to do one of those new-country-every-day tours. I don't know if
> I told you all this before. I don't think it should be a big problem
> with TAP: SMTM moves so slowly that I can handle it.
>
> Rick
>
Message from Turkey to Austria in 'ruffians':
Chris,
I see u r set on giving the game to Christian, not willing to work together
at all.
It has been a learning experience for me and I enjoyed the game.
Good luck in the future with your diplomacy play.
Mike Mehaffey
Message from Austria to Turkey in 'ruffians':
Meef,
Not at all -- just too busy with the baby to write. he is on my lap now --
this has been my first chance to write back,
I cant even write much now -- he is fussing. your suggestions are fine,
lets do it that way.
Chris
Message from Turkey to Austria in 'ruffians':
orders issued:
f tus s nap - rom
f tyn s nap - rom
f tun h
f nap - rom
a gre - bul
a ser - rum
f bla - sev
>
> Message from [email protected] as Austria to Turkey in
> 'ruffians':
>
>
> Meef,
>
> Not at all -- just too busy with the baby to write. he is on my
> lap now --
> this has been my first chance to write back,
> I cant even write much now -- he is fussing. your suggestions are fine,
> lets do it that way.
>
> Chris
>
>
Message from Austria to Turkey in 'ruffians':
Meef,
Looks good -- Christian will almost certainly move to North Africa, though.
Should try to bounce that.
C
Message from Turkey to Austria in 'ruffians':
Did I wait 2 late?
it this one over?
f tun - naf issued.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:42 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Diplomacy notice: ruffians
>
>
> This Diplomacy Adjudicator sponsored by David Kovar.
> Report JUDGE Problems to [email protected]
> Report problems with individual games to your GM.
>
> Please do NOT run RT games on this judge.
>
> ***********************************************************
> Any unmoderated games on this judge will be removed.
> (I.e., if you don't have a master, the game is in jeopardy.
> if in doubt, send a list <gamename>)
> ***********************************************************
>
> Message from [email protected] as Austria to Turkey in
> 'ruffians':
>
>
> Meef,
>
> Looks good -- Christian will almost certainly move to North
> Africa, though.
> Should try to bounce that.
>
> C
>
>
Message from Austria to Turkey in 'ruffians':
no, should be ok -- I am not in yet, waiting for us to hash deal.
In now.
chnris
Message from England to Russia in
'ruffians':
Cal,
I am of course moving to StP this turn, and to Fin. If you want all this to
end quickly, you could just avoid bouncig me in StP. That would be a nice
way of ending it quickly, but if you prefer using many turns eliminateing
Chris first we can of course do that. Take the opportunity to be
king-maker! :)
all the best
Christian
Broadcast message from Russia in 'ruffians':
> Message from [email protected] as England to Russia in
> 'ruffians':
> Cal,
>
> I am of course moving to StP this turn, and to Fin. If you want all this
to
> end quickly, you could just avoid bouncig me in StP. That would be a nice
> way of ending it quickly, but if you prefer using many turns eliminateing
> Chris first we can of course do that. Take the opportunity to be
> king-maker! :)
>
> all the best
> Christian
Sorry guy, but I just cannot do that. I completely ashamed of being in a
"demonstration" game that ended because someone was so short on pride that
they threw the game to someone else. I'm CERTAINLY not going to be part of
that. The game is obviously yours, but *I'M* going to go down fighting.
Cal
Broadcast message from Observer in 'ruffians':
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Russia in 'ruffians':
>
> > Message from [email protected] as England to Russia in
> > 'ruffians':
> > Cal,
> >
> > I am of course moving to StP this turn, and to Fin. If you want all this
> to
> > end quickly, you could just avoid bouncig me in StP. That would be a nice
> > way of ending it quickly, but if you prefer using many turns eliminateing
> > Chris first we can of course do that. Take the opportunity to be
> > king-maker! :)
> >
> > all the best
> > Christian
>
> Sorry guy, but I just cannot do that. I completely ashamed of being in a
> "demonstration" game that ended because someone was so short on pride that
> they threw the game to someone else. I'm CERTAINLY not going to be part of
> that. The game is obviously yours, but *I'M* going to go down fighting.
>
> Cal
>
Hurray to you, Cal!! I hope that ***EVERYONE*** goes down fighting!!
Those game throwers (present company excluded of course ;-) should be
drawn, quartered, and boiled in their own pudding!
Jim-Bob
Adjustments
Broadcast message from Germany in 'ruffians':
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Observer in 'ruffians':
>
> >
> > Broadcast message from [email protected] as Russia in 'ruffians':
> >
> > > Message from [email protected] as England to Russia in
> > > 'ruffians':
> > > Cal,
> > >
> > > I am of course moving to StP this turn, and to Fin. If you want all this
> > to
> > > end quickly, you could just avoid bouncig me in StP. That would be a nice
> > > way of ending it quickly, but if you prefer using many turns eliminateing
> > > Chris first we can of course do that. Take the opportunity to be
> > > king-maker! :)
> > >
> > > all the best
> > > Christian
> >
> > Sorry guy, but I just cannot do that. I completely ashamed of being in a
> > "demonstration" game that ended because someone was so short on pride that
> > they threw the game to someone else. I'm CERTAINLY not going to be part of
> > that. The game is obviously yours, but *I'M* going to go down fighting.
> >
> > Cal
> >
>
> Hurray to you, Cal!! I hope that ***EVERYONE*** goes down fighting!!
I did.... Paul
> Those game throwers (present company excluded of course ;-) should be
> drawn, quartered, and boiled in their own pudding!
--Especially those who throw the game twice...once abandoning a superior position
to stab someone else (me) and now again. --Paul
>
>
> Jim-Bob
Message from Turkey to Austria in 'ruffians':
Chris,
I goofed w/ the f tun - naf
He's at 17
r WE gonna fight this one out?
I am
Meef
Message from England to Austria in
'ruffians':
Chris,
So, that�s how deep your threats to throw a game goes...why did you bounce
me??
Anyway, I think I will win this with or whithout your help. The question
is; Do I have your help?
Christian
Message from England to Russia in
'ruffians':
Cal,
I really do appreciate your unwillingness to give the game away. But I had
to chance it as a diplomatic way to try to win the game.
Anyway, what happened now? Why did Turkey take two centers from you? Were
this agreed by you, or are Chris and Meef trying to get a three-way?
Christian
Broadcast message from Turkey in 'ruffians':
>From Ankara
I finally succumbed to the demand of "stab Russia or I'll throw the game".
Russia is now officially stabbed. Sorry Cal but I could not sit and see the
game thrown away. So now I hope all excuses are out of the way. I call, no
demand, that all you'se professional diplomacy gods to lay down your
squabbling and let us have a unified from against the guy with 17 supply
centers. Or are we gonna stand around with scratching our backside and
fritter away our last shot.
