[quote="The Central Scrutinizer" post_id=70695 time=1554984936 user_id=5177]
I trust the site managers. It's a great site. BTW, don't worry about the Sox. They're gonna be just fine.
[/quote]

I'm not worried one bit, thanks man ;)

Yeah I second Scrutinizer's sentiment. I've been on this site for over a decade and while it was a great site back when I joined it's only improved since then. The people running this place know what they're doing

I trust the site managers. It's a great site. BTW, don't worry about the Sox. They're gonna be just fine.

[quote="The Central Scrutinizer" post_id=70527 time=1554851894 user_id=5177]
Claesar, thanks for the prompt reply. Not to appear ungrateful for your efforts, but my current game has featured a half dozen takeovers by new players (fine folk all). Every year it's a virtual re-start. The object of any new policy should be, in my opinion, the reduction of the need for replacement players. This is a fine site and a fantastic game. Puddle's comments above are excellent.
[/quote]

The need for replacement players isn't really something we can do anything about that we haven't already done. When a player doesn't want to enter orders, it is undeniably better for your game for a different player to play that position. Ages ago, we made CD takeovers free - prior to that, only the best takeover positions were worth taking over and potentially losing positions would sit vacant, thus ruining the game. Sometimes, we had to beg on the forum for people to take over a somewhat uncompelling position that just so happened to be important to a likely draw that had already been established. That doesn't happen anymore since we made takeovers free, but other than that, we have no way of preventing games from needing replacements.

The forthcoming changes are pretty extensive and are going to need some time and testing before we can unveil them, but I think they'll be some of the more exciting changes we've had in a long time.

Claesar, thanks for the prompt reply. Not to appear ungrateful for your efforts, but my current game has featured a half dozen takeovers by new players (fine folk all). Every year it's a virtual re-start. The object of any new policy should be, in my opinion, the reduction of the need for replacement players. This is a fine site and a fantastic game. Puddle's comments above are excellent.

Last night I was going through my stuff and I found the rules book from my original Games Research copy. The board and pieces must be around here somewhere!

[quote=ChippeRock post_id=70499 time=1554846168 user_id=108]
[quote=Claesar post_id=70497 time=1554843922 user_id=93]
Furthermore, we're working on a change to the Reliabity Rating and NMR aspects, so stay tuned for updates!
[/quote]

What kind of changes? To the Reliability Rating formula?
[/quote]

No spoilers until I'm more confident it works lol

[quote=Claesar post_id=70497 time=1554843922 user_id=93]
Furthermore, we're working on a change to the Reliabity Rating and NMR aspects, so stay tuned for updates!
[/quote]

What kind of changes? To the Reliability Rating formula?

If there's only a few hours left on the clock and the game says "At least 1 country still needs to enter orders!", feel free to email us [email protected]

We can prevent NMRs and replace players. We don't own a time machine though.

Furthermore, we're working on a change to the Reliabity Rating and NMR aspects, so stay tuned for updates!

I mean the reliability rating minimum on new games does this, but new players do start with a reliability rating of 100%.

It seems like the only options to address this would be adding an option to also require a minimum number of games completed in addition to the minimum RR rating, or assigning an RR of 0% or Null until players have completed a specified number of matches that would exclude them from all games with RR requirements until they had completed the specified number of games and earned whatever their reliability rating actually worked out to be.

Frankly I think the second option is a little too hostile to new players for a game with as small a population as Diplomacy, but the first option would be a good compromise, assuming it wasn't difficult to code into the site.

I am currently in a game which has featured multiple move-less turns and new players. I love this game, BUT, the absolute worst thing is the fact that people can sign up and then drop out without penalty. Is there some way this behavior can be -dare I say it- discouraged?