The discussion CommanderByron refers to was instigated by a comment by Jamiet99uk on Page 5 of threadID=1431155 and started when MajorMitchell replied on Page 7 of the same thread. The discussion since spilled over into threadID=1432492.

I don't mean to sound dismissive, but when you say "for those new to the website," I see you attempting to immediately appeal to people that haven't played PPSC on this site. That's a bad approach to take if you want credibility in this discussion. When we talk about the merits of PPSC (or, rather, when other people talk about the merits of PPSC, because to me there really aren't any), it's not a matter of quantity but of quality of the arguments made.

I also don't mean to sound dismissive, but bo, you should really read all of JECE's post. He seems to me to just be giving background, to the newer players who weren't around to already know that.

Also, JECE, I don't think PPSC followed the rulebook in the event of a solo.

I know that he's giving background, but, again, not to be dismissive but to be realistic about this matter, I don't think that people that never played PPSC on this site (though maybe some have on vDip) should have a significant say in this matter.

Nobody ever had any say in this matter. The site administration made the decision, and now we all live with it.

And then a random moderator named bo_sox48 came around and encouraged you all to make a thread instead of bitching about it as if we make a big display out of stifling discussion around here.

You might not get your way, but nobody ever said you couldn't talk about it.

How are we supposed to keep bumping ATC's retirement thread now?

@bo
Perhaps not, but they still deserve to know what PPSC was.

@ JECE
I looked up the objective part of the rulebook. This is what the 4th edition says:
"As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it is considered to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that Great Power is the winner. However, players can end the game by agreement before a winner is determined. In this case, all players who still have pieces on the board share equally in a draw."

To me, that sounds like DSS. I don't think you can argue that PPSC was the system described by the rulebook.

Still, even if PPSC isn't described by the rulebook, that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate scoring system. SoS also isn't described by the rulebook, but it's still allowed on the site. Both SoS and PPSC incentives actions that I think are against the rulebook. Maybe we should only have DSS on the site, since it's the only true system.

bo_sox48: I just didn't want those new to the website to be lost in cryptic jargon. Also, a reminder of how PPSC works is helpful considering that prominent players still don't understand that draws are divided evenly with PPSC.

so how many angels can they really fit on the head of a pin?

If your argument is that PPSC is good because it follows the rulebook, then DSS is certainly closer to the rules than PPSC. 18 centers results in "control of Europe" which is significantly better represented by DSS than PPSC.

PPSC encourages players to play for second place, which has never been encouraged by any other scoring system I've heard of in the last 30+ years of Diplomacy. It produces bad Diplomacy players and makes our site look like a joke.

Yeah bo, we can talk as much as we want (and far longer, as was evidenced last time this came up), but it's been made very clear that talk is as far as anything will go.

Out of curiosity, what motivation would the mods have for banning PPSC if it was a reasonable scoring system?

SoS is a joke for online Diplomacy. It leads to six and seven way draws and games that end after 3-4 years. That makes a lot of sense in a face to face tournament, where time constraints force games to end in the early middle game, but it really doesn't fit the online format.

SoS isn't a great scoring system and should probably be replaced, but certainly not with PPSC.

@JECE, the fact that one prominent player forgot exactly how PPSC works is not a refutation of the arguments against it. For one, abge's misremembered version might actually be better than the real PPSC, and, more importantly, that's evidence of the fact that prominent players had abandoned PPSC long before it was removed from the site.

There's no argument that some of you enjoyed it, and I'm sorry that you've lost your ability to play your preferred variant on webDiplomacy (though it is still available with other variants on vDiplomacy), but it didn't reflect the rulebook, and it taught behaviors that hurt non-PPSC games when carried over.

This was not a decision made lightly by the mods. It was not a decision made unilaterally by ATC, or even the whole team. It was an overdue response to a problem that had been known and discussed throughout the site for years, and we took care to make sure that it hadn't resulted in less play before finalizing our decision to remove it. That a very small, very vocal minority disagrees with the change does not make it unjustified or blind to the wishes of the users.

The decision remains final.

@abge, what exactly is your issue with SoS?

Yeah, PPSC is even worse than I remembered. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'm all for clarity, so maybe I'm not being clear enough, PPSC was made on the back of a napkin by a subpar casual player one day, who was repeatedly told it doesn't make sense by others but didn't care and then eventually left it behind. It has not, is not, and never will be thought up by or used by anyone else anywhere. If you want "Split points by draw-based for a draw but randomly give 1/2 to winner and to the losers based on centre count" for some reason, go play it unranked and assign yourself your arbitrary, odd, deficient, unofficial scoring system, along with any other imaginary non-sanctioned scoring system you wish to play with. That's what unranked games can do, allow you to do, part of the reason they exist.

PPSC was a shit show bullshit system that did two things that DSS did not:
Gave more points for more centers (ONLY if you lost)
Let you get points for losing (i.e. a bullshit make believe scoring system)

-It's inconsistent with itself
-It's inconsistent with the entire rest of the online hobby at large (with the exception of a site forked from this one)
-It's inconsistent with the entire rest of the non-online hobby
-It's arbitrary (SOS, DSS, Carnage, all come from established, consistent design philosophy behind them (which I'm happy to explain to anyone who wants). Where does 1/2 for the winner come from? What if the winner had 20 centers rather than 18? Know what happens?)
-It incentives purposely losing behavior
-It rewards points not just non-intuitively, but COMPLETELY outside or reverse of expectations at times, see example math below.

And, relatedly, you know what one of the things that REALLY gets the goat of the people like me? That it's clear the people who want PPSC *don't* want it for it's points-per-supply-centre aspect, they want it just for it's "get points when I lose" aspect. Because even when ATC offered/inquired about it was there no clamoring for a scoring system that *CONSISTENTLY* gave points per supply center (i.e. for DRAW *and* WIN outcomes). No, it's ALWAYS been about getting points when you lose, *that's* what people care about.

Some PPSC numbers:

PPSC with Winner
Winner: 18 SCs = 18
Loser1: 15 SCs = 15
Loser2: 1 SC = 1

PPSC with DrawA
DrawA-1: 17 SCs = 34/3 ~11.33
DrawA-2: 16 SCs = 34/3 ~11.33
DrawA-3: 1 SC = 34/3 ~11.33

PPSC with DrawB
DrawB-1: 12 SCs = 34/3 ~11.33
DrawB-2: 11 SCs = 34/3 ~11.33
DrawB-3: 11 SCs = 34/3 ~11.33

How does such a scoring system make any sense at all?
Examples of case 1:
gameID=13355
gameID=45995

Examples of case 2:
gameID=79865
gameID=10733

Examples of case 3:
gameID=121558
gameID=125509

PPSC is tantamount to legitimizing cheating. It encourages one player to intentionally lose the game to attain a reward in the form of more points.

@ghug

I have 2 main issues with SoS:

1) I find it overly complex. This isn't so bad online, but in F2F in can be a real pain to figure out what your score is. It involves a lot of math that's hard to do while negotiating and makes TDing much more prone to errors. Again, not an issue online, but as a "F2F scoring system" I think there are much better ones to go with.

2) More importantly, I really dislike how screwed low center countries get in draws. At 3,2, or even 1 center you could be critical in stopping a solo, but you'll often get insignificantly more points than someone who was eliminated. Additionally, I think it gives more credit to someone rushing to 15-17 without care for a stalemate line because it doesn't matter enough to get the solo (not as extreme as the other end, but still).

SoS doesn't conform to the rules, but unlike other scoring systems it isn't great for tournaments and it doesn't produce any particular styles of play, imho.

Yeah, we all know Carnage is the best system :)

any *particularly interesting* styles of play

Yes, Carnage would be a very nice system to add.

I stopped reading the threads after the first couple weeks, Valis, but I have no recollection of ATC offering to make PPSC a real thing. I just remember "It's gone, have a worse form of WTA in its place". I certainly would have supported that.

(To clarify, I am not saying he didn't offer, but I do wish I would have seen it at the time.)

I think SOS is alright, as I don't mind an almost solo getting more points than me if I hang on with 2SC in a draw. I'm happy to get the survive. I judge myself, and others, at least partially by their win, draw and loss rates. Lotta points and a 2% win rate? That's someone who needs the glengarry glen ross speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4PE2hSqVnk

I mean, it was a while ago. and without a real search function (*cough* please donate *cough*) it's not easy for me to find the exact threadID

Carnage? Shit, something else to go look up.