thanks trip.

players in this game, who are not allowed to speak to anyone about the game including each other, are:
:trim101,Chrispminis,Xapi, Ukla, airborne, General_Ireland, Frelock

observers, who need to email their predicted outcome of the game to figlesquidge, are:
Onar,djbent, Centurian, wiggin, DonXavier, trip
[we could use another observer]

is it ok if we wait until the game actually starts to send our goals? or do we need to set them before the game starts?

lol, just asked the same ? in the other thread

I'll be an observer, if you need one. What do I do?

you have to declare an end-game goal by sending it to figlesquidge, then try to influence the players into making it happen through communication with the other observers.

end game goals can be succesful central alliance, solo victory by england, aut finishing in second, ect.

So I communicate with them by email?

Also, can I communicate with the other observers?

And also, what if multiple people happen to have the same end-game goal?

trip, don't you think it has to be something about who wins/draws?

Hello all
To email me your predicted/target outcomes, same as normal:
email to figlesquidge[at]gmail[dot]com, with 'phpDiplomacy' somewhere in the subject.

Shouldn't we have this discussion on rules and whatnot in the other thread first?

well, if we decide to wait, then this is a good way to keep this at the top of the threads so other people see it. tho maybe you are right, since the other players and observers will be looking for "meta diplomacy" title not "peanut gallery"

i figured that as long as the prediction is based on survival, it would be ok. guessing who's going to finish second or third is as difficult as predicting the winner, and could add the excitement of trying to get one ally to stab the other. basing it on wins/draws would be fine with me too. i guess we could let shrimpy decide since this is his baby.

Maybe we could each have a prediction for each country. Something like which order they'll finish in.

That would be too complicated. How would it be scored?

Actually, maybe not. It would be complex, but straightforward. Say, 10 points for a correct first place prediction, 7 points for second, etc.

Before the game, each observer chooses a subset of the seven countries. That observer's goal is to achieve a result where only those countries are surviving. Thus an observer can select anything from a 7 way draw to a particular country's solo. If an observer chooses a draw it is necessary to choose the exact countries in the draw, not just the number of survivors. The game is played with the standard rules except for press. Observers may send partial white press. Players may send no press. When the game is finished, any conventional scoring system can be used for the players. Observers are scored by comparing their guesses to the actual survivors. There are three factors which influence a meta-dipper's score, the number of surviving countries, S, the number of guesses made, G, and the number of guesses that were correct, C. The score is the correct guesses cubed divided by the number of guesses squared times the surviving countries.

...........C^3
score = -----
.........G^2*S


The score is always between zero and one inclusive. Zero correct guesses always yields a zero. An exact guess always yields a one. This method works fine for ranking observers within a single game. If the result is an RET draw one should get less points for guessing a Russian solo than exactly guessing an RET draw. However, one could argue that guessing and getting a solo is harder than guessing and getting a three way draw. To compare different games with different results multiply this factor by the tournament score given to the winners of that game.

That is what the article said. I am not sure if i understand it but we could change the scoring to make it more interesting.

By "surviving" in the second sentence, does it mean where only those countries share in the victory?

I think so.

ok. so we either pick a solo or a draw, but must include all the countries involved in the draw, right?

Can we PLEASE restart the game so it has longer phase times? 24 hours means people will only check this thread a couple times a turn. I don't want to waste my banter.

Also, can we wait to see who is who? I think that would be important in my decision.

i agree with both of those suggestions.

Centurian, no, seeing who is who would be bad. At least, it would be, if this were a test of our manipulation skills more than our prediction skills.

i do agree with Centurian that the phases should be longer. If it is a test of manipulation skills then you should at least have some time to manipulate. But why do you want to wait to see who is who?

Yes, that essentially changes the type of game. If you know who is who, you're basing decisions on that, not trying to get players to do what you predicted (not as much, I mean). They involve completely different skills.

Yeah, you're right on the guessing. I will send in my predictions now. But if my horse NMRs I will be unhappy.

I would like the phases to be atleast 36 hours, maybe 48. But I'm not the one playing, so I'm hardly in a position to demand things. I will certainly use 24 hours effectively, I just worry you won't have time to consider my valuable input.

Um...What's the password?

The password is "peanutgallery"

thanks

prediction is in. let's go ______!

I'm in the game. Just to clarify, there's no communication between the players, save for votes like /pause and /draw, right? Because it would be pretty hard to get a draw if we can't vote for it...