PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

After game reports for PlaDip Diplomacy League games

Moderator: mjparrett

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby boldblade » 19 Sep 2018, 16:43

mjparrett wrote:Considering I am still a mod on this forum I am so tempted to delete half the messages on this thread. Absolutely horseshit most of it. Agree to disagree and move on yeah? Without sounding like the old man I clearly am turning into, most of you sound like you are 13 and in a pissing contest. So what some people have different ideals on how to play the game? Does anyone honestly think they are "better" than others and their opinion is right? So what if V played the game a certain way; well within his right.


And you sound like a 10 year old hall monitor on a power trip. Are you really so sensitive? Or is it just that V can throw stones and none of the rest of us can? It is quite telling that V is well within his right to play a terrible game free of criticism but that Jimbob's staunch rejection of personality politics still gets shit on even by you after telling everyone else to move on.
boldblade
 
Posts: 338
Joined: 05 Feb 2014, 17:33
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1474)
All-game rating: (1488)
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby mjparrett » 19 Sep 2018, 16:55

haha, jesus. good listening mate. i'm not on a power trip. do you really think that based on what i have done with this forum page?! no, you just prove a point that you are unable to speak nicely to someone and hide behind insults. V isn't free of that accusation either, I don't know why you think I think that. My point is that he is free to play the game his way. JimB is free to play his. I would like an adult discussion on that with Jim about why he doesnt think personality matters in this game when i think it does. All opinion driven and I don't think I am being rude to anyone. I'm not overly sensitive no, and someone can tell me to fuck off if I offend them. But I'm not (hopefully!) offending anyone. You, V, GPD/Strategus, Jim all seem incapable now of talking about the game and just pick fights with each other, because you have all rubbed each other up the wrong way. I really don't get it. But sure, then try and pick a fight with the person who comes in to mediate, that sounds like a good idea.... sigh.
mjparrett
 
Posts: 366
Joined: 01 Mar 2017, 20:05
Location: Scotland
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1534
All-game rating: 1573
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby mjparrett » 19 Sep 2018, 16:58

and to clarify, if anyone wants to objectively discuss/criticise V's play in that game of course they can/should, and V should be able to take that and discuss like an adult. That isn't what is happening here though. Calling someone's ideas bullshit because you don't agree with them is childish. And that is aimed at everyone, not just Jim (who started out quite adult in his reply before getting caught up in the slanging match again!)
mjparrett
 
Posts: 366
Joined: 01 Mar 2017, 20:05
Location: Scotland
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1534
All-game rating: 1573
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby boldblade » 19 Sep 2018, 17:08

Let's see you call everyone 13 year olds in a pissing match but when I call you a 10 year old hall monitor I am the one hiding behind insults instead of having an adult conversation? I am perfectly capable of talking nicely to someone and do not rely on insults in any of my arguments. I just add them in because they are fun. There is plenty of interesting and fun conversation to be had in this thread, insults included.
boldblade
 
Posts: 338
Joined: 05 Feb 2014, 17:33
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1474)
All-game rating: (1488)
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby mjparrett » 19 Sep 2018, 17:25

if someone is being childish and insulting you... and then you call them on it and say, "you are being childish"... does that mean you are as bad as them and also throwing out insults?! Personally I don't think so. But maybe it is just me :) Insults can be fun if they are witty or intelligent. A lot here seem to be missing that mark! But again, you still actually miss my overall point....

Lets either discuss the game (including all the different theories and how people like to play the game) or move on.
mjparrett
 
Posts: 366
Joined: 01 Mar 2017, 20:05
Location: Scotland
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1534
All-game rating: 1573
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby boldblade » 19 Sep 2018, 17:39

I agree with you... and I was calling you childish for objecting to what has been said in this thread. So where does that leave us?

I do not miss your overall point but merely object to your need to "mediate." You want us to move on but cannot help but defend yourself either. So why is it so wrong for the rest of us? If you want so badly to focus on discussion of the game then maybe you shouldn't jump in here with your own superiority issues and treat the rest of us like children when you behave the same way.
boldblade
 
Posts: 338
Joined: 05 Feb 2014, 17:33
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1474)
All-game rating: (1488)
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby mjparrett » 19 Sep 2018, 18:01

You agree with me :) You should have ended your post there.

