I have been working hard to ignore this post but I find that I keep coming back to it. It piques my curiosity. I know that I disagree with much of what Charles said but I was attracted to the passion with which he said it. I was disappointed not to see more than a couple of "I agrees" before the thread devolved into side comments about war games.

So, in the interest of, well, my interest, I'm going to risk blowing my cover (and waking the sleeping trolls - shhhh...) and offer a few contrary ideas for your consideration.

To wit, Charles, I believe that many of your conclusions are flawed because many of your initial premises, as common as they may be, are, nevertheless, mistaken.

To wit:

1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game.

2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo."

3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am.

4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right.

5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring.

6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable.

7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.

Those who know me here know that I can be long-winded. Let me surprise all those people by stopping right here. I'm looking to kindle debate. Your thoughts?

Chris
aka Corrino