[MN-dip] Thanks to all who played

[Ry4an Brase]

I'm replying to two messages at once here.  See my comments interspersed
below.

On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:37:48PM -0600, Kirk Koudelka wrote:
> I can do longer times if that is what others want, just as long as I
> have enough time in advance so I can plan to make it (not an hour late
> like this weekend, doah!).

Agreed.  Times would certainly have to be known in advance.

> If we keep to the six hour slot, I like the idea of 6 centers taken
> from the lowest powers to determine a draw.

I'm not worlds biggest fan of the system, but nor do I think it markedly
removes quality from the game.  I certainly think it's got enough
support to merit another try.

> Also, some expressed interest in get a group playing online.  That
> would be in addition to our local face to face meetings.  Ry4an stated
> he could get someone to GM for us.

I've got a friend who can GM games and lives locally, but if someone has
a contact they know perhaps that'd be a better fit.  I don't want to
lean on this guy too much and he just helped us out by running another
game.

> I would be interested in playing a regular game or a varient (dpjudge
> has 5 players and up varient types).  Timewise I could do orders every
> week.  What do others thin?  

Weekly sounds nice.  Personally I'm not a variants person, but I'll
certainly go where the majority wants on the subject.

> If Ry4an could get a GM, I would be willing to help coordinate the
> before game stuff (so the GM does not have to).  Let me know your
> thoughts on this.

Does anyone else have a GM resource they could tap?  If not I'll contact
my friend about it.

On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 01:36:49PM -0600, Jim Swift wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> I think we should remove the incentive to drag the game.  To that end,
> I propose this:

> 1. We change the six hour timeline to be the minimum commitment.
> After that, players are free to leave with no grief.  Players can
> leave their empires in the following states:
> a. Go civil disorder.
> b. Write a standing set of orders.
> c. Proxy the units to an ally.
> d. Turn the units over to an eliminated player or bystander.

I'm support all of those except (d).  I don't think a transfer of power
to someone who is no longer in the game or was never in the game is
fair.  Proxying is one thing, but a change of leadership can
fundamentally affect the game in a way that's not called for.  CD,
proxying, or standing orders don't inject a new personality (or
potentially a previously wronged personality one's considered oneself
done with) the way a change of leadership does.

> 2. But the game goes on as long as one player wants to continue.

I'm all for that, though we then run into the problem of what happens
when The Source closes at 9pm.  I'd certainly be willing to host our
games at my place so as to eliminate any firm ending time.  I don't think
migrating the game from The Source to an after-hours location is a
solution, and that's a lot to expect a player to do.

> 3. A draw of any makeup can be declared by unanimous agreement of the
> remaining players at the table who still have units or centers on the
> board.

Total disagreement there.  If everyone wants power X off the board
(including power X) it will never take more than 2 turns to do so which
if no one's stalling can take 5 minutes.  On the other hand, the
pressure to vote oneself out of a draw can be substantial and I don't
think goes well with the game at all.  Like Calhammer, I'll fight for
DIAS 'till I die.  I don't think this change would move the game along
any faster at all.

> 4. We make a gentlemen's agreement that we will seek to move the game
> along.  In other words, the speed of the game would be treated as an
> aspect external to the game, not an aspect within the game to be
> manipulated as part of diplomacy.  As precedent for this, I point out
> we already have an unspoken gentlemen's agreement that no matter what
> happens in the game, we will be civil towards one other -- our
> civility is external to the game and not negotiable as a point of
> diplomacy.

I support such an agreement if the other rules change as discussed in
points one and two so as to make this not a viable strategy.  That
said, I think if the changes suggested in points one and two are made,
there's no reason to mention this gentleman's agreement.  There would be
no point in stalling the game.

> Commentary: Paridoxically, I think allowing that the game might go a
> little longer would actually speed things up (i.e., get more turns in
> / have a result with fewer powers in the draw/ finish within six
> hours), since nothing would be gained by prolonging it.  It could also
> encourage concessions when the writing is on the wall.

I agree.  We could get in more dip per minute if the impetus to run down
the clock was gone. 

> On the other hand, I realize there would be side effects -- one player
> not satisfied with a three or four way result could simply force the
> game to continue unnaturally until the others gave up and went home.
> Especially if there were a stalemated position.  This would be
> mitigated by the drop-six-centers-on-DIAS ammendment (of which I am in
> favor), as the players wanting to go home could quickly get the
> stinker down to six centers and call the draw.  As a last resort, if
> [snip]

Agreed.  When I first started playing Diplomacy we played 2 to 3 times a
week for an entire summer without any time limits, and it was very clear
that if all but one person wanted X they could force the one player in
opposition off the board in short order.  A single power cannot stand
alone without a well-planned stalemate line.

> Starting at 10am is good for me.

So to summarize my modification of the proposal is:

1. Start at 10am
2. Have no fixed ending time, but have "no-shame" for leaving after 7pm.
    This would likely include beginning the game somewhere with no fixed
    ending time.
3. Allow departing players to proxy units, provide standing orders, or
    enter standing orders.
4. Optionally and periodically: Discount the six centers owned by the
    smallest players.

Excluding modification number four, this is much closer to the sort of
Diplomacy I've been wanting to play from the beginning, but suspected I
couldn't get busy potential players to agree too.  It seems I may have
mis-underestimated the ability and willingness of people to sign-on for
an open-ended engagement.

-- 
Ry4an Brase - http://ry4an.org