Forwarding Diplomatic Messages

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

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

This is a subject that may have been discussed to death in previous
years, but I am relatively new the play over the internet, and by
email. I have played postal games with 10 friends for many years and
we do not have time to let each other know what other players are
saying in the current phase of the game.

The question is, what is conventional wisdom on the ethics of player A
forwarding messages from player B to a third player, player C?

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

Some will attack until dead anyone who does it, some will find it unseemly
and/or a sign of inexperience, and some just don't care.

Perhaps the best way to go about it is to ask each player in one of your
earliest emails to them how they feel about forwarding, and act accordingly.

"Dudley Wright" <dudleydowright620@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b8c1ef0a.0408070720.49debc80@posting.google.com...
> This is a subject that may have been discussed to death in previous
> years, but I am relatively new the play over the internet, and by
> email. I have played postal games with 10 friends for many years and
> we do not have time to let each other know what other players are
> saying in the current phase of the game.
>
> The question is, what is conventional wisdom on the ethics of player A
> forwarding messages from player B to a third player, player C?
>
> Dudley
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> writes:

David has it precisely right. So it is a VERY touchy issue
where one can "go wrong" by doing it and have people see it
not at all the way you meant it.

In general, most experienced players cut people some slack
if they do it when inexperienced or through naivete. If
you're an experienced player and you do it, those who see
it VERY negatively will be VERY harsh about it.

It does create a certain increase in the "level of the game"
because when you pass a note you can CHANGE it, EDIT it, or
even CREATE it out of whole cloth. Thus, the receiver of
a passed note has to consider this level of the game tactic.
In general, I am in favor of nearly all tactics that increase
the level of the game (in simple terms lines of "he said,
she said, he said, she said...) EXCEPT this one.

In any case, don't pass notes out of pure lazyness, do it
with a purpose, or take the risks at your peril.

Jim-Bob

>Some will attack until dead anyone who does it, some will find it unseemly
>and/or a sign of inexperience, and some just don't care.

>Perhaps the best way to go about it is to ask each player in one of your
>earliest emails to them how they feel about forwarding, and act accordingly.

>"Dudley Wright" <dudleydowright620@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b8c1ef0a.0408070720.49debc80@posting.google.com...
>> This is a subject that may have been discussed to death in previous
>> years, but I am relatively new the play over the internet, and by
>> email. I have played postal games with 10 friends for many years and
>> we do not have time to let each other know what other players are
>> saying in the current phase of the game.
>>
>> The question is, what is conventional wisdom on the ethics of player A
>> forwarding messages from player B to a third player, player C?
>>
>> Dudley
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

In article <cf65b7$h52$2@pcls4.std.com>, Jim Burgess wrote:

> In any case, don't pass notes out of pure lazyness, do it
> with a purpose, or take the risks at your peril.

Just out of random curiousity, has anyone here ever tried to modify a note
and then forward it? I've never had the guts to try out this trick. Is it
more effective than saying "Germany told me such-and-so" when in fact
germany did no such thing?

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

Tim Miller <tmiller@otaku.freeshell.org> writes:

>In article <cf65b7$h52$2@pcls4.std.com>, Jim Burgess wrote:

>> In any case, don't pass notes out of pure lazyness, do it
>> with a purpose, or take the risks at your peril.

>Just out of random curiousity, has anyone here ever tried to modify a note
>and then forward it? I've never had the guts to try out this trick. Is it
>more effective than saying "Germany told me such-and-so" when in fact
>germany did no such thing?

>-Tim Miller

I've SEEN it done in games I've been a part of, but since I never
pass notes and messages, I've never done it, of course.

;-)

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

Of course.


"Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:cf6gq5$stp$1@pcls4.std.com...
> Tim Miller <tmiller@otaku.freeshell.org> writes:
>
> >In article <cf65b7$h52$2@pcls4.std.com>, Jim Burgess wrote:
>
> >> In any case, don't pass notes out of pure lazyness, do it
> >> with a purpose, or take the risks at your peril.
>
> >Just out of random curiousity, has anyone here ever tried to modify a
note
> >and then forward it? I've never had the guts to try out this trick. Is it
> >more effective than saying "Germany told me such-and-so" when in fact
> >germany did no such thing?
>
> >-Tim Miller
>
> I've SEEN it done in games I've been a part of, but since I never
> pass notes and messages, I've never done it, of course.
>
> ;-)
>
> Jim-Bob
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

In article <slrnchdb7t.9nm.tmiller@otaku.freeshell.org>,
Tim Miller <tmiller@otaku.freeshell.org> wrote:

>Just out of random curiousity, has anyone here ever tried to modify a note
>and then forward it? I've never had the guts to try out this trick. Is it
>more effective than saying "Germany told me such-and-so" when in fact
>germany did no such thing?

I believe this was used against me once, and impressed the heck out of the
newbie player who received the modified press--at least, the message
he described as having been forwarded to him bore no resemblance to anything
I had ever sent, and I don't think he was lying. But I'd already determined
that that particular player swung in the wind like a weathervane and wasn't
counting on much from him.

I won the game, though I don't think the forged press had much to do with
it (that player was long gone in the critical phase). I was clearly
losing throughout the entire opening and middlegame, though.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@eskimo.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

In message <cf7ohv$ise$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu>, Mary K. Kuhner
<mkkuhner@kingman.gs.washington.edu> writes
>In article <slrnchdb7t.9nm.tmiller@otaku.freeshell.org>,
>Tim Miller <tmiller@otaku.freeshell.org> wrote:
>
>>Just out of random curiousity, has anyone here ever tried to modify a note
>>and then forward it? I've never had the guts to try out this trick. Is it
>>more effective than saying "Germany told me such-and-so" when in fact
>>germany did no such thing?
>
>I believe this was used against me once, and impressed the heck out of the
>newbie player who received the modified press--at least, the message
>he described as having been forwarded to him bore no resemblance to anything
>I had ever sent, and I don't think he was lying. But I'd already determined
>that that particular player swung in the wind like a weathervane and wasn't
>counting on much from him.
>
>I won the game, though I don't think the forged press had much to do with
>it (that player was long gone in the critical phase). I was clearly
>losing throughout the entire opening and middlegame, though.

The people who believe that message-passing is a definite no-no - how do
they view passing what purports to be a message but is in fact a total
forgery?

Nick
--
Nick Wedd nick@maproom.co.uk
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Nick Wedd <nick@maproom.co.uk> writes:

>In message <cf7ohv$ise$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu>, Mary K. Kuhner
><mkkuhner@kingman.gs.washington.edu> writes
>>In article <slrnchdb7t.9nm.tmiller@otaku.freeshell.org>,
>>Tim Miller <tmiller@otaku.freeshell.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Just out of random curiousity, has anyone here ever tried to modify a note
>>>and then forward it? I've never had the guts to try out this trick. Is it
>>>more effective than saying "Germany told me such-and-so" when in fact
>>>germany did no such thing?
>>
>>I believe this was used against me once, and impressed the heck out of the
>>newbie player who received the modified press--at least, the message
>>he described as having been forwarded to him bore no resemblance to anything
>>I had ever sent, and I don't think he was lying. But I'd already determined
>>that that particular player swung in the wind like a weathervane and wasn't
>>counting on much from him.
>>
>>I won the game, though I don't think the forged press had much to do with
>>it (that player was long gone in the critical phase). I was clearly
>>losing throughout the entire opening and middlegame, though.

>The people who believe that message-passing is a definite no-no - how do
>they view passing what purports to be a message but is in fact a total
>forgery?

>Nick
>--
>Nick Wedd nick@maproom.co.uk

Ah, excellent question, I view them entirely interchangeably,
which in Game Theory terms is the best way to drop the level.

