Dip 50, Imp3 Summer RETREATS and Fall 1868 DEADLINE

[Defiant]

Ex................Cuse............................ ...Me but in this game I formed an alliance with Victor and then Victor took the biggest bloodiest knife he could find and then put it promptly between my shoulder blades, I am the victim here.

[Dr. Nick]

Originally posted by Defiant
Well I don't crossgame.

Me neither.

*sharpens knife*

[the_orange1]

Well Sahib stole my lunch money!!!! I'm the victim here

[Defiant]

Defiant thinks over games remaining with Hoggy

[Dr. Nick]

*Austrian units mysteriously vanish off map*

Or worse...

*Austrian units turn into Turkish and Italian units on map*



Sahib, he stole your lunch money? Evidently as soon as SAS Dip finished he gave up drug trafficking.

[Defiant]

Hey Hey! These guys don't need any help in invading my country, they will be able to do it all on their own.

***Looks both ways now as he crosses the street*** Use to be a safe neighborhood.

[Dr. Nick]

*buys large truck and moves to Wisconsin*

I know where you live... excellent...

[RUFFHAUS 8]

Originally posted by Scott F
At first Holland had no reason to negotiate with the CSA, as interests did not conflict and there were no shared fronts or borders. Given that I am always short on time, I didn't bother to discuss anything with you.

Well, this may be a matter of playing style, but I don't subscribe to that theory when playing Dip. I talk to EVERY player on the map. Some more than others of course, and I don't necessarily agree withh or form alliances with every player. But I do try to talk to them. I tried to talk with you early on, and you stonewalled me. Again I think it's one thing if you didn't want to bother, but quite another suggest that I was inflexible or unapproachable.

[SIZE=1] And of course when interests did conflict, even slightly, it was obvious that you were unlikely to listen or make any deal whatsoever, so again there was no point in bothering. I don't have a lot of time to conduct diplomatic discussions with people and since I am frequently online at erratic hours (at least on when I have time to discuss things), it was a matter of priorities. Why waste time with someone that is very unlikely to listen when that time can be better spent in other more important things, be they outside the game or in discussions to coordinate actions with other players?

Fair enough. I certainly cannot address the amount of time you have available. And I can see you placing what time you do have into the most efficeint and beneficial efforts. But I think it's unfair to suggest that I have not or would not have entertained discussions with Holland or that talks with me would have been a waste of time.

[SIZE=1]And of course you can condemn crossgaming and claim that you never do it, but the simple fact is that everyone that I have seen does it to at least some small degree, no matter how much they like to deny it.

I'm not suggesting that failing to take player tendancies and styles into consideration is the way to go. But to say outright that you know that I cannot ever be trusted is ridiculous. I'm saying that having automatic alliances and perenial enemies is crossgaming and unethical. Now we all know that there are players that we work better with than others. But I play EVERY game to win. If I can't win by solo, I look for a draw with as few players as possible included in the draw. From there my motivation takes on more specific in-game issues. Occasionally I also try to take an alliance from game start to conclusion. In fact I tried this once with you in 20th Century Dip, but you and Napoleon were plotting against me all along. So I played you against each other and hammered both of you.

[SIZE=1]Argue it however you like. I don't have time to get into a pointless discussion about how Holland just never talked, when certain people were never willing to listen anyway. It can hardly be called crossgaming when since the start of this game Ruffhaus has stabbed one nation after another (many of which I had good relations and even alliances with as Holland). And has supported certain of his allies (read: inevitable future victims) against other of Holland's general friends. Those alone create a certain perception within a game.

Well, you never talked to me, and regardless of what you think I would have listened had you tried. Now if you had come with the same crap that Victor brought to me, then I would have refused you as well.

Now if I attacked your allies (I only stabbed Midshipman, not one nation after another), then maybe you have cause to be at conflict with me. But again it's certainly not my fault that you never spoke up. And it still apears to me that you have only yourself to blame for the stalemate that you find yourself in. Frankly I still maintain that you are running the strongest power on the map. This is based on an assesment of SC total, unit positioning, unit composition, alliance potential, avenues for growth, and more importantly - Holland is a virtual lock for a spot in ANY draw. Your French ally cannot say the same thing unfortunately. And while your loyalty to him is admirable, it is that, NOT the play of the CSA, Mexico or anyone else that is ruining your game.

If you want out of the game because you're beaten, then come clean and admit it. Otherwise, be a man like Victor and take your beating.

[MDR]

Well, I'm still waiting on a few more votes, but the game has a very good chance of continuing. Those that are still in this, I would suggest you continue dipping. Otherwise, this is just a game. There's no reason to get into an argument over how things have turned out so far. However, if it's good natured, keep at. It adds to thwe game.

Like I said before, I think this game still has a way to go before it could stalemate. Things are very much alive here.

