Destiny of Empires [Diplo Game] [Organization Thread]

[France (DoE)]

@ voting...

Wow. Thanks guys. That's a first for France. I'm humbled.

(and Ottomans, you were right in your prediction of the results - congrats on both your prognostication and your vote score )

@ my last post - I spent an hour and ahalf last night pasting and cutting together a post, and trying to get my words just right, and I accidentally lost the whole thing.

Maybe the game godz were trying to tell me something.... "Keep, your mouth shut, King Phillipe."

But I will say that I for one did not find the back and forth debate tiresome. In fact, I think it is very healthy that we can debate stuff like this to the degree that we do, with no one going ballistic. That being said, Robert's call to wrap it up makes sense.

[Robert]

Server crashed. I used the auto-login-save of Mali to recover.
Mali's moves have been made undone, please login again to move, Mali.

[Robert]

Results Month 01
Results Month 02
Results Month 03a
Results Month 03b
Results Month 04a
Results Month 04b
Results Month 05a
Results Month 05b
Results Month 06a
Results Month 06b

[France (DoE)]

Ok, let's start to end this debate.
Russia, Ottomans, France and England can post their final say, after that we should stop it and continue.

My first 20,000 word post is coming up.

[Ottoman Empire (DoE)]

Come on guys, this constant back and forth ain't much fun to read..

It IS a game, so get even within the game..

or write a good story..

This I agree with.

One thing that is funny though is that Israel claims they are not zealots, while basically admitting they intend to make eternal vendetta/holy war against Turkey... isnt that exactly what zealotry is? And so my choice is what? To just take it and accept that my neighbor is always plotting against me and just allow it because he has defined it as IC and rolplaying?... Nevermind, I will stick to explaining my position IC.

Other than that, I also agree with RP. All points have been made and remade ad-nauseum. We are just not going to agree and that is it. So I don't need to make any further final argument, although I appreciate the invitation

[Russia (DoE)]

I will not say much more, I think we had enough time and opportunity to say our positions.

I only truly disagree when things are separated and then somehow blended - IC position, IG actions and OOC reasoning. Back to the stories.

[Robert]

Ok, let's start to end this debate.
Russia, Ottomans, France and England can post their final say, after that we should stop it and continue.

Israel, your point is clear. Let that be your last post on this topic.

[Israel (DoE)]

This is my most important post that explains this definition:

Russia, that's all IC detail.
What matters is is I was not a zealoat nation that wasn't willing to give in at all.

I can blame myself that we as players who defined the diplo rules overtime didn't make that clear in the definition.
But once again, that exception was put in to make sure that zealoat civs could just be handled well. In earlier versions of the rule that 'exception' wasn't even there. It was simple: 'don't annihilate civs or take the fun away from them', till we had to deal with the Maya in BtP. They just refused to sign peace at all and hardly played their turns. They even refused peace when they got all their cities in return and did not have to pay anything. Then we agreed that in such a case the war can continue.

[Israel (DoE)]

Ah,so you jump on offers from France, but when Russia offers you the city which stays on the place of your ex-holly city, you threaten me. Thats just .... what to say...

Dont get me wrong, but if you agree to our IC arguments, then why dont you IC capitulate and there will be no OOC issue with your civ hurt any more.

And dont get me wrong on this either - it is a game, and I immensely enjoy it. The games have logic and have rules. Moral too. If all the other players tell me that I am crossed the line on those, I will rethink my POV on this case. If no, I will just enjoy the excellent stories and diplogaming. FYI I did voted for Israel with 5's after your betrayal in Africa, despite I was mad at you.

Now you are discussing my IC actions.
Well, it's easy, Israel only betrays the Turks, with whom we have a vendetta.
We will never betray any other nation because G'd doesn't allow us. I'm sorry that you do not understand my in-game character, but it's completely consistent. And as a matter of fact Israel has never treatened Russia. We have only treatened the Turks.

And IC I did already capitulate and said that I wanted to become your vassal.
You just insisted on huge soms of money. It's totally new to me that victors want above of vassalage that much money. It was too much for me.

FYI I did voted for Israel with 5's after your betrayal in Africa, despite I was mad at you.

That's excellent sportmanship of you.
have given Turkey many 5's as well, despite them being my biggest enemy. (and you obviously will get a '5' this time as well)

Unfortunately (from my POV) you do not understand that if civs IC are completely at each other's troath, there are OOC mechanisms then that stop one civ from being cripled and almost being annihilated.
It's not an IC matter ("You should have accepted that deal we forced on you") but an OOC matter: (Was the other civ willing to make peace and discuss terms at all).

That has not very well been defined in the definition indeed.
Unfortunately we find out every time that the rules have holes. They'll never be perfect.

[Israel (DoE)]

OK, if we are talking OOC, you reffered to "We agreed that the war can continue" Who are "We"?

We = Israel and me
Israel is a nation of many people and so is the Sanhedrin. So I try to avoid saying "I" as in "Amram Goan" all the time, since he's just the face.
That has sneaked into my ooc babling

What I want to say is: "I'm not calling measured war vote nor am I running out of this game. I'm fine with continueing"

If this is some independent court and they say what happens to you is because Russia and Turkey are acting unreasonable, I will of course obey the judgment. But if they judge it is you who are acting unreasonable, then what?

There's no need for a judge b/c nobody wants to revert things.
We can ask "The Priest" and "mzprox" who were involved in writing these definitions but aren't involved in this game (Anymore). We can then just setup an anonimized version of the story that both of us agree on and then ask their input.

And if there is no such special diplo-game court of justice, but instead those are we - all the players in DoE who must put the high standards of the diplo-gaming, I can hardly see anyone except your ally France who is supporting your position vocally.

Neither is any civ supporting you, outside your own alliance.
I can't blame other civs that they don't want to get involved.

What is happening to Israel is happening for a reason and was so easily to be avoided by you.

again an IC argument.
IC Israel plays a role, that's the beauty of diplogaming.
You can't say that b/c of that role it should be annihilated or cripled.

[Russia (DoE)]

When we saw an opportunity to betray the Turks and get Jerusalem back, we just jumped on it.

Ah,so you jump on offers from France, but when Russia offers you the city which stays on the place of your ex-holly city, you threaten me. Thats just .... what to say...

Dont get me wrong, but if you agree to our IC arguments, then why dont you IC capitulate and there will be no OOC issue with your civ hurt any more.

And dont get me wrong on this either - it is a game, and I immensely enjoy it. The games have logic and have rules. Moral too. If all the other players tell me that I am crossed the line on those, I will rethink my POV on this case. If no, I will just enjoy the excellent stories and diplogaming. FYI I did voted for Israel with 5's after your betrayal in Africa, despite I was mad at you.

[Russia (DoE)]

OK, if we are talking OOC, you reffered to "We agreed that the war can continue" Who are "We"? If this is some independent court and they say what happens to you is because Russia and Turkey are acting unreasonable, I will of course obey the judgment. But if they judge it is you who are acting unreasonable, then what?

And if there is no such special diplo-game court of justice, but instead those are we - all the players in DoE who must put the high standards of the diplo-gaming, I can hardly see anyone except your ally France who is supporting your position vocally.

What is happening to Israel is happening for a reason and was so easily to be avoided by you.

[Israel (DoE)]

Remember Israel did not betrayed Germany leading to their utter defeat in Africa in the real history

Good point
But once again, the Israelian betrayal on the Ottomans (IC) was only a response to the Turkish betrayal on the Israelians that costed us Jerusalem.

[Israel (DoE)]

And in response to Israel as a part of other pacts (which is in fact IC as well), Israel is in fact playing a very isolationisitic game. We just care about ourselves. We have no idea what happens in the outside world. When we saw an opportunity to betray the Turks and get Jerusalem back, we just jumped on it.

It's not a double standard, well, it didn't feel like. France was being attacked by the Tukish/Russian alliance.
Having said that, I do feel sorry for not standing up for England when he was hitted hard. I remember thinking like: "Wow, that's too hard!" but just was too lazy to say anything about it. I also was at that moment a bit losely connected to the game.
Now I know that England right now has 25 SOL's alone I do not feel really sorry for them. Apparently the game is far from over for them and they are still a huge power.

But yes, Not standing up for England back then was definitely not my best moment.

[Israel (DoE)]

Russia, that's all IC detail.
What matters is is I was not a zealoat nation that wasn't willing to give in at all.

I can blame myself that we as players who defined the diplo rules overtime didn't make that clear in the definition.
But once again, that exception was put in to make sure that zealoat civs could just be handled well. In earlier versions of the rule that 'exception' wasn't even there. It was simple: 'don't annihilate civs or take the fun away from them', till we had to deal with the Maya in BtP. They just refused to sign peace at all and hardly played their turns. They even refused peace when they got all their cities in return and did not have to pay anything. Then we agreed that in such a case the war can continue.