Posted 12:03 PM by Floyd

Joanne Jacobs blogged a quote from "Denise Morgan, a law and education policy professor:"

Public schools are one of the few institutions in the United States where people from different backgrounds come together to negotiate common values and to determine the course of our shared future. It is public spaces, such as those schools, that give meaning to citizenship -- because it is in those spaces that we are all equal. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a democracy in which the citizenry did not meet on equal terms for the purpose of community building, discussion, and debate. It would be terribly ironic if in our efforts to increase the freedoms of parents, we diminish the democracy that makes such freedoms possible.

When I first read this I posted a snarky comment about Morgan's pretentious and meaningless wording, and my soul was at peace. Later I got to thinking about how this one paragraph is offensive on so many levels:

• First, as I have noted, there is the flowery but meaningless language. "Negotiate common values" sounds nice but upon examination is ridiculous. No one negotiates their beliefs. "Determine the course of our shared future" is the sort of verbiage which causes people to mock politicians. "It would be terribly ironic" is beneath the dignity of a law professor; it is a phrase best used by earnest idiots when writing a letter to the editor.
  
  
• The idea that democracy makes freedoms possible would be a surprise to those applauded when the Supreme Court struck down legislative innovations such as the prohibition on flag-burning and the Computer Decency Act. Such a court action is an anti-democratic activity. The people who founded this country had no interest in democracy at all; that is why they created a republic. (Albert Jay Nock once wrote that "democrat" in the late eighteenth century was a term of opprobrium roughly equivalent to "fascist.")
  
  
• Then we have the following starry-eyed idiocy: "Indeed, it is hard to imagine a democracy in which the citizenry did not meet on equal terms for the purpose of community building, discussion, and debate."
  
  How about if we imagine an actual democracy that has three hundred million people, far too many to fit in a room comfortably, which elects representatives of said people? And we imagine that those representatives and the organizations which support them become an elite that are distant from the masses, and accorded special privileges and exemptions which the citizentry may not enjoy?
  
  
• Stripped of excess verbiage, and disregarding bizzare ideas on democracy, Morgan still has a reasonable argument: That when people are brought together in a public space they can build a community. But whatever the merits of this idea, it should not be allowed to trump the fundamental right of free association. People, including children, have a right to associate with those that they wish under their own terms. This right applies when receiving an education just as it applies to other activities. Imagine what it would sound like if apply Morgan's argument to other spheres of action -- while imagining an America where, say, eating or playing was a government-funded activity with mandatory attendance and assigned seating:
  
  

  
  Public canteens are one of the few institutions in the United States where people from different backgrounds come together to negotiate common values and to determine the course of our shared future... It would be terribly ironic if in our efforts to increase the freedoms of people to eat dinner with whom they choose, we diminish the democracy that makes such freedoms possible.
  

  
  
  

  
  Public play areas are one of the few institutions in the United States where people from different backgrounds come together to negotiate common values and to determine the course of our shared future... It would be terribly ironic if in our efforts to increase the freedoms of children to play with whom they choose, and to play the games they want, we diminish the democracy that makes such freedoms possible.
  

  
  

Posted 1:07 PM by Floyd

The Democrats have done it again: They have found a court who will comply with their ham-fisted attempt to rig an election. Naturally this has created a lot of disgust, and some of the disgusted are Democrats. For instance, Shiloh Bucher blogged "WHY I AM NO LONGER A DEMOCRAT".

Most people's inclination would be that the Democrats will abandon their hardball tactics as more voters get disgusted with them; this is the normal process of negative feedback. (E.g. Instapundit: "Sentiments like these may be the most potent check on the doings of both parties in New Jersey, and elsewhere.") I argue that this is not going to happen; that in fact Democratic behavior shall become more and more appalling. Here are the reasons why:

1. The Democrats are the party of government

Democrats support government; their platform calls for an expanded government role in most aspects of American life. If the Democrats had their druthers there would be no American who would not interact regularly with some sort of government official. The Democracts have over the past seventy years been very successful at expanding government, thus the number of government jobs is enormous. These government jobholders are majority Democrat; also they are unionized, which has the effect of concentrating their political power in the hands of union officials who are fanatically pro-Democrat.

