Disable Reliability Rating

[Aristocrat]

Hi admins and mods -

If mods are not going to remove folks who are entering zero orders in viable positions, can you disable reliability rating? It is a net negative to the site if it is encouraging ruining games rather than discouraging it.

I remember in the not too distant past, intentional NMR-ing (entering no orders on purpose to avoid the reliability rating hit) used to be actionable behavior, but apparently now it is not. As a result, it is increasingly common to see games where people enter all holds in viable or semi-viable positions. This is bad for the site, since it ruins games - it would be better if these folks could just drop out and be replaced by players who will actually play the game (and there are almost always players who will do so). The only reason they are not dropping out is because they want to avoid the reliability rating hit. And this happens in gunboat as much as press, so simply "rally the board against the player" is not a workable counter option.

[Aristocrat]

Examples in both press and gunboat, can provide more, at least one of these was submitted to the mods and I was told it was not against the rules to NMR:

https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=776315 (Germany good position, only hold orders for 4 turns)
https://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=863123 (Near East in normal position, only hold orders for 4 turns)

To be clear, this is not even support holding. This is just zero orders entered, in order to retain a viable reliability rating but not play a game anymore.

[Diplomacy&Warfare]

If reliability rating was disabled, then a lot of trolls would be able to spam join games and ruin it for everyone.
I suggest you do the following:
When creating a game, make sure that the reliability requirement is at least 70% and there is no more than 1 excused missed turn.
Only join games with the above limitations
Report players who spam hold orders.

[Aristocrat]

If reliability rating was disabled, then a lot of trolls would be able to spam join games and ruin it for everyone.
I suggest you do the following:
When creating a game, make sure that the reliability requirement is at least 70% and there is no more than 1 excused missed turn.
Only join games with the above limitations
Report players who spam hold orders.

Your last line is the problem

[wulfheart]

What would be a solution in your opinion?

[Aristocrat]

What would be a solution in your opinion?

Disabling reliability rating so people who want to quit can just quit and be replaced by others who will actually play

Or do what we used to do, and have it be something where the mods can step in and kick players out who are abusing the system (wide discretion must be given to the players though, since throwing the game is a legitimate move, but quitting is not).

[Diplomacy&Warfare]

What would be a solution in your opinion?

Disabling reliability rating so people who want to quit can just quit and be replaced by others who will actually play

Or do what we used to do, and have it be something where the mods can step in and kick players out who are abusing the system (wide discretion must be given to the players though, since throwing the game is a legitimate move, but quitting is not).

Again, if reliability rating was disabled, there would be no way to filter out trolls. The requirement of having a good reliability rating to join games filters out trolls and people who don't fulfill their commitment.

If you want to leave a game that you have committed to, you're a bad sport.

People like you, who would just leave in the middle of a game, are exactly what the reliability rating system is supposed to filter out. Nobody wants to play with people who will leave as soon as their position gets rough. You are asking for the moderators to remove a mechanism that works exactly as intended (in this case, being a deterrent for leaving in the middle of a game).

[Aristocrat]

What would be a solution in your opinion?

Disabling reliability rating so people who want to quit can just quit and be replaced by others who will actually play

Or do what we used to do, and have it be something where the mods can step in and kick players out who are abusing the system (wide discretion must be given to the players though, since throwing the game is a legitimate move, but quitting is not).

Again, if reliability rating was disabled, there would be no way to filter out trolls. The requirement of having a good reliability rating to join games filters out trolls and people who don't fulfill their commitment.

If you want to leave a game that you have committed to, you're a bad sport.

People like you, who would just leave in the middle of a game, are exactly what the reliability rating system is supposed to filter out. Nobody wants to play with people who will leave as soon as their position gets rough. You are asking for the moderators to remove a mechanism that works exactly as intended (in this case, being a deterrent for leaving in the middle of a game).

It is NOT working as intended; that is the point (then again, you have been here for two months and have a grand total of 4 completed non-bot games on this site, so you have no basis to argue this point, or make any other grand proclamations). People are simply entering zero orders, which is actually the problem reliability rating was intended to solve - to address NMRs - and now instead people just intentionally NMR instead of doing so via dropping out.

Again, there is an alternative to simply nixing reliability rating, which is for mods to enforce on intentional NMR-ing, as they used to, but if that is out then getting rid of RR is the next best thing. Letting games continue to be screwed up by people entering all holds from viable positions, when they aren't throwing, is worse than having more drop outs.