I really question the precept that diplomacy gods are that skilled, just
lucky.
Highly frustrated Sultan MiKal
Broadcast message from France in 'ruffians':
> I finally succumbed to the demand of "stab Russia or I'll throw the game".
> Russia is now officially stabbed. Sorry Cal but I could not sit and see
the
> game thrown away.
It took you *THIS LONG* to finally realize that people make good on their
threats???
If I were Chris, I'd throw the game anyway, just to prove the point, and
maybe next time the powers in question will look a few seasons further
ahead! But can Chris do it? Can he reach that low in his already low bag of
tricks and actually pull the trigger? I bet it all depends on who had
diaper duty the night before moves are due.
:) hehehehehe
Broadcast message from England in
'ruffians':
>If I were Chris, I'd throw the game anyway, just to prove the point, and
>maybe next time the powers in question will look a few seasons further
>ahead!
The BIG question is, can they stop me even if they try all three together?
I don't think so...:)
And my diaper duty was last night!
:)
Christian
Broadcast message from Turkey in 'ruffians':
> It took you *THIS LONG* to finally realize that people make good on their
> threats???
I take FULL responsibility for my inaptitude. Sluggish, I have been that!!
:(
MiKal
Broadcast message from Turkey in 'ruffians':
> The BIG question is, can they stop me even if they try all three together?
> I don't think so...:)
>
Probably not, but for conscience sake, I must die fighting, not proving
points that will be forgotten before I am cold in the ground.
MiKal
Broadcast message from France in 'ruffians':
> The BIG question is, can they stop me even if they try all three together?
> I don't think so...:)
i don't think you can be stopped. STP is a given, and the Turkish move to
NAF means Tunis will be difficult to handle (if only he had another fleet on
the scene! what? you mean that by acting a few seasons earlier he would
have? Ugh.)
Here is another "Big" question tho: is Christian, being such a high-ranked
player and all, going to have enough pride to actually *accept* a solo that
is based on the game being thrown? A real gentleman would put the principle
of not wanting to win by default but rather on the merits ahead of actually
winning. A real Dip player would put his desire to win ahead of his pride in
achieving such a win by onyl honorable means. We shall see what we shall
see.
IMHO, Christian should take the win. I think more solos than are commonly
discussed are based upon the victor's ability to profit from other player's
inability to bury their past differences than to the victor's actual skill
in garnishing 18SC. (not to belittle Christian's impending solo, tho!) But
face it, amoung a group of non-newbies the only that stands in the way of
draws is "pride" or a small tactical flaw around one of the
stalemate-support points, the latter of which can be accepted in a
face-2-face game since not everyone can be expected to memorize the moves
needed on a standard map for all of the said points--but this was an email
game with everyone having full access to private and public press and online
references for what orders to write at each of those stalemate point. Oiy,
dies kvetching ist leafink me verklemft!
Broadcast message from Russia in 'ruffians':
Meef, I am VERY disappointed in you. If your 11th hour stab had even bought
you some TIME and thereby enabled you to stop England, I could easily
forgive you, but this? I don't understand it.
We stuck together in the hope that we could bring down Austria fast enough
to stop England. We failed. England had the game. What did you accomplish
with your attack on me? Second place? Third place maybe? As far as I can
tell, all you did was let Chris gloat over the fact that he finally bent you
to his will.
Sigh.
Cal
Message from Russia to England in 'ruffians':
> Message from [email protected] as England to Russia in
> 'ruffians':
>
>
> Cal,
>
> I really do appreciate your unwillingness to give the game away. But I had
> to chance it as a diplomatic way to try to win the game.
>
> Anyway, what happened now? Why did Turkey take two centers from you? Were
> this agreed by you, or are Chris and Meef trying to get a three-way?
>
> Christian
As you can see from my broadcast, I have no idea what he was trying to do.
Anyway, I will be removing Livonia and turning to face the more imminent
threat.
Congrats on a good game. If I could take back ONE thing in this game? I'd
have let F/G have you in 1902 instead of building that f**king fleet in St
Pete south coast (Winter 1901). I'm good at paying attention to the whole
board - this game I should have paid LESS attention to it...
Cal
Broadcast message from Turkey in 'ruffians':
> Meef, I am VERY disappointed in you. If your 11th hour stab had
> even bought
> you some TIME and thereby enabled you to stop England, I could easily
> forgive you, but this? I don't understand it.
> We stuck together in the hope that we could bring down Austria fast enough
> to stop England. We failed. England had the game. What did you
> accomplish
> with your attack on me? Second place? Third place maybe?
My decision was based purely from selfish and ethical reasons. I do not
believe in second place in diplomacy. U solo or u tie in a draw. I think
this is the spirit of the game as originally designed. The rankings that
tournaments use for good reason, in my opinion, deviate from the true
intention of the game. I just could not sit back and do nothing while the
game was being lost, wasted for ridiculous reasons. I thought we could
defeat Austria but my blunders in Italy and around the Black sea made that
impossible. The only thing I could do in any hope of fighting for a
stalemate was to stab Russia. I know this is a dirty deed done dirt cheap,
but we all win with a stalemate, we all loose w/ a solo. Christian
obviously was not going to hold to his end of the bargain of eliminating
Chris, which I think is the most just ending.
>As far as I can
> tell, all you did was let Chris gloat over the fact that he
> finally bent you
> to his will.
I had hoped Chris would at least fight if given the chance. Chris is not
interested in a stalemate, just throwing the game. That is clear in that he
stole Greece instead of putting a fleet in the ion to help on that front.
This is one of the most anticlimactic diplomacy games I have ever been in.
When I began playing it was REALLY fun breaking up the r/a alliance and
making headway against the Austrian Hordes. Then this whole "throwing the
game" crap entered in, in effect destroying the integrity of the game.
Leaders in real life who give away their nations are treated as traitors and
shot. Although this is a game, if I as Sultan of the Ottoman Empire will
not do everything in my power to prevent the absorption of my peoples into
the melt pot of European peoples under a foreign ruler, I deserve to hung
like Mussolini after WWII.
> Sigh.
I am a most disappointed player at this moment. Probably more that u r.
>
> Cal
>
Meef
Is this the one you want back? Yes, I do believe that Christian
can and WILL force a win next year. Note from his press that he
sees that it doesn't matter what they do. A couple of comments
from me:
>
> Christian can force a win next year, if he sees the right move. He
> can do Lyo - Tys and have MAO - NAF with support from Tun and WES.
> Turkey can only cut one support and cannot take Wes away. So,
> Christian should control Tun, Wes, and Naf in the Fall. The other
> fleet gets to Ion too late to make a difference, as the Turkish fleet
> in North Africa will have already been sunk.
>
Yes, what a BAD move to North Africa!!!
> I would guess that Christian would see this move. St. Pete is a
> given, of course, and Germany is invulnerable.
>
Correct.
> Chris really has to eat this one badly. He needn't have lost Berlin
> or Tunis, and his insistence on forcing Turkey to attack Russia has
> cost him the game. It's hard to fault Turkey, but I just don't
> understand why they sank the fleet in Rome instead of ordering Nap -
> Ion. I mean, wasn't it obvious they needed a fleet in the Ionian and
> not in Rome?
>
I would think it was, but I don't get the impression of high level
tactical negotiation between Austria and Turkey. Moreover, Turkey's
stab came WAY too late to do any good unless they properly coordinated
to avoid the above. It almost sounds as if Chris himself were
surprised that Mike (that's his first name, right?) actually did it!
> And why did Austria order Alb - Gre instead of Alb - Ion? This
> reinforces my feeling that Chris is not a top-rank tactician, though
> ordinarily an excellent negotiator.
He is a "high pressure, in your face" negotiator. This is why he is
so much better FTF when he can force situations and people can SEE
that he means business.
>
> I really don't understand Tun - Naf. I saw Christian's orders first
> and thought to myself "but why would Turkey let him get away with
> that?" I guess that's how you win games, though. You assume the
> opposition will make a bad mistake, and then when they do, you win.
> If you assume your opponents will play perfectly, then you probably
> won't win.
My lesson Number One for me on that was the famous "Aliens Game" which was
the subject of some in depth Diplomacy World articles a few years
back. This was the game where took over a standby Italy with 2
centers dropping to ONE, and then took it back almost all the way
to a win. On numerous occasions I had to take risks where I anticipated
mistaken play on the other side. Finally England won when he out
guessed me on one of these in 1930. It was neat because he actually
LEARNED that I would take the risk and that he needed to take yet
a different risk to outplay me. If he had taken what looked
like the safe move on the Spring turn of the last year, he would
have been wrong and I would have locked up the stalemate line even
further and created an opening that might have generated the win for me!
>
> Christian really played a spectacular game. I cannot think of a
> single mistake he made at any point in the game.
>
> Rick
>
Nor I. And against some really interesting play on the other sides.
He perfectly arranged the France/Germany war to his greatest advantage
early and manipulated Chris' Italy late.
Jim
Broadcast message from France in 'ruffians':
Turkey had said:
First:
> U solo or u tie in a draw. I think
> this is the spirit of the game as originally designed. The rankings that
> tournaments use for good reason, in my opinion, deviate from the true
> intention of the game.
Second:
> Christian obviously was not going to hold to his end of the bargain of
eliminating
> Chris, which I think is the most just ending.
Does anyone else see a major, major self-consistency issue with these two
statements?
What the hell does "just" mean in a dip game?
By your own words you've said that only solos and ties in a draw are part of
the game. Yet, when faced with an opportunity to force a draw (Austria's
multiple offers), you made a conscious decision not to accept that offer.
Fair enough that it was your decision to make, but it sure is sounding like
you've missed the *entire* point to Chris' threat in the first place--one of
THE points to the game is the lesson that sometimes you have to lay down
with your enemies in order to avoid a worse fate. Strangely, you seem to
believe, even at this point, that Chris' threatening to throw the game is a
legitimate tactic *as long as he didn't actually do it*!! :)
Believe me, he didn't throw it because he throws games. He threw it because
in order to force a stalemate you all needed him to act rationally (either
as your ally or at least to defend himself from both you and England). By
not doing so he was able to put himself in a position where even at the last
moment you might have changed your mind and he would have survived as a tiny
but essential power. Given that his other alternatives were his own
elimination and given that you yourself now say that a solo or a draw is
the end-game goal, how can he be faulted for playing in such a way that
maximized his chances to be included as part of that draw, esp since that
play was consistent with your own views on how the game should end???
> Then this whole "throwing the
> game" crap entered in, in effect destroying the integrity of the game.
Please promise me that the next game we play in, I get to sit next to you.
God, I love opponents who think like that! The only part of this game that
has integrity are the rules of how the pieces move--everything else is
negotiable. I'd also love to be in a game where I can get Chris Martin to
throw a game to me--that has bragging rights far beyond any single game.
Whew! i had more fun in this game after I was out than while I was in!! :)
No wonder Rick and Jim are on the 50-yard sidelines with the popcorn!
(well with the exception of a game resulting in the real-life threat on
another player's real-life person, maybe that is one thing that breaks
integrity. But I've done that to Jim-Bob plenty of times and he never
believes me)
Broadcast message from Russia in 'ruffians':
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Turkey in 'ruffians':
>
>My decision was based purely from selfish and ethical reasons. I do not
>believe in second place in diplomacy. U solo or u tie in a draw. I think
>this is the spirit of the game as originally designed. The rankings that
>tournaments use for good reason, in my opinion, deviate from the true
>intention of the game. I just could not sit back and do nothing while the
>game was being lost, wasted for ridiculous reasons. I thought we could
>defeat Austria but my blunders in Italy and around the Black sea made that
>impossible. The only thing I could do in any hope of fighting for a
>stalemate was to stab Russia. I know this is a dirty deed done dirt cheap,
>but we all win with a stalemate, we all loose w/ a solo. Christian
>obviously was not going to hold to his end of the bargain of eliminating
>Chris, which I think is the most just ending.
>
>I had hoped Chris would at least fight if given the chance. Chris is not
>interested in a stalemate, just throwing the game. That is clear in that
>he
>stole Greece instead of putting a fleet in the ion to help on that front.
>This is one of the most anticlimactic diplomacy games I have ever been in.
>When I began playing it was REALLY fun breaking up the r/a alliance and
>making headway against the Austrian Hordes. Then this whole "throwing the
>game" crap entered in, in effect destroying the integrity of the game.
>Leaders in real life who give away their nations are treated as traitors
>and
>shot. Although this is a game, if I as Sultan of the Ottoman Empire will
>not do everything in my power to prevent the absorption of my peoples into
>the melt pot of European peoples under a foreign ruler, I deserve to hung
>like Mussolini after WWII.
>
>I am a most disappointed player at this moment. Probably more that u r.
You know, when you put it like that, I can respect your decision. I saw it
as silly dot-grabbing to no effect, but if you see it as the only way you
can go down fighting, that's okay with me. Well, not really, but at least
you had a reason I can respect.
I'll save my contempt for Chris's "tactics".
Where is the little bugger anyway? I wanna throw my board at him.
Cal
Broadcast message from Turkey in 'ruffians':
In response, the below, I am still learning and will take ALL these lessons
to heart. It is tough runnin' with the big dogs. But I do not regret be
asked to be a part. Thanks Rick.
> Turkey had said:
>
> First:
>
> > U solo or u tie in a draw. I think
> > this is the spirit of the game as originally designed. The
> rankings that
> > tournaments use for good reason, in my opinion, deviate from the true
> > intention of the game.
>
> Second:
> > Christian obviously was not going to hold to his end of the bargain of
> eliminating
> > Chris, which I think is the most just ending.
