For/ against draws

[David E. Cohen]

LOL......I think we need to get out the dueling pistols......somebody needs a white glove slap and a challenge!

I'd pay good money for a ring side seat to this sporting event......LoL

Custer

I would prefer sabers, rather than pistols.

Classicists do it with handbags at dawn. I don't know who Dawn is.

I did it with Dawn. I don't remember if she had a handbag.

[Strategus]

Seriously though, I really find David E Cohen's post interesting. I never heard of the Romantic category before. But reading the suggested traits, I can't quite decide which fits me best. It would be interesting to do a questionnaire and see how people answer each aspect (strongly agree.... strongly disagree), and the percentages/stats on it.

[David E. Cohen]

Seriously though, I really find David E Cohen's post interesting. I never heard of the Romantic category before. But reading the suggested traits, I can't quite decide which fits me best. It would be interesting to do a questionnaire and see how people answer each aspect (strongly agree.... strongly disagree), and the percentages/stats on it.

Give Paul Windsor's article a read. It is interesting, even if i do not agree with a lot of it. I was aware of it when I wrote the Soloist Manifesto, though I do not think it influenced me in any meaningful way.

[Jack007]

David, you use a lot of words, but at the end you confirm that Windsor's Romantic and Cohen's Soloist are the same. I can't see the "contrast" you announced, apart of some tiny rhetoric nuances. As mentioned, I'm not at all interested in quibbles. It's only the conceptual meaning that counts.

Whatever, I used and still use the term Soloist synonymously for Windsor's Romantic, because I think "Romantic" can be misunderstood by many readers who associate it with love and romance. Same with "Classicist", a term than can also be misunderstood. Soloist and Drawist are clear and self-explaining. I used these terms long before I knew that you claim a copyright on "Soloist", which now of course I deny.

Seriously though, I really find David E Cohen's post interesting. I never heard of the Romantic category before. But reading the suggested traits, I can't quite decide which fits me best. It would be interesting to do a questionnaire and see how people answer each aspect (strongly agree.... strongly disagree), and the percentages/stats on it.

Give Paul Windsor's article a read. It is interesting, even if i do not agree with a lot of it. I was aware of it when I wrote the Soloist Manifesto, though I do not think it influenced me in any meaningful way.

Of course it wasn't Windsor's article that influenced you. It was being a Romantic = Soloist that urged you to promote your player personality as superior, so much that you wrote a manifest. Interestingly, from the four personality types described by Windsor it is only the Romantic (= Soloist) who has an urge to claim for his style, that is soloism. Or have you ever seen a drawist, or a deviate, or a club player doing promotion for his style?

And that's the difference between your and Windsor's article. Yours is a manifest, a promotion for your standpoint, while Windsor's is the result and description of long lasting observations, and a trial of a classification based on that, hence an essay. You cannot "not agree" with observations, but one can decline a promotional manifesto. And I do so, as far as you think your Diplomacy personality is any better than those of your disdained "Newbies", or those you call disparagingly "drawmongers".

Jack

[condude1]

i always play for the best option available to me. I have an extensive chess background, so I view a 2-way as 50% of a win, a 3-way as 33% etc. One of my prouder wins was forcing a 4-way draw from a position where I had 2 scs left and no chance of ever recovering a home sc (my two scs were Moscow and Berlin and I was England IIRC). I masterminded a unique stalemate line that happened to make one of my units an integral defender. That's a beautiful end to a diplomacy game, and as much of a win as any solo I've gotten.

For me at least, the draw is a fallback. It's a great goal for weaker powers to have, and a fine fallback for stronger powers to concede if need be. Solo-only sounds depressing for weak countries.

Play for the best result available!

Terminology is important. Though not a win, your performance in that game certainly sounds like quite an achievement, in which you can take justifiable pride. I fondly remember an FTF game I played in a long time ago where I was Germany and ended the game holding Spa and StP.

