@drano. “I just thought you might have something to say on the topic.”

No, sorry. I’ve got nothing to say about the topic.
This doesn’t mean that I didn’t follow this thread: it was rather entertaining. But you know why I have nothing to say in here, so I’m surprised you called me and you think I have.

Like in a TV show, in which an Orthodox, a Lutheran, a Presbyterian and a Catholic are discussing about how 2 thousands years old sacred writings should be interpreted nowadays and so it would be pointless inviting a Shintoist or an Atheist… the same goes for this thread: I can’t see what would be the point in me saying anything.

Perhaps you want to hear from me that I don’t believe that the article you quoted is a sacred writing. It would be rather obvious since you know I’m a Diplomacy-Atheist. Anyway I’m going to try to content you.

Let’s see. Mr. Calhmer wrote 10 articles on the game. The 8th of these, the one you quoted from, was published in 1974, so 15 years after Diplomacy-box got offered for sale for the first time.
So what before 1974? For 15 years they played the game in a wrong way? Why Mr. Calhmer felt the need to write it? Why did he wait so long? Was there a who or a what that convinced him to write it? Perhaps anything new? Was there a new issue and someone asked him his opinion? Was he paid for it?
Anyone can try and find his own answers reading the whole text:

http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/calhamer/objectives.htm


In 1966 there were people playing via-mail changing a bit game’s diplomacy dynamics and Mr.Calhmer felt the need to publish his thoughts “On the Play of Postal Diplomacy “.
In 1974 the game had become very popular and people enjoyed to play FtF-tournaments, so there was a discussion about which criteria were to be used to compare different results of different games. Maybe there were also people playing for money? “Although these objectives do not appear in the Rulebook, some ratings systems give credit for them, one GM gives small prizes for the first three places, and so forth.”
So. Just one of the thousands articles about rating criteria and about how any rating system changes the objectives of the original stand-alone FtF game, this is what it looks about to me. But hey! Wait! This guy is the game’s inventor!

So, sorry drano, I have to disappoint you again: this article is perfect to build a Diplomacy-Religion over it, I can’t blame you. It’s even more perfect thinking that he quit writing articles in 1975, before the internet era, and now he’s dead so nobody can ask him his thoughts about Online-Diplomacy. Nowadays, whatever he wrote is a sacred writing and anyone can perform his effort interpreting him, without any risk of being contradicted by God Himself and without wondering why words like “forbidden”, “legit”, “illegit”, “illegal”, "fair" or "unfair" are never used in “objectiveS other than winning”.
I guess that these efforts will charm people who like more to look behind than to look forward.

About me, I already told you I’m a Diplomacy-Atheist, so I don’t believe in any Diplomacy-God or Diplomacy-Bible. But I’m fine with you believing.
Since, in one of your first posts here, you admitted that you are “a firm believer that Diplomacy is more than just its rules, and encompasses the mentality and ‘spirit’ of Calhamer's intent”, it was clear that this was an advertisement-thread for your Diplomacy-Religion (or philosophy or style or any way you might want to call things that involve being a believer in an idea, in a certain moral code, in a ‘spirit’, etc). So there’s nothing to discuss, at least for me. I’m not interested in telling you again why I don’t wish to join your Diplomacy-Religion because, more in general, I find pointless discussing about someone’s beliefs. I am pro-Religious-freedom, I’m ok with Religious-propaganda or with threads like this, I’m ok with any playstyle, ergo I’m ok with the way you want to play your games, any the reasons behind your choice might be.
You’ve already heard these things from me and I got nothing else to say about it, ATM.
But if you have something to say about my Diplomacy-atheism, you can reply my posts typing in threadID=43542, where I extensively talked about it.

Couldn't have said it better Guaroz

Personally I approach every game differently.

I tend to choose the game based on the map variant, WTA or PPSC makes little difference to me.

I try to play each game differently.

Some games I'll play a back-stabbing bastard.

Other games I'll play the loyal side-kick.

I've also played games that I just wasn't interested in, and joined because they needed the numbers to start.

