Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 1042 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
SYnapse (0 DX)
08 Apr 13 UTC
Citing works
Okay, I understand if you quote a survey you would do it like this (Blankflag 2013)1

1. BLANKFLAG, M. 2013. Blankflag's news thread. Webdiplomacy.
17 replies
Open
murraysheroes (526 D(B))
08 Apr 13 UTC
What's the point in cheating?
I've wondered this about board games both board games and video/computer games. Please provide to me the behind-the-scenes into the psyche of the cheater.
-Does having more kills or WebDip points make you feel better about yourself?
-Is it really worth screwing over the other people involved in the game for you to get a meaningless win?
Please, help me get it.
9 replies
Open
dubmdell (556 D)
07 Apr 13 UTC
(+4)
Hey Draugnar
"I pledge $100 to the site if Agent K stays banned." Pay up, Draugy-boy! You got your wish! threadID=994301, page 4

Remember, http://i.imgur.com/O7Vmc.png
37 replies
Open
redhouse1938 (429 D)
07 Apr 13 UTC
Nuclear Proliferation
Why do we let a country like North Korea do nuclear tests? Isn't that dangerous? Isn't it even more dangerous because they might sell the knowledge they acquire to islamic nutcases? Discuss.
70 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D(B))
08 Apr 13 UTC
New issue of Diplomacy World
http://www.diplomacyworld.net/
0 replies
Open
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
07 Apr 13 UTC
CD Takeover Challenge
Old thread was locked... below are the current scores.
3 replies
Open
blankflag (0 DX)
07 Apr 13 UTC
true or false: "your kid is yours, and totally your responsibility."
isnt it time we move forward and stop claiming that we have the right to decide whats best for our kids? or even saying "our" kids. as if parents own them. newsflash - those kids arent yours.
21 replies
Open
King Atom (100 D)
06 Apr 13 UTC
The Vicarial Sandgoose Thread
That's right! Sandgoose has gots things to say...For those of you too pretentious to pop in at vDip, here's where we'll get words from the man himself!
46 replies
Open
jimgov (219 D(B))
08 Apr 13 UTC
(+2)
Holy Grail or Life of Brian
Both great movies. Both with classic lines. My money is on Life of Brian. Who ya got?
41 replies
Open
Maniac (189 D(B))
08 Apr 13 UTC
Help required
From draugnar or others who are wizards with computers, more details inside.
1 reply
Open
yaks (218 D)
08 Apr 13 UTC
EoG Quick Game -5
Did we really have to include italy on that one?
1 reply
Open
Smoove7182954 (0 DX)
07 Apr 13 UTC
How do you move via convoy because when i try it it fails
I tried to check the intro to diplomacy but the pictures dont work for somereason
5 replies
Open
kamikaze0214 (204 D)
07 Apr 13 UTC
new game!
5 min, starting at 7!
0 replies
Open
jmo1121109 (3812 D)
05 Apr 13 UTC
Potential Reinstatement, please read and give your opinion.
Recently the team has been contacted by a formerly banned player Agent K, asking to be reinstated. Below is a statement of his to the community and the moderator team's thoughts on the topic. Please read through and let us know what you think or any questions you have.

-jmo and the WebDip Mods
Page 1 of 8
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
jmo1121109 (3812 D)
05 Apr 13 UTC
Some portions of the community have been pushing to allow some banned players to return. As a team all the mods and admins have discussed this and come to a decision. We are willing to try this out as a test. Recently we were contacted by an older banned player asking to rejoin the site. This player caused no problems whatsoever in his year being banned and has been completely forthcoming in his admissions of cheating on the site in the past. He has completely admitted that what he did was wrong, in violation of the site rules, and deserving of a ban.

Therefore, we are willing, WITH community approval, to allow this member to make a new account on the site. After returning this player will be watched by the team excessively to ensure no rule violations occur. If this went smoothly the team would consider trying this out with other banned members. Though let me be clear that making new accounts once banned or certain levels of cheating and conduct with the moderator team during investigations will exclude certain banned members from this opportunity.