If Germany sends me a message as France that purports to have
been sent to him by England, I defuse that message and make the
impact on Germany greatest if I ASSUME that Germany has forged
this message of whole cloth, and I tell England:

Germany has just forged this message purporting to be from you
to him, and passed it along to me. How could he do such an
evil, vile, despicable thing?? (and I do it instantly, as
soon as I receive it from Germany)

See how that immediately puts Germany on the defensive no
matter what he has done? And, in my view ideally, the
EF alliance is forged tighter against Germany for perfidy,
as he has been deceptive either way.

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

"Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:cf8d5t$lpf$1@pcls4.std.com...
> Nick Wedd <nick@maproom.co.uk> writes:
>
> >In message <cf7ohv$ise$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu>, Mary K. Kuhner
> ><mkkuhner@kingman.gs.washington.edu> writes
> >>In article <slrnchdb7t.9nm.tmiller@otaku.freeshell.org>,
> >>Tim Miller <tmiller@otaku.freeshell.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Just out of random curiousity, has anyone here ever tried to modify a
note
> >>>and then forward it? I've never had the guts to try out this trick. Is
it
> >>>more effective than saying "Germany told me such-and-so" when in fact
> >>>germany did no such thing?
> >>
> >>I believe this was used against me once, and impressed the heck out of
the
> >>newbie player who received the modified press--at least, the message
> >>he described as having been forwarded to him bore no resemblance to
anything
> >>I had ever sent, and I don't think he was lying. But I'd already
determined
> >>that that particular player swung in the wind like a weathervane and
wasn't
> >>counting on much from him.
> >>
> >>I won the game, though I don't think the forged press had much to do
with
> >>it (that player was long gone in the critical phase). I was clearly
> >>losing throughout the entire opening and middlegame, though.
>
> >The people who believe that message-passing is a definite no-no - how do
> >they view passing what purports to be a message but is in fact a total
> >forgery?
>
> >Nick
> >--
> >Nick Wedd nick@maproom.co.uk
>
> Ah, excellent question, I view them entirely interchangeably,
> which in Game Theory terms is the best way to drop the level.
>
> If Germany sends me a message as France that purports to have
> been sent to him by England, I defuse that message and make the
> impact on Germany greatest if I ASSUME that Germany has forged
> this message of whole cloth, and I tell England:
>
> Germany has just forged this message purporting to be from you
> to him, and passed it along to me. How could he do such an
> evil, vile, despicable thing?? (and I do it instantly, as
> soon as I receive it from Germany)
>
> See how that immediately puts Germany on the defensive no
> matter what he has done? And, in my view ideally, the
> EF alliance is forged tighter against Germany for perfidy,
> as he has been deceptive either way.
>
> Jim-Bob

I was once playing a Gunboat variant with a 5% chance of messages going awry
(they were sent through the GM), and an opponent started sending messages as
though from me, knowing that a sufficient volume would ensure messages went
awry. In the end I went for a public release of our entire correspondence...
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Tim Miller" <tmiller@otaku.freeshell.org> wrote in message
news:slrnchdb7t.9nm.tmiller@otaku.freeshell.org...
> In article <cf65b7$h52$2@pcls4.std.com>, Jim Burgess wrote:
>
> > In any case, don't pass notes out of pure lazyness, do it
> > with a purpose, or take the risks at your peril.
>
> Just out of random curiousity, has anyone here ever tried to modify a note
> and then forward it? I've never had the guts to try out this trick. Is it
> more effective than saying "Germany told me such-and-so" when in fact
> germany did no such thing?
>
> -Tim Miller

In one of my games Turkey actually broadcast verbatim one of my messages to
him (I was Austria). I returned the favour by broadcasting one of "his" - a
complete fabrication of course. I was rather pleased by the way I captured
his style and, ahem, spelling. The resultant Turkish-Russian war was a joy
to behold (as such things always are for Austria).

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

> The question is, what is conventional wisdom on the ethics of player A
> forwarding messages from player B to a third player, player C?
>
> Dudley

Generally considered a slimy tactic. If I'm C and player B is
forwarding player A's mail, I can be sure he's also forwarding my
mail.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

salmoneous@aol.com (salmoneous) writes:

> Generally considered a slimy tactic. If I'm C and player B is
> forwarding player A's mail, I can be sure he's also forwarding my
> mail.

I think that's a moot point. If you're trying to make a pact with player
D, and he gets your mail about ganging up on D to B, so what? It will
still be up to D be to decide who you're lying to, just like before.

Actually, he should trust the mail you send him directly a little bit
more, since he can know it's genuine.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

bkhl@elektrubadur.se (Björn Lindström) wrote in message news:<s388ycmdhke.fsf@numerus.ling.uu.se>...
> salmoneous@aol.com (salmoneous) writes:
> > Generally considered a slimy tactic. If I'm C and player B is
> > forwarding player A's mail, I can be sure he's also forwarding my
> > mail.
>
> I think that's a moot point. If you're trying to make a pact with player
> D, and he gets your mail about ganging up on D to B, so what?

I agree with Salmoneous. The question isn't what to do if someone
forwards your press to a third power. The question is what to do if
someone forwards press from a third power to you when it apparently
wasn't intended for you.

I'll use standard powers, since I get confused with A, B, C, and D.

What if you're France, and in the early part of the game you get an
unsolicited mail from "England" like this?:

<begin message from England>
Hey, France, Germany is trying to form an alliance against you. He
sent me this message:
| Greetings England,
| Let's attack France... I know Italy is on our side. What do
| you say?
| -- der Kaiser
<end message from England>

The "so what", to me is that the early game to me is all about establishing
trust. In the above example, if I'm France, I will assume that England
is forwarding my press to other powers, since he forwarded press from
someone else to me. Thus, I won't trust anything England says for the rest
of the game.

But maybe I take too simplistic a view.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

In article <cf8d5t$lpf$1@pcls4.std.com>,
Jim Burgess <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:

> If Germany sends me a message as France that purports to have
> been sent to him by England, I defuse that message and make the
> impact on Germany greatest if I ASSUME that Germany has forged
> this message of whole cloth, and I tell England:
>
> Germany has just forged this message purporting to be from you
> to him, and passed it along to me. How could he do such an
> evil, vile, despicable thing?? (and I do it instantly, as
> soon as I receive it from Germany)
>
> See how that immediately puts Germany on the defensive no
> matter what he has done? And, in my view ideally, the
> EF alliance is forged tighter against Germany for perfidy,
> as he has been deceptive either way.

I disagree with Jim-Bob's choice here. It depends on the whole game; to
always respond in one particular way gives up the ability to choose to take
diplomatic advantage in other ways that might be better in a particular
situation.

Why did Germany pass the message? Possibly because England is firmly within
the German's camp, but Germany wishes to explore stabbing him? In that
case, informing England of Germany's overture would almost certainly reduce
the chance of bringing such a stab about. There might be a chance of
turning it into an FE stab of Germany, but Jim-Bob's described automatic
response takes away his chance to apply diplomatic judgement to the decision
as to how to proceed.

I think Jim-Bob's habit was formed in an environment where only idiots pass
press, or forge press; perhaps he would reconsider those habits when playing
in other settings.

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

ime@panix.com (Randy Hudson) writes:

>In article <cf8d5t$lpf$1@pcls4.std.com>,
> Jim Burgess <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:

>> If Germany sends me a message as France that purports to have
>> been sent to him by England, I defuse that message and make the
>> impact on Germany greatest if I ASSUME that Germany has forged
>> this message of whole cloth, and I tell England:
>>
>> Germany has just forged this message purporting to be from you
>> to him, and passed it along to me. How could he do such an
>> evil, vile, despicable thing?? (and I do it instantly, as
>> soon as I receive it from Germany)
>>
>> See how that immediately puts Germany on the defensive no
>> matter what he has done? And, in my view ideally, the
>> EF alliance is forged tighter against Germany for perfidy,
>> as he has been deceptive either way.

>I disagree with Jim-Bob's choice here. It depends on the whole game; to
>always respond in one particular way gives up the ability to choose to take
>diplomatic advantage in other ways that might be better in a particular
>situation.