[Jamiet99uk]

Deliberately entering "HOLD" orders is not an NMR.

NMR means you didn't enter any orders.
Deliberately holding *is* entering an order.

[Aristocrat]

It has the same effect, but fine. The point is still quitting by entering all holds is affirmatively worse than quitting by dropping out.

[Diplomacy&Warfare]

Getting rid of reliability rating won't solve anything. My solution is that all-hold orders count as missed turns and decrease reliability ratings.

Also, yes, I have not played that many games of Diplomacy on this particular platform. That does not make my opinion invalid, nor my solution invalid. What makes your solution invalid is that it removes the only method of making sure players who join your game are reliable.

[Aristocrat]

Getting rid of reliability rating won't solve anything. My solution is that all-hold orders count as missed turns and decrease reliability ratings.

Also, yes, I have not played that many games of Diplomacy on this particular platform. That does not make my opinion invalid, nor my solution invalid. What makes your solution invalid is that it removes the only method of making sure players who join your game are reliable.

Except RR doesn’t do that, for the reason this thread exists - players can be unreliable just by entering all holds and quiet quitting (and RR being punitive encourages this behavior).

[BrianBaru]

There is no real penalty for dropping out of a game. This creates all sorts of problems
Here is a suggestion:
1. Keep the site free to play, but charge a, say, $5US refundable deposit upon registration with the site. This is an individual player account balance.
2. When you join a game (either a new one or as a replacement), a $1 charge is made to your balance.
3. If you complete the game (win, draw, defeated or game canceled), or withdraw from the game before it starts, your $1 is refunded to your account balance
4. If you do not complete your game, your $1 fee is forfeited, and goes into a general fund used for site maintenance and development.
5. If your balance drops to $0, you may not join another game until you recharge your account.

This could reduce the number of players on the site, but hopefully it would reduce those players who drop out of games, trolls and bots.

[French_boi]

I like Diplomacy, and play every once in a while, but if I had to put down a deposit to play on the site I would just not play here. There are other diplomacy sites that exist, so adding a paywall, refundable or not, would just kill off activity on webdip.

[wulfheart]

And the problem stays the same. You punish some behavior but now it is monetary incentive.

[Jamiet99uk]

There is no real penalty for dropping out of a game. This creates all sorts of problems
Here is a suggestion:
1. Keep the site free to play, but charge a, say, $5US refundable deposit upon registration with the site. This is an individual player account balance.
2. When you join a game (either a new one or as a replacement), a $1 charge is made to your balance.
3. If you complete the game (win, draw, defeated or game canceled), or withdraw from the game before it starts, your $1 is refunded to your account balance
4. If you do not complete your game, your $1 fee is forfeited, and goes into a general fund used for site maintenance and development.
5. If your balance drops to $0, you may not join another game until you recharge your account.

This could reduce the number of players on the site, but hopefully it would reduce those players who drop out of games, trolls and bots.

This would create significant additional work for the site developer, who is a volunteer, as well as additional legal and administrative burdens on the site, and would significantly reduce the size of the player base.

Sorry, but this just isn't a viable idea.

[Diplomacy&Warfare]

Solution: add a manual player reporting feature that can be used to report players in games, not just on the forums.

[Pengwinja]

Well, if the problem is there isn’t a penalty to dropping out of a game, just make it so there is. Make it so ghost rating goes down, or something like that. Also, make incentive to stay in. I don’t have any specific ideas about this, but I do know it is easier to make someone want to do something than force them to do something.

[French_boi]

Maybe give a small percentage of points back (percent of bet, not your total points), regardless of result, for original players who see a game through until the very end? Obviously must be small enough that you still have incentive to try and achieve the best possible result for yourself. And conversely, the same small percentage could be removed extra from a player drops out.

[mOctave]

The problem with that is that the points system is pretty much meaningless. If people really cared about the points, then draws would be virtually nonexistent. If a player keeps dropping out of games they're losing, then they probably don't have too many points to begin with. I don't think there's an incentive you can make that will work 100%.

While I agree with most of what Aristocrat has said, I do have one question: what does it matter if someone NMRs? Sure, it's a minor nuisance and can shift the balance of power slightly, but with official Diplomacy rules that's what civil disorder is.