>
> Does anyone else see a major, major self-consistency issue with these two
> statements?
>
> What the hell does "just" mean in a dip game?
>
> By your own words you've said that only solos and ties in a draw
> are part of
> the game. Yet, when faced with an opportunity to force a draw (Austria's
> multiple offers), you made a conscious decision not to accept that offer.
> Fair enough that it was your decision to make, but it sure is
> sounding like
> you've missed the *entire* point to Chris' threat in the first
> place--one of
> THE points to the game is the lesson that sometimes you have to lay down
> with your enemies in order to avoid a worse fate. Strangely, you seem to
> believe, even at this point, that Chris' threatening to throw the
> game is a
> legitimate tactic *as long as he didn't actually do it*!! :)
>
> Believe me, he didn't throw it because he throws games. He threw
> it because
> in order to force a stalemate you all needed him to act rationally (either
> as your ally or at least to defend himself from both you and England). By
> not doing so he was able to put himself in a position where even
> at the last
> moment you might have changed your mind and he would have
> survived as a tiny
> but essential power. Given that his other alternatives were his own
> elimination and given that you yourself now say that a solo or a draw is
> the end-game goal, how can he be faulted for playing in such a way that
> maximized his chances to be included as part of that draw, esp since that
> play was consistent with your own views on how the game should end???
>
> > Then this whole "throwing the
> > game" crap entered in, in effect destroying the integrity of the game.
>
> Please promise me that the next game we play in, I get to sit next to you.
> God, I love opponents who think like that! The only part of this game that
> has integrity are the rules of how the pieces move--everything else is
> negotiable. I'd also love to be in a game where I can get Chris Martin to
> throw a game to me--that has bragging rights far beyond any single game.
>
> Whew! i had more fun in this game after I was out than while I was in!! :)
> No wonder Rick and Jim are on the 50-yard sidelines with the popcorn!
>
> (well with the exception of a game resulting in the real-life threat on
> another player's real-life person, maybe that is one thing that breaks
> integrity. But I've done that to Jim-Bob plenty of times and he never
> believes me)
>
>
>
Broadcast message from Russia in 'ruffians':
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as Turkey in 'ruffians':
>
>In response, the below, I am still learning and will take ALL these lessons
>to heart. It is tough runnin' with the big dogs. But I do not regret be
>asked to be a part. Thanks Rick.
No need to kowtow, Meef. most of what Christian wrote was plain wrong
anyway.
Cal
Message from England to Russia in
'ruffians':
Cal,
Your disbanding A Lvn would be most appreciated!
Christian
Broadcast message from England in
'ruffians':
Folks!
First let me quote what some people said:
[bla bla bla] :)
Secondly then; game-throwing is of course OK as France (John ? I only know
you as that person in game "rush" whose emailadress ends with mindspring -
what a suggestive IP!) says. If you never actually do follow a throw, you
can never use it as a threat. However, in the best of worlds you should be
a player who is considered able to throw games but actually never does it.
I think that is how Chris is playing. Chris is saying, - "Look, I am
throwing this!" until anyone seems to take his threat seriously. Then he
never goes through with the threat but finds a way to get into a DIAS. In
this game he has been pressed a long way down the road, and maybe, _maybe_,
it is too late even for Chris to take the threat back. If he now continues
to throw the game to me he can always claim I won because he let me. If he
starts fighting me he will always have to hear that I forced a solo against
him. I think we all agree that the utopian Diplomacy-player never throws a
game but also that he always gets everyone to think he is actually throwing
it. The "problem" for players like Chris is that people think he is so
close to the utopian player that noone expects him to throw a game. See
where I am coming from?
Finally; one important aspect is lost in this discussion. Game-throwing is
based on bad relationships between different players. The winner has almost
always something to do with this absurd ill-feelings the loosers share.
(Yes, this is another way of saying that I want some credit for making them
distrust each other so much that they gave me the chance to win.)
We can all talk more about this in our EOG�s, now let�s get on with the game!
all the best
Christian
Broadcast message from England in
'ruffians':
>No need to kowtow, Meef. most of what Christian wrote was plain wrong
>anyway.
Sorry, I'm Swedish. What does "kowtow" mean? And Cal, what did I write that
was wrong?
all the best
Christian
Broadcast message from Observer in 'ruffians':
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as France in 'ruffians':
>
> Please promise me that the next game we play in, I get to sit next to you.
> God, I love opponents who think like that! The only part of this game that
> has integrity are the rules of how the pieces move--everything else is
> negotiable. I'd also love to be in a game where I can get Chris Martin to
> throw a game to me--that has bragging rights far beyond any single game.
Boy, do I agree with that!!!
>
> Whew! i had more fun in this game after I was out than while I was in!! :)
> No wonder Rick and Jim are on the 50-yard sidelines with the popcorn!
>
And Rick and I have had some doozers of side conversations as well.
I think Rick saved them to be added to the game record, but we have
been careful NOT to put them in "press to observer" so you guys could
ferret them out.
> (well with the exception of a game resulting in the real-life threat on
> another player's real-life person, maybe that is one thing that breaks
> integrity. But I've done that to Jim-Bob plenty of times and he never
> believes me)
>
>
Are you kidding??? I think you are a homicidal maniac and always fear
for my life every time I play against you!!! I think Cal and Paul
are cuddly teddy-bears in comparison.... and Chris, well Chris is
just nutty.
Jim-Bob
Broadcast message from Russia in 'ruffians':
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as France in 'ruffians':
>
>Turkey had said:
>
>First:
>
> > U solo or u tie in a draw. I think
> > this is the spirit of the game as originally designed. The rankings
>that
> > tournaments use for good reason, in my opinion, deviate from the true
> > intention of the game.
>
>Second:
> > Christian obviously was not going to hold to his end of the bargain of
>eliminating
> > Chris, which I think is the most just ending.
>
>Does anyone else see a major, major self-consistency issue with these two
>statements?
Nope. Bad phrasing maybe, but no contradiction. Meef will correct me if
I'm putting words in his mouth, but I feel he meant that, GIVEN THE
INEVITABLE ENGLISH VICTORY, Chris's elimination would have carried the most
justice.
>What the hell does "just" mean in a dip game?
Don't know about Dip in general, but "just" in this one refers to "poetic
justice".
>By your own words you've said that only solos and ties in a draw are part
>of
>the game. Yet, when faced with an opportunity to force a draw (Austria's
>multiple offers), you made a conscious decision not to accept that offer.
>Fair enough that it was your decision to make, but it sure is sounding like
>you've missed the *entire* point to Chris' threat in the first place--one
>of
>THE points to the game is the lesson that sometimes you have to lay down
>with your enemies in order to avoid a worse fate. Strangely, you seem to
>believe, even at this point, that Chris' threatening to throw the game is a
>legitimate tactic *as long as he didn't actually do it*!! :)
I admit the above doesn't make sense, but I have never seen a case where
throwing the game was the ONLY option. It certainly wasn't in this one.