As a counterexample, I am certainly far more proud of that game and numerous games where I played against top competition and was unsuccessful than I am of the sole game I played on Conspiracy a few years ago. I joined an anonymous game with a bunch of newbies as a favor to one of the players and warned them that it was not a good idea. I won without breaking a sweat, but do not consider it a meaningful achievement.

You see, here's where I disagree. At that point, a draw was the best result I could have hoped for. I treat it as a win. I'd treat a stopped solo attempt as a loss. Wins and losses are contextual here. The site classifies any draw as a win. I think that's taking it too far, but it shows that draws can be considered wins too. I get that a draw is a draw, but in a 7 person game, a not-too-large draw can be the equivalent of a win in a 2 person game.

In that game, where, after the opening, my expected result was a loss, getting that 25% of a win was a lot more equity gained than most of my solo runs.

[David E. Cohen]

David, you use a lot of words, but at the end you confirm that Windsor's Romantic and Cohen's Soloist are the same. I can't see the "contrast" you announced, apart of some tiny rhetoric nuances. As mentioned, I'm not at all interested in quibbles. It's only the conceptual meaning that counts.

Whatever, I used and still use the term Soloist synonymously for Windsor's Romantic, because I think "Romantic" can be misunderstood by many readers who associate it with love and romance. Same with "Classicist", a term than can also be misunderstood. Soloist and Drawist are clear and self-explaining. I used these terms long before I knew that you claim a copyright on "Soloist", which now of course I deny.

Seriously though, I really find David E Cohen's post interesting. I never heard of the Romantic category before. But reading the suggested traits, I can't quite decide which fits me best. It would be interesting to do a questionnaire and see how people answer each aspect (strongly agree.... strongly disagree), and the percentages/stats on it.

Give Paul Windsor's article a read. It is interesting, even if i do not agree with a lot of it. I was aware of it when I wrote the Soloist Manifesto, though I do not think it influenced me in any meaningful way.

Of course it wasn't Windsor's article that influenced you. It was being a Romantic = Soloist that urged you to promote your player personality as superior, so much that you wrote a manifest. Interestingly, from the four personality types described by Windsor it is only the Romantic (= Soloist) who has an urge to claim for his style, that is soloism. Or have you ever seen a drawist, or a deviate, or a club player doing promotion for his style?

And that's the difference between your and Windsor's article. Yours is a manifest, a promotion for your standpoint, while Windsor's is the result and description of long lasting observations, and a trial of a classification based on that, hence an essay. You cannot "not agree" with observations, but one can decline a promotional manifesto. And I do so, as far as you think your Diplomacy personality is any better than those of your disdained "Newbies", or those you call disparagingly "drawmongers".

Jack

I stand behind my post contrasting Romanticism and Soloism. The differences are obvious and you attempting to force a square peg into a round hole by conflating the terms does you no good. You can call a cheese fondue a chocolate milkshake, but that does not make it so. I am not sure what a "drawist" is, though I can guess. I am also not sure what you mean by a "copyright" on the term 'Soloist' in this context. I do not think you mean it in the legal sense. I may well have originated its use in the context of Diplomacy. I do not remember it being used prior to the publication of my essay in the Pouch. Certainly, the Soloist Manifesto at least popularized the term and gave it the common meaning it has today in the Hobby, a meaning which is most definitely NOT equivalent to Romanticism. Paul Windsor's article was quite well known at the time, and I would not have hesitated to use the term 'Romantic', rather than 'Soloist', if it was applicable. I definitely did not originate the term 'drawmonger', but I had no compunction to avoid its use in the Soloist Manifesto.

My motivation for writing the Soloist Manifesto was an explosion of asininity on the old rec.games.diplomacy newsgroup, and a desire to influence the philosophy of players new to the game, for both my and their benefit. I can certainly disagree with some of the observations in Paul Windsor's essay, and in this case I do, though Paul Windsor is certainly honest in his observations and unlike you, he is not looking to mischaracterize his terminology. I have absolutely no disdain for newbies whatsoever. Unlike some others, they have an excellent excuse for any misapprehensions they may have. I was a newby once, as were we all, and some of today's newbies will become tomorrow's expert players. I prefer a more... focused disdain.

