[MN-dip] Thanks for coming out to diplomacy today

[Ry4an Brase]

On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 08:38:38AM -0600, Jeremy wrote:
> First, it would require majority, rather than unanimous support.  You
> wouldn't use this in a formal tournament, but for a social game where
> you may need to 
> give some consideration if over half the players would like to leave.  
> Majority support, then, is different than unanimously voting for a draw.

You've lost me (as a supporter) right there.  Any modification of game
terms during the game should be avoided if at all possible and must be
unanimous if done at all.  Anytime there's _anything_ that can be
changed it becomes a point of negotiation -- inevitably.

This threat:

    "If you stab me I'll vote for the draw"

is NOT effective because any one player can prevent a draw.  This
threat:

    "If you stab me I'll vote in favor of ending after this turn"

IS effective because under your proposal it would take only a majority
to end the game and thus someone could be left powerless to end an early
termination.  Enabling that sort of threat is an abomination.

Sorry if I sound overly passionate about this, but I'm firmly of the
belief (as evidenced by my support of the unpopular DIAS rule) that the
game is damn near perfect as designed.

In general I'd rather have a hard time finding seven players that can
commit to an open ended game than play a lesser version built to fit
into real-world schedules.  If an concession to tournament schedules,
sleep, or family must be (and I certainly understand they sometimes
must) I'd rather it be done in a purely deterministic way (like the
reduction in centers required for a win agreed upon before the game
starts) than with any system that gives players yet another thing to use
as a bargaining chip.

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