Old Forum - webDiplomacy

Forum

A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.

Page 963 of 1419

First

Previous

Next

Last

)
27 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Craziest Game i have ever been apart of

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=100535&nocache=97

and shout out to germany for only taking two centers that werent his by right or from a cd france

22 replies

)
28 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Need another Carthage again.

gameID=100298

Not in the best position, but there's still hope.

1 reply

)
28 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Need someone to step in as France! Spring 01, 24h turns.

Our France was banned for cheating, details unknown. We need a new one. The game hasn't started yet. The game is called Turn-A-Day conflict.

11 replies

)
28 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

when will games unpause?

for all the games I'm playing that got automatically paused there is 1 person holding out on the unpause for each of these games. Neither of the people who have left their votes out have much of a stake left in the game either. Will the games automatically unpause after a certain time or do I need to contact the mods directly?

0 replies

DrTenpenny (100

)
27 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Treaties

There was a game I played on VDip called 'Treaties' where you had to announce alliances, lay claim to SCs and declare war a year before invasion, all on public chat. Private chat is enabled though so you can plan effectively with your allies. I loved it and I was wondering if anyone here was interested. Bit of RPing makes it that much better too. If anyone is clearer on the rules, it'd be awesome if you could clear it up.

13 replies

Fortress Door (1837

)
27 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Just Want To Hear Other People's Opinion..

It is the time of a game where you are just on whittling down the draw. And a 1-3 center power requests a draw for about a week. Do you give it?

41 replies

)
27 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Unpausing

Hi all, Sorry if this has been asked before.
Does every player have to vote to unpause before a game can proceed or will games unpause themselves eventually?
Ta Doug

18 replies

Hyperactive Jam (299

)
27 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Need a takeover of Italy in excellent position.

5 replies

obiwanobiwan (248

)
24 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

The 46 Books of the WebDiplomacy Bible Or...

...How I Learned to Quit Quarreling and Love Some Books! ;)
I've always wanted to do this, loving literature and the written word so much:
Everyone picks 2 books/poems/plays/works (No Collected Works/Anthologies, Multi-Part Series can count as 2 books a la 1/2 Samuel.) 1 book chosen = literature/fiction, 1 book = philosophy/science/any non-fiction. So let's see what we compile together, what our Forum's "canon" looks like! :)

40 replies

)
26 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Hi Guys...

I need your help...

13 replies

Tom Bombadil (4023

(G)

)
27 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Differential Equations.

Need some help. Not cheating on hw or anything like that. Just a practice problem that would be great if someone could walk me through. Reply if you gots some math knowledge!

19 replies

)
27 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Need a Carthage....

We need someone to take over Carthage, it's early in the game but there is still hope!

gameID=100298

2 replies

Mod

(P)

)
26 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Processing time reset

Hi guys,
I've reset the processing time, and added 24 hours to all games. Apologies for the inconvenience. I'll add this issue to my automated warning system so that I'll be able to respond more quickly next time.
Regards,
Kestas

30 replies

)
22 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Any RP or highly talkative games starting?

Sick of playing games that turn into a gunboat. I do prefer WTA and anon games. Thanks

24 replies

Your Humble Narrator (1922

)
27 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

EOG- Mother of God

3 replies

)
27 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

EoG Roma Victor

2 replies

Bob Genghiskhan (1233

)
27 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

EOGs for Wave upon wave of demented avengers...

11 replies

(S)

)
27 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Subs needed for Triathlon

Acmac hasn't been around since the 17th so I'm guessing that he won't make it in time to join the next round. I need subs for a gunboat and a full press game. Could be one person for both, or two different people.

7 replies

erik8asandwich (298

)
26 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Replacement Needed

We need a replacement France for a player who was banned. France is in a pretty good position. PM me if interested for game details.

1 reply

(B)

)
26 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

EoG: Happy Fun Palace-2

When England and France leave, it's Germany who should win... isn't it?

18 replies

(B)

)
26 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

EoG: Mass destruction

Memorable moment: Denmark stays neutral until autumn 1904.

5 replies

)
25 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

All Slaves

Huffington post recently claimed income inequality in the US today is worse than both slavery era US and the roman empire. Thoughts?

6 replies

SantaClausowitz (360

)
23 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

SEC is on such a higher plane

Which is why Rutgers went into a FULL STRENGTH Arkansas and came out with a win. Can't wait till Arkansas take some SEC teams down and the discussion is "How did Arkansas turn their season around so quickly." Newsflash, outside of LSU and Alabama the SEC is nothing special.

65 replies

Fortress Door (1837

)
26 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

What?

http://webdiplomacy.net/profile.php?userID=47277

he plays one game and get banned... this makes me wish that mods revealed case details for bans :P

5 replies

ckroberts (3548

)
25 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Everyone knows this server isn't processed

Why is there even a webdiplomacy server if no one is every going to process games?

It just seems like the whole website is un-serviced and everyone knows it.

34 replies

Lando Calrissian (100

(S)

)
26 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Why are these games paused ???????

gameID=99018 gameID=99030 gameID=99014 gameID=99015

9 replies

rokakoma (19138

)
20 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Can't register to forum.webdiplomacy.net

Hi guys, I tried to register to forum.webdiplomacy.net, but the CAPTCHA says I'm wrong. I tried it like 100 times, still no result.

Tried it with space, without space, case-sensitive, insensitive, changing word orthers, still no succees. Is it just me, or is it wrong for others as well?

8 replies

rokakoma (19138

)
19 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

An(other) idea to handle multis/metas

See below

Page 4 of 7

First

Previous

Next

Last

uclabb (589 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

The big point is that this is not the same as muting. Who one person bans affects everyone else on the site. I think auto-self kick is fine, but not great. For example, let's say you banned me, and are trying to start a live game. Oh my gosh me too! I join and you are kicked out. 6 of the 8 people at that time who want to play the live game join with me and you are left out to dry. That probably isn't the desired affect. Having said that, I have no real issue with that. It does pervert the initial intention (or at least what I thought was the original intention) of the ban list, though. In that form, it doesn't handle metas and multis at all, right? They still play all the games they want to play. It basically just makes it so those people who are new to the site are the ones who play with the multis and the metas instead of regulars, and this may in turn push people from the site.

An even more ludicrous situation would be if there are, say, 15 people who all want to play a live game right now, and who all have me on their ban list. One of them starts a live game, a few join then I join and kick them all out. I notice that all of a sudden there are no people in my game, so I join the other one at the time, and then boot all of those people, and so on. Even though there are 15 people all willing to play with each other, it is very feasible that they would have a lot of trouble doing so.

uclabb (589 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

@Draug- Is there really anyone that you would want to ban from your games? Surely not Krellin, he is a blasty blast to play with in games.

Draugnar (0 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

Thats why I think the delay and prompt/warning woudl be better. Instead of kicking them, tell them someone they have banned has joined the game and give them a chance to say "OK" or quit before the game starts.

Draugnar (0 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

No, there is only one player who I would truly ban and it isn't anyone you would expect. The trolls don't bother me. I like krellin and hellalt and would even play with Putin. But there is one person and he knows who he is.

Fortress Door (1837 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

mapleleaf?

now you have me curious....

rokakoma (19138 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

For me that's exactly the desired effect becuase I banned you because I don't want to play with you. That's the point, it effects me, not the others. In other words

---- it protects me, not punishes you ----

About multis/metas, no it doesn't solve the problems, it helps solving the problem. They still have to be banned by mods, but they don't ruin others' games.

About the ludicrous situation: if you are banned at 15 people it's pretty sure mods know about it and you are already banned from the site. Still, if there's no auto-kick then you wouldn't notice you are a bannee at 15 people. If there's the 1 phase delay, it solves. Also at live games, you have to wait until it starts anyway, so there's no need to have auto-kick at live games, just at regular ones. Still, you could join regular ones to see, you kick someone or not, so I'd still prefer the 1 phase delay.

Or even better, when the bannee joins the banner gets 1 phase time to leave from the moment the bannee joined. This results the game will only have a delay if the bannee a) joined as last b) the game would fill up earlier then 1 phase later as the bannee joined. This reduces the probability of having a delay in the game start, and every player have to be around in 1 phase time anyway, during pre-game phase as well, since it could start any minute.

At live games, you could leave until gamestart

uclabb (589 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

I really think adding a delay is tantamount to tending to a papercut by chopping your arm off. It will waste the time of the other 6 players and then, if the person does choose to quit, then what? You add even more time to give someone else time to join? Or do you just let the game die. The point is, it is just not worth it.

Draugnar (0 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

Nope, I would play with mapleleaf (he and I have actually had a tennable peace of late). My reason for not playign with this person is he has no sense of honor when it comes to game altering late CDs.

Fortress Door (1837 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

SplitDiplomat!

rokakoma (19138 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

@uclabb: I'd give extra time after the banner left. A 36 hours phase game last for two months sometimes, you can handle an extra day. Also, not letting the bannee join the game would solve your problem, but Draug and others have a problem with that one.

Also we can have an odd solution, which is the bannee can't join if there's less then 1 phase till start. This causes no delay, gives the opportunity to join both live and regular games, also if someone create a 36 hours game with 36 hours pre-game time he automatically excludes bannees, but risks he can't fill the game.

uclabb (589 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

"About multis/metas, no it doesn't solve the problems, it helps solving the problem. They still have to be banned by mods, but they don't ruin others' games."

This is just false. They still ruin others' games. You aren't decreasing their total games in any way (unless you are decreasing the sites' total games, which may bet true and seems like a bad thing). If anything, it makes it so they ruin more games with new players, which only will decrease the amount of new blood that sticks around which, to my knowledge, is the number one problem with this site: You have to tolerate the first few games you play to prove yourself and get into good games, which is already a bad thing that we don't want to exacerbate.

" if you are banned at 15 people it's pretty sure mods know about it and you are already banned from the site."

If this is the case, then why wouldn't we do as I suggested and only allow A to place B on A's ban list if either B Cd'ed in a game they were together in or A is lodging a formal cheating complaint?

uclabb (589 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

I think your odd solution is closest we have come so far to a real solution. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think that adding time is an unacceptable outcome.

This isn't really what I think is the important discussion, though. I think that sort of the assumption in a lot of this has been that people should have the freedom to ban whomever they want. I don't think that. I think banning should be very, very limited, as the "inalienable right" on this site is surely the right to play some gosh darn diplomacy.

rokakoma (19138 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

Because you may want to avoid contant resigners, CDers, which cannot induce a cheat complaint. About new players getting more multis/metas, that could be right, but I'm not sure it is. I think the "old" members prefer semi-anons, higher pots, etc, so they can avoid more cases. Also such a system helps freshmen to avoid cheaters if they are "whispered" who to ban.

uclabb (589 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

"Because you may want to avoid contant resigners, CDers, which cannot induce a cheat complaint."

I don't understand what question this is answering. I think it is this one: "If this is the case, then why wouldn't we do as I suggested and only allow A to place B on A's ban list if either B Cd'ed in a game they were together in or A is lodging a formal cheating complaint?" This gives a mechanism to deal with CD'ers.

rokakoma (19138 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

It was an answer why putting someone on a ban list should automatically file a complaint. Because you may want to ban someone who is constantly resigning, but since it's not cheating you don't want to file a complaint.

uclabb (589 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

But that question was never asked?

rokakoma (19138 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

@uclabb: if the right to play would be "inalienable" then banning by mods would be prohibited either. It's not an inalienable right, never was. It a right if you play within the rules.

For me, having public ban lists would also work, I just fear it would result a lot of talking/shouting in the forum. Notifying the bannee that I banned him, is fine for me. Totally. I don't know about the others, but if I ban someone I have my reasons which I'm willing to tell him, and give him the chance to protect himself.

rokakoma (19138 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

"But that question was never asked?" - I misunderstood the original suggestion.

"If this is the case, then why wouldn't we do as I suggested and only allow A to place B on A's ban list if either B Cd'ed in a game they were together in or A is lodging a formal cheating complaint?"

What the difference between putting him on my ban list for whatever reason, and putting him on the list just because he either CDed or cheated? I don't see the difference.

uclabb (589 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

Sure, inalienable is the wrong word. The point is that you should have to break the rules, or at least show very bad form, to be banned. Not because you got a little too stabby. This is why I think the ability to put someone on a ban list should be limited and should be public, if it should be granted at all.

bo_sox48 (5202 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

I know who I would ban...

Fortress Door (1837 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

^ it isn't me, is it :(

rokakoma (19138 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

@uclabb: why would you like to see who are the guys on my ban list???
It's oka I want to see on who's list I'm on, but every others bans are not my business.

uclabb (589 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

"What the difference between putting him on my ban list for whatever reason, and putting him on the list just because he either CDed or cheated? I don't see the difference."

The difference is that in one case, the person acted in a way that is not acceptable on this site. In the other case, the person may have acted in a completely reasonable way. We may disagree on this (but I think I'm right :-P), but SplitDiplomat should be on 0 ban lists. 0. Because he follows the rules of the site. Any other sanction on SD or whomever is a form of metagaming. Again, ban listing someone is not the same as muting someone because it affects their ability to play in games, and so it should be done (if at all) only in cut and dry cases.

uclabb (589 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

@roka- You are right, when I said the bans should be public, that isn't what I meant at all. I meant that the person who was banned should know who has banned them. Thanks for catching that.

rokakoma (19138 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

so public is checked.
delay is checked

I understand you problem about limiting other's, effecting them, also the difference between the reason for banning. BUT, even though SD would be on many ban lists he would be able to join ANY live games (5 minutes before game start at latest) and it would be others' problem to play or not. So theoretically SD can join ALL live games still, an the others have to live with it (just like now)

And since there's no legal reason to ban him (I agree) this makes perfect sense, those suffer who try to ban him, not SD. It doesn't effect SD, it effects the banner, he will find out, shit I must play with this guy, he plays within the rules, if I ban him I cut off myself from livegames not him.

If he's a cheater he will get out anyways, if he's not I have the chance to reconsider whether I stay in the game or not.

rokakoma (19138 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

Think of it as a "help to avoid-list" linstead of a ban-list.

uclabb (589 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

I think I have lodged my main complaints. I don't really have much else to add. I think the "help-to-avoid-list" seems a lot better. My only remaining concern is that it would make the site less new-person-friendly like I've stated before because it would push the "undesirables" in with the newbies, but I don't have anything to add to what I said before.

Draugnar (0 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

@uclabb it isn't metagaming to avoid someone because you dislike them or for anyrerason at all. If you aren't *in* a game, then you can't act outside of the game. I have no problem having a help to avoid list and including anyone you desire on it for any reason whatsoever, so long as that list doesn't adversely affect *their* abuility to join the game. Then it is just a helper to help the avoider avoid the avoidees and doesn't affect the avoidees ability to join games.

One caveat though is that avoidees should not be allowed to join games *created* by the avoider. The avoiders participation in the game shouldn't stop them getting in, but the role of creator should be a special role that allows more restrictive control over who can join.

rokakoma (19138 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

Yes, that's a concern, I didn't react to that one, because I don't have a good answer to that one :( On the other hand if we can improve the site's reliability on the long term, that should help newbies to come, because oldies suggest. I think we are not just not getting enough new players, but I'm sure we are also losing old ones faster then it should be.

And personally CDs, incabaility to press Ready in live games, and so on tosses me away as well. So solution like this or others should capacitate old players to stay, not just new ones.

I basically beleive long-term solution pay off, just takes more time. If we can make life on the site more joyful, in any way, that will help newsbies as well.

rokakoma (19138 )
19 Sep 12 UTC

@Draug: if you create a pre-game time with 1 phase it solves it. But I agree with you, the game creator should be protected stronger then this "hacked" solution. I don't see any problem with that, I will write a summary now, to see where we are.

Page 4 of 7

First

Previous

Next

Last

185 replies

Fortress Door (1837

)
25 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

Another Game...

I am sad because I was the only one defeated in abge's game. Signup's for the Third FD Game

1. Fortress Door
2. Legatus (signed up a wihle ago, via pm)

55 replies

Fortress Door (1837

)
25 Sep 12 UTC

Thread is too old to reply to

bo_sox48

Please stop being an asshole. Thank You

11 replies

Page 963 of 1419

First

Previous

Next

Last