In general, I agree. I probably (definitely?) would only react by
rote in the 1901 stage of the game, without a context to attach it to.

>Why did Germany pass the message? Possibly because England is firmly within
>the German's camp, but Germany wishes to explore stabbing him? In that
>case, informing England of Germany's overture would almost certainly reduce
>the chance of bringing such a stab about. There might be a chance of
>turning it into an FE stab of Germany, but Jim-Bob's described automatic
>response takes away his chance to apply diplomatic judgement to the decision
>as to how to proceed.

Hehehehe, but my diplomatic judgment is so POOR, why would I want to apply
it, better to have a clear set of rules to live by..... ;-) ;-) ;-)

>I think Jim-Bob's habit was formed in an environment where only idiots pass
>press, or forge press; perhaps he would reconsider those habits when playing
>in other settings.

>--
>Randy Hudson

Actually it's formed in a diverse environment where I'm nearly always
playing against people from a variety of Dip communities and
traditions and through a desire NOT to play letter passing games,
a PURE personal preference that is can easily be attacked by others
who don't like tactics that ARE in my toolkit.

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

Randy Hudson wrote:

> Jim Burgess <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>> If Germany sends me a message as France that purports to have
>> been sent to him by England, ... I tell England:
>
> ... Jim-Bob's described automatic
> response takes away his chance to apply diplomatic judgement to the decision
> as to how to proceed.

Jim-Bob just wants you to *think* he always automatically responds that
way. He's takin' it up a level!


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

Rod Spade <rodspade@acm.org> writes:

>Randy Hudson wrote:

>> Jim Burgess <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If Germany sends me a message as France that purports to have
>>> been sent to him by England, ... I tell England:
>>
>> ... Jim-Bob's described automatic
>> response takes away his chance to apply diplomatic judgement to the decision
>> as to how to proceed.

>Jim-Bob just wants you to *think* he always automatically responds that
>way. He's takin' it up a level!


>🙂

Rod, we've played too many games together......

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

Jim Burgess wrote:

> Rod, we've played too many games together......

But not enough of them FTF, I'll warrant....
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Rod Spade <rodspade@acm.org> writes:

>Jim Burgess wrote:

>> Rod, we've played too many games together......

>But not enough of them FTF, I'll warrant....


I know, next year's World DipCon for sure!!! You could come up to
our Boston Massacre one of these years, you know, then we'll be
likely to play each other FTF.

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

Dudley Wright wrote:
>
> The question is, what is conventional wisdom on the ethics of player A
> forwarding messages from player B to a third player, player C?

Ethics?

--
Will Berry
Director of Operations, Techwood Con gaming convention
http://www.techwoodcon.com/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Maybe he means violations of applicable copyright laws. :^)


"Will Berry" <wberry@wberry.org.x> wrote in message
news:vnuTc.14$yh.10@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> Dudley Wright wrote:
> >
> > The question is, what is conventional wisdom on the ethics of player A
> > forwarding messages from player B to a third player, player C?
>
> Ethics?
>
> --
> Will Berry
> Director of Operations, Techwood Con gaming convention
> http://www.techwoodcon.com/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Its a self defeating tactic. Once people find out you forward their mail,
they will stop sending you mail for you to forward. If you ask ten dip
players if they care if you forward their mail, 8 or more will answer - "I
really rather you didn't"

Players will tend to label you as too lazy to conduct proper negotiations,
and will then avoid making any detailed plans with you. They certainly won't
send you mail suggesting you join them in a stab of some third party,
knowing that that letter may simply get sent onward. There is a big gap of
doubt between somone saying. "So and so is planning to stab you", and
forwarding the letter that said that.

In my opinon, one of the giant hurdles that new players to the hobby must
overcome is to recognize the difference between - "May lie and play dirty
tricks" and "Must lie and play dirty tricks".





