PDL 2. Round 2 Game 3. AAR

After game reports for PlaDip Diplomacy League games

Moderator: mjparrett

Re: PDL 2. Round 2 Game 3. AAR

Postby Damon Huntington » 03 Apr 2018, 23:44

boldblade wrote:
Damon Huntington wrote:
There's a difference between lying and telling a lie that underestimate the other player's capacity to see it as a lie with a simple checking of the facts, with the deliberate intent to evoke an emotional response. This has been my point all along - incidentally, this being the reason why I prefaced my very first post with the statement that the lie, in itself, is not the matter.


So your feelings are just hurt because you feel he treated you like you were stupid?... We can move on just wanted to clarify my understanding of your complaint lol.


In a simplistic way, yes, I'd say that's quite accurate. xD
User avatar
Damon Huntington
 
Posts: 423
Joined: 31 Oct 2017, 17:17
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1332)
All-game rating: (1341)
Timezone: GMT-3

Re: PDL 2. Round 2 Game 3. AAR

Postby Shyvve » 04 Apr 2018, 00:33

nanooktheeskimo wrote:
Shyvve wrote:I am not speaking of "metagaming" in the sense that the site prohibits such (pre-arranged alliances/enemies/etc.).

I meant it only as it pertains to keeping track of players' previous PDL points totals. Perhaps I should have chosen a less negatively-loaded term besides "metagaming" in describing my approach to trying to maximize my own outcome for this game and minimize the outcome for those already ahead of me based off the first round results. This was what I meant by "metagaming". I definitely did not, and do not, engage in any metagaming that is prohibited by the site's rules.

Shyvve, what you just described is prohibited by site rules--bring factors outside the game into the game to determine alliances.

I don't know how strict we're being with this being a league and all, but if this were a normal standalone game, this would 100% be counted as metagaming.


This thing has gotten off track a bit IMO here. From solely a League perspective, what is wrong with trying to catch up to those who might be ahead of you in the League itself? Also, since the games are anonymous countries, you know Player X is in the game but can never be sure who Player X truly is. Sure, if you've shared games before this might give you a hint but, still can't be sure. Bottom line is, barring someone voluntarily or consciously revealing their identity in the game, you can't ever be sure. Whether they are being truthful in saying he's Player X or trying to make you believe he's Player X.

NONE of this actually occurred in the game I might add. I'm really regretting now I even mentioned the whole thing about trying to figure out who's who. There was never any talk of such either in-game.

If nanook feels I've violated the site's metagaming rules here, then I'd gladly welcome an investigation into the messaging I sent/received in this game. I'm not a metagamer in the sense that the site prohibits. Our Mods are to be thanked and appreciated for their work in trying to sniff out players who engage in pre-game alliances or pre-game targetting and out-of-game communications. And I kinda resent the accusation here that I've engaged in this, nanook, to be honest.
An Oldie and Gold Classicist. Moderator for the Classicist group.
User avatar
Shyvve
Premium Member
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 31 Dec 2016, 20:10
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 1313
All-game rating: 1345
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: PDL 2. Round 2 Game 3. AAR

Postby Nanook » 04 Apr 2018, 00:38

Shyvve wrote:
nanooktheeskimo wrote:
Shyvve wrote:I am not speaking of "metagaming" in the sense that the site prohibits such (pre-arranged alliances/enemies/etc.).

I meant it only as it pertains to keeping track of players' previous PDL points totals. Perhaps I should have chosen a less negatively-loaded term besides "metagaming" in describing my approach to trying to maximize my own outcome for this game and minimize the outcome for those already ahead of me based off the first round results. This was what I meant by "metagaming". I definitely did not, and do not, engage in any metagaming that is prohibited by the site's rules.

Shyvve, what you just described is prohibited by site rules--bring factors outside the game into the game to determine alliances.

I don't know how strict we're being with this being a league and all, but if this were a normal standalone game, this would 100% be counted as metagaming.


This thing has gotten off track a bit IMO here. From solely a League perspective, what is wrong with trying to catch up to those who might be ahead of you in the League itself? Also, since the games are anonymous countries, you know Player X is in the game but can never be sure who Player X truly is. Sure, if you've shared games before this might give you a hint but, still can't be sure. Bottom line is, barring someone voluntarily or consciously revealing their identity in the game, you can't ever be sure. Whether they are being truthful in saying he's Player X or trying to make you believe he's Player X.

NONE of this actually occurred in the game I might add. I'm really regretting now I even mentioned the whole thing about trying to figure out who's who. There was never any talk of such either in-game.

If nanook feels I've violated the site's metagaming rules here, then I'd gladly welcome an investigation into the messaging I sent/received in this game. I'm not a metagamer in the sense that the site prohibits. Our Mods are to be thanked and appreciated for their work in trying to sniff out players who engage in pre-game alliances or pre-game targetting and out-of-game communications. And I kinda resent the accusation here that I've engaged in this, nanook, to be honest.

Because of the league format, we're ignoring this kind of stuff, since it's pretty much part and parcel of the way this league was setup.

However, as I said before, if this were done in a normal game, it would 100% be metagaming. Your resentment/offense is unwarranted, because you yourself said you engaged in these activities, and all I said was that if you'd done this in a normal game it would be considered metagaming. Which is true. So I don't see how taking offense is warranted. It not being cheating here, doesn't change that in a different context it would be, which is exactly what my statement said.

It not being against the rules in this context also doesn't mean that it's unworthy of mentioning that it normally would be.
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

Admin
User avatar
Nanook
 
Posts: 10919
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1209)
All-game rating: (1413)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: PDL 2. Round 2 Game 3. AAR

Postby Shyvve » 04 Apr 2018, 00:44

This is my point though. You are publicly accusing me now of metagaming, Nanook.

Since these games are not Friends or Schools games they also fall under the umbrella of the site's rules against Metagaming.

I guarantee you there was no in-game discussion of targeting or allying with any particular player. No out-of-game discussion for that matter either. And, the players were anonymous anyways.

So, yes, I do resent your publicly calling me a cheater here, Nanook.
An Oldie and Gold Classicist. Moderator for the Classicist group.
User avatar
Shyvve
Premium Member
 
Posts: 478
Joined: 31 Dec 2016, 20:10
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 1313
All-game rating: 1345
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: PDL 2. Round 2 Game 3. AAR

Postby Nanook » 04 Apr 2018, 00:48

Shyvve wrote:This is my point though. You are publicly accusing me now of metagaming, Nanook.

Since these games are not Friends or Schools games they also fall under the umbrella of the site's rules against Metagaming.

I guarantee you there was no in-game discussion of targeting or allying with any particular player. No out-of-game discussion for that matter either. And, the players were anonymous anyways.

So, yes, I do resent your publicly calling me a cheater here, Nanook.

Shyvve. Take a breath. I have not, and am not, calling you a cheater. In fact, the opposite--I'm saying that what you did was fine in this context and NOT cheating. Clear? NOT cheating.

You seem to not realize the full scope of what is considered metagaming. Deciding alliances based on out of game factors, such as the ones you describe, in a normal, non-league game, would be considered metagaming. This wasn't a normal game, it was a league game, thus what you did was fine and within the rules. This is a clear distinction that I've made repeatedly now, but you seem to be ignoring.

If you have further issues, please PM me and/or the Cheater Hunter group, and we can sort this out. I really do not understand what your issue is or why you're taking offense at this, except maybe that you're jumping to conclusions rather than actually reading what I'm saying?
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

Admin
User avatar
Nanook
 
Posts: 10919
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1209)
All-game rating: (1413)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: PDL 2. Round 2 Game 3. AAR

Postby Nanook » 04 Apr 2018, 00:52

nanooktheeskimo wrote:
Shyvve wrote:This is my point though. You are publicly accusing me now of metagaming, Nanook.

