Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 775 of 1199
FirstPreviousNextLast
Geofram (245 D (B))
12 Aug 11 UTC
These damn 500 errors...
are no where to be found. I know this is likely to have been said before, but here's a big thank you to all that donated and to Kestas for the quick and seamless server transition.
7 replies
Open
zultar (3790 D Mod (P))
10 Aug 11 UTC
(+1)
Friendly competition with Facebook people: 7 needed
Looking for seven of the top 100 people from this site to go play two games with seven of the top 100 people from facebook.
36 replies
Open
Conservative Man (100 D)
11 Aug 11 UTC
Just an idea I had
Everybody post the lyrics to your favorite songs. I'll post mine. Oh, and also, guess what the lyrics to my favorite song are about.
25 replies
Open
Hydro Globus (100 D)
11 Aug 11 UTC
Registration
It is impossible to register to this game since the switch to the dedicated server, the validation page just refreshes. 6 of our group is already registered, but we cannot (and will not) start a game without the seventh member. If it is a browser issue, IExplorer, Firefox and Chrome are displaying this error.

Hope this will get resolved soon, I'm eager to play with my friends.
6 replies
Open
abgemacht (730 D (G))
11 Aug 11 UTC
Any one else stay up all night?
Or is it just me?
20 replies
Open
SacredDigits (120 D)
12 Aug 11 UTC
Who is a world leader?
It seems I was talking to random people somewhere I'm not proud of about this, so I'm making a thread. Are people like Kim Jung Il and the leader of Iran "world leaders?" Either way, why?
8 replies
Open
krellin (71 D)
10 Aug 11 UTC
APOLOGIES TO ALL
On these forum threads, I have been offensive, to say the least. As an excuse, I would say it was because I have political differences with people that offend me....but, as suggested, that is just an excuse.
39 replies
Open
Hugo_Stiglitz (100 D)
12 Aug 11 UTC
Sink the Gunboat
10 to get in, Classic game, Classic Rules, need 3 more

gameID=65396
0 replies
Open
LordVipor (704 D)
12 Aug 11 UTC
New Members Joining
Hi, I have a few friends who are trying to join, but when they register, they do not get a confirmation email. They have been trying over the past 72 hours and still no change.
Does anyone know when WebDip will have its servers fully set up?
Thanks
3 replies
Open
damian (87 D Mod)
27 Jun 11 UTC
150cc Live Diplomacy Club
Well given that the original thread slid into the depth I figured I'd start a new thread, and try and give a little life back to what I think was a promising idea: Essentially a high class live game club

194 replies
Open
Sargmacher (0 D X)
11 Aug 11 UTC
Santa's Gunboat Thread.
A seperate thread to discuss the issues surrounding Santa's complaints with the Gunboat Tournament. Please use this thread to let the original Summer Gunboat News thread be used for its purpose.
5 replies
Open
Jelle (103 D)
11 Aug 11 UTC
Rules question: Cutting support if dislodged?
What will happen when orders below are given? Will there be stand-off in Budapest?
12 replies
Open
Indybroughton (3407 D (G))
10 Aug 11 UTC
Why respond to idiots and haters?
Why attempt rational discourse with someone who behaves wildly inappropriately on threads?
14 replies
Open
binkman (436 D)
11 Aug 11 UTC
Movement rules question
Will a fleet in SKA block an army from moving DEN to SWE? What if the fleet is in SKA and moves into SKA on the same turn the army attempts to move DEN to SWE?
3 replies
Open
Thucydides (1012 D (B))
07 Aug 11 UTC
Medical advice
Stepped on a sea urchin, middle toe of left foot hurts badly to bend. Can't tell if spine inserted near joint. Seek medical attention?
32 replies
Open
Darwyn (1594 D)
29 Jul 11 UTC
Bush explains slow reaction to September 11 attacks
"So I made the decision not to jump up immediately and leave the classroom. I didn't want to rattle the kids. I wanted to project a sense of calm"

Bullshit or Legit?
328 replies
Open
Trooth (561 D)
11 Aug 11 UTC
unpause
Unpause your game?
0 replies
Open
omnomnom (203 D)
11 Aug 11 UTC
The Paused Games
About half my games are still paused, as the people have left. So what now? I don't want to just quit, so how do I get these games to unpause?
3 replies
Open
EdiBirsan (1469 D (B))
11 Aug 11 UTC
Diplomacy in Japanese (and Japan)
My Rotary Club is hosting a young Japanese student who is interested in International Politics. I would like to have contacts in Japan that speak Japanese that can follow up with him on the game.
Please contact me direct off the thread as I do not get here that often.
EdiBirsan AT astound DOT net
1 reply
Open
diplomancer83 (123 D)
08 Aug 11 UTC
Post Game Discussion
gameID=65286 I was turkey, now lets be honest what the heck is going on this game?
35 replies
Open
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 (71 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 (730 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 (22413 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
Page 775 of 1199
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top