Yes I feel the need to mediate slightly. Partly my personality and partly because this is PDL so I feel somewhat 'responsible' (not quite the right word but it will do). So I take your point. As for the superiority issues... I'm afraid you miss your mark there, as I really don't feel my point is better (or worse) than anyone else's. And I don't think I am superior in any way to anyone.

But the world needs mediators doesn't it?! Otherwise everything just descends into petty name calling. And I was hoping we could be adult and avoid that.

And I have now posted about 5 times on the name calling, when all I want is a discussion with the actual participants of the game and how they see things differently (as I find it interesting). So unless Jim answers my point regarding the personality debate, I'll back out politely.
mjparrett
 
Posts: 366
Joined: 01 Mar 2017, 20:05
Location: Scotland
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1534
All-game rating: 1573
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby Pootleflump » 19 Sep 2018, 18:21

Shoulda stopped after you called me a charming bugger. That was the perfect end.

Of course personality counts. It always does in any human interaction. Why do you think we invest so much on training people in leadership and communication skills. Because emotional intelligence counts..

If you don't want personality, human connection, camaraderie, play gunboat.

V didn't play badly. He is a brilliant tactician, a fab communicator and good company. It was a hugely successful western triple and taking that to the end was a reality for all three of us at one point.
But, I nearly forgot, you must close your eyes otherwise you won't see anything

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
User avatar
Pootleflump
Premium Member
 
Posts: 462
Joined: 28 Feb 2017, 22:21
Location: Scotland
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1847
All-game rating: 1919
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby jimbobicus » 19 Sep 2018, 22:12

mjparrett wrote:and to clarify, if anyone wants to objectively discuss/criticise V's play in that game of course they can/should, and V should be able to take that and discuss like an adult. That isn't what is happening here though. Calling someone's ideas bullshit because you don't agree with them is childish. And that is aimed at everyone, not just Jim (who started out quite adult in his reply before getting caught up in the slanging match again!)

Mike, if you read my posts again I think that's a rather unfair characterisation. There was the sadly (what has become) normal vitriol coming my way from V, but in my posts I tried to refrain from that. I agree that it's a bad sign when your posts are just chucking insults at people or calling what they say "bullshit" without any justification. I was critical of V's play in places, especially here
To the extent that you did ever communicate about the board, what you said swiftly proved to be lies. In fact I'd go so far as to say pre-meditated lies with the intention of tricking me; rather than the "I was seriously considering allying with you, but then got offered a better deal elsewhere"-type. I'm not really sure what I'm meant to do when confronted with that?

I wrote this because that's how I saw it, but if V disagreed he'd be welcome to say so. Although his subsequent post, if anything seemed to suggest I was correct here.
Mike, does that answer you or perhaps you had a different passage in mind?

V wrote:No Jimbob, I don’t want a “civil conversation” with you, life’s too short.
You’re “personality politics” view of this game, I summarise as total Bullshit.
In S01 I agreed to a WT. All I knew then was you weren’t E or F. I didn’t care to know more.
From recall (can’t be bothered to look at the map) the “agreed” F08 moves would have put Germany secure on 8/9 SC’s (Your view of my position during the contest is irrelevant) however I got stabbed as everyone knows.
My final objective in the contest was still undetermined at all times, as is normal in Diplomacy. It’s not usually possible to predict what opportunities &/or challenges are 3/4 years ahead.
This is my last contribution to this thread. During the game you earned the title “Twat Waffle” which caused much amusement & it stuck. It’s no longer only the game participants that now see why.

Since V is no longer contributing (given this, it's just as well IMO), I'll address this to everyone else... hopefully you can see the difference between my messages and this... I'd like to think I try to argue my case instead of just chucking insults around.
But it's also a great example of what I mean by personality politics. I'll quote it again:
In S01 I agreed to a WT. All I knew then was you weren’t E or F. I didn’t care to know more.