Since these games are not Friends or Schools games they also fall under the umbrella of the site's rules against Metagaming.

I guarantee you there was no in-game discussion of targeting or allying with any particular player. No out-of-game discussion for that matter either. And, the players were anonymous anyways.

So, yes, I do resent your publicly calling me a cheater here, Nanook.

Shyvve. Take a breath. I have not, and am not, calling you a cheater. In fact, the opposite--I'm saying that what you did was fine in this context and NOT cheating. Clear? NOT cheating.

You seem to not realize the full scope of what is considered metagaming. Deciding alliances based on out of game factors, such as the ones you describe, in a normal, non-league game, would be considered metagaming. This wasn't a normal game, it was a league game, thus what you did was fine and within the rules. This is a clear distinction that I've made repeatedly now, but you seem to be ignoring.

If you have further issues, please PM me and/or the Cheater Hunter group, and we can sort this out. I really do not understand what your issue is or why you're taking offense at this, except maybe that you're jumping to conclusions rather than actually reading what I'm saying?

As an addendum--it IS possible to metagame all on one's lonesome, it does not require discussion of targeting or allying one player, in game or out, it only requires the action of targeting or allying with one or more players because of external factors.

Again, to be clear: I am NOT saying you cheated or that you what you did was outside the rules in the context of the league, and I'm attempting to make that very clear. If it was, we'd be having this discussion via email as an official notice/inquiry, not in a public forum as a learning opportunity.
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

Admin
User avatar
Nanook
 
Posts: 10919
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1209)
All-game rating: (1413)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: PDL 2. Round 2 Game 3. AAR

Postby mhsmith0 » 04 Apr 2018, 04:17

FWIW, I'd think that, to a certain extent, by playing in the league players waive at least some of the expectations surrounding metagaming compared to a standard-issue game (just as, for instance, when I ran gunboat tourney in 2016, people necessarily [even if just implicitly] waived a portion of their right to anonymity protection, since it was known that every player got 7 games one as each power, so once enough games ended it wasn't super difficult to try and fill in the blanks of the remaining players).

It's already been the case that it's been considered acceptable to pursue league goals where they might conflict with a standard game goal, most notably in that players who are losing waive their right to pursue a share of the draw in exchange for getting to end the game with some number of supply centers instead of enduring a full and total defeat.

Players will, to one degree or another, pursue policies designed to help them advance (or avoid relegation, or try and finish #1 overall), just as (I think?) you'd see similar behavior in PDET and similar tournaments. I'm not sure if there's standard guidance on the degree to which it's ok to relax some assumptions that might otherwise apply to standard games, but if not, that's probably a good spot to add some guidance. Presumably anonymous countries is itself a protection against possible metagaming; possibly you can make a case that it needs to be stronger protection and that the list of fixtures should be hidden from public view (so in future years mjparrett will set it for the two leagues he isn't in, and someone else will set it for his league)
Proud holder of the Superior Tophat of Solving, an item entrusted with the forum's most prominent smartass
User avatar
mhsmith0
 
Posts: 3616
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 06:55
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1269)
All-game rating: (1439)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: PDL 2. Round 2 Game 3. AAR

Postby JoeHoya06 » 04 Apr 2018, 05:40

First, thanks for the compliments that I've received to this point; I really don't understand people who get personally offended by something that happens in the context of this or any other game, and when the dang logo for the website features a guy with knives in his back, then suffice to say, there's a lot that's within the context of the game!

I know Damon wanted to move on from this part of the discussion, but...

1) I made a post anonymously in the shoutbox that referenced a discussion I had had with Russia. The only reason I made it anonymous was because I didn't want the fact that I had been having certain discussions with the Czar to have an inordinate effect on the game. I wasn't trying to hide my identity from the standpoint of not wanting to put my country/name to my words; I was just trying to delay said putting of name to words.

2) For someone to complain about trying to play on the psyche of another player while doing self-admitted "psychological profiling" of the other players seems a bit out of line, no? Russia (correctly) surmised that I was the one initially driving the talk of invading England, and told England this, and then got mad because he felt that Austria was trying to play some sort of mind game with him? That's more than a little hypocritical if you ask me. At the same time, I have no moral objection to either, but to play both sides of that fiddle doesn't add up.

3) He also said that he felt like Austria was treating him like he was stupid (in the simple version of things). So, then...how do you reconcile that being so offensive with what you did to me? For those that weren't in the game, I made it known that I knew that Russia had shared the content of our discussions with England, and his response was to deny it, even using the line, "You insult me by making such an assertion, but at least this comes to show what kind of behaviour I should expect from you."

I dunno, sounds to me like he was treating me like I was stupid, and even tossed out a jab that comes off pretty personal at the same time. Same as before, though; I ain't mad about it. The game is the game, so lie your face off if you want/need to. I am, however, a little annoyed at the hypocrisy that ensued.
We're the builders of their destiny.

Gold Classicist, Mafia forum interloper
User avatar
JoeHoya06
Premium Member
 
Posts: 712
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 23:02
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1084
All-game rating: 1140
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: PDL 2. Round 2 Game 3. AAR

Postby JoeHoya06 » 04 Apr 2018, 06:08

As for the game itself...

I've been on the site for about a year and a half, and have gone through various periods of playing multiple games at once and periods of playing zero games for a stretch. I had also never played the game, either live or online, before joining the site (I've still never played live before). I was always interested in it, but good luck convincing six of my friends to be as well!

As such, I'm still pretty new to the game compared to a lot of folks on the site. My tactics are average, but where I've had success is the diplomacy part. Take a look at my record: I've gotten into draws in nearly a third of the games I've played, but also never soloed, and never come particularly close. I thought the league would be a good chance to get games in against folks who are of a similar ranking to me for one reason or another – maybe they're tactically sound but struggle to keep up diplomatically, maybe they're average at both, etc. – and to use the opportunity to improve. I also wanted to try some things I've never done before, which means that when I drew Germany, I thought, "hey, this Sealion I read about sounds fun!"

So that was my first inclination: work with Russia and France to get on the island and eliminate England ASAP. However, what I've found is that, regardless of your plans out of the chute, you still have to, you know, work with people. As important as a sound tactical plan is, if you don't have good communication with someone, it's all gonna burn down rather quickly. Now, this can stem from any number of factors, but in this case, Russia immediately came out with the idea that he doesn't trust when people make promises of territory like I did when I offered him Scandinavia. To me, territory is the currency of the game; why would he get on board if I didn't offer him anything? What would entice him to do what I was proposing over what England was proposing if he wasn't interested in making a deal?

It was clear to me that things weren't going to work out between us, so I went in the other direction; when England, I believe it was, suggested a Western Triple, I thought, eh, what the hell? France and I had been in fairly frequent contact early – he was on board with the Sealion, and he and I remained allied through the duration of the game, speaking multiple times on the topic of whether or not we should trust England, and whether or not the time was right to move against him. Ultimately – and obviously! – it didn't happen.

Once the game got started, I don't really have much to add to Shyvve's original post. I was the one constantly under threat/fire due to geography, and did my best to run interference for the group for as long as possible, but the board spoke much louder!

I did work to try and get the Turk to turn on Austria, but I won't take credit for it actually happening. Okay, I'll take like 2% credit and pretend I put the idea in his head even if I didn't. ;)

France and I did know it was coming, and I didn't want to tell England because of the aforementioned "should we still trust him?" conversations. I also didn't want to look like an idiot and tell England "dude, wait'll you see this!" just to find out Turkey had been jerking our collective chains.

I then pushed for the four-way draw because looking at the board, it was pretty clear who was most easily targeted for a paring-down. England talked about us still moving against Turkey, but I think both France and I knew it would be a slog that neither of us seemed up for. Maybe his IRL travels* contributed to it, but for me, it was the idea of trying to move forward while also not having the others roll up my back.

