I think I now understand Cohen

[Zapmeister]

The Panther said:
So, guess what happens? The very move my 'ally' is supposed to attack our mutual enemy, he suddenly quits without ANY warning at all. He sends an in-game message to me, saying he was sorry.

Fair enough, but that's not what I'm doing.

[archaeolept]

actually worse, given that you've previously threatened to "throw the game", first to storm, and now, for instance if you follow Lintman's horrible advice, maybe to someone else.

frankly, we all invest a lot of time in these games for some entertainment, and because the game is so fascinating. to have it end w/ someone, say, throwing the game or giving all their stuff to another player who is already a top contender or such like, would be horrible. i'd likely just quit and know whom not to play w/ in future games.

[Zapmeister]

archaeolept said:
actually worse, given that you've previously threatened to "throw the game", first to storm, and now, for instance if you follow Lintman's horrible advice, maybe to someone else.

You think the kingmaker threat is unethical? A lot of folks disagree but either way don't worry, you'll not find yourself in any more games with me.

[archaeolept]

yes. threatening to "throw a game" is piss poor sportsmanship. its like a child's temper tantrum.

being a "kingmaker" is a different thing entirely. in such a case you can perhaps parlay a minor position to one's own advantage by drawing the attention of numerous suitors for your support.

you instead said you would throw the game to storm if other players didn't agree to have things go your way. I find it very amusing that even so you were unable to strengthen your position.

[Zapmeister]

archaeolept said:
yes. threatening to "throw a game" is piss poor sportsmanship. its like a child's temper tantrum.

It's also a bog-standard tactic in boardgames and Online games alike - I'm surprised you haven't encountered it before (if you haven't).

But this thread wasn't supposed to be about the kingmaker tactic, it was about the extent of the obligation to play on when you're not having fun.

[archaeolept]

yes. threatening to throw a game is a common tactic amongst children and bad players everywhere

[Stormbinder]

archaeolept said:
yes. threatening to throw a game is a common tactic amongst children and bad players everywhere

I don't think calling names is very productive Archae.

Frankly I never used such tactic myself in any of my games, but I don't see it as being too unethical, especially when there are no other choices left to avoid disastorious 1 vs 4 war, including 2 major powers. As I said, it happend historicaly, and quite often. In particular in european history very often 3rd countires (large and small) played two major competing countries against each other to pursue their own goals, using similar "kingmaking" tactics and threats, often successefuly.

The fact that I din't want to take advantage of it and worked to avoid it doesn't mean that I consider it unethical.


Note that it is very different from current situation though. Threating to give your items or territory to your rival to avoid disastorious 4 vs 1 war is one thing. Going AI while being one of the largest nation, especailly in the game with specific "no quiters, everybody stick to the end, no matter sweet one or bitter one" rules to which you have agreed and which everybody honored, is totally different. Let's not confuse these two things together.

Regards,
Stormbinder

[The Panther]

archaeolept said:
yes. threatening to throw a game is a common tactic amongst children and bad players everywhere

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I only flame those deemed worthy (with myself as the sole judge on this). At least I have never resorted to name calling like the above post, for I like to be far more subtle than that!

I do find it sad that arch's inflamatory Posts have driven off an excellent MP player. My counsel to Zapmeister is to ignore the ravings of arch. There are plenty of decent people in this game, you just have to find them and avoid the ones who aren't pleasant.

I am glad to see that arch's knee-jerk reaction did not drive LintMan away too. As for LintMan, I would suggest sticking your toe into the MP world on Mose Hansen. It is entertaining and not all that time consuming with most games being set at a turn every 1 or 2 days. And you should find a newbie game on there at some point in the very near future.

[Zapmeister]

archaeolept said:
you instead said you would throw the game to storm if other players didn't agree to have things go your way.

Now this is quite untrue. When I threatened you, I was facing 4:1 nations against me. I was obviously history if I didn't succeed. This isn't the childish desire to have everything one's own way, it's the only tactic available to survive.

[Stormbinder]

Zapmeister said:

You think the kingmaker threat is unethical? A lot of folks disagree but either way don't worry, you'll not find yourself in any more games with me.

Personally I think kingmaker threat was ethical. After all simular situations happened histrically quite often, so personally don't have much problems with it. It is just that I didn't want to benefit from that situation either, that's why I played active shuttle diplomacy between Archaeolept and Zapmeister, to avoid having the victory in this game thrown on my laps back than.


But going AI while being one of the largest nations in "no quiters" game is a different matter, IMO. However it looks to me that Zap is likely to reconsider his decision, in which case I would certanly appreciate it.


Regards,
Stormbinder