Please read Agent K's statement below and feel free to ask any questions or bring up any concerns you have about this idea. I will also be posting a more comprehensive list of the accounts used by Agent K and his friends so everyone can make their own unbiased opinion on this matter.


"Whew boy okay here we go. I will provide a big summary of what went
down over the past 4 years.

It started out as a big group of our friends at college. One of these
(Bearnstien) introduced Diplomacy to the rest of us through the board
game and then we actually came across the website. So we created
accounts and began playing games together (mainly live games). At the
time, we did not really know the entire community rules and would just
play games together, ganging up on whoever pissed us off among each
other the most at the time. After we started understanding the rules,
the actual game, strategy, the actual diplomacy part etc, we began
playing in real games with phases and actual communications.
Bearnstien, much more seasoned at the time, would periodically ask to
join up in a game with him. We wouldn't necessarily start out as
allies, but in dire times (and again, not fully playing by site rules)
an alliance would form. So yes, this was extremely unfair.

Time passed but I forget the exact timing but there was a point where
Bearnstien reached 8th in the ghost rankings. Our group looked over
his game history and basically said 'what the hell' who is person 'x'.
That is when the entire multiaccounting began. He artificially had
been inflating his ghost ranking. So of course being the arrogant and
immature college students at the time not really caring whether or not
we were playing fair games we did the same. If I recall correctly, it
was also in response to another group of metagamers we encountered
regularly (I think eeezfly and jireland or something like that) plus
the fact that trolling the forum in response to cheating accusations
became quite ridiculous. So to summarize, in response to cheating
accusations, our group would just conjure up some new pawn accounts to
either play games together without the instant cheating assumption or
to inflate our points.

Another big part of the scheme was the direct result of our group of
friends calling each other out on the forums. Since we knew who was
metagaming with who and what accounts, it was quite easy to call
direct attention to a sketchy game. So I am sure you can imagine that
as soon as one of our friends called out another, they would in turn
call out someone else, resulting in a huge spiral. It then
degenerated into calling out other players in the forums. (as a small
aside, some of these players were in their own little ring, such as
master ninja)

So anyways, after our initial fascination our group didn't have as
much time for diplomacy but we still would have impromptu live games
every now and then using any of the random accounts we had lying
around that had slid under the banning radar. The only person really
still playing (at least competitivly and well) was myself. I am not
trying to brag but through the entire ordeal I had actually learned
how to play diplomacy well as evidenced by some of my games in the
GFDT and ghost ranking challenge games. These games I played clean
and straight. The first time I ran into trouble was when at lunch one
day with our group of friends I mentioned something like "yooo I'm at
ghost ranking 'x' in the top 25". They were surprised that I was
still playing so of course they decided to screw with me and started
some forum about my previous metagame encounters and calling for my
banning yada yada yada. It also made a semi-revival among everyone to
start up playing again. So I had a lapse in judgement and decided to
play some games with them and essentially help them start out.
Obviously that is against the rules I am not trying to hide that fact.
I did deny wrongdoing in the past because I didn't want my account to
be banned since a) I had already progressed far in the rankings, b)
had done well in high ranked games and had established a nice
reputation for myself and c) had a really sweet account name.

The exact details are kind of hazy about what games or which friends I
was essentially cheating with at the time, but I do know that I was in
one of the GFDT games as well as an extremely high pot game with
MadMarx and other top tier players. I ended up getting banned but was
reinstated so I could finish my high games, but the damage had already
been done. We ended up cancelling the game and I took a pretty long
break from diplomacy. So I think that after the break I came back and
played in another challenge game with rdrivera and someone else as
england and that brought back an interest. After that game I don't
think I played for a while (I may be wrong) but then last year got
roped back in when some of our group said we should start playing
again. So again, another instance of cheating and playing with our
friends. The live games became few and far between with whatever
accounts had survived the second round of bannings and my main account
agent k became banned last spring i think. Yes, I tried to excuse the
banning and claim my innocence but I was in the wrong. After that I
hardly ever played except for the random live game. We all graduated
and as far as I know, no one else is really playing. I did check out
the site and noticed that the mods swept through the system and banned
almost all of our random accounts we had ever created.