"Dudley Wright" <dudleydowright620@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b8c1ef0a.0408070720.49debc80@posting.google.com...
> This is a subject that may have been discussed to death in previous
> years, but I am relatively new the play over the internet, and by
> email. I have played postal games with 10 friends for many years and
> we do not have time to let each other know what other players are
> saying in the current phase of the game.
>
> The question is, what is conventional wisdom on the ethics of player A
> forwarding messages from player B to a third player, player C?
>
> Dudley
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Tactics like that are like that Daffy Duck cartoon where he spends the whole
cartoon trying to convince Porky Pig the talent agent that he has to see his
super stupendous act, and at the end he blows himslef to smithereens and
says. "Of course, I can only do it once."


"Randy Hudson" <ime@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cfdarj$pfm$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <cf8d5t$lpf$1@pcls4.std.com>,
> Jim Burgess <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
> > If Germany sends me a message as France that purports to have
> > been sent to him by England, I defuse that message and make the
> > impact on Germany greatest if I ASSUME that Germany has forged
> > this message of whole cloth, and I tell England:
> >
> > Germany has just forged this message purporting to be from you
> > to him, and passed it along to me. How could he do such an
> > evil, vile, despicable thing?? (and I do it instantly, as
> > soon as I receive it from Germany)
> >
> > See how that immediately puts Germany on the defensive no
> > matter what he has done? And, in my view ideally, the
> > EF alliance is forged tighter against Germany for perfidy,
> > as he has been deceptive either way.
>
> I disagree with Jim-Bob's choice here. It depends on the whole game; to
> always respond in one particular way gives up the ability to choose to
take
> diplomatic advantage in other ways that might be better in a particular
> situation.
>
> Why did Germany pass the message? Possibly because England is firmly
within
> the German's camp, but Germany wishes to explore stabbing him? In that
> case, informing England of Germany's overture would almost certainly
reduce
> the chance of bringing such a stab about. There might be a chance of
> turning it into an FE stab of Germany, but Jim-Bob's described automatic
> response takes away his chance to apply diplomatic judgement to the
decision
> as to how to proceed.
>
> I think Jim-Bob's habit was formed in an environment where only idiots
pass
> press, or forge press; perhaps he would reconsider those habits when
playing
> in other settings.
>
> --
> Randy Hudson
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

In article <4124c2c4$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net>, RS <idontthinkso@mail.com> wrote:

>In my opinon, one of the giant hurdles that new players to the hobby must
>overcome is to recognize the difference between - "May lie and play dirty
>tricks" and "Must lie and play dirty tricks".

Not just new players: the correct proportion of lies and dirty tricks
is very personal to each player, and you can't play your best until you
find the right balance. I think the best long-term strategy is to experiment,
playing everything from Mr. Nice to Mr. Slimeball, to get a feeling for
which styles you enjoy and can make work well.

I run a bit on the Mr. Nice end, but lately I've been trying to be a little
slimier, with mixed results. I'm finding that being nice has surprising
capacities to pay off in the late game, whether you're ahead or behind.
Mr. Slimeball tends to be eliminated if his position deteriorates, and gets
strong alliances against him when his position prospers. But I'm just too
aggressive to play like Ken LeMere, much though I admire his results. If I
don't have an enemy I feel stifled.

At a friendly convention game on Saturday I got the best of both worlds.
Austria, a relatively inexperienced player, was allied with me and kept
suggesting moves that were better for me than for him. I kept hemming
and hawing and eventually saying, "Okay, I'll do what you're asking as a
favor to you." He was so pleased with my cooperation that when his position
become hopeless he threw dots to me rather than his enemies, and I was only
stopped at 17 by the time limit. I did feel rather a scuzzball as Ms.
Slimeball raked in Ms. Nice's rewards....

One thing I've learned about my own style is that if there is no surprise
stab in the position, I'll do better by forthrightly declaring war than
by stringing the player along thinking he has an alliance. It's easier to
switch back to being friends if necessary. I experimented for a while with
promising alliances to both other members of the Eastern or Western
triangles, and it never seemed to pay off in the long run (unless I really
meant it).

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@eskimo.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom