183 Full Diplo w/ SVC

[Drogo]

It is an opinion. Is there information I'm not privvy too? Do you not see how your drops wildly affected other people?

I don't know what the guy said to you only that you took your ball and went home and it affected others greatly.

I didn't call you out until you informed us that your dropped because one player was nasty to you. Your prerogative for sure Airborne Ranger. My prerogative to avoid having this happen again in my games.

[Lord Thanatos]

The mass fallout from one player's thin skin is the real crime.  Left a ton of people with entirely screwed up games that they had invested months in.  Including a team game where the whole team was sunk with an unceremonious drop.  Very poor form.  I'm sure the company and many in the community would welcome this player back and I guess its his prerogative to someday return but I would not play in a game with him again for fear of a repeat performance.

Any 'offense' that they player endured sounds a little ridiculous compared with the damage to many others that the mass dropping caused.  My $.02

Sorry, Drogo, but I strongly disagree.

The "real crime" is that as a community we tolerate players behaving like Sinestro has.  Once Sinestro posted that he broke his agreement simply to prevent me from winning the other players in our community should have roundly criticized him and destroyed him in the game.  But that didn't happen; what happened is that five other players have coordinated with him against me.

How do I know there is coordination?  Because Sinestro directly referenced my email to Madmardigan (the turn 17 standby player) to taunt me.

So what does a 6v1 look like?  Sinestro, Ruingurth, and Eregnon are coordinating against me in Synisvania while Madmardigan, Drogo, and Benedict are coordinating against me in Runnimede.  [I don't usually write players' names in my posts because once the game gets started I usually don't even remember who is playing which position.  I play so many games at once that everything just blurs together.  But you can be assured I will remember those willing to engage in 6v1!]  As I said, I know Madmardigan shared my discussions with Sinestro and I know Madmardigan is coordinating with Drogo and Benedict.  Am I to believe that the former UN allies [GN, GI and WA] are no longer coordinating with the new UN?  Not likely, probably even not possible.  Therefore, I conclude that all six players are coordinating against me.  My game 183 turn 20 results alone might be enough for me to follow Airborne Ranger into oblivion.

So maybe it is my behaviour that the community is now seeking to eliminate?  Certainly possible.  The only behaviors I have said should not be tolerated are 3v1 attacks and blatantly breaking one's word.  Now I am facing a 6v1!

So [back to Drogo's point about drops affecting others] should I continue in game 183?  If I owned the company I would end this contest now simply to stop the loss of players in the community.  Jumpingfist (183 DA) dropped all his games, Airborne Ranger (183 UN) dropped all his games, and Lord Thanatos (183 RA) is also on the verge of doing the same.

Why am I on the verge of dropping all games instead of just 183?  Well Madmardigan (a member of the 6v1) is definitely part of the 6v1 but he is also my teammate in a Magic game.  If I drop 183 why wouldn't I also drop the Magic game?  And if I drop the Magic game our third teammate is also my teammate in a different Magic game and I could understand his not wanting to play that other Magic game with me so a third game is done.

I definitely am not interested in joining future full-diplomacy games due to the substance of the post I am responding to.  Let me be clear: Drogo should support Airborne Ranger 100% in his anger at Sinestro.  Sinestro posted that he intentionally broke his agreement simply to prevent someone from winning.  I have lost every Alamaze game but one for years now.  I would rather lose again than allow someone like Sinestro to either organize or join a 6v1 team.  Is that what you told Sinestro, Drogo?

I guarantee that had the roles been reversed and you were on the verge of victory and I was approached by someone who had just posted that he broke his word I would have attacked the liar, not the possible victor.  You have all read my posts for years now; does anyone doubt that is what I would have done?

Just my $.02.  It might actually be worth far less than that since I have promoted this same position with zero effect for quite some time now.

[Ry Vor]

I assume most players know I hate losing a player, for any reason.  We need to grow the community and then we greatly expand the experience.  But this forum "banter" is sometimes poisonous, and yes, Sinestro got a "time out" which in email I thinks he accepts.

