So which of these eliminated Bonds should be muted?

1. Timothy Dalton
2. Roger Moore
3. Sean Connery
4. Daniel Craig
5. Pierce Brosnan

No real opinion on Lazenby, probably 5th but pretty forgettable.

I actually like 1-4 pretty closely, they all have their charms. Pierce isn't terrible, but there is definitely a gap there :P

Mrs Oct and I rewatched all of the Bonds back in the unpleasantness, and much to my surprise Pierce Brosnan was the clear winner. This was rather upsetting as the inner child had distinct memories of The Man with the Golden Gun being the greatest film of all time, and the inner university student had genuinely started to believe that crap you hear about Lazenby being an underrated genius... He wasn't, of course... He was shite.

So, the greatest Bonds are

1/ Brosnan
Tied for 2/ Connery & Dalton
4/ Craig
5/ Moore
6/ Lazenby
10,000/ Niven (I've never managed to watch it all the way through...)

[quote=Trigfea63 post_id=358931 time=1695517586 user_id=19547]
[quote=Jamiet99uk post_id=358924 time=1695511791 user_id=137]
[quote=Trigfea63 post_id=358919 time=1695506851 user_id=19547]
Roger Moore, not Sean Connery?
[/quote]

Roger Moore was the best Bond. Next question.
[/quote]

1. Sean Connery
2. Daniel Craig
3. Pierce Brosnan
4. Roger Moore
5. Timothy Dalton

Generously, Roger Moore was tied for 3rd best.
[/quote]

You are entitled to your opinion.

[quote=Jamiet99uk post_id=358924 time=1695511791 user_id=137]
[quote=Trigfea63 post_id=358919 time=1695506851 user_id=19547]
Roger Moore, not Sean Connery?
[/quote]

Roger Moore was the best Bond. Next question.
[/quote]

1. Sean Connery
2. Daniel Craig
3. Pierce Brosnan
4. Roger Moore
5. Timothy Dalton

Generously, Roger Moore was tied for 3rd best.

[quote=Trigfea63 post_id=358919 time=1695506851 user_id=19547]
Roger Moore, not Sean Connery?
[/quote]

Roger Moore was the best Bond. Next question.

Roger Moore, not Sean Connery?

There is a mute function. You can use it if you want to.

If someone is being really annoying after their destruction, just mute them yourself. As the previous reply stated, I find that oftentimes eliminated players returning in chat can be rather fun, as it gives you a reminder of when they were once around, and (if they were an agreeable player) that reminder is usually a nice one.

Perhaps if you play the game for the reputation and points on WebDip I could see wanting to mute eliminated players, and maybe it should be an option when creating a game, but I don't think it should be defaulted to that. If someone is cranky about losing, they are likely a cranky player in general, in which case whether they are still in the game or not they will be annoying. On the other hand, if someone is a fun press player, they will likely carry that into post-elimination, making their occasional comment on the current state of the game rather intriguing.

Personally, I love it when vanquished opponents start acting as newsreporters and give their impression of developments. They are often humorous, and sometimes give me a perspective I didn't see. Often they have an axe to grind, and I enjoy that as well. I am all for it.

[quote=Octavious post_id=358773 time=1695111541 user_id=71]
At it's core diplomacy is a board game designed to be played by a group of friends, typically at someone's house. In such a scenario you wouldn't tell you're mate, who has just had his arse kicked as Austria, to bugger off home or sit quietly in the lounge watching telly. They would still be around, chatting, laughing, and cheering on whoever they want to win.

I am quite content for the default for online games to mirror this. Sure, if there's some tournament that people insist on taking "seriously", it's perfectly fine to tweak the rules accordingly. But for your typical day to day bit of fun, keep it relaxed
[/quote]

I own a physical copy of Diplomacy but have never played it because (i) it's hard to get exactly 7 players and (ii) games with hard elimination are much less fun for a gaming group (basically every modern board game has found some other way to keep losing players in the mix).

So yes, if I were to play an irl game among friends we wouldn't gag or banish losing players. But I can easily imagine behaviour the group would discourage - e.g., if an eliminated player was talking more than active players, if they were aggressively pushing old grudges, if they were selectively helping certain players as a means to get revenge, etc.

To me online is a whole different ball game. The potential for toxic post-elimination press is way higher: games can be anonymous, extreme press strategies can be pursued without real-life shame, and folks seem to get more riled up about their grudges. At the same time, the downside of excluding an eliminated player online is basically nothing - they're not some real person just sitting quietly in a room until the game is over, they're a person on their computer just not entering turns on a game they've already lost.

I'll stress again that none of this has been a huge deal, but I still don't see the benefit of allowing eliminated players to affect a game of Webdip they've already lost.

At it's core diplomacy is a board game designed to be played by a group of friends, typically at someone's house. In such a scenario you wouldn't tell you're mate, who has just had his arse kicked as Austria, to bugger off home or sit quietly in the lounge watching telly. They would still be around, chatting, laughing, and cheering on whoever they want to win.

I am quite content for the default for online games to mirror this. Sure, if there's some tournament that people insist on taking "seriously", it's perfectly fine to tweak the rules accordingly. But for your typical day to day bit of fun, keep it relaxed

[quote=JECE post_id=358771 time=1695091287 user_id=256]
I mean, does the rulebook encourage gamemasters to tie up and gag players who got eliminated?
[/quote]

No, but I imagine irl tournaments would put some guardrails on this behaviour? Even if it's not formalized as a rule, I expect most play groups would at least subtly discourage certain types of comments from eliminated players.

The tools to discourage poor behaviour are cruder online (disallowing the behaviour on the platform, or moderating it), but they might be an appropriate substitute for what irl groups probably already do.

I don't think it's a huge deal either way, but I would put it back to you: why should eliminated players be allowed to participate in press on WebDip?

I mean, does the rulebook encourage gamemasters to tie up and gag players who got eliminated?

It seems weird to me that a player who gets eliminated can still participate in press. Not a huge deal, just odd.

To my knowledge, the rulebook doesn't explicitly prohibit this. But I imagine it's considered bad form to keep opining on strategy / repeating old grudges once your final unit has been disbanded.

I'm curious how this is handled at irl tournaments? Is there a reason why this is allowed on WebDip?