So again, that was extremely long winded. If you have any questions I
can try to answer them. My main reason for initially emailing was
just so that I could come back and play some competitive games. I
admit that some of my games on my history are tainted so that was my
reasoning for either creating a new account and telling you guys what
it is so you can track me, unbanning Agent K and allowing you to watch
me there, unbanning Agent K and wiping my games record so that my
identity is still intact but the tainted games gone, or just keeping
me exiled which I would understand based on the extensive history of
problems our group has caused. I will admit that a big part of
wanting to come back is because of working on a computer regularly and
remembering the rush and challenge of sending messages and playing
people and stabbing the shit out of them.

So to summarize, we were a bunch of college kids who enjoyed playing
diplomacy with each other and screwing around and just being annoying
on webdip by metagaming and creating bogus accounts. My case in this
was that I started out using Agent K as part of our group to screw
around but eventually got good and played some actual real games and
did well. It was basically half Agent K being a good player and
playing by the rules in the big games and walking a straight line and
the other half screwing around in live games and other games with our
friends not following site rules, if all that makes sense.

So yea, I will try to help answer whatever questions you have and
won't argue whatever ruling you decide.

Sincerely,

K"


-jmo and the WebDip Mods
yaks (218 D)
05 Apr 13 UTC
Well IMHO it seems like a good idea. He seems very sincere and he acknowledged what he did was wrong. Obviously you cant be too light on a multi, but 1 year seems like punishment enough. I mean, it doesnt seem like there is a reason NOT to.
Yonni (136 D(S))
05 Apr 13 UTC
(+5)
www.playdiplomacy.com
dubmdell (556 D)
05 Apr 13 UTC
(+1)
My initial reaction is a flat out "no," but after reading everything, I've concluded this cannot be a terrible idea if the mods are bringing this forward.

That said, my "yea" vote hinges on two things:
1) that the mods do monitor Agent K on his return (as you, jmo, have already said they will); and
2) that this will not open the floodgates to the likes of Sargmacher and SandLuna to return.

If you allow Agent K back, I'll happily be one of the first to join a game with him. Never had the chance back in the day when I first joined the site.
Octavious (2701 D)
05 Apr 13 UTC
What counts as community approval? If we're going down the route of using the forum as a parole board I think it's worth drawing up a few rules to encourage fairness and consistency.
MKECharlie (2074 D(G))
05 Apr 13 UTC
I support his reinstatement. The admin team seems to have thought this through, and if they're willing to do the extra work they've volunteered to do, I support the proposition.
Alderian (2425 D(S))
05 Apr 13 UTC
He appears to have truly repented. I say give him a shot.
Alderian (2425 D(S))
05 Apr 13 UTC
But, I'll say that I would certainly understand someone who has been negative impacted by cheaters saying no.
Fortress Door (1837 D)
05 Apr 13 UTC
Not being around when Agent K was doing his cheating, I also think he seems to have repented. I would be OK for bringing him back.
X3n0n (216 D)
05 Apr 13 UTC
I think I am convinced that he means what he says… but in contrast to the others I would still vote a "No" for the following reason:

He describes a very mixed history, going from playing to cheating to playing to cheating up and down. He acknowledges this as faulty, but always conditional on his friends' group dynamics. In the end his argument comes down to, now I don't have lunch with them regularly so there will be no further risk of me cheating.

I think this is still as premature an attitude as was his behaviour in the past. Therefore, I am not convinced that he is able to follow through his own goals and promises. I expect that in case of any chance reunion with his group (in real life) there is no guarantee they won't start again.

