Skip to main content

The Ethics of Diplomacy - Part 7: Tournaments and Teamplay

Image
By
Teamplay during an online game is likely to be banned under metagaming rules.  It's clearly unfair if a couple of players enter a game to play together, supporting each other and attacking others, when everyone else in the game is playing as an individual.  Well, I say clearly but that isn't always the case; some people just don't think there's anything wrong with it.
However, it is also something that can arise in FTF tournaments and it has often been banned, for obvious reason... again, I'd say obvious reasons.

It is (or was) common for a tournament or convention to combine individual competitions with team competitions.  A local club or organisation might have a number of players attend, therefore, and this is often true when there wasn't a team competition, simply because it's nice to go with your mates.

It didn't take long for teamplay to be outlawed.  What was happening was that players from the same club would help each other out in games.  It was occasionally a case that a club would nominate a 'champion' who would be given the chance to win the tournament; other members of the club would help her to get the best chance of winning in games.

Essentially, some players would sacrifice their own chances of winning to help their nominated champion.  This caused problems.  When individuals had attended the tournament on their own, to be in a game where one player was playing in such a way as to help another, rather than playing for herself, this was unfair.

The problem was that there is nothing in the rules of the game that prohibited this.  In fact, it was fairly common for players to hand control of their units over to others, both in FTF play and in postal play.  The GM would allow this providing the player owning the units didn't submit her own orders.

Common sense won out, though.  This kind of play was often specifically banned in tournament rules.  It wasn't always be easy to pin this kind of play down, of course, but it was penalised.

The ethical question is whether this kind of play can be outlawed.  In the rules the player controlling a power can do anything she wants with her units.  If she wants to support another player at her own expense, she can.  

But this is where 'house' rules come in.  Whether it's tournament rules, website rules, or a GM's rules, organisers can plug the gaps for play that is questionable.  If you don't like it, don't play. 

THE ETHICS OF DIPLOMACY series:

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

What do you think?

Popular posts from this blog

Tournament Scoring - Part 5: Other Scoring Systems

By
There are, perhaps, three other types of scoring system: Placement or Rank scoring, hybrid systems that seek to combine DSS and SCS, and Tier scoring systems.  I want to have a look at each system. Placement or Rank systems Essentially, these are Supply Centre Scoring systems with the addition of bonus points.  I'm going to have a look at some more regularly used systems.  Again, here is the map I will use as an example: England  - 12 SCs Russia  - 9 SCs Turkey  - 8 SCs Italy  - 5 SCs France ,  Germany   and  Austria-Hungary   were eliminated, with 0 SCs each. C-Diplo In a drawn game points are awarded for: Participating in the game: 1 (for an online tournament, I'd only award this for participating and not surrendering). Each SC held at the end of the game: 1 . The player that 'tops the board' (has the most SCs): 38 pts. The second placed player (second highest number of SCs): 14 pts. The third p...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Embassy Journal

By
You know, I have realised that I probably bang on too much.  What can I say?  I like the sound of my own writing (my voice, until laryngitis kicks in when I begin to sound like Barry White, is slightly too high pitched and squeaky). This led me to realise that I should probably be looking at different ways to put out what I want to put that's longer-winded than the long-winded stuff I publish here. And so The Embassy Journal was born. This is my zine, written to accompany the blog, but with articles and a smattering of other stuff.  You can get it from the link above, which will lead you to the first issue (March 2020).  Let me know what you think. All issues will be published on The Embassy Journal page on this blog, where you can also find subscription and contribution info.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Ethics of Diplomacy - Part 8: Gamesmanship

By
This is a sticky one, frankly.  If you want to win a game of Diplomacy what isn't allowed?  Some of the stuff that isn't allowed should be obvious and I've discussed much of it in previous posts in this series.  That leaves things that you can do to win that are questionable and, in the final analysis, come down to personal choice. How far are you prepared to go to win at Diplomacy ?  That is probably what defines whether you think something is "gamesmanship" or not, and whether you think it is acceptable. Slow Play Some players in the online game are what I call Pussycats .  They want to play as quickly as possible and they want to move the game on.  Some will hassle through Public Press.  "Has everyone finalised yet?" "Who hasn't finalised?" "Come on - FINALISE!!!" Now this, itself, is something that becomes annoying.  If you join a game with certain deadlines, you need to expect to play to those deadlines.  If you...
Post a Comment
Read more