Diplomacy Round 2 (Game Over: WORLD PEACE!!)

[Callid]

I think I'll also step back.

The recent rule changes have steered this game so far away from what Diplomacy is about that I'm no longer interested in playing. Diplomacy is about convincing others without having evidence to back up your claims. This game is about finding the right way to abuse the communication methods, which is not what Diplomacy is about. It's called Diplomacy, not Espionage.

[c-square]

Hey guys! I really want to cry right now... As you know I was in a coma for the three months I was absent from the DCTP forums ~nya. Now being in a coma means I missed three months worth of school work, right? I think you know where I'm going with this, but they've given me a deadline of two weeks to do all the work and hand it in ~nya! So I'll have to forfeit from this round, even though I was really looking forward to it ~nya... Sorry guys. I REALLY am ~nya. I hope I'll be able to play in the next one...

I'm sorry to hear this Silver1412.  Best of luck on your schoolwork, and maybe we'll see you back here for the next one.

We still have Hoshi, tantei-chan coming back this weekend, so if you all are willing to wait, we can have a substitute player for France soon.

I think I'll also step back.

The recent rule changes have steered this game so far away from what Diplomacy is about that I'm no longer interested in playing. Diplomacy is about convincing others without having evidence to back up your claims. This game is about finding the right way to abuse the communication methods, which is not what Diplomacy is about. It's called Diplomacy, not Espionage.

I'm also sorry to hear this.  I didn't realize that the rule changes were that big that you'd consider leaving.  I'm definitely willing to discuss setting up the rules to make it more diplomatic and less espionage, and perhaps this pause in the game would be a good time to discuss these.  So, if you're up for it, please share your thoughts here, and others can give their opinions.  Together, hopefully we can come up with rules that everyone is comfortable with.

[xpon]

so you say i cant hack into his account and see his tactic

[Callid]

I think I'll also step back.

The recent rule changes have steered this game so far away from what Diplomacy is about that I'm no longer interested in playing. Diplomacy is about convincing others without having evidence to back up your claims. This game is about finding the right way to abuse the communication methods, which is not what Diplomacy is about. It's called Diplomacy, not Espionage.

I'm also sorry to hear this.  I didn't realize that the rule changes were that big that you'd consider leaving.  I'm definitely willing to discuss setting up the rules to make it more diplomatic and less espionage, and perhaps this pause in the game would be a good time to discuss these.  So, if you're up for it, please share your thoughts here, and others can give their opinions.  Together, hopefully we can come up with rules that everyone is comfortable with.

The reason I consider those rules to be of such great importance is that, unlike any of you (AFAIK), I have played a game without these rules once. After only one instance of someone using this loophole (we hadn't consciously decided against such rules, but rather simply not thought about these possibilities) by recording a RL diplomatic discussion with a microphone, all players - including the one who used the microphone - agreed that we needed to introduce these rules, as this one instance had nearly destroyed the game on its own.

Spoiler: Details

The game was between me and six friends of mine, as a mixture of face-to-face and online play. Most of the diplomacy took place IRL or via telephone due to this. I had, through cunning diplomacy, managed to achieve a situation where every single player believed me to be their ally, but also knew that every other player believed that as well.
The original alliance system at the beginning of 1901S was OE - GB (me) - GE - AH. However, a few moves later, OE attacked AH, together with its new ally IT. RU was nearly eliminated at that point, but FR was still alive, though about to fall against the attack of me and GE. However, the attack of OE made GE relocate its entire force to protect AH, and we withdrew from FR and I made an alliance with it. However, even though OE had betrayed GE and AH, it still considered itself allied with me, as it believed I had no interest in AH. Instead of deciding for one force now, I made both GE/AH and OE/IT believe that I was their ally, but was pretending to be allied with the other party, in order to spy out their moves and guide them in ways more comfortable to us.
One might argue that this was a bad situation for me, after all, I had noone to attack. I had foreseen that and made a plan. First, I explained to OE/IT that, due to me helping OE/IT in the last round, I'd now have to fake an attack on OE/IT, or else GE/AH would get suspicious of me being allied with them. Reluctantly, OE/IT agreed that I would indeed need to attack, and decided I could have that one province. GE/AH, on the other hand, was happy I attacked their enemy. In the next round, I would do the same, except with OE/IT and GE/AH exchanged, i.e. I would "attack" GE/AH with their consent.
As I also made sure - by virtue of being the chief tactician of both parties - that the fights in AH would wage back and forth without ever coming to a decision. This was only possible because OE/IT and GE/AH refused to believe the other's claim that I was their ally.
However, one day, GE set up a microphone and recorded our entire diplomatic negotiation, and showed it to OE. Confronted with that undeniable proof, OE could not help but realize the truth. In the next turn, they all (GE, AH, IT, OE) attacked me together. This would have surely decided the game, hadn't it been for three things:
a) FR had stayed loyal to me
b) I was the best tactician in the game
c) Me and FR together were about as strong as GE, AH, IT and OE together.
Due to this, I was able to ally with both again, as both of them (OE and GE) realized that a victory of their large alliance was doubtful, while a victory of either of them together with me and FR was sure (in the end, the game ended with an allied victory GB-FR-OE, though I could, theoretically, have achieved a single victory in the last round - by gaining 7 SCs in one move :x)).

Concerning the current debate, it should be noted we all agreed immediately after the turn in which they attacked me to outlaw any sort of undeniable proof. The reasons for this were, apart from the game-altering effects it had had, also other, more practical concerns, as in the short time before the rule was approved, any diplomatic negotiation was preceded by a room search for hidden microphones, and we feared what the consequences of a voice recorder hidden in someone's pocket would be :x
But the most important reason was that such kind of proof rendered the entire point of Diplomacy moot - as the events had clearly shown, even the best diplomat couldn't possibly prepare for or talk his way out of that sort of evidence. Basically, Diplomacy would have been only about who is better at obtaining such proof, and who is better at keeping the negotiations secure, which is not the point of Diplomacy.
For example, even with the current rules, secure negotiations are possible, for example by encrypting conversation with a One Time Pad (I'll not go into details, but due to its nature, even if one party BCCs the conversation AND gives over the key, it's not proof). However, this would heavily slow down negotiations (depending on exact methods, between approx. 5x and over 50x), and Diplomacy isn't about who has better cryptographic knowledge.
The best illustration of what Diplomacy means is the original face-to-face game, whose rules haven't been changed since its first publication 50 years ago. In FTF, diplomatic negotiation takes place by players leaving the board room and talking in other rooms, e.g. the kitchen, bathroom or outside. These communications are therefore secure (unless someone starts shouting XD), and no proof of anything that has been said can be obtained (and unless someone has a very good memory, it cannot even be retold word-by-word).
Of course, some things need to be changed for online play. I can live with single quotes if it cannot be avoided (though admittedly it puts xpon at a disadvantage, which I consider to be unfair, but alright), but mass quotes, BCCs and definitely impersonating are not necessary, and destroy the idea of the game. I've already talked with c-sqaure about this in PM:

I never quite understood that rule, and unless you can give me a good argument not to, I'm going to remove it altogether.  I see no problems sending a message to one person and secretly BCCing it to someone else.

With BCCs it's obvious. You can make a claim that you said X to Y and give undeniable proof. Undeniable proof is bad. With simple PM quotations (i.e. using the "Quote button") (which was what I was asking about), the problem is the timestamp. A timestamp is rather difficult to fake, so a quoted PM with a time stamp is pretty much proof as well.
However, Diplomacy is about convincing other people without proof, so allowing proof makes the game pointless. If I know for sure X is gonna attack me, I'll definitely trust Y who revealed it. But in Diplomacy, one should never be sure of his alliances; that's the entire point of the game. Otherwise, the only thing of importance would be tactical skill, which is definitely not the focus of this game.

I don't see any problem with the BCC's.  It'd be very easy to say to Z "I said X to Y, see, I BCC'ed you on it" and at the same time say to Y "I'm going to make a fake message to you pretending to say X to you, and I'll BCC Z so that Z thinks I'm serious".  As for quotes, timestamps or not, you can always change both the author and contents of a quote to suit your needs.  A quote can never be undeniable proof.  I actually like the idea that someone could be BCCing things because then you never know if your 'ally' is actually sending all your plans to your enemies by way of BCC.  Unless you can convince me that it will ruin the game, I'm going to open up this rule tomorrow.

Yes, you could set it up, but that'd require X and Y to be allied. So, it *is* undeniably evidence - that it either has been said, or they are allied. A quote is different; everything can be changed (even the timestamp, yes, though that's quite a hassle), but a BCC cannot be faked. X cannot write a BCC about something he wouldn't wish Y to know about, but he can certainly quote a PM of himself saying that. Basically, BCC offers a high amount of certainty, especially if used to prove that X and Y are allied. If it was possible to fake BCCs entirely (i.e. without consent of Y), I'd agree, but it is not.
Also, something else I noticed we probably should add: No impersonating others. That's not that much of a concern in the forums, as the accounts are password-protected, but a huge concern on IRC. I could, for example, join a channel as c-square and announce something, or even get people to tell me their orders (!), and, according to our current rules, it would be allowed :x

Agreed, it's undeniably evidence.  But it's not undeniable proof.  As long as there's room for doubt, I'm of the opinion it's okay.

It is undeniable proof, and it can even be used in other, even more problematic ways.

For example, assume X wants to prove to his enemy Z that Y is allied with X. Y is, but doesn't want Z to know, cause he pretends to be allied with Z. Furthermore, Y is the tactician of Z's alliance. X writes a PM to Y, telling him to suggest to Z a specific plan, better than the one Y and Z are using ATM. He BCCs that to Z. Afterwards, if Y actually does suggest that plan, Z knows Y has betrayed him, even though Y doesn't know X knows, as if Y was truly allied with Z, he would definitely mention that their enemy X conceived that plan, even if he'd still suggest it.
It would not be possible to do the same with a simple quotation, as X simply could have not sent the message he quoted, and Y simply suggested that plan on his own (which is quite likely if the plan is better and  is the tactician).
Basically, Y received certain information meant for Z, and Y would usually mention the source, but fails to do so. Because Z knows for sure Y got it from that source, he knows he cannot trust Y.

Furthermore, concerning quotes, I still see a huge problem with mass quotes. (Example)
Faking a single PM is certainly doable, but faking an entire conversation is not, especially later in the game. The reason noone doubted what I said was because I couldn't have made that all up on the spot. So, while I agree that normal quoting is OK, we should forbid mass quoting (or conversation dumping etc.), as that just cannot be faked.

Note for the mass quote example: The fact that my deduction based on the evidence was wrong isn't the point here; the point is that the evidence was genuine and everyone believed it due to its length. In Diplomacy, evidence is pretty straightforward, so wrong deductions are basically impossible.

[xpon]

i dont think we go that far.

like in the first game, i copy paste the plan and Leak it into other alliances. but we keep in mind that this is just a game. even if they fake it, or not..

everyone can trust the other as much as they want.

and looking at this debate, if i can say my honest feeling then i will stop playing diplomacy. because this is not a fun game.

thanks for everything. but i am sorry. you need to find another player than me.

[c-square]

i dont think we go that far.

like in the first game, i copy paste the plan and Leak it into other alliances. but we keep in mind that this is just a game. even if they fake it, or not..

everyone can trust the other as much as they want.

and looking at this debate, if i can say my honest feeling then i will stop playing diplomacy. because this is not a fun game.

thanks for everything. but i am sorry. you need to find another player than me.

Wow, this is devolving fast.  xpon, before you go, would you give me one chance to try and make things right?

I can live with single quotes if it cannot be avoided (though admittedly it puts xpon at a disadvantage, which I consider to be unfair, but alright), but mass quotes, BCCs and definitely impersonating are not necessary, and destroy the idea of the game.

So, if I understand you correctly, Callid, you'd be comfortable playing with the following rules:

Banned Actions

• Using BCC when sending PMs
• Using mass quotes
• Impersonating another player

Permitted Actions

• Using single quotes
• Copying, pasting and quoting move lists

Is that correct?

xpon, would you be comfortable playing with the above rules?  Are there any you'd like to change or add?

Also, anyone else feel free to speak up too.  Hopefully we don't have to abandon what could be a very fun game.

[Callid]

I've expanded the lists a bit, to correctly represent my opinion:

Definitely needs to be banned

• Using BCC when sending PMs
• Mass quotes
  • [li]Quoting / Copy-and-pasting multiple PMs
  • Copy-and-pasting entire IRC conversations
  [/li]
• Impersonating another player or the GM
• Hacking accounts etc.

Should better be banned

• Large quotes
  • [li]Quoting / Copy-and-pasting entire PMs
  • Copy-and-pasting large chunks of IRC conversations
  [/li]

Shouldn't be banned

• Small quotes
  • [li]Quoting / Copy-and-pasting about a paragraph of a PM
  • Copy-and-pasting a few IRC lines
  • Quoting / Copy-and-pasting move lists
  [/li]

Mustn't be banned

• Any kind of paraphrasing

If the middle category should be allowed (and the first is forbidden), I would play, but I do believe allowing large quotes is detrimental to Diplomacy, and we should have a vote on this category. The third category is the one for things for which I can't really see a reason to ban them, and especially move lists are pointless to ban, as a "paraphrased" move list looks basically exactly like a copied one - there is no way to write "A Con-Bul" differently somehow.

[c-square]

I've expanded the lists a bit, to correctly represent my opinion:

Definitely needs to be banned

• Using BCC when sending PMs
• Mass quotes
  • [li]Quoting / Copy-and-pasting multiple PMs
  • Copy-and-pasting entire IRC conversations
  [/li]
• Impersonating another player or the GM
• Hacking accounts etc.

Should better be banned

• Large quotes
  • [li]Quoting / Copy-and-pasting entire PMs
  • Copy-and-pasting large chunks of IRC conversations
  [/li]

Shouldn't be banned

• Small quotes
  • [li]Quoting / Copy-and-pasting about a paragraph of a PM
  • Copy-and-pasting a few IRC lines
  • Quoting / Copy-and-pasting move lists
  [/li]

Mustn't be banned

• Any kind of paraphrasing

If the middle category should be allowed (and the first is forbidden), I would play, but I do believe allowing large quotes is detrimental to Diplomacy, and we should have a vote on this category. The third category is the one for things for which I can't really see a reason to ban them, and especially move lists are pointless to ban, as a "paraphrased" move list looks basically exactly like a copied one - there is no way to write "A Con-Bul" differently somehow.

I personally have no problem with any of the above, though I think others should get their opinions in if they disagree or want something different. 

[xpon]

nah..... diplomacy = boring / annoying in my mind now. thanks to some person .

[vittor]

nah..... diplomacy = boring / annoying in my mind now. thanks to some person .

This.

[vittor]

Diplomacy is about convincing others without having evidence to back up your claims.

So, if you use a password in IRC, you will have EVIDENCE backing up your claims.
ALSO, no one can impersonate as you, so you will be yourself 100% of the time in the IRC, A.K.A EVIDENCE!
The only way that i'll agree with those rules is if NO ONE uses IRC.

If he was going to step back for what it used to be, i'm going to step back if those new rules that he want really get into the game.

It's like making Village OP in Mafia!
"Hey BO, check this out: In the next game you cant lie or use disguise. And everything that an village says is going to be a 100% truth. Have fun."

[Callid]

Diplomacy is about convincing others without having evidence to back up your claims.

So, if you use a password in IRC, you will have EVIDENCE backing up your claims.
ALSO, no one can impersonate as you, so you will be yourself 100% of the time in the IRC, A.K.A EVIDENCE!
The only way that i'll agree with those rules is if NO ONE uses IRC.

If he was going to step back for what it used to be, i'm going to step back if those new rules that he want really get into the game.

It's like making Village OP in Mafia!
"Hey BO, check this out: In the next game you cant lie or use disguise. And everything that an village says is going to be a 100% truth. Have fun."

First, the password isn't transmitted to the person your talking to, but to the Rizon IRC server (NickServ, specifically). Just like the password to your forum account when you log in, just in case that was unclear.
Secondly, being authenticated as yourself is no evidence whatsoever. Even though I'm myself, I can still tell you any lie I want. It only ensures that the "Callid" you're talking to is actually me, which is no form of in-game evidence.
Thirdly, in case you didn't realize from the first point, by your argument, you should also forbid using the forum account - after all, it is password protected, and we can therefore be 100% sure that the person sending a PM from the account "Callid" is, in fact, me. Duh.
Lastly, the Mafia equivalent of this in the forum is people logging in to the forums. It might surprise you, but that usually happens before people exchange forum PMs. The MM equivalent is exactly nothing. Due to MM taking place in one session, everyone is automatically authenticated, as it is not possible to take over a nick without everyone noticing.

Seriously, your argument is ridiculous. IRC with the use of a password is, for all purposes of authentication or evidence, exactly the same as the use of a password on the forums. So, if you seriously believe that being authenticated is a problem, you should first make sure such authentication isn't given on the forums, i.e. that forum accounts no longer have a password.

[Vylash]

For the record, even if you try to impersonate the name of someone on IRC, you can't impersonate their ip that gets shown whenever they log in and what not

[Callid]

For the record, even if you try to impersonate the name of someone on IRC, you can't impersonate their ip that gets shown whenever they log in and what not

Yeah, but, for one, people might use internet from somewhere else (nom, for example, changes residence ever once in a while), and secondly, it's a bit of a hassle memorizing IPs. Furthermore, some people use WebIRC or similar programs, which make using IPs (AFAIK) impossible. Not to mention that some people might not know how to find out someone's IP on IRC to begin with.

[xpon]

all of that wont change the fact that this game that should be a fun things, become a nerve breaking and make us angry.

so for the sake of this forum and our friendship-if we have it on the first place- let lock this thread and forget about it.