PDL 1, Round 3, Game 1. AAR

[Jack007]

Don't worry, greggybear, the hounds are howling no matter what you do. Just imagine for a second, how much more they would have howled if you had gone for the solo. They would have started an investigation by the cheater hunters. Been there, done that, nothing new under the sun.

Just wait a little bit, and the hounds will stop howling and go into the next phase, which is "Shame about their own Shabbiness".

[Nanook]

I wonder if it would be worth it for me to discuss with dipsy or another moderator why multiple players seem to view getting a substitute and then returning to the game when the substitute is no longer required as akin to cheating. It's very disheartening, and it's not much fun having folks attack me for trying to do the best I could with a really frustrating health situation that still isn't completely resolved and is providing me with enough stress in real life that I don't need it here as well.

It’s absolutely how it’s designed to work.

If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say that people are more riled up about this because it happened in a league game (with your sub a player also in the league), as opposed to in a normal pickup game.

But yeah, ultimately you obviously had RL issues to deal with, and got someone to sub for you while you dealt with those issues, then came back when you could. That’s how the system is designed to work—it’s actually not designed for game long subs, it’s meant to be used primarily for two to four or five week needs.


People might have sour grapes about the changes in who they’re negotiation with (and I can empathize with the opposite situation, where someone says they are coming back then never do), but from a cursory look...looks to me like you used the sub system completely as it’s intended to be used.

[Strategus]

@ Greggybear - you would have deserved the win if you had got it. But you decided to accept a draw. Not a win. In Diplomacy, a players deserves whatever they get. Because they got it.

[Don Juan of Austria]

@ Greggybear - you would have deserved the win if you had got it. But you decided to accept a draw. Not a win. In Diplomacy, a players deserves whatever they get. Because they got it.

Provocative opinion.

[Strategus]

@ Greggybear - you would have deserved the win if you had got it. But you decided to accept a draw. Not a win. In Diplomacy, a players deserves whatever they get. Because they got it.

Provocative opinion.

Why provocative?

[boldblade]

@ Greggybear - you would have deserved the win if you had got it. But you decided to accept a draw. Not a win. In Diplomacy, a players deserves whatever they get. Because they got it.

Unless the game is a sham

[Strategus]

@ Greggybear - you would have deserved the win if you had got it. But you decided to accept a draw. Not a win. In Diplomacy, a players deserves whatever they get. Because they got it.

Unless the game is a sham

Shazam.

[Don Juan of Austria]

@ Greggybear - you would have deserved the win if you had got it. But you decided to accept a draw. Not a win. In Diplomacy, a players deserves whatever they get. Because they got it.

Provocative opinion.

Why provocative?

Because you're bringing up the whole "draw/solo, are they both "wins" or just the solo?" can of worms.

[boldblade]

How is this still a can of worms? A win is a win, a draw is a draw and loss is a loss. Why is that difficult to accept?

[Jack007]

How is this still a can of worms? A win is a win, a draw is a draw and loss is a loss. Why is that difficult to accept?

Because Calhamer considered a draw a shared win.