Meef and I were perfectly willing to work with Chris at any time, but we
were only willing to do it if Chris was willing to go down to a reasonable
size. That wasn't good enough for Chris, who was only willing to go along
with it if he could remain in a position to stab one or both of us for the
win. We wanted him smaller so the risks were equalized and instead of going
along and biding his time he rejected it utterly.
>Believe me, he didn't throw it because he throws games. He threw it because
>in order to force a stalemate you all needed him to act rationally (either
>as your ally or at least to defend himself from both you and England). By
>not doing so he was able to put himself in a position where even at the
>last
>moment you might have changed your mind and he would have survived as a
>tiny
>but essential power. Given that his other alternatives were his own
>elimination and given that you yourself now say that a solo or a draw is
>the end-game goal, how can he be faulted for playing in such a way that
>maximized his chances to be included as part of that draw, esp since that
>play was consistent with your own views on how the game should end???
You're making a mistake if you think that Chris's motives were simple
frustration with not being able to put together a "stop the English"
coalition. Sure, he's gonna claim that this was the case, but I don't
believe it. Chris's motive was very simple. "If I can get Russia or Turkey
to stab each other, *I* can stab them both and win the game before Christian
can". He was so obvious about this in his press and style of writing that
Meef saw through it immediately and decided that trusting Chris was
counter-productive (to say the least). Chris's decision to throw the game
was simply based on, "You didn't do what I said you should do to help ME
win, so I'm going to make sure someone else wins".
He was certainly never willing to become a "tiny" part of a coalition as you
say. Either he called the shots or he throws the game. And THAT'S what I
have a problem with. My mama didn't raise no sacrifical lambs.
Christian, obviously, wasn't in a position to see any of this, not being
privy to letters between ART, but I'm sure he is happy with the result.
> > Then this whole "throwing the
> > game" crap entered in, in effect destroying the integrity of the game.
>
>Please promise me that the next game we play in, I get to sit next to you.
>God, I love opponents who think like that! The only part of this game that
>has integrity are the rules of how the pieces move--everything else is
>negotiable. I'd also love to be in a game where I can get Chris Martin to
>throw a game to me--that has bragging rights far beyond any single game.
Is it just me or is there also integrity in the concept of trying to win?
And, while I agree that having Chris throw the game to you has a whole heap
of street cred, you really didn't have a whole lot to do with the dynamics
that caused it. The main English accomplishment in this game (and it is a
significant one!) was managing to stay alive to be in a position to win when
it was handed to him.
>Whew! i had more fun in this game after I was out than while I was in!! :)
>No wonder Rick and Jim are on the 50-yard sidelines with the popcorn!
>
>(well with the exception of a game resulting in the real-life threat on
>another player's real-life person, maybe that is one thing that breaks
>integrity. But I've done that to Jim-Bob plenty of times and he never
>believes me)
And THAT'S why these games will never be quiet ones... d;-})
Cal
Message from Russia to England in 'ruffians':
>Message from [email protected] as England to Russia in
>'ruffians':
>
>
>Cal,
>
>Your disbanding A Lvn would be most appreciated!
Don't get your hopes up. From the ongoing conversation, I'm going to fight
to keep St Pete's just to prove a point.
Cal
Broadcast message from Russia in 'ruffians':
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as England in
>'ruffians':
>
> >No need to kowtow, Meef. most of what Christian wrote was plain wrong
> >anyway.
>Sorry, I'm Swedish. What does "kowtow" mean? And Cal, what did I write that
>was wrong?
My other letter outlines what I emant by that. And "kowtow" in this
instance means basically to bow down and accept a higher authority as right.
Cheers!
Cal
Broadcast message from France in 'ruffians':
> Meef and I were perfectly willing to work with Chris at any time, but we
> were only willing to do it if Chris was willing to go down to a reasonable
> size. We wanted him smaller so the risks were equalized and instead of
going
> along and biding his time he rejected it utterly.
>
fair enough, absolutely! But that belabors the point, doesn't it? The
*point* is that Austria, and only Austria when he was at that size, was
large enough to actually throw the game. R/T were not large enough to
actually throw it. Given that, whatever his size was, was the point to have
understood at that moment, so as to cut some type of a deal with him. The
point was that he could do it (and I make a distinction here between the
usual threats to throw a game, which most players cannot time correctly,
versus an established player like Chris' threats to throw the game.). The
one power of the three, A/R/T, who could "let" England win at the moment all
that negotiation was going on was Austria. Not Russia, not Turkey...just
Austria. He was (is) in control of the spots England needed (obviously
England ws not ever going to get to, say, Smyrna for #18!) Therefore Austria
held the upper hand in negotiations. Now, it is fine to know that and then
to accept that you cannot get him to do what you want; but to not realize
that he had the upper hand is to act in a vacuum of knowledge which makes it
difficult to make logical appeasements to the fellow with the upper hand.
And despite his upper hand in ability to throw the game, R/T could have
dictated much of the schedule and terms of how it could work out by *keeping
in mind* that Austria was essential.
>From what you've described so far you relied entirely on the belief that
Austria would act in a rational manner--yet you cornered him into a box from
which he had only one irrational way to escape. To make an analogy here he
was a large (in SC size), feral (in reputation) hunting cat, that you forced
into a corner with 3 sides closed off. What a dangerous spot ever to put a
wild beast in! And then rather than running away because you had the "just"
argument, he actually came out fighting, and you act surprised? I think you
got exactly what you deserved. :)
Rationality is often based on a weighing of pro's and con's to a choice of
actions--given a situation where he has nothing to lose and only one action
to choose, can it be it surprising that someone takes that path? It looks
irrational to the outside world but from their standpoint it was the only
path available.
>
> You're making a mistake if you think that Chris's motives were simple
> frustration with not being able to put together a "stop the English"
> coalition. Sure, he's gonna claim that this was the case, but I don't
> believe it. Chris's motive was very simple. "If I can get Russia or
Turkey
> to stab each other, *I* can stab them both and win the game before
Christian
> can".
i disagree with this because it is based on a static interpretation. I agree
that when the threat first occured, of *course* he still held out hopes to
turn things to his advantage. But when things begain to change a bit and
suddenly it was clear that there was a potential draw sans Austria in the
making, then that is when the threat to throw got turned into the intention
to throw--that is when the animal got cornered. If anything, it seems to me,
the way was dangerous no matter what--but I think that R/T have to take at
least a 50% responsilibilty for the actual throw: you got the animal into a
corner and then turned to each other and said
"hey do you have the gun?"
"No, I thought you had it"
"uh-oh".
you were so convinced he wouldn't throw the game that when he actually did
you have no position from which to stop him. Now is that all Austria's
fault?
> "You didn't do what I said you should do to help ME
> win, so I'm going to make sure someone else wins".
hehehe and you didn't believe this statement. So who out-diplomed who? :)
> He was certainly never willing to become a "tiny" part of a coalition as
you
> say. Either he called the shots or he throws the game. And THAT'S what I
> have a problem with. My mama didn't raise no sacrifical lambs.
having played somewhat close to 25 games of Dip with Chris and untold
others with him in gunboat that I don't know about, I can say that that is
not how he plays the game. If he did as you say, then he'd be eliminated a
lot sooner and a lot more. Further, if you understood him this much, (ie, if
your statement were accurate) then you also understand that he would have to
THINK he called the shots, he doesn't have to actually be the one who calls
them--which just suggests that you'd've used a different technique of
diploming to get him to where YOU called the shots but he *thought* he did.
A harder job to be sure, but a decent challenge for a true diplomat.
> Is it just me or is there also integrity in the concept of trying to win?
> And, while I agree that having Chris throw the game to you has a whole
heap
> of street cred, you really didn't have a whole lot to do with the dynamics
> that caused it. The main English accomplishment in this game (and it is a
> significant one!) was managing to stay alive to be in a position to win
when
> it was handed to him.
from the above I gather you think England that is writing this, rather it
is France. However I do agree that England was alive in the right place at
the right time to take advantage. To quote Tim Rice putting words in Evita
Peron's mouth (with England as Evita)
"I was smack in the right place, at the perfect time. Filled a gap; I was
lucky. But one thing I'll say for me: no one else can fill it like I can"
and that about sums it up. I'll take Christian's luck any time, and in the
meantime I'll congratulate him for a fair victory.
As for street credibility, I will let the case speak for itself. Next time
someone threatens to throw a game, are you going to look just a little
harder at the board position and see how he can do it under irrational sets
of moves and then try harder to counter the threat either tactically or
diplomatically? I think Austria just did R/T a major favor (tho not in this
game obviously!). I suppose it is not a favor one thanks someone for though!
Broadcast message from Austria in 'ruffians':
Heheheheh. Wow. I love this game.
Ok, the world wants to know what was going on in my head as I made these
fateful decisions. I am tempted to just let y'all wade through my press and
make your decisions for yourself -- you'll do that too, but let me get a few
things on record:
When Cal refused to work with me (Build F StP SC, move that fleet to
LIVONIA), I decided it was over between us. he and I had a really wonderful
relationship during this game -- I have more respect for you Cal, than you
probably imagine. He made the decision that I was "more dangerous" to work
with than Christian. I dont see how anyone can say that I wasn't willing to
accept reduction of size in order to work with R/T. I allowed Turkey into
the Med, remember? I set up a situation where I COULDN'T stab Turkey, and
if he wouldn't stab Cal, I couldn't either. We could easily have taken a 4
way draw, when I still owned Germany -- Everyone agreed on it -- EXCEPT
Meef.
Check his press -- he was still looking to turn his position into a SOLO.
No offense, but I still don't think he understands how ridiculous this was
(Not that one shouldn't harbor hopes for a solo at all times, but in his
position, it was simply a clue as to how badly he mis-read the situation.)
This last year, Meef wrote me, he had seen the light. WE could hold the
line, he would stab CAL, all would be well.
I did find this amusing. I was pretty sure it was too late -- but was it
really?
Well, it turns out the line could be held at Tunis -- so I checked his
suggested moves to see if he was serious.
As you have seen, he decided that he would work with me -- by annhialating
my fleet in rome, rather than covering Tunis. Ugh. Now it IS too late.
Yes, I could have moved to the Ionian, rather than Greece. But, as Meef has
said (more than once) He thinks my elimination is the "just' ending to this
game -- I should trust him?
If I hadn't bounced Christian out of Venice, it would be OVAH. I wasn't
going too, either, but in the end, all I really wanted was for R/T to say
Geez, sorry, lets draw a line and make this a draw. Never happened.
Clearly, I had to let Christian get far enough that I couldn't be eliminated
without him soloing, but not so far that he couldn't be stopped if they
decided to play nice. I guess Cal had too much respect for me (or would
that be too much contempt? ;) to think he could change my mind . . .
Well, the 11th hour turn around by Meef was enough to convince me to at
least try. Cal, as a classicist, could be counted on to hold Moscow/Warsaw,
even at three centers, and there we'd be -- 17 for Christian, 6 for me, 8
for Meef, and 3 for Cal. Stalemate, and we could've held it.
Too late now -- Tunis can't be re-taken in time. (Well, it couldn't be
re-taken from ME in time, lets give Christian a little credit!)
I've had a blast, y'all, and John, thanks for the stalwart (and mostly
accurate) defense of my postion! WE still have to get together for some
bridge sometime . . .
Chris
Broadcast message from Russia in 'ruffians':
>Broadcast message from [email protected] as France in 'ruffians':
First off, let me apologize. I actually DID think I was replying to
something Christian wrote. My points are still valid though.
> > Meef and I were perfectly willing to work with Chris at any time, but we
> > were only willing to do it if Chris was willing to go down to a
>reasonable
> > size. We wanted him smaller so the risks were equalized and instead of
>going
> > along and biding his time he rejected it utterly.
> >
>
>fair enough, absolutely! But that belabors the point, doesn't it? The
>*point* is that Austria, and only Austria when he was at that size, was
>large enough to actually throw the game. R/T were not large enough to
>actually throw it. Given that, whatever his size was, was the point to have
>understood at that moment, so as to cut some type of a deal with him. The
>point was that he could do it (and I make a distinction here between the
>usual threats to throw a game, which most players cannot time correctly,
>versus an established player like Chris' threats to throw the game.). The
>one power of the three, A/R/T, who could "let" England win at the moment
>all
>that negotiation was going on was Austria. Not Russia, not Turkey...just
>Austria. He was (is) in control of the spots England needed (obviously
>England ws not ever going to get to, say, Smyrna for #18!) Therefore
>Austria
>held the upper hand in negotiations. Now, it is fine to know that and then
>to accept that you cannot get him to do what you want; but to not realize
>that he had the upper hand is to act in a vacuum of knowledge which makes
>it
>difficult to make logical appeasements to the fellow with the upper hand.
>And despite his upper hand in ability to throw the game, R/T could have
>dictated much of the schedule and terms of how it could work out by
>*keeping
>in mind* that Austria was essential.
But you're ignoring the fact that, at that point, throwing the game cannot
be what Austria would have PREFERRED to do! Sure, it's true that when he is
at his largest, he can acomplish the most in terms of throwing the game, but
isn't that also the point at which he is least likely to WANT to do so?
Turkey and Russia were perfectly willing to work with Austria as long as it
was an honest attempt to do so. To have knuckled under to Chris would have
been to exchange one winner for another. Turkey and I felt that we were
better off together instead of allowing Austria to pick us off one by one.
