Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 775 of 1195
FirstPreviousNextLast
raphtown (151 D)
13 Jul 11 UTC
Classicists (WWWoD)
See inside for this second stab at bringing the Classicists to WebDip.
63 replies
Open
Madison the Great (0 D X)
10 Aug 11 UTC
1 MORE PERSON
join baby making exrem3.. its a live game. HURRY
0 replies
Open
G1 (100 D)
10 Aug 11 UTC
New game
1 reply
Open
ghanamann (0 D X)
10 Aug 11 UTC
Live game with suspect plays....
some people also played a lot of games together here....

gameID=65372
16 replies
Open
santosh (225 D)
07 Aug 11 UTC
Account Verification to stop Multi-accounting
Would phone number verification to stop multis be a good idea?
diplomat554 (478 D)
07 Aug 11 UTC
(Agreed, we should stop using the live game thread for this. I'll just repost my views here):

That would help multis but also likely decrease registration a lot...I know I wouldn't have signed up for something that wants my number if I didn't know it was just a hobbyist project.
santosh (225 D)
07 Aug 11 UTC
There seems to be quite a bit of multi-ing of late. So here's an idea to try and stop it. When a user registers, get him to verify a phone number - like Gmail does (if you don't have an alternate email address). (This works by sending a code and getting them to enter it and bleh)

Responses on the other thread indicate that the number of registrations may go down. We could manage this by making account verification optional, and then introducing a game creation option where as a creator, I could choose to only allow verified users.

Opinions / Ideas ?
acmac10 (120 D (B))
07 Aug 11 UTC
The best way to get your ideas heard is to post them on the development forum at: forum.webdiplomacy.net . Of course, if you could code it, it'd be a lot more likely to get it through.
santosh (225 D)
07 Aug 11 UTC
Will do.
Draugnar (25 D X)
07 Aug 11 UTC
What about people with no cells or not SMS plans? You have turned them into second class citizens. I disagree completely with this idea.
acmac10 (120 D (B))
07 Aug 11 UTC
Also, what happens to already existing members (like ourselves)? Do we have to re-register?
santosh (225 D)
07 Aug 11 UTC
The key here is account verification. I intend to make un-verified users second class citizens, that's the whole point of the scheme. But the verification process will need to be diverse enough to leave out as little of the real userbase as possible. The point of
this thread is to think of ideas to do this.

I wonder how many people on this site have access to a cell phone with an
SMS plan. I'm not sure, honestly. It would be interesting to find out.
jmo1121109 (2431 D Mod)
07 Aug 11 UTC
I do, but I do not give my number to many people and never over the internet. And the problem with this is if a few players completly above suspicion refuse the idea turns into a huge arguing debate that no one wants.
uclabb (178 D)
07 Aug 11 UTC
I disagree mostly because it doesn't solve anything (google voice bypasses), adds extra cost, and invades an honest user's privacy.
Although it's a better scheme than what is available now, I don't think this plan would work. I currently have 2 phone numbers - 3 if I include my work number - and the shops here (in the UK) sell v.cheap SIMs which fit in any mobile/cell phone which give it a new number.
uclabb (178 D)
07 Aug 11 UTC
A shit. I posted on the wrong account.
krellin (21 D)
07 Aug 11 UTC
My family has 4 cell phones - mine, wife and 2 kids. I can multi with 4 accounts by this phone verification scheme, and because I'm "verified" on each account, I expect i will now be able to multi to my hearts content, right?

In other words, this little invasion of privacy would do absolutely nothing to stop someone that wants to multi. Dude in a dorm that plays and has X number of friends willing to let him register their phones can now register X+1 accounts...

Bad idea.
Indybroughton (3407 D (G))
07 Aug 11 UTC
Unsuccessful idea. But in a good cause.
Draugnar (25 D X)
08 Aug 11 UTC
@Indy, I agree. His "heart's" in the right place, but the idea of creating second class citizens out of people because they don't want their privacy invaded is ill thought out.
Rommeltastic (924 D (B))
08 Aug 11 UTC
There IS a way to not prevent multis, but to make them totally useless. Currently, you can join your own games. Perhaps if there was randomly-assigned games, it would be harder for someone to multi in a way that made an impact?
King Atom (100 D)
08 Aug 11 UTC
Maybe if we just made one seventh of the WebDiplomacy population moderators, we'd have a mod for every game!
EmperorMaximus (551 D)
08 Aug 11 UTC
@Rommeltastic But that would make it harder to join games that you like, for example I like 36 hour full press WTA games.
jmo1121109 (2431 D Mod)
08 Aug 11 UTC
I really think that so long as people report the games they legitimately feel they have been cheated against to the moderators the site will continue to work fine. I have never been ignored when I have reported an odd game to a moderator, I see multiaccount's banned when they are caught and most of the multi's I have seen banned have not been able to accumulate enough points to join quality games. Any foolproof system to stop multi's, if one exists, would be more of a hassle to the players here then it would be worth.
santosh (225 D)
08 Aug 11 UTC
So the idea was that if a multi gets discovered and banned he'd have to get a whole new phone number to rejoin, presumably harder than just getting a new mail id.

I would think that most multis multi for quick gains, and I wouldn't be surprised if multi-ing happens a lot more in live games than in longer ones. If this is the case the bet size doesn't matter because live games usually have bids below100.
Baskineli (117 D (B))
08 Aug 11 UTC
Multis have a very clear print:
a. mostly playing with the same players.
b. not a few games.
c. abnormal win/loss/draw ratio.
d. same/similar ip (although I hope the current system already checks it).
e. etc

What do you think about automatically analyzing players based on their stats and assigning 0..100 value of "multi-rating" (risk level that the player is a multi)?

This way, when you create a game, you can set up this value as an option and restrict players according to this multi-rating.
Baskineli (117 D (B))
08 Aug 11 UTC
I meant:
b. not a lot of games.
spyman (424 D (G))
08 Aug 11 UTC
I think the phone verification system is not a bad idea actually. I get the issues that people have with it, but it could almost work.
Baskineli (117 D (B))
08 Aug 11 UTC
a. Who is going to pay for phone verification?
b. How can you make sure that the system will work with all cellular communication providers in the world?
c. A lot of people have two phone numbers or access to more than one phone number.

I don't think phone verification is a good idea. It will make potential good players to go away, and leaves enough loop holes for multis to slip in to.
spyman (424 D (G))
08 Aug 11 UTC
You are probably right. It is not practical.
taos (470 D)
08 Aug 11 UTC
i still dont get why someone will be multy
is not like playing with yourself?
boring
they can download diplomacy and play alone
doesnt the site identify the ip?
i say why do we care if someone is a multy or you think so then dont play with them the same as resigners
spyman (424 D (G))
08 Aug 11 UTC
... but I will say this. If it were feasible, and if it were not so problematic, it would reduce cheating.
Yes some people have multiple phones. But most people do not have multiple phones and most people are not cheats. Thus the set of people who have multiple phones AND are inclined to cheat AND who could be bothered to jump through the extra hoop would be considerably smaller the set of people who cheat now.
So the idea, impractical as it is, does have some merit. It would reduce cheating.
Baskineli (117 D (B))
08 Aug 11 UTC
The goal is not to reduce cheating. If this was the goal, then we could simply close this website, and there was no cheating whatsoever.

The goal is to reduce cheating without reducing the number of new players and without hurting the current players.
spyman (424 D (G))
08 Aug 11 UTC
Well I concede it's probably not practical, but hypothetically... and just addressing your concern that it would be onerous to new and existing players...
When give the site your mobile number and then a little while later you get an SMS asking you to verify your account. You reply and voila your account is verified. Is that all that onerous?
spyman (424 D (G))
08 Aug 11 UTC
Typo.. *You give the site your mobile phone number...
taos (470 D)
08 Aug 11 UTC
forget phone sistem wont work
what is the estimated percentage of multys anyway
maybe if its low enougth then is not such a problem
Rommeltastic (924 D (B))
08 Aug 11 UTC
I can say now I would not join again if I needed to give a number to an unverified website.
SacredDigits (120 D)
08 Aug 11 UTC
Between this site and vdip, I've only had 3 games screwed up by multis (CONFIRMED multis), and even then, it didn't really bother me so much that I'd be willing to volunteer personal info to stop it from happening again.
taos (470 D)
10 Aug 11 UTC
it means thhat every 20 players one is a multy
Draugnar (25 D X)
10 Aug 11 UTC
@taos - I seriously doubt 5% of us are multis. It's like anything else. You only hear about the bad stuff so it seems all of the stuff is bad stuff. The tens of thousands of games on this site that have not been affected by multis get over looked for the few (< 100 I would bet) that have been.
abgemacht (429 D (G))
10 Aug 11 UTC
In the 84 games I've played, I remember 2 had multiaccounters, so that's around 2%. But, both of these occurred in my first year here.
Draugnar (25 D X)
10 Aug 11 UTC
I think I've only had one game I started from the beginning that had a multi. I've taken over in a few that were multi damaged to try and salvage them for others, but you can't count them in my percentage as they were intentional joins to help out.
fortknox (2059 D)
10 Aug 11 UTC
OP's opinion was shot down by uclabb's and krellin's messages. For one, it costs money to call people and get verification. Two, some people have multiple numbers (and google voice can give everyone with 1 number 2 numbers), and it is a terrible invasion of privacy.
Rommeltastic's idea has a lot of merit. Have two levels of games: randomly assigned (where you put in the features you want, like "I want a game with 48-72 hour phases, WTA, classic. Other parts I don't care about" and puts you in a queue until a game like that is open and it places you... then another one that you assign or 'invite' other players into so we can still have games created and filled with friends from the forum.

However, while multi is a small problem, it can usually be found out pretty quick by the mods. I think the bigger problem is meta, especially in live gunboat games. Everyone else isn't using communication, but if I'm in school next to my buddy and we are talking and planning, it is a huge unfair advantage. I don't know a good way to really, truly prevent meta from the start...
ghanamann (0 D X)
10 Aug 11 UTC
agreed- ive just played a live game and there was clear meta gaming. the guys even said they knew each other

this means they have an alliance before a play has been entered.... unfair and we need a weay to wipe it out
yebellz (729 D (G))
10 Aug 11 UTC
@ghanamann, how would phone verification prevent meta-gaming?

fortknox has a good point that meta-gaming is certainly a trickier problem. It's not only harder to detect, but also harder to draw the line between what constitutes meta-gaming and what does not.

In my personal opinion, any game involving two or more people that know each other in real life will be affected by some degree of meta-gaming (unless the game is an anon gunboat, and the players involved strictly adhere to the anon and gunboat rules). Players can claim that they do not let it affect their game play, but there is still the tactical and diplomatic advantage of being able talk face to face. At some point, it becomes hard to draw the line.

I have invited several real-life friends to WebDip and have played games with them before. However, my personal policy is to only play games of two types:
1) where everyone has contact with each other in real life
2) where no one has contact with each other in real life
Games with friends are bound to have some degree of meta. No matter how you try to not let personal relationships bias game play, it is bound to happen to some degree. That is why I also advocate playing games of the first type with low pots.
fortknox (2059 D)
10 Aug 11 UTC
The funny thing is: People that meta usually claim they were trying to 'help' or teach the other player. Honestly, you can do BOTH a heck of a lot better by NOT being in the same game together.
For example, if John and Joe know each other, and play in the same game together and talk to one another outside the game (John is teaching Joe), because John is privy to other information that Joe isn't (what countries are telling him + what he knows from Joe's game), they are, basically, cheating (and that doesn't include that they are 'allied' so Joe can stay alive so John can keep teaching him).
Suppose Joe jumps into a game where John isn't playing... but John sits over Joe's shoulder and gives him advice and helps him and teaches him.... where's the cheating there? Because it is only "one" player (albeit 2 different people), there is no 'extra' information known nor any 'unbreakable alliances' formed. And John can be more 'hands on' in his teaching. This is a much better way to teach people how to play diplomacy, in my opinion...

Does that make sense?
The Czech (21855 D (S))
10 Aug 11 UTC
I think the public schools should teach Diplomacy starting in kindergarten. John is a terrible teacher and I lost all my games where he was "helping" me. He, on the other hand, soloed every time.
zultar (3790 D Mod (P))
10 Aug 11 UTC
I have another idea to decrease likelihood of cheaters and have created a thread for it. Would any of you like to comment? Mods' comments are doubly appreciated.
Draugnar (25 D X)
10 Aug 11 UTC
Damn it, Joe. I was a better teacher than that and you know it. Just cause you didn't follow my lead, don't blame it on me. ^_^


43 replies
Tettleton's Chew (0 D X)
02 Aug 11 UTC
Waste in Obama's Stimulus
This thread will be fun. A list of ineffective pork barrel projects in Obama's stimulus that wasted precious tax dollars.


23 replies
Open
Lance the Great (100 D)
10 Aug 11 UTC
Join live gunboat 124
plz join 1 more.
0 replies
Open
ghanamann (0 D X)
10 Aug 11 UTC
help
id like opinions of others on this game from experienced players

gameID=65372
9 replies
Open
Cockney (0 D X)
10 Aug 11 UTC
new live game in 50 mins guys....
join in!
5 replies
Open
taos (470 D)
09 Aug 11 UTC
the majority suffers because of one player(bad loser)
i play two games where one country doesnt want to stop the pause because they are losing and thats a fact
one of them i know personally and he told me that
so one bad loser ruins the game to the other 6
i think the unpause must be majority like 60 percent or so
6 replies
Open
krellin (21 D)
10 Aug 11 UTC
Help Me Name my Alt...
Since you hate me so much....I am going to create an alt....I know...that's not right!!!!! you cry. I can't do that!!! Wahhh!!! The Mods surely won't allow it!!! boo hooo hooo....

12 replies
Open
StevenC. (783 D)
08 Aug 11 UTC
Standard & Poor's Downgrades the U.S. Credit Rating...
Discuss.
10 replies
Open
Draugnar (25 D X)
09 Aug 11 UTC
Boston Cont EOG for anyone who wants to post here.
gameID=61416

I'm no good at these, so I'll let someone else do it. But it was a fun and, at times frustrating, game that nearly eneded in a seven way draw and finally finished in a three way draw.
4 replies
Open
Conservative Man (100 D)
05 Aug 11 UTC
Math help
See inside
26 replies
Open
Riphen (198 D)
09 Aug 11 UTC
Sooooo
If I mute someone can they still see my post and vice versa?

Cause I want to start a thread about everyone muting said person but I dont want him knowing....it would become a total shock to this person when no one responds to his idiotic posts.
7 replies
Open
pjmansfield99 (178 D)
08 Aug 11 UTC
Foreigners.....
Just wondered if this a completely American site or whether there are any other foreigners on here.... For example I'm English and currently we have major riots and crises in our Capital - any more Brits out there???
74 replies
Open
SpeakerToAliens (147 D (S))
09 Aug 11 UTC
Error while outputting an error...
"Error while outputting an error: Trying to get property of non-object".

This happened when I got my password wrong. I'm not annoyed or anything, I just thought it was strange. I'm sure I got my password wrong on the old server too, but I never saw this.
4 replies
Open
orathaic (1004 D (B))
09 Aug 11 UTC
anyone for some GDP? mmm tasty GD pie!
http://www.countercurrents.org/heinberg090811.htm
1 reply
Open
King Atom (100 D)
08 Aug 11 UTC
You People...
Hey, I'm trying to really seal it with this girl and I need an unbiased opinion. Surely, there is someone here who I haven't had any interaction with who can give me sound advice.

And like this page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Atom-Foltz-Fan-Page/177064758993901
85 replies
Open
Gazelle123 (105 D)
09 Aug 11 UTC
JOIN ANCIENT MED. LIVE GAME
gameID=65343
5 D bet. 5 mins / phase
1 reply
Open
gwenifyre (179 D)
09 Aug 11 UTC
Gen Con
So... anyone else on here play Dip at Gen Con this year? It was awesome.
3 replies
Open
EmperorMaximus (551 D)
09 Aug 11 UTC
Game for experienced players
I'm trying to get a game going with some more experienced players and I need one more!
2 replies
Open
bihary (2797 D (S))
09 Aug 11 UTC
game won before retreats
I noticed that games end if someone gets to 18 centers after a fall diplomacy phase. But what if a dislodged unit could retreat to a center of the winner, stopping his win? The question is academic - I have not seen a game where this would have mattered.
8 replies
Open
Lando Calrissian (220 D (S))
09 Aug 11 UTC
Unpauses...
Will these ever be forced?
8 replies
Open
Bulldog (100 D)
09 Aug 11 UTC
Please Unpause all the games now!
If the System Administrators can pause all the games they should be able to unpause them as well. Would you do that soon, please?
4 replies
Open
Madison the Great (0 D X)
09 Aug 11 UTC
PLAY Babies of Wrath-2 IF UR LOOKING FOR A LIVE GAME
lay this game now
0 replies
Open
abgemacht (429 D (G))
01 Aug 11 UTC
Who am I?
I had a lot of fun the last time we played this.
Ask yes/no questions to determine who I am. The winner then chooses their won person for people to guess.
1249 replies
Open
Alderian (2423 D (S))
09 Aug 11 UTC
@pjmansfield99
Since your thread went down the toilet, I thought I'd create a separate thread to answer or discuss some of the actually interesting parts of that thread.
11 replies
Open
vordemu (460 D)
09 Aug 11 UTC
Baleares Movement Bug
See inside
4 replies
Open
ghanamann (0 D X)
09 Aug 11 UTC
live game right now guys
2 slots left!
0 replies
Open
Page 775 of 1195
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top