Why live chat pisses me off

[Idiot]

Okay, just going to have a little whine here.

I hate it when someone says something like, "Let's make a truce" or "Watch out blue -- green is about to take over North America".

There's a number of reasons I don't like it.

Firstly, with truces, there's the potential for creating resentment -- either when a player feels it's unjust (they think they've been ganged up against; or that influencing someone with words is unfair and "cheating" -- it's like going up to someone playing a chess game, and giving them advice), or when a party to a truce feels they've been stabbed in the back. And if "alliances" are banned here, well I think the line between an alliance and a "truce" can be pretty thin.

Secondly, I think it's a less fun game. It adds the elements of rhetoric and diplomacy, trying to trick people into making dumb moves, etc. And you might or might not find these elements enjoyable. But personally, I think there are important pleasures in trying to estimate people's psychology and future moves, in sending non-verbal messages through the pattern of your troop deployment and actions, and in using the raw mechanics of the game to try to deceive people, without the distraction of words.

So, yeah, I reckon things like "Watch out for green" should be left for a post-game analysis. The game itself should be played with no game-related chat. People should be left to play their own game, to make decisions uninfluenced by rhetoric and advice, and should be free to make and learn from mistakes.

[Serbia]

Firstly, alliances are only illegal if they are secret. Alliances declared on the in-game chat are allowed.

Secondly, like it or not, diplomacy and rhetoric is a part of the game. Some people engage, others don't. But you can't take it out of the game... when I played the board game with my younger brother, I used intimidation all the time (it's part of the reason he stopped playing with me, that and I always beat him). You just have to get used to it.

[Windparson]

Ditto on the brother intimidation. My younger brother and I use to torture my middle brother during Risk games. It was the greatest part of the game. We played our last game of Risk back a few months ago. We were all camping together, the wives and kids were in bed, and we whipped out the old, well worn, Risk board.

As usual, the kid brother and me tortured our middle brother through the whole game.

My younger brother died suddenly not long after that game. He was only 36 years old. My other brother and I comment constantly how much we were glad to have that last game.

Get in to it with the other players. You don't have to make a truce or non-aggression pact, but some banter, misdirection, teasing, just general chat is half the fun!

Windparson

[tahitiwahini]

As it is alliances are part of the game. Some people rather enjoy them when they are necessary.

Also, alliances are not always the result of someone tricking the other party into accepting a bad deal. In a three player game when one player has twice the number of armies of his nearest competitor and the weakest players have the option of attacking each other or the strongest player, it is in both of their interests to collaborate, whether formally or informally.

I understand your preference for a game without alliances. Perhaps one day you will be able to set up a type of game for which all alliances (any collaboration whatsoever) is prohibited. Until that day come may I suggest playing with players who are members of XiGames, which as I understand it is a sort of clan (but not a clan) in which members take a pledge against entering into alliances (among other things). Also before you join a game look at the other player's feedback, if you discover someone has used alliances in the past, then don't play with them. You can also add people's names to your ignore-list who use alliances on occasion. You can start with my name.

[Dmunster]

Over the table talk is a quintessintal part of the game and your chess analogy is hogwash.

[Idiot]

Okay, here's two general thoughts, on reading the replies.

Firstly, about the chess analogy being hogwash. There's two questions I'd want to ask Dmunster: (1) does the "talking is bad" claim hold good even for chess? Is there any reason not to "interfere" with your opponent or someone else's chess game by proferring an opinion? and (2) if there IS a reason not to interfere in chess (and there might not be), then why exactly doesn't the analogy hold for Risk? How are the two games relevantly different?

Secondly, I think most of the rest of the replies have maintained two ideas: (1) that the diplomatic, rhetorical, intimidation, alliance-making, trash-talking side of the game is FUN; and (2) that it's an intrinsic part of the game, so there's no use bitching about it.

I'd grant that the first argument is open. People will vary on whether they find it fun or not; and if a particular group finds it fun and wants to play that way, then why should anyone else try to dissuade them?

But as to the second, I'd question the idea that this side of the game is intrinsic. An is doesn't justify an ought; a status quo needn't be perpetuated. You can de-intrinsicalize the talking side of the game by a rule change, or by a gradual change in social norms.

I reckon soccer vs tennis is comparable. And this is the stuff of many a comedy routine. Why exactly is it that the crowd gets hushed for the tennis but pumped up for the soccer? Is one or the other option intrinsic to the respective game? -- And I personally think it's simply a somewhat arbitrary matter of convenion and tradition...

[IronE.GLE]

At least we know why you chose that screen name.

[tahitiwahini]

Okay, here's two general thoughts, on reading the replies.

Firstly, about the chess analogy being hogwash. There's two questions I'd want to ask Dmunster: (1) does the "talking is bad" claim hold good even for chess? Is there any reason not to "interfere" with your opponent or someone else's chess game by proferring an opinion? and (2) if there IS a reason not to interfere in chess (and there might not be), then why exactly doesn't the analogy hold for Risk? How are the two games relevantly different?