I really don't know what to say or how to fix this.  As I said yesterday, I love the passion, but we are all likely mature adults, and so, let's just chill a bit before posting on the forum about who shot who and what was said.  And to yesterday's interesting discussion, I don't think it has to be all Boy Scouts.  Can we accept that it adds an element when there is uncertainty as to what another player might do, or is that truly out of bounds?  I just didn't intend it that way.  I kind of like sweating it a bit.

Again, the influences are mostly obvious:  LOTR, Diplomacy, Conan, even Risk, if you can believe that, Shogun, Axis and Allies.  Then I like to think the two Game of the Year Awards count for something.

[Lord Alz]

LT,
MY only response to your statement above is if a player is obviously about to win is it OK to all hands on deck to stop that event? I don't like 3v1 and I don't break my word under our current system but the 6v1 is a product of your success early and the imminent end to 183. As a community is it ok to all hands on deck or do we allow the victory even though it is stoppable. I am curious what the community thinks because I honestly don't know what the consensus will be. I do not want to discuss all the other issues and I do understand your frustration.

[Drogo]

I absolutely understand LT's frustration and I knew it was coming as there were several kingdoms that coordinated to prevent him from winning the game. We play to win the game or do our best, if someone is about to win that means we are about to lose (or at least not win) and so I think it's pretty natural that action be taken. We have to decide as a community or as individuals whether the topple of the leader thing is ok. It's a full diplomacy game. I'll mention that LT did have many NAP's in this game but not with me in fact we have had no correspondence at all in this game and he unilaterally declared me an enemy out of nowhere about 5-6 turns back so I'm not sure it should come as a surprise that I took action against his kingdom. If this puts me on his list so be it.

Rick is probably right about the 'who shot who' back and forth, its just hard to ignore someone impugning one's reputation. Especially when the 'victim' declared me an Enemy, that's a pretty clear message that we are not exactly on the same side and that's a decision he made. As a result I'm not sure why my moving against him is a surprise. I assume its primarily the coordination he takes issue with but this is a full diplomacy game and each kingdom is making their own choices, if 5 kingdoms agendas align this is what happens...

If we want to put rules in place or make clearly defined guidelines then fine, but that has not been done and so whether this is inside or outside 'accepted' play is going to be a pretty interpretive and individual opinion.

[Rogal]

The Trolls will now accept all empires surrender and declare the Trolls as "The Supreme Leader" and "Overall  Master and Champion of the Infinite Universe and all Parallel Dimensions".  The Trolls thank everyone for playing right into our hands that led our Supreme and Overall Crushing Victory.  Please consider all donations to be given to the Troll King Egor the All Knowing.  Egor will also be doing a book signing at the Viperhead library to promote his victory tour and new book "Troll, The Art of the Deal".

[Drogo]

I'll also add that this was an extreme instance of kingdoms, some of them on the brink of warring with each other, banding together to stop an eminent T20 SVC win. So this is a good litmus test and if we all agree that such tactics should not be taken then so be it but let's have it stated clearly and agreed upon at the outset rather than different people employing their own 'morality' about the rules of the game.

[Ry Vor]

If this is real, Rogal, high congratulations!   We haven't heard much from the Trolls lately, and as many know, they are a Companion brigade and not a kingdom in 3rd Cycle. 

[Jumpingfist]

I am not good with it being OK to break your deals to stop someone from winning. Unless that is part of the deal. I have no issue with players working to stop a clear favorite within the frame work of what ever deals they struck. I consider it as basically do not show your hand to early. 3 on 1 can be ok in some cases like his to me if the single player is just to strong for any two to take down at the time. Or the others are all rather crippled already. But would expect after the threat of them winning is removed they should likely back off on the full 3:1 press

[DuPont]

All I want to say is the rage quitting has pissed me off far more than anything else as it really unbalances some games.