This vote is conditional on how confident the mods are that this recurrence will be prevented. I don't understand the code nor the how the mods are doing their job exactly, so I trust them. I just don't want that this trust just burdens them with the duty of playing the nanny for an ever growing base metas/multis/ and the like who claim to be repentant.
2ndWhiteLine (2596 D(B))
05 Apr 13 UTC
(+1)
Maybe let him back, but somehow restrict him to non-anon games? Or give him a big scarlet "C" next to the green dot.
ava2790 (232 D(S))
05 Apr 13 UTC
This was the most horrendous and crappy episode in my webdip memory but it was ~5 years ago. Now that there has been membership turnover in that time I don't see why old pariahs should be kept at the fringes. If someone wants a second chance I say give it to them...it's not like they'd dare to do it again and if they did, they wouldn't stand a chance.
Timur (673 D(B))
06 Apr 13 UTC
In my profession, I think I've learned to tell the truly repentant from the chancers. Having read his statement, I believe he's the former.
I say give him the benefit of the doubt as long as it doesn't open the floodgates.
Timur (673 D(B))
06 Apr 13 UTC
(+1)
When he stabs me, I may readjust my stance on this :~)
Hellenic Riot (1626 D(G))
06 Apr 13 UTC
If he's being monitored I don't see the harm in it. I vaguely remember him from when I was first around I think. He could probably bypass and get away with it at this point anyway. May as well let him play under observation.
mscott (384 D(G))
06 Apr 13 UTC
(+1)
No. Of course, and absolutely. This dude cheated repeatedly and blatantly, and ecouraged others to do so as well. The rules, I think, are clear: you cheat, you are banned. Period.
How can you let this guy back, and not every other cheater who has ruined countless games with their metas and multis?
Draugnar (0 DX)
06 Apr 13 UTC
(+1)
No. Mutliple cheat. Absofuckinglutely not. Never ever let him back.
NigeeBaby (100 D(G))
06 Apr 13 UTC
What Agent K describes perfectly here is what I have witnessed and reported to the Mods with other accounts on this site. They investigated and could not find any wrong doing because as is explained above they make lots of different new accounts and use them for a few games a year maybe so when you look there is not enough evidence to suggest that cheating is going on, these multi accounts either take turns for each player to win or a few accounts always end up losing to one or two main accounts. They never actually support each other in the game but just agree to attack a country at the same time from two sides. Then near the end they either NMR the one that will lose or make a series of poor choices that make them lose to the other account. They never contact each other on the site and always play anonymous gunboats for higher stakes, i.e. don't bother with low stakes games as the prize is too small. How can anyone then prove they are cheating if they are not communicating with each other on site. If you play longer phases this must be almost impossible to spot if they have enough accounts.
It might be useful to the Mods if Agent K actually told the Mods all of the scams he used and this may help them track down the current day cheats, unless people think this site is completely free of cheaters.
I can see patterns of play by certain groups of players but I cannot prove it so what can you do, I don't want to spend my time working through hours of analysis of game history and moves to prove a point so like in life you have to be a bit practical and pragmatic with your time.
Although I appreciate the honesty of Agent K why doesn't he go and play his diplomacy elsewhere, I think they have something like this on Facebook.
If he is allowed back will we all know his new account name so we know it is he?
Hoiw does he feel about paying US$50 for the privilege of being reinstated?
Does this then open the door for the rest of the cheaters to be allowed back in such as Sandmarcher and Sarggoose?
Bottom line is it's only cheated on an online game, doesn't make him a criminal. It would be nice to think that however moronic some people have behaved they will eventually grow up and it is a sort of testament to the site that people who want to play online Diplomacy want to play it here.
As one of the biggest complainants about cheats I say 'YES' let him back in, send the link to Kestas paypal account, US$50 should cover the cost of previous FINES for his indiscretions. As soon as he has paid ..... he's back in the game.
Draugnar (0 DX)
06 Apr 13 UTC
He even admits to playing live games *after* Agent K got banned. Who wants to be there are still a few of those accounts lying around and I know I still have high school and college friends some 25+ years later. He will cheat again eventually. Mark my words.
Gen. Lee (7588 D(B))
06 Apr 13 UTC
No, ^
zultar (4180 DMod(P))
06 Apr 13 UTC
So, I feel like I should chime in here. I was the mod who did the original investigation and the subsequent banning of Agent K. For those of you who have played live gunboat games with me over the years or sent in a cheating accusation case, you know how I feel about cheaters and I have done my fair share of looking for cheaters and banning them. However, I do feel that some people do deserve a second chance, especially if they are truly repentant and that they have not repeatedly tried to come back multiple times after we told them not to. I think this is one of those cases. I do understand the arguments why he should not be allowed back, and a part of me completely agrees, which is why I think we should try this: to give Agent K a chance to come back. If it works out well, then we can consider others on a case by case basis.

