That would be a great option to add!

Awesome idea.

I am sure Kestas will get right on it.

irrelevant. Yet another brilliant idea that someone insists will make such a dramatic difference in game play....If only the color choices were more emotionally smoothing...

@ Oscar: What's your case? Why should they be anonymous?

The suggestion can't hurt, and kestas is tha boss and he knows it. If he doesn't think it's worthwhile, he doesn't do it. Done.

Yeah, I was gonna post a case but then I got a phone call. I'm not saying that it's clear cut that anonymous is better. It's just my preference and what I've been used to. So I wondered if there is any particular reason that it is done differently around here.

Anyway, my case...

I just finished a WTA gunboat game in a four-way draw even though it could easily have been a three-way draw. I was a 10 center Turkey, the other survivors were a 5 center France, a 5 center Austria and a 14 center Germany. Both 5 center powers were voting draw and either of them could throw the game to Germany.

I had already set up a stalemate with Austria in the East and while France and Germany were fighting in and around MAO and Eng, I was moving my fleets towards Iberia after having just eliminated Italy. I would basically have two options down the line: 1) set up a stalemate with France, or 2) squeeze France out of the draw.

Now, I would have preferred to squeeze out France. However, I figured I would need one more move without French opposition to be able to do such without risking a German solo even in case France decides to throw. Specifically I would need to grab and be able to hold at least 2 of the 5 French centers.

With the draw votes out in the open and both Austria and France voting draw, it wouldn't be too hard for France to figure out that I wanted to squeeze them out if I don't vote draw. So I voted draw hoping that Germany would see the potential to reduce the draw and not vote draw to keep the game going. Unfortunately, Germany also voted draw and thus the game ended.

Now, you could argue that if I didn't want a draw I shouldn't have voted for it, and maybe next time I won't in a similar situation. Arguably I was a bit overcautious and might have been able to grab those two centers even if France tried to throw. However, I did feel pressured by the public nature of the draw votes. If the votes would have been anonymous there would have been no way for France to know whether or not I was voting draw and thus they would likely be less inclined to think I would include them in the draw.

Nonetheless, I would have expected Germany not to except the 4 way draw. I wouldn't have in their position. There was no way their result could get worse and by keeping the game going they might even have had a shot at a solo.

In case you want to have a look at the game: gameID=135651

That should have been "more inclined"

I disagree--

I like having it know who is and ISN'T voting for a draw...

It makes it more strategic, so you can say "AHA, see, so-and-so is being a warmonger looking for a solo because he won't vote for a draw!" (Even if that argument--as are so many Diplomacy arguments--is a bluff or tool to try and manipulate others.)

/\ Agree with Obi. Sometimes you need to know who the fuckwad is so that you can rally the troops, kill the bastard off, and draw with the rest.

I agree that that is the effect of it, obiwan. However that kind of defeats the gunboat aspect of the game as it is a way to communicate other than just by your moves. And in press games it eliminates the possibility to tell someone that you are voting draw while you actually aren't.

"If only the color choices were more emotionally smoothing…"

Yes, I absolutely agree. I'm sick of all this primary color bull shit.

The concept of a draw -- think about this is, let's say...Ohhhhh I don't know...World War I.

Let's say France decided that they wanted to end the war...nobody seemed to be winning, people dying on both sides with no ground being moved. Which do you think France would do:

1. Send anonymous carrier pigeons to all his allies and enemies saying, "Somebody <wink wink> wants to end this thing...."
OR
2. France wishes to declare a cease-fire.

The concept of a draw is an Open, non-anonymous diplomatic tool by any rational discussion, and should remain that way. Making it anonymous simply makes no sense.

I guess if some people actually like that it's not anonymous it would have to be implemented as an option at game creation if it is to be implemented at all.

Yeah, your opinion is clear krellin. Still, both in the FtF world and on the email judges it is customary that draw votes are anonymous. So at least some people disagree with you.

I just checked the rules on http://www.stabbeurfou.org. They also have anonymous draw votes. It seems that webDip really is contrary to the widely used custom on this.

Certainly when I used to play on email lists it was anonymous, as it has been in all F2F games I've played. Personally, I don't have any strong feelings on it one way or the other.

It seems sensible to make it an option when you make a new game, for the reasons said above.

Options are always good.

Well, scrap that, but they usually can't hurt.

It was a pleasure drawing with you Oscar (I was Austria in that game) and yes, I was watching nervously for that draw vote from you. In Webdip gunboat games the draw vote often seems to be used as a way of signaling that we're all working together to stop a solo. I think anonymous draw votes would be interesting and would give gunboat games a different feeling.

Thanks sanctacaris. I enjoyed the game too. Would you agree though that we could have easily eliminated France if Germany hadn't accepted the draw?

When I play FTF, you don't vote for a "draw" per se but instead propose a draw to be voted on along with next phase's orders. For example, I might propose a F/R/E three way, so everyone would turn in their vote along with their orders the next turn. But I do think anonymity is a good idea with draw votes.

I think the primary reason why this site offers only this one particular draw mechanism is simply due to implementation simplicity. Keep in mind that this site was developed for a free as an open-source side project led mainly by one individual with only limited support from a handful of code contributors. Also, the ability to even draw games at all was a feature missing from very early versions of this site. If you go deep into the archives (back to the point where game records are broken by incompatibility and the order resolution rules were far from being correctly implemented), you'll find games that went for decades locked on stalemate lines that only eventually ended when one side lost the stamina to continue entering orders.

Frankly, I doubt that the draw mechanism used on this site will change any time soon, and I don't really see a compelling reason for it to. I personally prefer playing both gunboat and full press with public draw voting. Also, I don't think it affects the full press games too much (at least in the ways that I care about).

Further, there are many (far more than two) ways to conduct draw votes. Perhaps conducting the vote anonymously is more common, but even that includes many different methods. A simple anon voting method would be for everyone to have a private draw flag that they could toggle, which would trigger an immediate draw once every remaining player has voted for the draw. However, this is far from being the only way to do it.

Another method that I've seen in FtF games (in particular, this was the method used at the WebDip 2011 FtF tournament in Boston), was for a player to first propose a particular drawing group (which may exclude some of the remaining players) and then for the players to anonymously vote for that proposal with the TD only revealing whether or not the vote unanimously passed. A mechanism like this can help speed things up by avoiding the need to eliminate player(s) that are inevitably doomed. It could also affect games that have certain scoring mechanisms. In the Boston FtF tournament, I was actually involved in a game where the four remaining players all happily voted for a 3-way draw while excluding the doomed fourth player that was hanging onto two SCs (but would certainly be eliminated before the endgame deadline). The fourth player was okay with being excluded in exchange for getting to keep two SCs as consolation points (the games were scored as essentially a WTA/PPSC-hybrid with the WTA pot being three times the size of the PPSC pot), while the other three players were happy to not have to play out that elimination due to a tricky 3-way balance that would have ultimately resulted in a 3-way draw but possibly a smaller slice of the SCs for any particular player if the balance was upset by a stab going into the endgame deadline.

Yet another method is the one that is used by Bounced, another diplomacy site, which allows players to anonymously vote on who they think should be in the draw by toggling votes for each player (including themselves). See the details here http://www.dipbounced.com/help/playgame.html

As a fourth method, I think there was at least a proposed tournament on WebDip that involved anonymous draw votes that could not be revoked. Basically, players didn't use the built-in draw voting and instead emailed/PMed the TD when they were happy with the game ending in a draw involving the remaining players. The game would be force drawn by the mods as soon as every remaining player had voted. However, a key aspect of this system was that the votes could not be revoked once cast. Hence, a player had to commit to accepting a draw when he voted. I imagine that keeping things simpler for the TD/mods may have been a motivating factor as well.

Hence, there are at least four different ways to do anonymous draw voting. Maybe it would be a nice feature for the site to implement all or some of these methods, allowing for a choice at game creation. However, perhaps that just makes things overly complicated and potentially confusing for newbies, while also not being the most useful allocation of development efforts.

That still wouldn't be anonymous though as you would find out who voted what when the orders are read. The way I am used to doing it in FtF is that when a draw is proposed all survivors anonymously drop an army (draw) or a fleet (fight/continue) into a box. Once all have done that you check to see if the vote is unanimous. If not the game continues. You would know how many voted against the draw, but not who exactly.

that was in response to 2ndWL

"while the other three players were happy to not have to play out that elimination due to a tricky 3-way balance that would have ultimately resulted in a 3-way draw but possibly a smaller slice of the SCs for any particular player if the balance was upset by a stab going into the endgame deadline." which is exactly the problem with these things...

Basically you just said that the make-up of the board was such that in order to achieve a 3-way draw, the balance would be upset (by eliminating the 4th) -- meaning that, if time advanced to the moment of the 4th players death, the game would be imbalanced such that a draw most likely wouldn't result...which is why "playing for the draw" is a corrupted form of game anyway. It's the "Ehh.....I'm bored, let's quit" conclusion to a game that you just described.

@yebellz

I think draws not including all survivors, while useful in a FtF setting, don't serve much of a purpose for on line games. Time ain't a limiting factor on line so you might just as well actually play out the elimination.

So, as far as implementing goes all that is needed is for the flag that is already there not to be shown to the other players as it is now. I just had a quick look at the code and found that this could be achieved simply by changing one line of code from:

$buf[]=l_t($voteName);

to

if ($voteName != 'Draw') $buf[]=l_t($voteName);

That would change it for all games though, not make it an option at game creation. Still, shouldn't be too complicated to add a game creation option for it. I'd happily do the coding for this if there is any chance Kestas will allow it.

Oscar, to me your story is a reason for votes not to be anonymous.

knowing whether or not people are interested in draws adds another element of diplomacy and strategy to the game.

I would especially hate it on the WWIV map (vdiplomacy variant), where in once case there was a 19-player stalemate and after about 3 years we all voted draw. That game would have been more painful then it already was if it was impossible to know who was and wasn't voting.

@Oscar - You code it and there *is* a good chance Kestas would implement it. Maybe not right away as he'd want to thoroughly test it, but it would get proper consideration from him, I am sure.

But it needs more than to just hide who has voted for the draw, but a mechanism for telling everyone how many people have voted for it.

Alright, I'll look into it and post it on the development forum. Why would it need to tell how many people have voted though? It's even more anonymous if it doesn't.

I really like this idea. However I don't think there is a compelling reason other than it's common in FtF. Really, it's just different.

I agree shield. It's just a preference. The official rules of the game just say: "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." There is no mention of any procedure by which such an agreement should be reached. However it does imply that draws should include all survivors and that WTA is the one "true" scoring system.

I'm opposed to this idea, especially in gunboat. The draw feature is an important method of communication, and depriving the players of it will have a large impact on what alliance may form.

YJ, you could just as easily argue that having it will have a disproportionate impact on what alliances may form.

Alright. Implementation submitted to the development forum.

YJ - Draw votes are not meant to be used to indicate anything except for intent to draw.

Oscar - diplomacy.net would probably be a good place to get it tested out. Oli is always willing to test nee features on his site.

Vdiplomacy.net stupid autocorrect.

@krellin:
That tournament game had a time limit on it, which had a much greater effect on the outcome than the draw vote procedure. Had the end of 1908 been reached without a solo, the game would have ended in a draw among the remaining players. There simply was not enough time for any one to solo, nor for any of three leading players to be eliminated.

Turkey, the fourth player, had no hope to survive, as we had a sure path toward eliminating him in the last two years. The three remaining players decided to end it early since we were each concerned that potential in-fighting over SC count going into the draw might leave ourselves with the smaller slice of the SC pie. Also, there was also the slim possibility that such in-fighting might implode resulting in our inability to finish off Turkey, leaving us in the even worst position of taking a 4-way draw.

Maybe Turkey should have refused to draw, rejecting the offer of the two SC consolation points, in the slim hope of getting in on the 4-way draw, but in the end, I'm glad he decided not to.

@oscar:
Thanks for actually backing up a feature request with code. Props for that!
http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1573