[David E. Cohen]

i always play for the best option available to me. I have an extensive chess background, so I view a 2-way as 50% of a win, a 3-way as 33% etc. One of my prouder wins was forcing a 4-way draw from a position where I had 2 scs left and no chance of ever recovering a home sc (my two scs were Moscow and Berlin and I was England IIRC). I masterminded a unique stalemate line that happened to make one of my units an integral defender. That's a beautiful end to a diplomacy game, and as much of a win as any solo I've gotten.

For me at least, the draw is a fallback. It's a great goal for weaker powers to have, and a fine fallback for stronger powers to concede if need be. Solo-only sounds depressing for weak countries.

Play for the best result available!

Terminology is important. Though not a win, your performance in that game certainly sounds like quite an achievement, in which you can take justifiable pride. I fondly remember an FTF game I played in a long time ago where I was Germany and ended the game holding Spa and StP.

As a counterexample, I am certainly far more proud of that game and numerous games where I played against top competition and was unsuccessful than I am of the sole game I played on Conspiracy a few years ago. I joined an anonymous game with a bunch of newbies as a favor to one of the players and warned them that it was not a good idea. I won without breaking a sweat, but do not consider it a meaningful achievement.

You see, here's where I disagree. At that point, a draw was the best result I could have hoped for. I treat it as a win. I'd treat a stopped solo attempt as a loss. Wins and losses are contextual here. The site classifies any draw as a win. I think that's taking it too far, but it shows that draws can be considered wins too. I get that a draw is a draw, but in a 7 person game, a not-too-large draw can be the equivalent of a win in a 2 person game.

In that game, where, after the opening, my expected result was a loss, getting that 25% of a win was a lot more equity gained than most of my solo runs.

We are lost in the terminology, to some extent. If the terminology was clarified, we might be somewhat closer to agreement than you think. You are not being intellectually dishonest about your position, nor are you mischaracterizing our respective arguments, which is refreshing.

[Jack007]

I'm sorry Dave, but that's ridiculous. If you cannot say in 3 sentences what's the difference between Windsor's Romantic and Cohen's Soloist, then there isn't any relevant.

[David E. Cohen]

I'm sorry Dave, but that's ridiculous. If you cannot say in 3 sentences what's the difference between Windsor's Romantic and Cohen's Soloist, then there isn't any relevant.

So the contrasts I drew between Soloism and each and every paragraph of Paul Windsors' discussion of Romanticism are irrelevant because there are too many of them.

[condude1]

Terminology is important. Though not a win, your performance in that game certainly sounds like quite an achievement, in which you can take justifiable pride. I fondly remember an FTF game I played in a long time ago where I was Germany and ended the game holding Spa and StP.

As a counterexample, I am certainly far more proud of that game and numerous games where I played against top competition and was unsuccessful than I am of the sole game I played on Conspiracy a few years ago. I joined an anonymous game with a bunch of newbies as a favor to one of the players and warned them that it was not a good idea. I won without breaking a sweat, but do not consider it a meaningful achievement.

You see, here's where I disagree. At that point, a draw was the best result I could have hoped for. I treat it as a win. I'd treat a stopped solo attempt as a loss. Wins and losses are contextual here. The site classifies any draw as a win. I think that's taking it too far, but it shows that draws can be considered wins too. I get that a draw is a draw, but in a 7 person game, a not-too-large draw can be the equivalent of a win in a 2 person game.

In that game, where, after the opening, my expected result was a loss, getting that 25% of a win was a lot more equity gained than most of my solo runs.

We are lost in the terminology, to some extent. If the terminology was clarified, we might be somewhat closer to agreement than you think. You are not being intellectually dishonest about your position, nor are you mischaracterizing our respective arguments, which is refreshing.

I think we're mostly in agreement - considering this is a subjective question, we can actually both be right! I see where you're coming from, and it makes total sense, with only minor differences from my position!