Once we got to a certain point, I saw that England had the chance to stab me for three or four centers, but that I could defend it, along with France's help, at the expense of any forward movement. I couldn't decide whether or not to truly trust England, so I decided to throw it out there in the group message, either to talk it out, or deter England from trying it if he was considering it. The conversation was a good one, and all was well...for a year, anyway!

I knew that there was likely no way England could resist the stab when it did happen, and at that point the best I could do was save maybe two of the centers involved. I decided to hope for the best, and it didn't go my way. I lobbied to keep some centers for the tiebreaker count – I had been doing a whole lot of diplomatic lifting, and everyone seemed decent enough to consider the offer – and the winners were gracious enough to do so. I did try to put some terms on it, though: if France wanted to keep fighting, I told everyone I was prepared to assist him in any way, but he was willing to accept the draw, so I did as well. If he had kept up the fight, I would have sent approximately a billion messages to Turkey, trying to turn him against England, so maybe it's for the best - at least as far as Turkey's inbox was concerned!

All told, kind of a strange game in many ways, but ultimately, a I guess fair result based on how it played out. Honestly, seeing Shyvve's initial post about wanting to prevent me and the others from getting into a draw kinda put the game in a different light for me – feels like I never really had a fair shake, in retrospect – but at the same time, I don't know that he knew which power I was, or that he'd ever have been able to figure it out, so it comes out in the wash. Plus, he totally biffed it based on who he ended up drawing with, so now I'm just a little salty that I was the one that got left out! :lol:

*Speaking of, who wrote the little travel journal in the shoutbox?
We're the builders of their destiny.

Gold Classicist, Mafia forum interloper
User avatar
JoeHoya06
Premium Member
 
Posts: 712
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 23:02
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1084
All-game rating: 1140
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: PDL 2. Round 2 Game 3. AAR

Postby mjparrett » 04 Apr 2018, 15:06

Hi all. I want to chip in 2 things here.

I've already addressed the surrender, and while I wasn't overly pleased I can't make anyone play against their will and it has been discussed. So I move on:

Metagaming. Shyvve - Nanook is correct. If this was a standalone game, what you did would have been a breach. But you know that, and know you as I do, appreciate you are not that type of player and wouldn't do that. So you HAVEN'T cheated, and I don't think anyone is accusing you of such behaviour.

But this is a league - and of course this will come into it. I think in this case Shyvve's actions were perfectly fine - he wants to maximise his league position. I have seen PDET/PDES games with a very similar trait, and no-one seemed to object then. We have the protection of anon countries, so anyone worried about being targeted should disguise their comms etc. Someone made the suggestion they should be full anon with someone out of the league organising the fixtures (at least for my division). That is a possibility. Considering it was discussed at the league start, I think people need to be aware of this sort of play. @JoeHoya mentions you hadn't even considered that... now you will!

And a quick follow on from the German perspective. That was the idea of the league - to play people with similar skills to yourself and improve. I'm not amazing at this game either and also want to learn from people I play with. But you made the worst possible choice as Germany to agree to a WT - they will always end up with France, or more likely England, stabbing you. Germany should never accept the WT proposal.

You mention tactics are weaker, and it is your diplomacy that is stronger. Well then you had a few choices - you could have been up front with England with a "WTs always end badly for Germany, so no thanks", or "WTs usually end badly for Germany, so how can we avoid that. E.g. certain DMZs to make me feel safe". I probably would have gone for the "sure sounds like a good plan" and then done everything I could to get the SeaLion back on. Sounds like you tried that slightly but didn't click with Russia. That happens sometimes. But F/G v E still would have been good for you, and makes sense from a board perspective - England sitting behind you is a threat.

But overall a very interesting AAR read.
mjparrett
 
Posts: 381
Joined: 01 Mar 2017, 20:05
Location: Scotland
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1436
All-game rating: 1474
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to PDL AARs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests