Or emoji's next to name.

@ramrod, do you have 2 cents.

I think a hybrid between @ssorren's idea about checking in pregame and @Sleepcap's comment about how vDip does it (2 pages back in this thread) would be the winner idea in minimizing opening turn NMR's.

Everyone has to "check in" at least one second before game start, but no more than one phase time period before start (usually 5 minutes for live). This keeps players from checking in many minutes prior and then forgetting. Then, if even one player fails to check in, that(those) player(s) is(are) ejected from the game BEFORE the game starts, so there is no NMR, and game start is delayed by X minutes (X could either be equal to the phase length or a game set up option setting).

* game start thus being delayed for time to find replacement player(s). *

Not much of a function for players, but it might be helpful to have a few more notices on the site, namely the mod email at the bottom of the page and a reminder at the top of the forum to not spam, accuse others of cheating, or post about ongoing (and particularly) anonymous games.

And in addition to what @cardcollector says and along the lines I've heard suggested before, a notice at the top of the Game Page "Missing a turn and/or abandoning a game will lower your reliability rating and hurt your chances of joining future games". (To make newer players more aware of the importance of not NMR or CDing.)

On vdip, they have ranked and non ranked games. If the concern is that newbs either NMR or don't know rules, what if you can't play a ranked game till you have x successful finishes of non ranked games.

I mean I think the biggest cultural difference between here and say "Candy Crush" is that here when you leave mid-game it effects everyone else. I think that for new players who do not know how bad that sucks for everyone else the thought slips their mind. I know that prior to webdiplomacy I played more live games with short durations and low investment (FPS games and Turn by turn 2 player games) that seriously impacted the way I played here until recently (as can be seen by my RR). I think, like chluke suggested, a banner or something for new players that just clarifies the difference between diplomacy and common online games would be useful. I think much of the reason why players NMR and CD is a inherent ignorance that comes from not being a part of the sites culture for a long time.

This may be a little much, but I used to play a MMO that had a slideshow type registration. It didn't just cover how to play but was routinely updated to cover cultural changes in the site. for example here an entire slide could be devoted to the effects of an NMR/CD in relation to RR and other players.

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=953385#953385

The blacklist feature is interesting. I'm not sure how to implement it without letting users abuse it to break anon...

it doesn't have to be in the games itself. It could simply be a list fetters kept like the Notes tab on my profile at minimum and I'd still be pretty happy. In fact having a Notes tab on the profile would be really useful if it was updatable rather thansequential like the note tab that we have now and games. So I suppose more like another comment box like we have under settings but for only our eyes. The other option is that it simply doesn't work for anonymous games which I would be okay with.

with the blacklist thing it could work and not break anon if it was a community based thing. I.E people can rate you W or B and then you would have a % score based on that. So for example if 7 people say that Valis is a W player and 3 say he is a B player then he is 70%W . I mean the problem I see with this way would be the community could abuse it; and it would negate the individualized purpose of a blacklist.

I see ATCs point on how it could break anon. say I only have 1 person in my black list then I will immediately know who that person is in a game. Or if I have 6 people in the black list and only 1 is online during a live game.

blacklists should be individual and on the onus of each and everyone to not join a game with people they do not wish to play with. It is not a vote. It is not for the whole community. And it does not affect the person you blacklist it should affect yourself. The blacklist is just for your memory and convenience only.

Would it be possible for you to construct a blacklist in the system that would refuse admission to you in anonymous games if blacklisted players were already present?

I just am trying to find a way to compromise the issues with the proposal and the benefits of it.
Benefits: allows for personal notes on individuals
Problems: could be a problem in anonymous games.

I see how it would negate the benefit to make it public vote system. But how could it be implemented? As a side note I am not arguing aginst it I personally have a google doc for all players I have played with.

Just a small explanation how the vDip blacklist works:
Everybody can choose to block a player as he like. This affect the player in question, as he can't join games the blocking player is in, but in reverse, the player that blocked him can't join his games too.
So if someone blocks to many players he has a hard time to join games, because there might be someone on his blocklist, or his games won't start, because too many players are locked out of his games.
Somehow this works quite well. As a side note. This does not work for passworded games, as sometimes in a tournament these players are grouped together. But if you join such a tournament you know what you are in for...

Again, I feel strongly it should be one way. If A blacklists B, it means A can't join certain games. Not B. Anything else is way too abusable and toxic. If B joins after A is in, it could kick A out, or it could be tough luck on A's part. Both infinitely better than a player being unable to join a game because someone ELSE performed an action.

@Commander Byron: I mean I think the biggest cultural difference between here and say "Candy Crush" is that here when you leave mid-game it effects everyone else.

I totally agree with this. I had a non-live game with 6 of my friends and and one of them had a NMR midway through that totally ruined that game. I had to sit him down and explain to him what he did and how his lack of interest in the game effectively ruined it for the rest of us. He did apologize and said he wouldn't happen again but I do feel that this is something that needs to be taught or stressed to new players.

Valis is spot on here again. It would be pretty lame to try and be the 7th in a live game and get a message "Sorry, 1 or more players in this anonymous game has disallowed you from participating."

It should prohibit player A from joining games player B is in and that's all.

I don't see how blocklists destroy anonymity. What's the harm to the integrity of the game if A knows B is playing in it but because A has blocked B, A is not able to play in that game? Surely the anonymity constraints are related to screening players from other players in the same game.

I think any harm to the integrity of the process by allowing me to know someone I've blocked is in an anonymous game that I'm not going to be able to play in is substantially outweighed by the upside of being able to block certain players.

I havent played with the blocklist on vDip, but the system is pretty unappealing to me. It seems to me they just institutionalise personal antipathy.

I absolutely support blocking people out of games for objective criteria. RR obviously. But pehaps also GR. Or # games played. Or win %. Or a combination of those.

I do really love the 'tag' system, it's come up before and I really like the notion. It should be easy enough to switch off in anon games, just as display of names is also blocked. I see no structural problema on that count.

I'd be so sad if I got put on someone's blocklist. :-(

I don't think we'll see much win% or GR catching on for reqs (any more than we see the current GR challenges etc), if only because it severely punishes people who take over CDs, play live games, etc. All sorts of reasons to allow your GR or win% to drop. No legit reason to let your RR drop.

If people want those with super high GR or win% only games, there are only a handful of players and they all know/advertise to each other anyways. That's not true of high RR players.

Those like my favorite person ever, VillageIdiot, with >20% win percentages AND > 20 games played both

1) Know each other
2) Are not populous enough that if one made a public game with that req one could expect it to ever fire. It must be advertised on the forum in the first place.

Kinda related to this sort of concept, over on PlayDip they introduced what they call an "Ambassador" system. The general idea is that players who fit a certain standard (finished a certain amount of games with a certain RR level and hit a minimum level of communication) receive automatically a status of rating ('ambassador').

With this, when selecting/creating games there is an option for "ambassadors only" so you know when you enter a game that you'll have a respectable level of quality, this has proven especially useful when joining public+anonymous games.

(...and, Awwww shucks!!)

Yeah, fully anonymous (as opposed to semi-anon) reliable or high-GR games is probably the biggest benefit to having more stats on-site. MadMarx's blind invitational games were the only games I ever played like that, and they were a very nice experience.

Get rid of time stamps for non-anon games!

Yes.

Get rid of all games! We want more forum!