You also have to remember that Germany was still a viable power at this
time. It was by no means guaranteed that there would be an English victory.
It was not out of the question that RT had at least a chance of knocking
off Austria. We just had to hope that EG could fight to a draw in the
meantime.
> >From what you've described so far you relied entirely on the belief that
>Austria would act in a rational manner--yet you cornered him into a box
>from
>which he had only one irrational way to escape. To make an analogy here he
>was a large (in SC size), feral (in reputation) hunting cat, that you
>forced
>into a corner with 3 sides closed off. What a dangerous spot ever to put a
>wild beast in! And then rather than running away because you had the "just"
>argument, he actually came out fighting, and you act surprised? I think you
>got exactly what you deserved. :)
This is a silly analogy. Chris's reaction was not due to being "cornered"
like a cat in a tree but rather to frustration at not being able to make RT
roll over and die. As Meef pointed out, even when Chris talked Turkey into
finally stabbing me, Austria still made the vindictive move of snagging
Greece.
>Rationality is often based on a weighing of pro's and con's to a choice of
>actions--given a situation where he has nothing to lose and only one action
>to choose, can it be it surprising that someone takes that path? It looks
>irrational to the outside world but from their standpoint it was the only
>path available.
You're STILL falling for the concept that Chris did all this out of
altruistic concern for teaching RT a moral lesson about playing
"stop-the-leader". It seems Chris reputation is so strong that he can throw
a game in a fit of pique and be praised for it.
> > You're making a mistake if you think that Chris's motives were simple
> > frustration with not being able to put together a "stop the English"
> > coalition. Sure, he's gonna claim that this was the case, but I don't
> > believe it. Chris's motive was very simple. "If I can get Russia or
>Turkey
> > to stab each other, *I* can stab them both and win the game before
>Christian
> > can".
>
>i disagree with this because it is based on a static interpretation. I
>agree
>that when the threat first occured, of *course* he still held out hopes to
>turn things to his advantage. But when things begain to change a bit and
>suddenly it was clear that there was a potential draw sans Austria in the
>making, then that is when the threat to throw got turned into the intention
>to throw--that is when the animal got cornered. If anything, it seems to
>me,
>the way was dangerous no matter what--but I think that R/T have to take at
>least a 50% responsilibilty for the actual throw: you got the animal into a
>corner and then turned to each other and said
>
>"hey do you have the gun?"
>"No, I thought you had it"
>"uh-oh".
This wild animal analogy is getting tiresome. You must have some real awe
of Chris...
The thing you're missing HERE is something you can't be expected to know.
The same time that Chris realzed that he might be excluded from the draw is
exactly when RT might have been prepared to work with him. Unfortunately,
when Chris started racing his armies east towards me, he didn't leave out
the option of working with him. He wrote me (this is the part you didn't
see) and basically said that the only way he was going to consider working
with me was if I retreated all my armies of the board and let him have my
inland centres. At the same time I was supposed to build northern fleets to
attack England. Not being sure how I was supposed to build while
simultaneously removing units and also not being germane to the idea of
prostrating myself, I didn't even bother to respond.
Chris's angry reaction noted above is what proves to me that he threw the
game out of frustration, NOT out of some higher motive he may have had for
being known as someone who WILL carry through a threat. Read the press when
it's available.
>you were so convinced he wouldn't throw the game that when he actually did
>you have no position from which to stop him. Now is that all Austria's
>fault?
>
> > "You didn't do what I said you should do to help ME
> > win, so I'm going to make sure someone else wins".
>
>hehehe and you didn't believe this statement. So who out-diplomed who? :)
I fail to see where his decision to throw the game resulted from failed
Diplomacy. If I had given my centres to Chris as he demanded, would that
have made me a good diplomat? I think I'm missing whatever point you're
making.
Turkey and I took a chance that he couldn't throw the game before we took
him out. We lost the gamble because Germany left himself so open to the
Austrian knife that he wasn't the factor we hoped he would be against
England.
If you want to say that Chris outdiplomed us by getting Germany to spread
his cheeks wide, you may have a point. I think that's more likely just bad
play on Paul's part (as I think he already admitted, no?).
> > He was certainly never willing to become a "tiny" part of a coalition as
>you
> > say. Either he called the shots or he throws the game. And THAT'S what
>I
> > have a problem with. My mama didn't raise no sacrifical lambs.
>
>having played somewhat close to 25 games of Dip with Chris and untold
>others with him in gunboat that I don't know about, I can say that that is
>not how he plays the game. If he did as you say, then he'd be eliminated a
>lot sooner and a lot more. Further, if you understood him this much, (ie,
>if
>your statement were accurate) then you also understand that he would have
>to
>THINK he called the shots, he doesn't have to actually be the one who calls
>them--which just suggests that you'd've used a different technique of
>diploming to get him to where YOU called the shots but he *thought* he did.
>A harder job to be sure, but a decent challenge for a true diplomat.
Well, I've only played this one game with Chris and my opinion of him will
be that, despite being an excellent writer with a good grasp of strategy and
tactics, I will forever think of him as someone who quits when he doesn't
get his way. I still like him as a person, but the other perception will
linger.
I wonder if I have a higher opinion of him than you do (although your
fauning above makes that hard to believe). I simply don't believe he's so
naive as to get suckered in that way. I agree that it would be a challenge
for a "true diplomat:, but I just don't think that's possible at this level.
> > Is it just me or is there also integrity in the concept of trying to
>win?
> > And, while I agree that having Chris throw the game to you has a whole
>heap
> > of street cred, you really didn't have a whole lot to do with the
>dynamics
> > that caused it. The main English accomplishment in this game (and it is
>a
> > significant one!) was managing to stay alive to be in a position to win
>when
> > it was handed to him.
>
>from the above I gather you think England that is writing this, rather it
>is France. However I do agree that England was alive in the right place at
>the right time to take advantage. To quote Tim Rice putting words in Evita
>Peron's mouth (with England as Evita)
>
>"I was smack in the right place, at the perfect time. Filled a gap; I was
>lucky. But one thing I'll say for me: no one else can fill it like I can"
>
>and that about sums it up. I'll take Christian's luck any time, and in the
>meantime I'll congratulate him for a fair victory.
As will I. He had a tough row to hoe just to get in that position.
>As for street credibility, I will let the case speak for itself. Next time
>someone threatens to throw a game, are you going to look just a little
>harder at the board position and see how he can do it under irrational sets
>of moves and then try harder to counter the threat either tactically or
>diplomatically? I think Austria just did R/T a major favor (tho not in this
>game obviously!). I suppose it is not a favor one thanks someone for
>though!
We have a language barrier here. I didn't mean credibility, but rather
"credit". "Street cred" mean, essentially bragging rights. Christian can
certainly brag that Chris Martin threw a game to him, but it's more that he
was in the right place, not from some great skill that dwarfs Chris's.
