“If it’s not in the rules, it’s not against the rules.”
When Allan B Calhamer produced the prototype for Diplomacy, which he called Realpolitik, he soon realised that the rules, and the game, needed to improve. This was, as it should be for any game in development, the result of extensive game play.
Diplomacy was released in 1959 but the rules weren’t yet complete. Calhamer admits this in his article “A Dozen Years of Diplomacy.“1 Here he says:
Where there are ambiguities in the rules at present I feel no hesitation in telling people what I intended the rule to be. If I am playing in a game when the matter comes up, I usually accept a vote as binding for that game only. But if there is, essentially, an error in the rules – if they really say something I didn’t intend – I prefer to go along with the written wording. …
A few strange results occur from time to time under the rules because of the desire to keep the rules simple and to keep their sheer bulk down. … The real problem is what to do if the victim demands a look at the rule book. I have sometimes gotten by in the past by denying that I had a copy.
Many of these inconsistencies have since been ironed out. The 1971 Rules did a lot of the work, and further editions have done the rest.
What is the Flying Dutchman?
Calhamer tells us specifically about this phenomenon:
A variety of rough-and-ready tactics were developed at this time. One was the “Flying Dutchman”, which consisted in playing with a piece to which you were not entitled.2
How did you get such a piece? There might be a couple of ways. One was by not disbanding a unit; you might write the order but ‘forget’ to remove it from the board. Another might be that you built an extra unit, quietly slipping one onto the board unnoticed. This didn’t have to be during a Winter turn, either!
Yeah, cheating, right?
Well, it depends. After all, it wasn’t forbidden by the rules specifically so nobody could say it was against the rules… could they?
And, guess what? It still isn’t specifically forbidden in the rules!
Should it be allowed, then?
Well, the simple answer is no, of course not. It is a unit that you aren’t entitled to have on the board. However Calhamer tells us that: “It was ruled that this practice was legal so long as it was a deception.“3 Surprising? Well, it might have affected the game before being noticed.
Whenever it was noticed, the piece could be moved. However, if any subsequent phases had been adjudicated, they wouldn’t be rolled back. Why not? Because the moves had been seen; arrangements might have been broken. These couldn’t be taken back! Presumably, if the player had added an extra SC to their count, and the piece was now earned on the board, then it would remain in position… but I suppose it may have been removed and rebuilt. It isn’t clear.
Does it happen today?
Not in arena events. It is one of a number of practices that has, in FTF conventions, tournaments and leagues, fallen away. Another typical one is order interference – when players sneak a peek at another player’s orders, steal them, etc. Just not something that happens any more.
In house games? Possibly. You tell me!
Of course, in a Remote game, it can’t happen. What might happen online, occasionally, is that adjudications might contain errors. I know on Playdiplomacy, where I have played most of my games, it was a case of where a bug occurred it would be investigated and corrected but, if the game had progressed, it wouldn’t be rolled back, for the same reasons as stated above.
What does still come up today, in every form of Diplomacy, is the attitude that leads people to try this kind of tactic: “If it isn’t forbidden, it’s allowed.” To some extent, that can lead to uncomfortable situations, to some questionable ethics and practices.
But isn’t this just part of the challenge of playing Diplomacy?
- Calhamer, A. A Dozen Years of Diplomacy. Diplomania #12, Aug 1966. Accessed from https://diplomacyzines.co.uk/strategy-tactics/articles-by-alan-b-calhamer/a-dozen-years-of-diplomacy/, 6 Nov 2024. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
THE DIPTIONARY 