I've gained immense satisfaction from winning games outright.

Just as I've gained immense enjoyment from seeing a game through to a draw with an ally.

I've also spastically enjoyed some games by screwing with other players which led to being defeated, but stopped them from winning - but hey, they didn't win! muhahahaha!

I try to be unpredictable in every game that is non-annon. I don't like to be pegged as being a player who ALWAYS plays for a win, nor a player who ALWAYS plays for a draw.

I've stabbed players because they have done dumb things on the board, and I have also forgiven players who have made dumb moves on the board.

I enjoy playing both gunboat and full-press, both styles provide me with an immense sense of enjoyment - how cool is making an alliance with a player you have not spoken with?

Personally every game is a new game. And every game is entered into as a new persona.

Win? Loose? Draw? Survive? Defeated?

IMHO - all of these states are secondary to the question - Did you enjoy playing?

If the answer is no... then you might want to try a different playing style next time.

If the answer is yes... then you might want to try a different playing style next time.

Every game is unique, and every game should give you some opportunities to try something new and exciting.

This is why I love the game of Diplomacy, in all its variations.

*I enjoy playing both gunboat and full-press, both styles provide me with an immense sense of enjoyment - how cool is making an alliance with a player you have not spoken with? ALSO how cool is it to make an alliance with a player through correspondence... even though you have never met them face to face?

Guaroz -

To begin, your insistence on talking about “Diplomacy Religion” is annoying at best, and insulting at worst. The fact that you continue to use loaded terms to describe legitimate concerns, and consider that someone who wants to play according to the original intent of the game a “religious believer” is insulting and does not contribute to GENUINE discussion on the topic. The fact that you also claim that anyone who feels this way views writings as “sacred” is not only insulting, but hypocritical considering you yourself have used quotes from writings from the past to justify your position. Let me ask you this Guaroz: if I want to play baseball and want to play it according to its original intent (which is to WIN), does that make me a follower of “baseball religion”? Or does it just mean I like to play baseball? What would a “baseball atheist” be? Someone who views it as acceptable to play for statistics like hits instead of wins?

Anyways, moving on, your quote here: “I’m ok with any playstyle, ergo I’m ok with the way you want to play your games, any the reasons behind your choice might be.” begs the question: If I decided that all I wanted to accomplish in every game was attack England as France, with no thought to winning, or drawing, or even surviving, or dip points, or HoF points, do you still view that as a “proper” way of playing the game? Even though it goes against everything the game’s objectives say?

If you say no, that’s not proper, then you’re directly contradicting yourself as clearly you believe in some sort of proper behavior that has to follow some sort of guideline.

If you DO say that’s proper, then I’ll move on and present you with another scenario: Let’s pretend it’s the World Cup, and you’re in the Round Robin round. You are a weak team, paired with 2 of the best in the world and another weak team. By sheer luck you’ve beaten the 2 good teams (let’s say they scored own-goals and lost because of it), and the other games were split. After 2 games, you have 4 , and everyone else has 2 (1 win, 1 loss). During your final game (against the bad team), you find out that the 2 good teams tied (and thus have 3 each). Would it be acceptable for your team to lose “on purpose” by not trying very hard and allowing easy goals in order to knock out the 2 best teams from the World Cup?

Again, if you say no, why not? You could always claim injury, or fatigue, or sickness, or any other bunch of reasons why your team played poorly. Or heck, you could even argue that it’s in your best interest to see those two teams knocked out.

If you say it IS acceptable, then why is it that when this happens, people are punished? For example, take Badminton in the 2012 Olympics, where members of 3 teams were disqualified for throwing games in order to receive better pairings in the future. They were charged with “not using one’s best efforts to win a match” and “conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport.”.

