You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

New Diplomacy Game in need of two more.

2 Post author: saliency 30 November 2010 08:34PM

We have five people from the NYC division of LW.  We need two more players

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=42765

 

passcode: streetlight

Comments (11)

Comment author: JGWeissman 01 December 2010 06:30:07AM 2 points [-]

We have five people from the NYC division of LW. We need two more players

But

When the five SIAI Fellows allied against my two friends, they ensured there was a five-against-two alliance with themselves on the winning side, and successfully reduced the gameboard from six opponents to four. Although they could have done this with anyone (eg Jasen could have selected two other Fellows and my two friends, and forged an equivalent coalition of five), Jasen would have been at risk of five other people having the same idea and excluding him. By choosing a natural and obvious division in which he was on the majority, Jasen avoided this risk.

Comment author: Zvi 01 December 2010 12:59:55PM 0 points [-]

I put Jasen on notice for that, and have made it clear this is somewhere between Cheating and Very Bad Form. Also, it's Anonymous communication, so we won't know which 5 we are unless we compare notes. We have 6 and the game starts in 6 hours.

Comment author: Kevin 01 December 2010 10:05:07AM *  0 points [-]

I played a further game of LW with some of those fellows in the real world and told them that such a 5v2 alliance was really bad Diplomacy etiquette.

You're on notice, NYC LW.

Comment author: Zvi 02 December 2010 06:28:04PM 0 points [-]

The game has started and both France and Russia appear to be MIA. The site does NOT send emails to notify players of communications or the game starting! Sending multiple players into S1901 civil disorder is no way to play, especially these two (Germany + Italy being out is still a decent game).

If you guys read this, whoever you are, please enter placeholder orders and start talking; no doubt your diplomatic positions are deteriorating by the minute.

Comment author: saliency 02 December 2010 06:09:41PM 0 points [-]

Non-NYCers. If you are playing make some noise.

http://groups.google.com/group/lw-diplomacy

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 02 December 2010 11:09:20PM 0 points [-]

Why is that discussion on google groups rather then LW?

Comment author: saliency 01 December 2010 03:54:46PM 0 points [-]

"You're on notice, NYC LW."

JGWeissman is not one of us. We kicked him out long ago for dishonorable behavior.

Comment author: saliency 01 December 2010 03:20:05PM 0 points [-]

The only meta gaming that we are doing is that there will be no meta gaming.

NO META GAMING.

Yes after we will compare notes.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 01 December 2010 02:50:41PM 0 points [-]

Hey, I've been lurking on LW for ages, and I though this would be a good time to make my first post.

So, while the game is anonymous now, are we going to compare notes afterwards? I just want to know if I am playing the prisoner's dilemma or the iterated prisoner's dilemma.

Comment author: Zvi 01 December 2010 03:58:23PM 1 point [-]

If you think you're playing the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma when you play Diplomacy, and you don't mean subsequent years of the same game, it's a sign that you are very much doing it wrong. Diplomacy is at its best when all players play to win the current game; doing something this game to make your position stronger next game is Metagaming. And That's Terrible.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 02 December 2010 11:07:36PM 0 points [-]

I don't mind agreeing not to metagame, but I don't see why metagaming is terrible. You may prefer an absence of metagaming, but that's a subjective opinion, not a fact. Personally I would have thought that metagaming would make for a more interesting game, unless players start refusing to play more games after backstabbing everyone, but that would be frowned upon.