Binary vs Grey thinking...

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Over the last year or so, I've enjoyed reading this newsgroup. It is
often quite informative and has improved my game markedly.

Oddly it's not an improvement in my understanding of the rules, or any
growth in my raw tactical abilities that really blossomed... It is my
understanding of the PSYCHOLOGY of the game that has grown.

I think the most important distinction I've learned to spot is the
difference in style for dedicated "all-or-nothing" soloists, and the folks
who are glad to just survive to the endgame... and for whom being a
participant in a draw is rewarding.

Arrogance seems to be the defining characteristic.

Seven people start a game, and the dedicated soloist assumes he can be the
single victor.

I have participated in 6 pbem dip games this year as a starting player...
I have survived to the endgame in all but one of them. I managed to play
into a draw in 2 of them. I felt rewarded to have done *as* *well* *as*
*I* *did*.

I've seen many soloists declare that anything not a solo win is a loss...
I disagree. My "small victories" tide me over and whet my appetite for
the day when I'll get my own shot at the whole thing.

I don't think Diplomacy will ever be a useful general purpose diagnostic
tool for psychological disorders. But it does a remarkable job of sorting
out the megalomanics from the sheep.

Gene P.

--
Alcore Nilth - The Mad Alchemist of Gevbeck
alcore@uurth.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Gene P. wrote:
> Over the last year or so, I've enjoyed reading this newsgroup. It is

> often quite informative and has improved my game markedly.
>
> Oddly it's not an improvement in my understanding of the rules, or
any
> growth in my raw tactical abilities that really blossomed... It is
my
> understanding of the PSYCHOLOGY of the game that has grown.
>
> I think the most important distinction I've learned to spot is the
> difference in style for dedicated "all-or-nothing" soloists, and the
folks
> who are glad to just survive to the endgame... and for whom being a
> participant in a draw is rewarding.

Playing, whether you win or not, is rewarding, if you try your best,
especially against the best opposition you can find. No one is in it
for the money, after all. The question is how you view the results. I
may be very satisfied with my play, even if I am eliminated. I am just
not happy with a result other than a win.




> Arrogance seems to be the defining characteristic.
>
> Seven people start a game, and the dedicated soloist assumes he can
be the
> single victor.

Of course. If you don't think you can be the winner (newbies who are
learning the game excepted), why play?



> I have participated in 6 pbem dip games this year as a starting
player...
> I have survived to the endgame in all but one of them. I managed to
play
> into a draw in 2 of them. I felt rewarded to have done *as* *well*
*as*
> *I* *did*.

And if I play as well as I can, I am satisfied with my effort, though I
will not be happy with the result.



> I've seen many soloists declare that anything not a solo win is a
loss...
> I disagree. My "small victories" tide me over and whet my appetite
for
> the day when I'll get my own shot at the whole thing.

I think what I have said, as opposed to others, is that draws,
survivals and eliminations are all failures to win of rough
equivalence.


> I don't think Diplomacy will ever be a useful general purpose
diagnostic
> tool for psychological disorders. But it does a remarkable job of
sorting
> out the megalomanics from the sheep.

Maybe so, LOL, maybe so.

P.S. Does that make you a sheep? -[;^)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Gene P." <alcore@uurth.com> writes:


>Over the last year or so, I've enjoyed reading this newsgroup. It is
>often quite informative and has improved my game markedly.

Well, thanks, Gene, we're pleased to have you listening in.
I'm also pleased but slightly amazed that you can make some sense
of these threads..... I'm not sure I can, and I contribute to
most of them.... ;-)

>Oddly it's not an improvement in my understanding of the rules, or any
>growth in my raw tactical abilities that really blossomed... It is my
>understanding of the PSYCHOLOGY of the game that has grown.

Ah, good, that's the ticket to understanding the game, I'm
sure you know I agree with that as a key.

>I think the most important distinction I've learned to spot is the
>difference in style for dedicated "all-or-nothing" soloists, and the folks
>who are glad to just survive to the endgame... and for whom being a
>participant in a draw is rewarding.

And you've also learned to spot it in the players in your games?
Because that is the application that proves the rule. I find it
pretty easy. You don't want to ask people directly, but you can tell.

>Arrogance seems to be the defining characteristic.

Yeah, that's one characteristic, but I don't think it is the only
one, just the most obvious one.

>Seven people start a game, and the dedicated soloist assumes he can be the
>single victor.

Visualization is 9/10ths of the Law!

>I have participated in 6 pbem dip games this year as a starting player...
>I have survived to the endgame in all but one of them. I managed to play
>into a draw in 2 of them. I felt rewarded to have done *as* *well* *as*
>*I* *did*.

And that's where David Cohen and I diverge. You should feel rewarded
for this, you did well. You want to do even better, but you didn't
just end up as road kill.

>I've seen many soloists declare that anything not a solo win is a loss...
>I disagree. My "small victories" tide me over and whet my appetite for
>the day when I'll get my own shot at the whole thing.

And that TOO is part of the psychology!!! If you do satisfice (another
term from that field) and end up being satisfied doing just that, this
will retard the game for you and your opponents, but I don't see you
doing that.

>I don't think Diplomacy will ever be a useful general purpose diagnostic
>tool for psychological disorders. But it does a remarkable job of sorting
>out the megalomanics from the sheep.

>Gene P.

Oh, why not??? I think we could hook some psychiatrists on it!
Maybe even create a whole new medical specialty!!

Jim-Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Jim Burgess wrote:

> Oh, why not??? I think we could hook some psychiatrists on it!

Yes, just imagine - a bunch of shrinks and an economist discussing
Diplomacy!!!

THE HORROR....

;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Gene P. wrote:
> Over the last year or so, I've enjoyed reading this newsgroup. It is
> often quite informative and has improved my game markedly.
>
> Oddly it's not an improvement in my understanding of the rules, or any
> growth in my raw tactical abilities that really blossomed... It is my
> understanding of the PSYCHOLOGY of the game that has grown.
>
> I think the most important distinction I've learned to spot is the
> difference in style for dedicated "all-or-nothing" soloists, and the
> folks who are glad to just survive to the endgame... and for whom
> being a participant in a draw is rewarding.

This is a key insight, in my opinion. Paul Windsor addressed it in
his article, "What's Your Point?",
http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S1999M/Windsor/point.html
and while I don't necessarily agree with his definitions, he does
raise the point that some people play the game for the joy of the
social interaction, and not with a win/draw/lose perspective at all.
Others play because they enjoy the lying and stabbing.

> Arrogance seems to be the defining characteristic.

Probably too strong a generalization. While Soloist/Romantics
tend to seem arrogant, I've been accused of arrogance myself,
and not unjustly, but I'm not a Soloist, by any means. ;-)

> Seven people start a game, and the dedicated soloist assumes
> he can be the single victor.

Oh, I'd bet that Mr. Cohen believes he WILL be the victor at the
start of every game he plays. Anyone who plays with the end
result as his goal should believe he that can solo, if the game
develops in the right way; the soloist believes he can shape the
game to make his goal a reality.

> I've seen many soloists declare that anything not a solo win is a
> loss... I disagree. My "small victories" tide me over and whet my
> appetite for the day when I'll get my own shot at the whole thing.

A large part of the "Soloists Creed" involves insisting that everyone
should play for the solo at almost every moment. They do this, in
part because the more people they convince, the fewer people will
join together to stop their solo-bids. Mr. Cohen simply takes it to
the meta-game level here on r.g.d.

Now that you've learned to distinguish the motivations of each
player at the board, the next step is to figure out how to craft
your negotiating approach to match their motivation, in order to
get them to help you accomplish YOUR goals.

Eric.
--

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Eric Hunter wrote:

<snip>

> A large part of the "Soloists Creed" involves insisting that everyone
> should play for the solo at almost every moment. They do this, in
> part because the more people they convince, the fewer people will
> join together to stop their solo-bids. Mr. Cohen simply takes it to
> the meta-game level here on r.g.d.

Well, it has the opposite effect, if any, on me. I'd generally say that
zero-sum rating systems don't reward a solo enough. But the more I've
read Mr. Cohen's rantings on the web as I've the past several weeks, the
more I'm reminded of the intolerance infecting my country these days.

The failure to see that others may have goals different from one's own,
but still have merit also reminds me of parents whose children either A)
feel forced to rebel so strongly that they end up as drug addicts or B)
try to emulate their parent and end up being even more of a martinet but
less creative than the parent. Of course, if one is lucky enough (being
rich and powerful helps), one has a chance to do A first, and only then B.

In short, though I more or less incline toward Mr. Cohen's goal-set, I
feel slimy even being associated with such a "creed" as it is presented.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

> Well, it has the opposite effect, if any, on me. I'd generally say that
> zero-sum rating systems don't reward a solo enough. But the more I've
> read Mr. Cohen's rantings on the web as I've the past several weeks, the
> more I'm reminded of the intolerance infecting my country these days.