Secondly, I think most of the rest of the replies have maintained two ideas: (1) that the diplomatic, rhetorical, intimidation, alliance-making, trash-talking side of the game is FUN; and (2) that it's an intrinsic part of the game, so there's no use bitching about it.

I'd grant that the first argument is open. People will vary on whether they find it fun or not; and if a particular group finds it fun and wants to play that way, then why should anyone else try to dissuade them?

But as to the second, I'd question the idea that this side of the game is intrinsic. An is doesn't justify an ought; a status quo needn't be perpetuated. You can de-intrinsicalize the talking side of the game by a rule change, or by a gradual change in social norms.

I reckon soccer vs tennis is comparable. And this is the stuff of many a comedy routine. Why exactly is it that the crowd gets hushed for the tennis but pumped up for the soccer? Is one or the other option intrinsic to the respective game? -- And I personally think it's simply a somewhat arbitrary matter of convenion and tradition...

I have two comments.

First, I tend to agree with you that game chat need not be an intrinsic part of this game. It would be a slightly different game, but one I would still enjoy playing. There would obviously be no formal alliances, but there would still be tacit de facto alliances based on self-interest -- that I believe is an intrinsic part of the game. These alliances would be entered into by positioning and behavior rather than speech, but they would surely still exist. This is the point I was trying to make earlier when I suggested that it would be a good thing to allow people to set up games in which diplomacy was prohibited. However, that is not the status quo.

Second, it seems to me in responding to several posters you have bundled together some behaviors that don't universally apply to the way I play the game.

Secondly, I think most of the rest of the replies have maintained two ideas: (1) that the diplomatic, rhetorical, intimidation, alliance-making, trash-talking side of the game is FUN

I don't deny those points were made by some of the posters, but I'd like to take the opportunity to describe how they apply to me.

1) Diplomacy. Yes I rather enjoy it. In a situation where the game is basically lost it is possible through diplomacy to stage a comeback.

2) Rhetoric. Yes I enjoy making my case to the other players. Believe it or not some players do not keep as careful a watch over the game situation as you obviously do. If I believe their ignorance will have negative consequences for my position, then I will often politely and tactfully (one might even say diplomatically) point this out to them. I suspect it would be unnecessary for me to point out to you that the strongest player now has twice the army strength of his nearest competitor. But sometimes judging by a player's behavior before and after my comments in game chat it has been apparent to me that some players were unaware of this fact.

3) Intimidation. Don't do it because it's not my style and additionally I believe it is counter-productive.

4) Alliance-making. Yes, for the reasons given in point 1 above. I should point out that my goal in each game is to win not establish an alliance. If for whatever reason I am not winning a game and I see a possibility of forming a temporary alliance to get back into the game I will often pursue this possibility.

5) Trash-talking. No, I don't engage in this. I find it not to be fun and when an opponent engages in it I tend to think badly of him. In that sense I believe it is counter-productive.

Finally, I engage in game chat for three primary reasons: diplomatic, social, and etiquette. Most importantly for diplomatic reasons, to influence the game in some way whether by nudging players to focus on something I think is being overlooked to my detriment, or to propose or respond to offers of alliance. I also respond to players when they wish everyone good luck when the game starts. If I'm unfortunate enough to be eliminated in the game I always congratulate the player who eliminated me for two reasons. One, he obviously played better than me in the game and deserves to be complimented. Two, he is obviously a player to watch in the game and to the extent that other players in the game may have overlooked or discounted his ability I am effectively calling it to their attention. I always say good game to any player I eliminate. Finally I always give a good game to everyone in the game largely for reasons of social convention and courtesy.

[Idiot]

Tahitiwahini, thanks for the thoughtful reply!

There would obviously be no formal alliances, but there would still be tacit de facto alliances based on self-interest -- that I believe is an intrinsic part of the game. These alliances would be entered into by positioning and behavior rather than speech, but they would surely still exist.

Agreed. And behaviour and positioning is the way I do this. Reminds me of JFK and the Cuban missiles and trying to send messages to the Soviets without having a direct communication line.

Finally, I engage in game chat for three primary reasons: diplomatic, social, and etiquette. Most importantly for diplomatic reasons, to influence the game in some way whether by nudging players to focus on something I think is being overlooked to my detriment, or to propose or respond to offers of alliance.

One place I'd differ with you is that I don't flag the overlookings ("By the way, Kamchakha joins to Alaska, n00b") and, obviously, I never make compacts along the lines of "You can have Asia if I can have Europe" or "Don't attack me for three turns and I won't attack you".

A couple more thoughts on this issue.

My position on game-related chat, whether of the diplomatic or intimidatory kind, is that it's comparable to things like anti-Semitic free speech or abusive language in parliament. Sure, a lot of people do it, AND you should be allowed to do it, but maybe there are reasons the individual should choose to avoid them.

These reasons might fall into two categories: on the one hand, matters of etiquette, sportsmanship, ethics (like trash-talking during basketball, or interfering with someone else's chess game); and on the other hand, matters of the pleasure of Risk and what people get out of it.

I think you'd to some extent grant me the first set of reasons. And as to the second set, I think one of your comments is important: "It would be a slightly different game". So the main question remaining (and it boils down to individual preference): which type of game is better?