Just think of the implications of this. When people act this way it takes all the fun out of the game. Conversely to V, I would have been prepared to ally with him or any other player on the board. At all times, I consider my options and consider which of those allies would be best for me. In doing so, I try to put aside any personal feelings I have towards the other participants. My round 1 with mjparrett and greggybear is a good example of this. I think it's fair to say the 3 of us all drove each other mad. However, we were all still prepared to work with one another when it was in our interests to do so. Especially towards the end I was a little cautious of trusting greggybear but that was due to him having lied consistently throughout the game and so having the rational expectation that he would keep lying in the future. It had nothing to do with any personal animosity towards him - indeed I don't feel any personal animosity.
I actually take the attitude that it would be fairly irrational to have strong feelings of like/hate for others here, since none of us really know each other anyway. Maybe you can argue that you can get some idea from reading people's posts and messages, but really we know hardly anything about one another. For example, for all I know Mike could be a drug dealer. Or maybe he spends his days taking care of disadvantaged children or .... well who knows. I don't know if he has said, but it doesn't matter and in my opinion, nor should it. Even those people who we think we know something about could be lying. For all we know the charming Pootle who flirts with every guy she plays with could be a 50 year old man who runs a brothel and the voice we heard on the recording in this AAR is one of his girls reading from a script. Now admittedly, I think that's highly unlikely, but you get my point hopefully.
To the extent that I did criticise him, I was criticising his way of playing the game - not attacking him personally.
This is very different from V's approach of "I don't like you. Therefore I will never ally with you and call everything that you say bullshit"

mjparrett wrote:IMO though Jim (and I know we disagree here), the personality politics have to come in to it. Otherwise every game would be played out the same as there are clear benefits in 1901 for certain alliances. Obviously you need to see who you like/trust/think you can manipulate the most. That is, for me, what makes this game so good and interesting. And partly why charming buggers like Pootle are so good at it. I'm not sure why you don't think that is the case.

Happy to have a theoretical discussion on all of the above, but please can we keep it polite? Any further messages I deem as just winding people up will be deleted :)

Ok, challenge accepted... (also good to see someone wants to have a grown up discussion on something)
So here's my position: at virtually every point of the game including 1901 there are lots of possible alliances that could form. For any one player, what they should do depends on what everyone else is doing. For simplicity if we consider just 3 players A,B and C. Then in almost all positions, what A should do depends on B and C; B on A and C; C on A and B. So the whole thing is circular. And in most positions any of the three 2v1 alliances could happen. Communication is then about trying to decipher what others are planning to do and you should look to do the best thing for you, given what you expect the others to do. Given that there are so many options about what deals you offer others and what they offer you, the game is very far from pre-determined.
So to conclude, I'm challenging the statement: "Otherwise every game would be played out the same as there are clear benefits in 1901 for certain alliances." In fact, IMO there isn't any one country in the game which has a clear best set of moves independent of what you are hearing from others. If you have any particular country in mind which you think has a clearly best 1901 strategy, I'd be interested to hear.
"A friend to all is a friend to none" - Aristotle
jimbobicus
 
Posts: 575
Joined: 03 Apr 2009, 19:30
Location: Coventry, UK
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1742)
All-game rating: (1662)
Timezone: GMT

Re: PDL 1. Round 3 Game 3. AAR

Postby Pootleflump » 20 Sep 2018, 00:27

at virtually every point of the game including 1901 there are lots of possible alliances that could form.

That is absolutely right Jimbob. At the beginning, everyone writes positively to everyone else, but has an idea who they would rather ally with in the short and longer term.

Everyone has equal opportunity to win over their ally of choice.

My preference when playing France or Turkey is to form a bond with the other. They make perfect end game allies.

Consequently at the very beginning, you were my first message sent and I told you clearly that I thought we should be friends with an eye to the end game.

Your response was what steered my subsequent choices. You didn't like my communication style. You made that quite clear and my feeling was that you would ally with anyone on the board rather than me.

That was your downfall in this game.

It is not personality politics to keep your options open and be charming to everyone at the beginning. It was you that steered the course of the game. When you alienate powers it's easy to manipulate that dynamic.
But, I nearly forgot, you must close your eyes otherwise you won't see anything

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
User avatar
Pootleflump
Premium Member
 
Posts: 462
Joined: 28 Feb 2017, 22:21
Location: Scotland
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1847
All-game rating: 1919
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to PDL AARs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests