I think I now understand Cohen

[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

[archaeolept]

storm, there is no historical analogy for throwing a game: ie. vacating a front, sending national treasuries; all in order to make good the threat to do so. I don't even know where to begin in saying how wrongheaded the claim of historical validation is.

[Stormbinder]

archaeolept said:
storm, there is no historical analogy for throwing a game: ie. vacating a front, sending national treasuries; all in order to make good the threat to do so. I don't even know where to begin in saying how wrongheaded the claim of historical validation is.

Sure there are. Countries and rulers went to the great lengths to ensure screwing of their arch-enemy when faced with certain defeats. And usually the only way to get such revenge would be to help the rival or the enemy of your enemy. Just think about it Archae - how else could you possibly get revenge from "beyond the grave"?!?


What more, people do it left in right in dominion, sending gems/items to your enemy's rivals when faced with cerain defeat, as they indicated even here on this thread. Hell, in our game Cohen did it when you have defeated him, by sending all his gems/items to Pangeya. Was I happy about it? No, since Pangeya is my neigbor and one of my rivals. But I think it was up to Cohen what to do with his national treasury. Other players do this often as well, it is a pretty common thing in Dom2.


But we have to separate threatening to send gems/item and threatening to go AI while having one of the largest empires in the world. They are totally different, and I made clear that I agree that the 2nd situation is indeed unethical, especially in the game with rules such as ours.

Just my two cents.

[archaeolept]

storm, do not elide the question. please give me a specific historical analogy for an action such as Zap was threatening to do. ie. names, places, etc.

since, in fact if anything you were the arch-enemy, as I had not been in any conflict at all, your claim of historical basis is especially weak.

As well, no one, least of all me, claimed that sending gems and items is not a legitimate and/or common tactic; or that there was something wrong w/ sending the remnants of your wealth to an ally when you are about to lose. Neither of these is appropriate to the present situation. Cohen had relatively few resources at the end, and he did not send until he had truly been defeated.

Zap did not threaten to send "some gems" or whatever. He threatened to throw the game such that you would receive his whole empire; which is even now one of the largest and most powerful in the game. You yourself said that that was not how you wished to win. It is not "name calling" to say that such behaviour is unsportsmanlike, childish, or petulant. It is every bit as bad as threatening to go AI: both do great damage to the game. In fact, throwing a game does the greater harm.

[Cainehill]

Historically, I think it's damn rare, to say the least, for a nation to say "If you attack me, I'm giving all my gold, weapons and ships to so-and-so so they can destroy you".

They used their weapons and ships in battle themselves. The gold, they may have given to another nation as an inducement to the other to ally with them, but they did _NOT_ say, "If you attack me, I'm giving so-and-so all my gold so they can conquer the world."

There's a difference between sending gifts to someone who may avenge you ("France may destroy me in the month to come; in case they do, here is the location of weapon stashes in the mountains, and the information about their plans that my spies have gathered...") and de facto threatening suicide by promising to give all your resources to someone else in retaliation.

Germany didn't send all their gold to Japan when it was obvious they were going to lose. The Confederates didn't threaten to give everything to England and France if the Union didn't back off.

I do think Arch over-reacted to Lintman's post, which was _NOT_ advocating throwing the game, but frankly, threatening to throw the game is a bit of a childish tantrum. I expect I would have attacked with a vengeance, forcing him to decide whether or not to _really_ send everything over and totally throw the game away, and then avoided playing with the person again.

[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.

[archaeolept]

"At least I have never resorted to name calling like the above post"

Firstly, my statement as stands is correct. It does not itself call any names, but merely asserts the fact that "threatening to throw a game" is a common tactic amongst children and bad players. do you deny it is a common tactic, or that it is the sort of thing children or sore losers do?

Secondly, it is clear that you yourself have been resorting to insults. here are a few:

"Arch, do you understand English very well?"

Actually, there would be little doubt that I understand English rather better than you do, as far as that goes. It is not especially relevant, however. and:

"What exactly are you smoking anyway?"

which is a classic ad hominem.

"ravings" - another nice little bit of implicit name-calling on your part


As well,
"Tell me one single thing in the above post which is childish and immature."

[referring to lintman's post] - I never claimed that lintman's suggestions were themselves childish and immature - those adjectives were restricted to Zapmeister's threat to throw the game to his opponent. Obviously you seem fine w/ such tactics. My problem w/ lintman's suggestions as to going kamikaze were that these could reinforce Zap's already evident tendencies towards this.

Now, you may consider zap's propensity to quit from committments and immediate resort to threats of throwing a game as indicative of being an "excellent player." I would only suggest that this shows more about what you consider good than it shows about anything else...

" do find it sad that arch's inflamatory Posts have driven off an excellent MP player. "

lolz++ This is a classic bit of historical revisionism. In case you didn't notice, Zapmeister had already said he wanted to abandon the game, a la cohen, before any of my so-called "inflamatory" Posts. Cart before the horse?
Obviously, the original "inflamation" was Zapmeisters prediliction to threats of game-throwing. Then his whining about not being able to deal w/ Storm's handful of Van's and one Air Queen. Then his wanting to give up and go home because he was receiving the same sort of pummeling he had previously been dishing out to Arcos and Marignon.