I have volunteered to be Agent K's "sponsor" if you will. I will keep a close watch on his games, and he will let me know all the anon games that he will participate in.

zultar (webdipmod)
Draugnar (0 DX)
06 Apr 13 UTC
He shoild be banned from anon and gunboat if allowed back. It's that simple. Hell, I trust SandGoose more than him and even SG should only be allowed back to the forum, not to play games.
Gen. Lee (7588 D(B))
06 Apr 13 UTC
If so his username should be forced to be "AdmittedCheat-last chance"
BreathOfVega (597 D)
06 Apr 13 UTC
This could be disastrous for you mods.

How could you reject similar requests coming from other banned players, then? Judging case by case, seeing if you are moved by their repentance? Or actually opening the floodgates?
They could be way too many to be kept under control. And obviously you can't make an exception for K. And would you ask for our opinions in each of these cases? And how would the community play with them?

If you are ready for a change in your own policies, this could be the stepping stone. But if you don't want it I'm sorry for Agent K, who repented for what he did (I'm sure), but reinstating him could ruin this site's tranquillity.
jmo1121109 (3812 D)
06 Apr 13 UTC
Well let me answer a few of the questions here.

1. Yes, I am positive that if he is allowed back the moderator team can ensure he does not cheat at all. The tools available are more then enough for me to be able to say that with certainty.

2. He would not be allowed to return under the Agent K account because that account's stats and ghostrating are inflated by cheating. He would make a new account which would be announced here and would be referenced in the both the new and old profile's.

3. No, making a new account account after being banned without permission would automatically disqualify someone from this type of reinstatement, ruling sandgoose out about 12 times over and Sargmanchers level of cheating was the highest in site history, another case we're not willing to consider. This would be a trial run for people who could have attempted to sneak back onto the site, but didn't, and who were respecting and cooperative when contacting us after at least a year of being banned.

4. As for why we are considering this. There are some members of the community, more then you would assume, who have cheated in the past and have since reformed after being caught. In addition, we deal with people insisting they have "changed' all the time. Everyone on the moderator team is pretty damn good at figuring out when we're being lied too. If we thought this member wasn't sincere we wouldn't be considering this at all. A year off the site without causing problems in this case seems to be a good opportunity for us to try out a reinstatement.

5. 2ndWhiteLine, he would be informing us, and we'll be checking anyways, every anon game he joins, and we will make sure there are no problems in it.

6. Draugnar, mscott, and anyone else with apprehensions, with all this considered would you still be opposed to the idea? If so please explain why. I'll explain any questions you have and why we're considering this.

7. Nigee, report everyone you suspect, I'd rather check 100 players and find nothing then potentially let a few cheaters slip by.
Mapu (362 D)
06 Apr 13 UTC
If zultar's gonna vouch for him, then I'm all for it.

Now I'm going to have to watch Donnie Brasco again.

"What's the big deal? You just vouch for the guy."
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
06 Apr 13 UTC
I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on if he should be allowed back, but I wonder if the mods could comment more on why this user was picked and how this will affect other users who want to return to the site.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
06 Apr 13 UTC
Oh, sorry, I hadn't refreshed enough. jmo's last post answers my questions.
semck83 (229 D(B))
06 Apr 13 UTC
(+1)
I'm for it as long as the Mods don't mind the extra work it would entail, which should (in this and every case) be entirely up to them, since it is their time.
NigeeBaby (100 D(G))
06 Apr 13 UTC
Also guys you know we are gonna love ripping the piss out of him relentlessly on the forum, those of you who know him even more so.
I'm up for it and I don't even know the guy.
Wouldn't we just love having Sarg on the forum now, we would cane his arse so hard :-)
In fact why not let Sarg & Sand just back on the forum so we can rip them to shreds for a year, then let them play in 12 months if they survive the hatred, hostility and mountain of personal piss-takes and character assassinations.

Page 1 of 8
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

239 replies
jmbostwick (2308 D)
04 Apr 13 UTC
North Carolina Exempts Itself From Constitution
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/HTML/H494v1.html

In short: "North Carolina is exempt from the Establishment Clause, and thus can declare a state-endorsed religion if desired." Thoughts?
14 replies
Open
zultar (4180 DMod(P))
06 Apr 13 UTC
(+2)
Survey as to whether Agent K should be allowed to come back
I figure that this would be the most efficient way to collect the data.
Please vote yes, no, or if you have some specific conditions that you want to specify.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DXRYY5B
24 replies
Open
redhouse1938 (429 D)
05 Apr 13 UTC
Privatization 5
I have converged to a position on this issue.
35 replies
Open
Alderian (2425 D(S))
05 Apr 13 UTC
(+4)
April Ghost Ratings
The Ghost Ratings for April have been posted. But note there have been a few changes... (see inside)
23 replies
Open
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
06 Apr 13 UTC
(+1)
Anger Management Thread
Got shit to say? Want someone to rot in hell with a knife in their back? Did you run out of Diet Coke and have to, out of pure desperation, turn to water in the morning? Blow of steam here!
12 replies
Open
Tagger (129 D)
07 Apr 13 UTC
Please join if you are a newbie!
0 replies
Open
dubmdell (556 D)
06 Apr 13 UTC
(+2)
Why Democracy Doesn't Work
Proof by counterexample: threadID=994301
9 replies
Open
NigeeBaby (100 D(G))
03 Apr 13 UTC
One for the boys ....... is porn a force for good or evil?
Does the free access and liberal attitudes to sex and pornography in some countries actually lead to more sexual indiscretion/abuse/violence/crime or does its availability lead to a safer society?
76 replies
Open
Frank (100 D)
05 Apr 13 UTC
Toronto Face-to-Face Diplomacy Game
I have never played the actual board game but would like to try. It should be after tax season so Lando can join us. Maybe a weekend in early May?
17 replies
Open
Draugnar (0 DX)
06 Apr 13 UTC
I think Mujus muted me for saying "fuck" in the title of a thread.
Hurray! Good riddance to the asshole who thinks he can assert his personal moral code to restrict freedom of speech. Fuck yeah!

Fucking free speech rocks!
52 replies
Open
Gen. Lee (7588 D(B))
06 Apr 13 UTC
Phase clock issue
Anyone else having an issue. The clock says now and doesn't turn the phase over for about 1 minute despite repeated refreshes, then once it does the clock is at 3:45 or so.
13 replies
Open
NigeeBaby (100 D(G))
04 Apr 13 UTC
US foreign policy .... now they want to fight North Korea
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22021832
Why don't they train their diplomats to talk to people without bullying them. This is a crisis all of their own making...... idiots
74 replies
Open
soxtober12 (528 D)
05 Apr 13 UTC
New Maps?
Is there any change you guys will come out with a new map, the ones you have now are great, but it would be cool to try a new one.
7 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D(B))
27 Jan 13 UTC
(+2)
Webdip Leagues - Spring 2013 signup!
Please add your name here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoMTSPq4VDvPdHZTSHB5a1lmM0licUY4WExKaDVMZHc#gid=0

https://sites.google.com/site/phpdiplomacytournaments/The-php-League
Do NOT post below. Removing some-one else's name from the list will get you permanently banned from the leagues. (please bump this thread as needed)
179 replies
Open
yaks (218 D)
05 Apr 13 UTC
(+1)
What If Kestas Died?
What would happen to the site if Kestas died?
Would it erode away, it's unsolved bugs slowly making the game less enjoyable?
Or is there some emergency protocol that will let the other mods take power?
28 replies
Open
Page 1042 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top