And now I’ll explain why this situation is applicable to ours. Guaroz, you (and others) claim that the invention of the internet and playing of Diplomacy has changed the game. Likewise, the invention of the World Cup has changed soccer (football). If you argue that due to the play of Diplomacy online, that we can change the CORE objective of the game (to win), then surely you can argue that due to playing soccer in the World Cup (or in any “league” format), we can change the CORE objective of soccer (to win the game). After all, the World Cup format has changed soccer’s objective more than online Dip has changed Diplomacy’s. At least one can make a coherent argument that throwing a game in the World Cup could potentially help you in the future (by knocking out better opponents). Playing online does not make that same sort of change in Diplomacy. All it does is change the medium through which people interact. It does not fundamentally change the game.

As for this statement by you: “So what before 1974? For 15 years they played the game in a wrong way? Why Mr. Calhmer felt the need to write it? Why did he wait so long? Was there a who or a what that convinced him to write it? Perhaps anything new? Was there a new issue and someone asked him his opinion? Was he paid for it?”, I would answer like this:

For 15 years, people generally played correctly. However, with the rise of popularity, people began to play for “ratings” instead of to win. Mr. Calhamer viewed this as incorrect and as such, wrote a statement explaining this. What is strongly implied in his writing is what I posted at the start of this thread. Everytime he mentions a secondary objective (like strong-second), he follows it up with a reason why it’s not right (in strong-second’s case, it’s because we assume that the solo-er goes on to conquer all of Europe, thus killing the strong-second-er as well). Perhaps it’s a language barrier, but his writing is definitely NOT an endorsement of “anything goes as long as it’s not specifically against the rules”. To confirm this, simply read the first 2 sentences again.

“The long argument among the fans between what has been called the "Win Only" school and the "Strong Second" school, is really an argument over what the player’s objectives should be in cases in which he has little or no hope of winning, or in which he is playing to win but wishes to keep a second objective in reserve. The "Win Only" school believes that the secondary objective should be to draw the game; the "Strong Second" believes in rating performances other than wins and draws.”

Notice that key part where he says “in cases in which he has little or no hope of winning”? That right there shows you that the PRIME objective is to win, and only when winning is a distant hope, should we even CONSIDER other objectives. If that’s not clear, you need reading comprehension.

Kaner -

The problem with everyone playing to enjoy themselves is that it destroys the game. Take baseball as an example:

What if one player enjoys themselves by trying to dive and catch every ball? What if another player enjoys themselves by only trying to hit home runs? What if another player enjoys themselves by seeing if they can make every catch behind their back? What if yet another player enjoys themselves by standing there and making funny faces at other players? Do you think this game would make much sense if everyone had different objectives to "enjoy themselves"?

The point is, in order to have a coherent game, EVERYONE needs to be on the same general page. You can't have 7 different games of "Diplomacy" with 7 different objectives and expect it to make sense.

But that is the REALITY of the game drano. You DO have 7 players with 7 different objectives!

The wonder of Diplomacy as I see it (and you are very good at doing this in my experience) is the ability to convince those other 6 players to agreeing with your 'outlook' on how the game should be played!!!

I fail to see why you are getting your knickers in a knot!

Kaner -

There should *not* be 7 different objectives. There should be 1. You can have 7 different WAYS of achieving that objective, but not 7 objectives. You can have people who play alliances to gain power then go for the win, people who lie all the time, people who never lie, people who stab always, people who rarely stab. The excitement is in figuring out the play STYLE, not the play objective.

Just because i happen to be good at getting people to agree with me, doesn't mean I dont' feel the game can improve. IMO too many games on this site are "given up" on just when the best part of the game is about to start simply because people don't want to try. It's a shame really.

Sorry Drano, I didn't meant to insult anyone. I just thought it would have better shown the concepts I was trying to explain.
Like I said before "your Diplomacy-Religion (or philosophy or style or any way you might want to call things that involve being a believer in an idea, in a certain moral code, in a ‘spirit’, etc).", if none in this list is ok with you, could we call it "School"? I think you could like this word, Mr.Calhlmer uses it too. So how about:
Religion = School
sacred writings = textbook (each school got a different one)
Atheist = free thinker
etc etc...
would it be acceptable?

Again, my apologies.