[RUFFHAUS 8]

MDR, if players want a draw now, then let them resign and we'll find replacements. There's no strategic or diplomatic draw on the board at all. If players. Offering a majority rules decision is tantamount to allowing the the quitters to win because they are too lazy to play.

[Defiant]

MDR,
I agree with Ruffhaus on this point, this is too good of a game to let it die, an unnatural death also. What is looks like to me is disgruntled players. Holland and France when they first hooked up looked unstoppable and very much could have been but the rest of us players are not dumb. We realized the threat and did everything in our powers to stop it, that is what this game is about. Now if the disgruntled players want to resign cause they are meeting stiff competition or getting thier arses kicked, well too bad so sad, that is the game.
Victor, you and I have been fighting almost since the beginning of this game, you continued to fight me even though it would be counterproductive to protect two lousey SC's in SE Asia while you let Ruff surround you in the heart of France's coast, bad tactical move in my opinion and your future does look bleek. But you made that choice and I even allied with you for a while until you stabbed and that is also your right but don't whine now cause things are not going your way.
My future in this game doesn't look too bright either, but it is still a good game to play, and an interesting one also.

[Victor Galis]

"Me but in this game I formed an alliance with Victor and then Victor took the biggest bloodiest knife he could find and then put it promptly between my shoulder blades, I am the victim here."

-In all fairness, I didn't exactly take the biggest bloodiest knife, I just took the one England offered to me. He saved the bigger one for my back

And in all fairness, Defiant doesn't always stab me, sometimes I get him first It's not crossgaming, it's fate. I mean we fought in the only silent dip we were in together It's like every game, I look at the map, and say, who do I want to stab... pick a country, and later discover that Defiant is playing it. Either that or have a minor disagreement over a small province (this game or Dip22).

[Victor Galis]

"I agree with Ruffhaus on this point, this is too good of a game to let it die, an unnatural death also. What is looks like to me is disgruntled players. Holland and France when they first hooked up looked unstoppable and very much could have been but the rest of us players are not dumb. We realized the threat and did everything in our powers to stop it, that is what this game is about."

-Is it now... then why doesn't everyone do something about EF in Frontier Dip1. They're growing much faster than FH did in this game.

"Victor, you and I have been fighting almost since the beginning of this game, you continued to fight me even though it would be counterproductive to protect two lousey SC's in SE Asia while you let Ruff surround you in the heart of France's coast, bad tactical move in my opinion and your future does look bleek."

-Eh, what was I going to do, back down? I can't win if I let myself lose. My biggest tactical mistake was trusting the new England. FH had a stab England plan that was shelved when England got replaced. Had this plan been used, a) I would not have stabbed you, b) FH would have had the initial anti-English momentum.

And you're wrong, my future doesn't look bleak, it looks non-existant.

[Victor Galis]

It's funny, in a game of chess recognizing when you are beaten and giving up is considered a good thing, in diplomacy it is not. Much as I don't like to surrender, there is nothing France can do. If I were Holland, I would still have a chance, but France is a lost cause.

[Scott F]

Let's see. Where to begin.

I'm not going to argue with Ruffhaus' opinion. I don't have time for it, and he's just baiting anyway.

I tried to talk with you early on, and you stonewalled me.

Definitive statements are always hard to make early in the game when the situation is most fluid.

Occasionally I also try to take an alliance from game start to conclusion. In fact I tried this once with you in 20th Century Dip, but you and Napoleon were plotting against me all along. So I played you against each other and hammered both of you.

I will tell you right now that in that game I never discussed attacking you with Napoleon until well after you had attacked both of us (me first, of course). Of course the game ended soon thereafter.

I only stabbed Midshipman, not one nation after another

Britain? France? Of course a convenient player change enabled you to get out of the Britain one...

And it still apears to me that you have only yourself to blame for the stalemate that you find yourself in.

Well, that's probably true. I never said that I wasn't to blame for it. For too many turns I've sat there and thought "I need to talk to so and so, but when I see them on ICQ I am either in the middle of something else or about to go offline and can't talk and thus can't allot time as necessary. I've been doing that for far too many turns, and it is very likely that someone with more time will be able to play the position out as I wish that I had time to. I would rather leave the game and give a good position to someone who has time to play it properly instead of continuing to deny that I simply don't have time anymore and letting Holland slip slowly away into a hole.

Your French ally cannot say the same thing unfortunately. And while your loyalty to him is admirable, it is that, NOT the play of the CSA, Mexico or anyone else that is ruining your game.

That's probably true, but then again at least with France I always know where I stand. The same is not true of almost all of the other nations.

If you want out of the game because you're beaten, then come clean and admit it. Otherwise, be a man like Victor and take your beating.

Continue baiting if you wish. I don't particularly care. I'd rather give up a good position to someone that has the time and interest to play it properly instead of continuing to let the position suffer because of things in the real world. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's right outside your door.