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 ?

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.

Will do.

What about people with no cells or not SMS plans? You have turned them into second class citizens. I disagree completely with this idea.

Also, what happens to already existing members (like ourselves)? Do we have to re-register?

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.

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.

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.

A shit. I posted on the wrong account.

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.

Unsuccessful idea. But in a good cause.

@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.

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?

Maybe if we just made one seventh of the WebDiplomacy population moderators, we'd have a mod for every game!

@Rommeltastic But that would make it harder to join games that you like, for example I like 36 hour full press WTA games.

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.

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.

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.

I meant:
b. not a lot of games.

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.

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.

You are probably right. It is not practical.

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

... 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.

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.

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?

Typo.. *You give the site your mobile phone number...

forget phone sistem wont work
what is the estimated percentage of multys anyway
maybe if its low enougth then is not such a problem

I can say now I would not join again if I needed to give a number to an unverified website.

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.

it means thhat every 20 players one is a multy

@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.

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.

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.

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...

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

@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.

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?

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.

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.

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. ^_^