I hate intolerant people. I'd kill them all, if I could. LOL


> In short, though I more or less incline toward Mr. Cohen's goal-set, I
> feel slimy even being associated with such a "creed" as it is presented.

Creed?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

> Oh, I'd bet that Mr. Cohen believes he WILL be the victor at the
> start of every game he plays. Anyone who plays with the end
> result as his goal should believe he that can solo, if the game
> develops in the right way; the soloist believes he can shape the
> game to make his goal a reality.

*Will*? Nope. I am not that good, and I don't think anyone else is either.
But I do believe that I *can* solo.


> A large part of the "Soloists Creed" involves insisting that everyone
> should play for the solo at almost every moment. They do this, in
> part because the more people they convince, the fewer people will
> join together to stop their solo-bids. Mr. Cohen simply takes it to
> the meta-game level here on r.g.d.

I do it so that I will have more fun, because the games tend to be more
fluid and have more exciting play. And I suggest it so that other people
will have more fun.


> Now that you've learned to distinguish the motivations of each
> player at the board, the next step is to figure out how to craft
> your negotiating approach to match their motivation, in order to
> get them to help you accomplish YOUR goals.

Agreed.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Rod Spade <rodspade@acm.org> writes:

>Jim Burgess wrote:

>> Oh, why not??? I think we could hook some psychiatrists on it!

>Yes, just imagine - a bunch of shrinks and an economist discussing
>Diplomacy!!!

>THE HORROR....

>;-)

Indeed, I've spent far too much time in the same room (me an economist)
with psychiatrists. It is VERY dangerous!!!!

Jim-Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Jim Burgess wrote:

>>> Oh, why not??? I think we could hook some psychiatrists on it!
>
>>Yes, just imagine - a bunch of shrinks and an economist discussing
>>Diplomacy!!!
>
>>THE HORROR....
>
> Indeed, I've spent far too much time in the same room (me an economist)
> with psychiatrists. It is VERY dangerous!!!!

Although maybe they could help Jay some....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Gene P." <alcore@uurth.com> wrote in message
newsine.LNX.4.44.0503300944070.9190-100000@uurth.com...
>
> Oddly it's not an improvement in my understanding of the rules, or any
> growth in my raw tactical abilities that really blossomed... It is my
> understanding of the PSYCHOLOGY of the game that has grown.
>

Spot on. Every player has a personality and learning to adapt oneself to it
is important for reading the "tea leaves". In FTF affairs, my experience in
reading the body language in conjuction with the words spoken has given me
good success and I'm rarely surprised. Online play removes that important
visualization and success is more difficult to obtain as one is working with
less information.

> I think the most important distinction I've learned to spot is the
> difference in style for dedicated "all-or-nothing" soloists, and the folks
> who are glad to just survive to the endgame... and for whom being a
> participant in a draw is rewarding.
>

I start every game with the goal of a solo victory. Based on my
interpretations of what is exchanged with the other powers, I map out the 18
centers I'll need as my basic roadmap. Frequently, that goal becomes
unreachable and I'll look to be one of the last 3-4 powers with the idea
that if a plausible chance exists to continue my solo quest, I'll resume my
pursuit. I've had some unusual positions - i.e. as Italy, I've had my armies
in Scandinavia (The game did not present an opportunity to convoy to
England:-(....). I think it important to be open to all possibilities every
season.

> Arrogance seems to be the defining characteristic.
>

While arrogance can be a reliable indicator, I've also had S1901
negotiations where that arrogance could be used against a particular power.
I recall, as Russia, Turkey demanding a DMZ including UKR or they would
attack, and attack they did, overlooking that an attack in isolation is
likely to fail. Eventually, Turkey joined up with me and I stabbed them
later for a most satisfying solo.

> I've seen many soloists declare that anything not a solo win is a loss...
> I disagree. My "small victories" tide me over and whet my appetite for
> the day when I'll get my own shot at the whole thing.

I play for the intellectual challenge. If I have matched wits with a worthy
set of adversaries, I can walk away satisified with my efforts, win lose or
draw. When I don't have time for a full match, I like to take challenging
replacement positions and have my presence felt. A solo is the total
culmination of all the pieces coming together. A draw or elimination, for
me, means that some part of my plan was not realized and that there is good
learning for future matches available from the experience.

Rick Kelly