Both of you have a valid point. Yes the game should be of one objective-mentality. But yes the reality is that 7 different objectives-mentalities exist. And all in all the players change teh dynamic of the game. I can enjoy a game of WW4 and totally loose my mind on the other one because my ally constantly NMRs thus ruining the whole plan, or getting stabbed when least expected.
It is kind of the idealist- realist discussion in history scholarship

Guaroz -

"School" would definitely be a less "loaded" term to use.

Still though, I await your response to my other points. : )


Cypeg -

There's shouldn't be (and doesn't have to be) 7 different objective mentalities. If we train new players "right" we wouldn't end up with that situation. Think about any other game. Are there 7 objectives in baseball? Soccer? Hockey? Archery? Bowling? Chess? Risk? The list goes on and on. In those games, if people play for the "wrong" objective, they're "benched" and people put in who play for the "right" objective. We can do the same thing here by training and talking to players about objectives.

Note that in any game where people agree to different rules, I'm totally fine with it. But if I join a classic game with Players 1-6, I shouldn't have to worry about whether Player 2 ALWAYS attacks England because that's his 'objective' or if players 3, 4, and 5 have the 'objective' to 3 way draw no matter what. There needs to be a general, understood objective that people work towards otherwise things get crazy.

drano nobody agrees with you, and maybe you should think about why, instead of trying to make your argument more pervasive.

Why is that synapse? All games have an objective and Diplomacy was made for a solo. not baking bread. Ergo players will be more commited to a game and not play 10 games at a time

"All games have an objective"

Wrong, ever play a sandbox or open-ended game?

"Diplomacy was made for a solo"

Yes and football was made for the feet. Are you saying that NFL is not legitimate?

Seriously, develop better arguments.

Does it reveal a core defect in my character that I want to stop trying to win just to drive people nuts? Anyone interested in a game where only support holds are allowed, no support moves?

Kumbahyah, suckers!

@ drano019 :

You are asking if players in other disciplines play for other objectives than winning and you mention, for example, chess.

As a former chess player, I can tell you that YES, players play sometimes for other objectives than winning. Here are 2 examples that I have personally lived :

1° I travelled to a foreign country with 3 players from my country in order to play an international chess tournament. We were from the same town, we all knew each other and we had all played against each other. There was one game per day for some 9 or 10 consecutive days. There were some 100 players in that tournament but one day I was paired with one of my fellow countrymen. I was much stronger than him and I would probably have won the game. However, we decided to take a day off by drawing quickly which allowed us to visit the next town. We simply decided that it was more interesting for both of us to visit a unknown town in a foreign country rather than play chess because we would have many other opportunities in our life to play chess together.

2° I was playing the last round of a chess tournament in my home town. I was paired with a friend of mine who was much stronger than me. A victory for me would have only meant a better Elo rating but no prize in the tournament. A victory for him would mean the first place in the tournament and a prize of 2000 euros. A draw or a defeat would have placed him to second, third or even possibly fourth place, depending on some other's players' results. And that would have given him a prize of 1000 euros at best.
And so, we started playing our game. He was so stressed that I didn't play that well and that I managed to obtain a crushing position against him ! The chessboard was still full of many pieces, he was virtually defeated, MANY people were standing around our table watching the game...
He was my friend and he was desperately needing the money. At a moment, I looked at him in the eyes, he saw my eyes, he understood that something was going to happen and I voluntarily played an horrible blunder : I placed my queen so that he could capture it without any damage for himself. And so he did and then I resigned right away. Everybody thought that I lost my concentration and that I played an incredibly stupid move.


These things happen in chess. They happen everywhere. They even happen in Diplomacy.

If you want a "pure" game, then you NEED to play with NOTHING around the game : no Hall of Fame, no tournament, no Elo rating, no money, no NOTHING.
As soon as you add one single element in the equation, the whole equation changes.

Synapse -

That football argument is the stupidest thing I've heard from you yet, and that's saying something! Nice trolling.

As for "open-ended" games, yea they exist I suppose, but Diplomacy is NOT one of them, otherwise there would not be a stated game objective: to win.

Scuba -

Not going to lie, I have considered joining games with Synapse and Guaroz and all those advocating different game "objectives" and just being as annoying as f*ck in any way I can and claiming it's my game "objective" just to see their responses.

@ drano019 :

One precision, please, I am not saying that you are wrong : I am simply telling you that other players always have and always will play differently.

Retillion -

Your first example is what I agreed to. You and your countryman agreed to draw early in order to pursue another objective: visiting the town. You voluntarily agreed to change the objectives. I have no issues if people agree to SRGs, but only if all parties agree. What I do not agree to is half of a group agreeing to change the objectives without giving the other half any indication.

As for the second point, you're comparing someone who was in financial straits in real life and helping them win money that they desperately needed to changing game objectives just so people can win a few more points? I understand that real life can change things sometimes, real life is more important than a game. If I had the same situation in a RL game of Dip, I'd throw the game too to hlep the guy out. It'd be heartless not to, especially if they're a friend. However, when you take out the RL aspect, and keep everything in-game, I don't agree. HoF, Points, Elo, all should take a back seat to the stated game objectives UNLESS everyone agrees otherwise. In a tournament, it's understood that the tournament victory is more important than the individual game, and if you sign up, you understand that. So henceforth it might be more important to draw instead of try to solo. I accept that and endorse it. But in a normal game where no such situation occurs? No sir, I can't accept that.

*cross-post

I thought you muted me? But that’s besides the point.

What you are arguing is not that there is a better way to play but that there is a sole correct way to play. Your argument is that the objective of the game is to win, but that isn’t a law—you can’t shoot people if they decide to do something else within the rules of the game.

Let’s spend a minute and talk about rules. Rules are things that you cannot disobey. If you disobey rules you are punished, or in the case of the internet, rules stop you doing things entirely. There are no rules against playing to draw. You are using the game maker as precedent but he didn’t program a web diplomacy, and it’s certainly a *different* game, in terms of the chat facilities and other features, like being able to predict your moves, setting game phases etc. And he cannot punish you for disobeying his will. So it is the makers of these websites that establish the rules and enforce them in the modern game.

If you don’t want to play the modern game, you can buy a Diplomacy board game and set it up in the old fashion. But moving onto an online variant you can’t then go crazy because everyone is breaking the “rules” of the old game. You can also program your own website and ban people from drawing, but I doubt you will get many visitors. We live in a world where demand dictates the market, and people want a points-based game, as evident by the amount of people disagreeing with you here.

But furthermore it seems as though you are entirely opposed to the idea of the game adapting or evolving. I still await a decent argument for why games shouldn’t evolve. You have given many examples of sports etc that have or have not, but no credible reason why we shouldn’t change the rules of diplomacy to what people want, or what makes a more enjoyable and accessible game.

I assert my view that diplomacy belongs to the fans. It is the fans who kept it alive for 30+ years and it is the fans who made web versions, culture and kept the game in existence. You are playing because a fan made a website and let people play for free. I don’t know why you would think the opinion of a dead person would overrule all of this.

Your arguments are getting more and more desperate and angry, so I urge you to rethink everything through slowly, and write a good post addressing these concerns, before you start sounding like a crazy person.

Actually, I blocked you, not muted you. There's a big difference. It's actually amusing to see your posts sometimes. Surprisingly, this was probably your first post that actually followed your own advice: "rethink everything through slowly, and write a good post".

To start, the "number" of people disagreeing with me here is what? Maybe 5? That's hardly a consensus. Few people read the forums out of the community, i was hoping to stir up some more involvement although that appears to not have worked.

As for banning draws, I never said I want that. I want to have the community strongly discourage pre-meditated draws and unbreakable alliances. I still assert that just because we are on an online medium, the game itself is not completely changed. I have said it time and time again, and saying it again won't convince you, but I'll try. Yes, we have a new way to talk. Yes, there are phase limit changes. Yes, we can 'preview' orders. None of that changes the core of the game though.

I have nothing against games evolving. Baseball has evolved. Football. Hockey. All some of my favorite sports and all have had things change. Goalies wear masks in hockey. Players wear helmet. Sticks are made of different material. Football has the forward pass, the goal posts at the back of the end zone, the list goes on. And we've changed things in Diplomacy too: chat style, phase length, order previews. But notice that one thing never changed about them: the objective. Changing the objective is changing the game. If we change the objective of Diplomacy, it's no longer Diplomacy. If you want to play Diplomacy, you need to respect the stated objective of Diplomacy. Just like if I want to play football, I respect the objective of football: to win the game. Otherwise, you are NOT playing Diplomacy, but something that is similar, but at the same time, not Diplomacy. If that's what you want to do, by all means, do it, but don't claim it's Diplomacy. You can't have Diplomacy, and at the same time, claim we can ignore the founder of Diplomacy. You can't. To do so is to enter a world where we can adapt something so much that it no longer resembles the original, and still claim it is the original.

@Synapse--

1) Diplomacy is not an open-ended game. Minecraft is. Minecraft has no stated objectives. Diplomacy has an explicit win condition.
2) What is your second analogy trying to convey...?

@thread--

The main reason why online play affects the game is its anonymity. Consider the board game. The players are familiar with one another. If it is some players' first time playing, the game will almost always be played to accommodate this; it is implicitly predetermined to be a "casual" game to "introduce" the game concepts to new players. If the band of players is more experienced, then they'll talk about whether they want to play a "more competitive" game or simply "play for fun," and the game will be dictated accordingly.

The overarching point is that each game has an implicit contract of sorts among all the participants regarding the victory criteria. In that sense I think I agree with kaner et al, in that in relatively anonymous online games, or in any situation where the players lack that familiarity, we do in fact have 7 different players and 7 visions of that implicit contract, which may not all align. The fault that drano makes in comparing vdip to the World Cup is that everyone in the World Cup has made that predetermined implicit contract very explicit -- and has even modified the rules to an extent (which gives way occasionally to teams refusing to win a game because it improves their chances of winning the cup). In a spontaneously-arranged game of Diplomacy here on vdip, there is no implicit or explicit contract. That is because vdiplomacy *cannot* provide it -- it is up to the individual players to do that for themselves.

The only feasible solution to this problem is to organize games specifically meant to be competitive in nature. I liken it to a professional basketball player showing up to a city park trying to organize a game: sure, you might get the required number of competitively-minded players (of whatever skill rating) to get a game suited for a professional going, but you have to keep in mind that there are guys at the court like me, who like pickup games of basketball, but are aware we lack the skill to compete and just play casual pickup games so as not to get in anyone else's way. You don't have to play basketball with guys like me, but I don't think it's fair to insist that you have the sole right to the court and everyone else plays your-way-or-the-highway.

And yeah, it sucks having to organize games everytime you want to play, but that's the nature of an online Diplomacy game. When you don't know the people, you don't have an implicit contract regarding the nature of the game. When you don't have an implicit contract regarding the nature of the game, you have to create an explicit one, or risk players not abiding to your vision for the game.

Furthermore, I direct anyone who cares to go to the main vDip page. You need to log out and click the vDip logo in the top left. Scroll down to the part that says: objective. Read what it says?

Read it?

Oli himself, by putting that on his website, is endorsing the objective of the game as to be the first to 18 scs. Either that needs to be changed, or we need to accept it. After all, this site belongs to Oli right? If you want to play otherwise Synapse, feel free to start your own website. :p

Eden -

I appreciate your thoughtful response and can agree on some level with what you are saying. However, I have to ask:

Why is it that the default must be the "pickup" style? Why is it up to me to have to organize a game to play "competitive" when "competitive" is the original way to play? Should not the "variant" of "pickup" style be the ones who have the onus to collect a group? After all, they are the ones who are wanting to ignore the stated objective and play a more casual game. Why is it that those who want to play as the game was created must be the ones inconvenienced?

It isn't that it should or shouldn't be that way -- I would also prefer that the competitive style be the assumed default -- but the reality is that the structure of Diplomacy itself, combined with the randomness introduced by online anonymity, strongly favors the casual player. Let's take your previous example of a player who, upon drawing France, always attacks England, for its own sake beyond such tedious concerns as "winning" or even "basic survivability." If that player should happen to draw France, it does not matter if the other six players are competitors of our own sort; that player will be able to try to have his fun, and will lock himself into attacking England, per his objective. As you aptly put it yourself earlier, a masterful, competitive Diplomacy player will actively be seeking to manipulate all board events to his advantage. When you introduce a locked constant like that casual attacking England, you immediately prevent the other six players from influencing that board event. Everyone else must reorient his strategy and his play to accommodate that event -- in other words, *even when he is the lone player,* the casual is able to dictate the implicit contract. The other six can try to play competitively despite the casual, but the casual has immutably altered the game state such that any effort to be competitive will be unfair and degenerative. (Can you imagine England trying to play competitively against the other five competitors, knowing he will always have one enemy? It can be done, but England is automatically at an imbalancing disadvantage with this variable introduced.)

Why is one player able to influence this? Because Diplomacy, in its beautifully balanced state, has made all seven players equally able to influence the board events with their moves at the start of the game. It doesn't matter, then, what the casual's objective is -- the casual has the ability to leave his unable-to-be-ignored imprint upon the game.

I am trying to avoid more loaded terms as I understand my bias, but effectively what I am saying is that a lone casual can "ruin" a competitive game by "forcing" his noncompetitive nature upon the other six by his actions. The reverse, however, is NOT true. Six casuals who are bothered by one competitive player's methods -- who feel their "lighthearted" game is being "ruined" by the "lone tryhard" in the corner -- can simply agree to eliminate him and go on their way. Casuals, after all, are not concerned with influencing every event on the board, and aren't even concerned with winning, per se. I've been on the receiving end of a nasty putdown in this way -- as a competitive Austria that didn't get the memo about a chill game, you can imagine my surprise when I saw Turkey in Serbia, Italy in Venice, Russia in Budapest and Germany in Vienna after 2 years of game play. The game went on to a 2-way draw between Russia and Turkey. No one cared -- I'd long since lost, and the other casuals had their fun. But if I'd been a casual Austrian trolling a competitive game, then we can probably expect that my weak play would have led to the Juggernaut steamrolling anyway, with a lot less fun had by the rest of the players.

Long story short, a single player has the power to influence game events as he chooses; a casual player can have fun regardless of the balance of power, while a competitive player cannot. That difference gives the casual a significant bargaining advantage in the implicit contract, such that one must assume a casual implicit contract by default -- not because it "should" be that way, but because it is. It might not be fair, for instance, that we humans cannot fly; it might even be that we "should" be able to fly, but we can't naturally fly. Nor can we argue our way out of this fact; several individuals under particularly strong mind-altering substances have attempted and all have ended the same way (and not well for them, mind). What we can do is build airplanes. Your airplane here is to organize competitive games. It sucks, and I empathize with you in that regard 100%, having come afoul of many a casual player in games I wished were competitive -- but again, it's not about "should," it's about is.

Interesting dicussion.

I think throwing matches, in most sports and for whatever reason, can have serious consequences if uncovered as it isn't in the spirit of the contest and competition where the objective is to win. You would be livid if your team openly stated they laid down for their rivals in the superbowl for example.

Is the objective of diplomacy to win? I believe so and by almost any means available. The backstab/alliance nature of the game means some will take pleasure in being a "dog in the manger". However there are still serious no-nos. Multi-ing is considered very bad form and so are sock puppet accounts (by that i mean friends of yours, online or off, who join a game and deliberately take a dive so you can scoop up their provs as you vacate).

Two very good posts, I must say. Bravo PE.
The "implicit contract" is the eureka-moment, the ispiration that I (we?) missed. And the "airplane" thing is efficient and expressed the "reality" concept much better than anyone else did.
So, while I can't join you on some minor issue (ie, your "vision of the game"), I have to agree on the main one: the way a site like this, in which many different visions coexist, works.