Oh, will I look closer at someone's threat to throw a game? Not likely, but
that's because I ALWAYS took it seriously. I KNEW Chris could possibly do
it, but I thought RT could pre-empt that threat by taking him down quickly.
If Germany hadn't become Chris's apostle, we would have done it.
Then it might have been ME stabbing Meef for the win.
Too bad we'll never know...
Cal White
Russia
Broadcast message from Austria in 'ruffians':
<<
As Meef pointed out, even when Chris talked Turkey into
finally stabbing me, Austria still made the vindictive move of snagging
Greece.>>
Oh get real! To hold England back, we need Austrian armies, not Turkish
builds. (in theory)
Taking greece makes a lot more sense than Meef insisting on taking Rome.
How foolish is THAT? If we were really working together, why take rome at
all?
Broadcast message from Russia in 'ruffians':
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Austria in
'ruffians':
> <<
> As Meef pointed out, even when Chris talked Turkey into
> finally stabbing me, Austria still made the vindictive move of snagging
> Greece.>>
>
> Oh get real! To hold England back, we need Austrian armies, not Turkish
> builds. (in theory)
Yup. I was going by what Meef said about your move. I thought he made the
comment based on some internal correspondence.
> Taking greece makes a lot more sense than Meef insisting on taking Rome.
> How foolish is THAT? If we were really working together, why take rome at
> all?
Couldn't agree with you more on this point. Hadn't seen your letter when I
wrote that.
Cal
Broadcast message from England in
'ruffians':
>My other letter outlines what I emant by that. And "kowtow" in this
>instance means basically to bow down and accept a higher authority as right.
But you are saying that what [email protected] wrote was wrong. I am
definately not him, unless I play both France and England and in that case
my good position was not so strange after all.
Sk�l och v�lkomna till festen!
Christian
Broadcast message from England in
'ruffians':
>We have a language barrier here. I didn't mean credibility, but rather
>"credit". "Street cred" mean, essentially bragging rights. Christian can
>certainly brag that Chris Martin threw a game to him, but it's more that he
>was in the right place, not from some great skill that dwarfs Chris's.
Yeah, yeah. This always happen. I win (although it is not certain in this
game) a game, and then everyone says "Ghee, how lucky he is! He was really
in the right place!".
Meef, did you like my mis-sent press last turn? :) Chris, remember a letter
sent to you meant for Cal? :)
Christian
Message from England to Russia in
'ruffians':
>Don't get your hopes up. From the ongoing conversation, I'm going to fight
>to keep St Pete's just to prove a point.
Fair enough. Not that your fight over StP matters though...:)
Christian
Message from England to Austria in
'ruffians':
Chris,
If you want to, it would be best if you disbanded F Gre.
Christian
Broadcast message from Germany in 'ruffians':
At the risk of being redundant, I'll say it again. I left myself open
to the Austrian stab
because, in my determination, he would be committing suicide if he
stabbed me at that point in the game. I thought he could see this for
himself.
But sure enough-- he did stab me, and he abandoned all his
other fronts. E/R/T filled the vacuum that Austria created by starting
the centerboard
A/G breakdown. I lay the blame at Chris' feet for this.
Paul
Broadcast message from Russia in 'ruffians':
My orders are in. I will continue to fight against the English victory
although I suspect my "allies" will continue to attack me.
Cal
Broadcast message from Master in 'ruffians':
>
> Broadcast message from [email protected] as Russia in 'ruffians':
>
> >Broadcast message from [email protected] as Turkey in 'ruffians':
> >
> >In response, the below, I am still learning and will take ALL these lessons
> >to heart. It is tough runnin' with the big dogs. But I do not regret be
> >asked to be a part. Thanks Rick.
You're quite welcome. I think we'd all agree you did a lot more with
Turkey than either of your predecessors, and were a welcome addition
to the game.
>
> No need to kowtow, Meef. most of what Christian wrote was plain wrong
> anyway.
>
> Cal
Meef has no need to kow-tow to anybody, I'd say. I think he's the
only one out of this crowd going to the second round of the big email
tournament (and that includes Christian, Chris, Paul, John(?),
Jim-Bob, and me.)
Rick
Broadcast message from Master in 'ruffians':
Anybody who thinks Christian was just "lucky", well this is
ridiculous. How many times has he been lucky in this game?
1) Cal builds F StP(sc) in 1901
2) The Sea Lion is derailed in 1902
3) France and Germany stay bitter enemies from that point until both
are eliminated (and even in the grave, perhaps?)
4) Italy is enough of a nuisance that France has no chance to recover
5) Russia's presence in the North is reduced to insignificance
6) Austria comes North, completely undermining Germany
7) Turkey is boxed in in the midgame, unable to grow, but not
eliminated
8) Italy _is_ eliminated, thereby creating a fleet vacuum England can
filled
9) Austria (not England) is viewed by _everybody_ on the board as the
big threat to win the game
10) R/T fight Austria when Austria could easily hold England back
11) Austria threatens to throw the game to England and happily throws
centers his way
12) Munich and Berlin are ceded w/o a fight
13) Tunis is left undefended to an unsupported attack
but most importantly
14) Not once in the game does anybody organize an anti-England
alliance
Maybe you could attribute a few of these developments to "luck", but
_all_ of them? Let's give credit where credit is due. Christian has
played one hell of a game.
Rick
Broadcast message from Master in 'ruffians':
Anybody who thinks Christian was just "lucky", well this is
ridiculous. How many times has he been lucky in this game?
1) Cal builds F StP(sc) in 1901
2) The Sea Lion is derailed in 1902
3) France and Germany stay bitter enemies from that point until both
are eliminated (and even in the grave, perhaps?)
4) Italy is enough of a nuisance that France has no chance to recover
5) Russia's presence in the North is reduced to insignificance
6) Austria comes North, completely undermining Germany
7) Turkey is boxed in in the midgame, unable to grow, but not
eliminated
8) Italy _is_ eliminated, thereby creating a fleet vacuum England can
filled
9) Austria (not England) is viewed by _everybody_ on the board as the
big threat to win the game
10) R/T fight Austria when Austria could easily hold England back
11) Austria threatens to throw the game to England and happily throws
centers his way
12) Munich and Berlin are ceded w/o a fight
13) Tunis is left undefended to an unsupported attack
but most importantly
14) Not once in the game does anybody organize an anti-England
alliance
Maybe you could attribute a few of these developments to "luck", but
_all_ of them? Let's give credit where credit is due. Christian has
played one hell of a game.
Rick
End of message.
Adjustment orders for Winter of 1917. (ruffians.079)
Austria: Move Submitted.
England: Move Submitted.
Russia: Move Submitted.
Turkey: No Move Required.
Austria: Removes the army in Naples.
Russia: Removes the army in Ukraine.
England: Builds a fleet in Edinburgh.
England: Builds a fleet in London.
England: Builds an army in Liverpool.
England: 1 unusable build pending.