Many issues discussed in the political sphere do not affect most Americans; to the average American the arguments over what and how many government programs should be funded are abstruse and theoretical. To the government job-holders these issues are vital and personal, and they have no interest in arguing over them. What they need is to have the discussion stopped and the threat to their pocketbooks eliminated.

One of the perquisites of government employment is job security; another is the pension, and it is required to have job security to expect to collect a pension. Civil servants therefore react very strongly to any political threat to their employment. When there is talk of cutting government, they expect and want the Democrats to play hardball, to reassure them that their jobs can remain secure. The more absurd and blatant the exercise of power, the better, because it demonstrates the Democratic Party's loyalty to their concerns.

2. The Democrats are the party of power

Democratic politics are a vehicle through which people can obtain power over others. I am not speaking here of the power enjoyed by government employees as a function of their job; rather I refer to the policies supported by Democrats which regulate the racial composition of businesses and schools, increase the price and availability of "vices" such as cigarettes, suppress rural activities in favor of the environment, and so on.

Attempts to regulate Americans' private behavior are most effective when made by the Democratic party. There are certainly many people who would like to use the Republican party to pass laws regulating behavior such as abortion and obscene speech, but this has not been a success as courts tend to strike down these laws. Also the political mood is against Comstockery and related attitudes.

Someone who seeks to attain power over others' lives must gain some satisfaction from the involutary aspects of power, from making people do what they would not if left to themselves. (If such were not the case, they would seek not power but persuasion.) So the instinct of the power-seekers is to play hardball politics for its own sake. The thought process at work is not "This is really scummy, but we will have to do it to win." It is "This is really scummy, and it will infuriate those damn Republicans." It does not bother the power-seekers when excuses for their actions are weak; this adds to the thrill of exercising power over others. They can get their way even when there is no rational reason why they should!

3. The Democrats are losing

Fifty years ago the Democrats were a majority party because Americans believed that government could and should run their lives. It was a common belief that experts in government employ could impersonally and scientifically guide the economy, educate the young, contain the Soviet threat, and eliminate crime.

There followed twenty years during which government spent enormous resources attempting to solve these problems. The result was a disaster and America's faith in government was in tatters. Now that there is little interest in liberal politics, the Democrats have nothing to sell. Over the last twenty years, the Democrats have lost tremendous numbers of seats in state legislators. They have also lost dozens of seats in the House of Representatives.

What the Democrats have done to maintain their grip on power is to appeal to the interest groups that benefit from Democratic-sponsored government programs, and to gain office by attacking their Republican opponents. This is not a formula for long-term growth and success.

Positive Feedback

All the tendencies that I detailed above will tend to amplify themselves. There will not be negative feedback, which is healthy and correcting; there will be positive feedback, which will lead to destruction.

As the Democrats lose more elections, government workers will become more frightened and will demand that their jobs be protected by any means necessary. As the Democrats lose power, the party's power-seekers will demand similar action; also they will seek psychological compensation by exercising power for its own sake in the cases where it is still possible. As fewer and fewer people believe what Democrats believe, attacks on Republicans will become more frequent and more vitriolic.

And of course, these actions will turn off many potential Democratic voters. When I talk about government job-holders and power-seekers, I refer to the Democratic party's activist core. These people are a minority of those who vote Democratic. As the party gets more and more attuned to its vocal minority, it will lose votes from people like Shiloh Bucher.

So you might think that I will conclude that the Democratic Party has two choices: It can distance itself from its radical constituency and start to play fair, or it can spiral downward to oblivion. That's what I thought at first when I was starting to write this, but it only came to my mind because it's a thumb-sucker cliche. Shorn of its unions and activists, the Democrats will lose a lot of money and a lot of volunteer labor. It will lose donations from rich liberals with radical politics. It will also probably lose much of its corporate donations, because with the government unions gone, there will be less power to fear and less influence to bribe.

Another reason why this will not happen is that expelling a large and influencial portion of the party is a radical action. Factions like the Democratic Leadership Council are not radical. A DLC member is a southern Democrat who is vaguely concerned that an over-liberal party will make it hard for him to get elected or to serve in a Democratic presidential administration. The radical Democrats I have been discussing have real and immediate concerns about keeping their jobs and their powers. It's not hard to imagine who will win a fight between these two.

Posted 1:04 PM by Floyd

I heard on the radio that Damon Wayans has a new sitcom. This reminded me of the last issue of Spy magazine that I read. It was shortly before Spy went out of business and may have been the final issue. You wouldn't have thought the rag was about to fail from the content; it was funnier than all the good bits from The Onion in the last year.

The creme de la creme was an investigation into which Hollywood family had more pull: the Wayans or the Baldwins. Spy invented a fictitious brother from each ("Michael Baldwin" and "Tito Wayans"), and then called various parties and restaurants pretending to be that person's personal assistant and trying to get in. The results were amazing (as well as a clear victory for the Wayans):

Spy: Hello, I'm Michael Baldwin's personal assistant. He was wondering if he could attend the book signing party tonight.

Girl answering phone: Michael -- is he the baby Baldwin?

Spy: Yes.

Girl answering phone: Yes, of course. Oh -- tell him to say hi to Daisy -- I'm small and blonde, I'll be in the front.

   

Spy: Hello, I'm a personal assistant for Tito Wayans. Would it be possible for Tito to attend the opening night festivities?

Security: What's the Wayans boy doing in town?

Spy: Publicity.

Security: We can't just have anybody saying they're Tito Wayans and showing up. It's a very exclusive event.

Spy: That's not a problem. Would you like us to fax you some I.D.?

Security: We know what the Wayans boy looks like.

   

This sounds like fun; maybe I should try it myself:

FM: Hello, is this Congressman Gephardt's office? ... My name is Floyd McWilliams and I work for Professor Glenn Reynolds ... No, of course he doesn't write everything himself ... Not that many, only six of us on this shift ... Anyway the Professor got the Flash ad okay but he didn't get those office party pictures ... You know, the one where Congressman Gephardt got a little crazy ... No, it's fine, it's part of a new image campaign, the Congressman knows all about it ... floyd@best.com ... Yes, I promise to spell his name right.

FM: Hello, may I speak to the events coordinator for CAIR? ... My name is Floyd McWilliams and I work for Charles Johnson. I understand Mr. Hooper will be delivering a speech on anti-Muslim hate crimes and I was wondering if you could get me admitted ... No, not Charles Austin, he's the "sine qua non" pundit ... No, not Christopher Johnson, he's the Midwest Conservative Journal ... you know, Little Green -- hello? hello?

FM: Hello, is this MediaWhoresOnline? My name is Floyd McWilliams and I'm an assistant to Andrew Sullivan? ... No sir, I'm not here to present you with a Begala award ... This may sound kind of strange, but Mr. Sullivan is done with conservatism and wants to write for your site ... Yes, I know that seems sudden ... Apparently he ran into Paul Krugman by chance and they started arguing, then they spent some time alone with a bottle of wine ... Yes, that's what Mr. Sullivan says, great backrubs ... I didn't know that was common knowledge ... Howard Raines, you say? ... Anyway I won't need to take any more of your time, just give me the ftp password for the site and we'll get to work.

Posted 9:07 AM by Floyd

Democrats say that New Jersey election rules should be violated and current Senator Torricelli replaced on the ballot. This is so that New Jersey voters will not be "deprived of a choice."

In Hawaii, "State Democratic leaders made clear yesterday they will aggressively campaign for the late Patsy Mink in an effort to hold onto her congressional seat in the Nov. 5 election."

Posted 9:17 PM by Floyd

John Bono (who writes Big S Blog) knows that a picture is worth a thousand words. So a whiny complaint about conditions at the Guantanamo prison camp is subjected to the most vicious Fisking ever seen.

(Link via Charles Johnson.)

Posted 8:35 PM by Floyd

It's About Time

Subject: URGENT ASSISTANCE



MR IBRAHIM AHMED

DIRECTOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION,

FEDERAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF NIGERIA (FAAN)

LAGOS-NIGERIA.

TEL:234-80-371-60350

FAX:234-9-272-1124

I was beginning to feel left out.

Posted 1:44 PM by Floyd

Fixed an HTML bug in the bridge posting -- I had not closed a table, so Problem #4 did not have an auction and the page looked like crap. Also I could not count to 13 when explaining my line on Problem #4.

Posted 12:52 PM by Floyd

Let's say you were playing bridge in a knockout match and were stuck 30 at the half. Then the director told you to pick any opponents you wanted for the second half. My choice would be democrats.com. A couple of gems:

Photo from "THB Politoon"

I wonder if Henry Wallace asserted during his 1948 presidential campaign that opposing the Soviets was wrong because Hitler's body had never been found.

Proof of genius #2:

"Bush's Wild West Policies and Bullyish Posturing Cause Backlash in Southeast Asia

Bush can take absolute credit for one thing: He has managed to destabilize the entire world more thoroughly in just 2 years than any other leader in modern history. Not even Hitler managed to create so much international tensions or precipitate so many political crises in so short a time. But Bush is a political dinosaur turned loose in the global china shop - a half-witted elephant turned loose at a gentile teaparty. The latest tensions to emerge as direct result of Bush's idiocy are in Southeast Asia, where Bush's wooing of China in his anti-Saddam "coalition building" efforts and his bullying of, and inuendoes against, Indonesia and Malaysia are creating political unrest and regional friction. Does anyone dare imagine the world after TWO MORE YEARS of the G.lobal W.reckingball?"

• August 1939: Germany allies with the Soviet Union.
  
• September 1939: Germany invades and conquers Poland.
  
• April 1940: Germany invades and conquers Denmark and Norway.
  
• May 1940: Germany invades and conquers Luxemburg, Belgium, Holland; invades France.
  
• June 1940: France surrenders.
  
• August 1940: Germany forces Rumania to cede half of Transylvania to Hungary, causing a revolution against King Carol.
  
• August-September 1940: Battle of Britain and terror bombing of London.
  
• April 1941: Germany invades and smashes Yugoslavia and Greece.
  
• May 1941: German airborne assault seizes Crete.
  
• June 1941: Germany invades Russia, killing and capturing hundreds of thousands of people and doubling the size of the German empire within a few weeks.
  

Anyway, Bush has to destabilize Southeast Asia. Bin Laden might be hiding there!

Posted 9:28 PM by Floyd

Bridge Blog: Now with Stupefying Quiz!

Yesterday Sherry and I played in a knockout with our friends Michael and Brian. This was a three-session event at the San Jose Sectional. All three sessions were played Saturday at 9 a.m., 1 p.m., and 7 p.m.

Six months ago Sherry and I played in the same event with another couple. The event had a good turnout; there were 16 teams including some very good players. A three-round event needs eight teams, so the field was split into two sections by experience. This is called "bracketing". We were in the top bracket, and were knocked out in the first round.

Yesterday the field was much smaller. Only seven teams entered. Everyone was in the same event, so the matches were handicapped. We were one of the more experienced teams in the event and we gave away six or more imps each match.

---

Before we begin, try this quiz. Of course all problems are from the knockout and are therefore IMP scoring.

1. All vulnerable, fourth seat: xx Axxxx Txx Txx.

LHO opens 1. Partner doubles. RHO passes and you bid 2. LHO rebids 2. Partner bids 3. RHO passes. What is your call?

2. All vulnerable, first seat: Qxx Qxx xx AQTxx.

You pass. LHO opens 1 which is passed to you. What is your call?

3. None vulnerable, third seat: Jxxx x Ax QJxxxx.

Your partner opens 1N, 15-17. You bid 2 Stayman and he responds 2. Your choices are:

• 2N, invitational and showing four spades
  
• 3, a signoff, showing a weak hand and saying nothing about spades.
  

4. A play problem:

LHO	Partner	RHO	You
P	P	1	1
P	1N	2	2

Dummy:

94

Q63

KJ73

AJ93

Your hand:

KQ753

AJ72

T954

-

LHO leads the four of clubs (fourth best leads). Plan the play.

---

Because we were a team short of the ideal eight, the first round had a three-way and two head-to-head matches. We were in a head-to-head. Two young Chinese guys were at our table, two older men at the other table. We had little trouble with them and were up 19 at halftime. (A match consists of 24 boards; play 12 boards, compare, take a short break, then reshuffle and play the second half.) We had a handicap of 6.2 imps so we were up 12 and change.

On the first board of the second match our opponents made an error common to less experienced players. My RHO held xx Axxxx xxx AQx. His partner opened 1, he bid 1, and his partner rebid 2. What is the correct call?

He passed, which is wrong. Partner should have six diamonds so 3N has play opposite a spade stop and reasonable diamonds. The correct bid is 3. This hand actually has extras; take away the club queen and the raise would still be correct.

Our teammates bid 3N for an 11-imp pickup. We lost 6 and 7 imps on two other boards (I was in an embarrassing 3N down 4 vulnerable), and all the other boards were pushes or 1-imp swings. We won the second half 14-13.

We finished at 12:15 and had to return by 1. Fortunately there was a Quizno's down the street.

---

We came back and found that our first opponents were some middle-aged women we didn't know. The best of the other teams had been knocked out in the three-way. Our handicap again was 6 imps and change.

The first board out of the box was Problem #1 above. Sherry held this hand and passed. My hand was a crusher: 8 K9 AKQJ86 AK92. 5 makes easily. I think a raise to 4 is correct, but of course I'm biased by the result. Note that if partner can bid 4 on three-card support you are very happy.

If I were playing with a more scientific partner, my first bid would be 3, showing a running suit and around 8 tricks but lacking a spade stopper. With Sherry's hand the response would be 5, asking partner to bid game in the long suit.

We were a little soft at our table but our teammates came through. They found a game that was missed at our table, and they bid and made 3N on a hand that we passed out! We led by 28-14, reduced to 7 and a fraction by handicap.

The second half was nervous. It started out well: I played a 2 contract well, and Sherry and I defended very well to beat 1N. This hand was remarkable because we took the last five tricks, and four of the winners were tens! But on the fourth board, Sherry had nine spades to the AKJT. She was favorable and bid 4 after 1 - P - 2, then 5 when the auction continued 5 - P - 5! This was doubled; I had the ace of clubs and she went -100. 5 goes down; I had ATx of clubs and was going to lead ace and a club. In spite of this I think Sherry's bid is undoubtably correct; you don't risk -650 when you know you have -100 or -300 available.

We had a good result when the opponents got pushed too high, but then we failed to compete on a partscore hand. We missed a good 6N as well. So when our teammates came back to compare I hoped they had a good card. On the nine-spade hand we lost 12; it went 1 - P - 1N forcing - 4, and Brian sawed it off as he had no reason to believe there was a fit. But the missed slam was a good result; the opponents went down in their 5-2 diamond fit. This was win 13 (instead of lose 13 against 6N); and we won the second half 31-20.

---

After a nice dinner at a Cal-Mex restaurant in Willow Glen, we returned for the final. Because it was just two teams playing we were on our own time, so we agreed to return at 6:30.

Our opponents were more middle-aged ladies, this time from Monterey bay. We gave out a 9.06 handicap.

The first board of the match was Problem 2, the reopening decision. Sherry held this hand and bid 2. I held a 5341 6-count and decided to pass before it got worse. Sherry went for -300 against a partscore.

To bid here is a bad idea for the following reasons:

• There is no big plus coming to you if you bid. If you are making a game, partner would have bid.
  
• Partner appears to have heart shortness, yet could not make a takeout double -- therefore a poor hand is likely.
  
• You are 5332, which is a bad shape.
  
• Your suit is bad.
  
• You have Qxx in the enemy's long suit. This is a death holding.
  

By the way, I made the mistake a few years ago playing in the San Francisco rubber bridge club. This lesson cost me $20!

A few boards later was Problem 3. The player on our team who held this hand signed off in 3. Partner had a maximum with Axx of clubs and 3N was making. Bidding 2N with this hand is pushy, but you do have a long suit with a side entry. (Also, partner can still have four spades.) Pushiness is good here because it can lead to a game bonus.

On our card we had this soft result and a misplayed vulnerable game. Our teammates had a bad result when Brian played 4 after an overcall on his left. He had AQ of spades in hand, and decided to drop the singleton king because otherwise LHO would have a seven count. Guess what: The bad player had made a bad bid. After 12 boards we were 20 imps in the hole; add in the handicap and we needed to pick up 30 imps to win!

It's important to be careful when you are down a lot. Against a non-expert team, you can pick up a lot of imps on reasonably hard boards. But if the boards are flat -- as they were in the second half of the morning match -- you have a problem. You can try to "swing" -- take risky or low-percentage actions -- to catch up. But you don't want to undo your teammates' good work.

Another concern is that you have to maintain focus. It's easy to blame yourself for mistakes, or to get so mad at what your teammates did. You can't let it affect your play. You have to be mentally tough to win at bridge. As Warren Zevon says

Some have the speed
And the right combinations
If you can't take the punches
It don't mean a thing

The second half started off with a bang: I held KT9xxx A Kxxx Ax. First seat, all white, I opened 1. LHO bid 2, showing five hearts and a five-card minor. RHO bid 3. I decided I wasn't desperate enough to bid again and passed. LHO raised to game.

What would you lead? I considered a diamond as LHO's side suit appeared to be clubs. But I led the spade ten and was rewarded when dummy appeared:

Qx KT8xxx - KQJT9.

Sherry won the ace and returned a low spade to my king. A third spade seemed appropriate, for the trump promotion if partner has say J9x. But I decided to cash my club first. What if Sherry had started with AJx of spades, RHO had a stiff club and pitched it on the spade? No problem, cash the club ace first. RHO ruffed and it was puking time. RHO then put the heart queen on the table. I won with the ace, led a spade, and Sherry did indeed have the jack of trumps. Down one.

Declarer had Q9x of trumps in hand and could have made: Low heart, ruff the spade with the king, heart to her nine. Of course she has no reason to guess the position.

Then we beat a 2 contract that could have been made. Boards 3 and 4 were not so good; we missed a slam on board 3 and failed to find a very tough defense to 3N (we would have had to hand lock declarer). But I didn't expect to lose any imps on these boards. On board 5 I held JTx AQx x AQxxxx. I opened 1 and Sherry responded 1. This sort of hand is a problem; it's worth more than a single raise but a double raise on three trumps is a no-no. I raised to 2, which I now think is an error. Down 30 I should reverse to 2, or just bid 3 and hope it works out.

After two passes RHO reopened with a double. Now I decided that my hand, with the AQ's over the bidder, was even better, so I bid 3 and when Sherry bid 3, raised to game. Sherry played it carefully and we were +650.

The good results kept coming. We won the part-score battle, making 3 when their 2 was makable. Then LHO was dealt eight clubs to the AQJT; she opened 1, Sherry jumped to 2, RHO bid 2N. LHO raised to 3N only and was cold for seven clubs or notrump.

My favorite hand was Problem 4, the 4-3 heart fit. Repeated for your convenience:

Dummy:

94

Q63

KJ73

AJ93

Your hand:

KQ753

AJ72

T954

-

LHO led a club. I won the ace, pitching a diamond, and led a spade off dummy.
RHO rose ace and played the club king. I considered ducking this and the next club
for diamond shakes. But that would mean two club losers to go with my spade and diamond loser; I would have to find RHO with Kxx of hearts.

Instead I ruffed the club. Then I cashed the two high spades. They stood up, and I knew the whole hand. RHO was 3154 and LHO was 3505. So the king of hearts was probably offside, but I had a 100% line at this point for four more tricks (assuming LHO really did have the king): I would lead a spade from hand and ruff it with the queen. Then ruff a club and exit a diamond. At some point LHO will have to ruff her partner's trick and lead a heart into the AJ.

When I led a spade LHO ruffed with the king. This was just as good; I still ruffed a club in my hand and got to score my three heart honors separately.

We were very slow to finish; it had been a long day and everyone was tired. Our opponents were slow to get out of their chairs and head for their home table; my heart was hammering and I wanted them out of there. Our teammates sat down. My friend Wayne, who had been playing in the pair event, wandered over. Brian and Michael had a solid card and we outscored the opponents 49-7 to win the event going away. It was Sherry's first knockout win, and increased her masterpoint total by one-third. It was a long, exhausting, and satisfying day.

Posted 12:40 PM by Floyd

Colby Cosh is spending his Sunday playing Diplomacy. That makes me wonder what the weather is like in Edmonton today:

High 51, Low 36, Showers.

Yikes, I'd be inside playing board games too. Didn't summer end just a week ago?

I played some face-to-face Diplomacy in college. After I graduated I played in two email games. Playing by email had the advantage that you didn't need to find six other local players and you didn't need to schedule a large block of time.

The first game I played in was classic Diplomacy. The players were identified and you would send them email to discuss moves and alliances. You sent moves to a moderator who would resolve moves and send a summary after each turn. This was in 1991 and the Internet was still the province of industry and academia. So many of the players were students with class accounts. This led to problems because when the semester was over, you could no longer contact Germany at arx@cs185.cmu.edu, and the moderator would have to find a fill-in.

I played Turkey and won by concession. I don't remember much about the game. I do remember the second game, which was a special variant only possible through email: A game where you didn't know the whereabouts of the other players, and had to send messages through the moderator. The moderator would publish all messages in one big email sent to other players along with the summary of how the moves turned out. These messages were called "press".

The game I played in had White Press, Gray Press, and Black Press. White Press is a message from you to another player: "France->Germany: I plan to move into the English Channel. Please support my move from North Sea.". Gray Press is an anonymous message: "France is getting too powerful. After England is defeated, Germany is sure to be the next target. Beware!" Then there is Black Press, which is a spoof on another player's messages. For instance, England could tell the moderator to place this message in France's section: "France->Germany: Will move into Irish or North Atlantic for outflanking move. Please hold in North."

It was an interesting variant. Life was easier for the downtrodden, because you could see what your opponents were plotting against you and you could defend yourself. Also when you were backstabbed, it was public. One strategy you could try which would kill you in regular Diplomacy was to randomly slurp up neighboring centers from your "allies". I was Austria and expanded in this manner like a malicious amoeba.

Unfortunately there was a lot of turnover and the game broke up. There was one substitute for Germany who made me laugh: His press reported that a "black-turtlenecked figure" had seized power in Germany, demanding that other world leaders "touch his monkey".

There is also a variant which I have never played called No Press. There is no communication with other players at all! I guess you move pieces in the vicinity of those whom you would like to attack, and deduce what your allies (if any) would like you to do. It's a mystery to me why anyone would enjoy this game, but it takes all kinds.