The last process time was over 12 minutes ago (at 07:21 PM UTC); the server is not processing games until the cause is found and games are given extra time.
Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Start a new discussion in the public forum
Post a new thread
If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID#
of the game.
We get a lot of feature requests. If your feature request isn't already on our issue tracker,
then the best place to ask is the forum. This will help us gauge support for your ideas, before we add it to the todo list.
If you are posting a question please check the FAQ before posting.
If your message is long you may need to write a summary message, and add the full message as a reply.
...so step inside & make yourselves comfortable while I put the kettle on, help yourselves to a fresh slice of cake while you're at it. That table by the windows free, the one overlooking the sunny meadow, you may catch a glimpse of some bunnie rabbits frolicking playfully if your lucky. So just relax and unwind from the stresses of warfare for a little while, I won't be a mo...
we need a new ukraine in a gunboat on the modern map, old one was banned, no signs of cheating in this game though, very interesting position. gameID=132506
Al Swearengen (1269 ) 04:09 AM +1 I think part of the problem is that some players mistake that joining an in-progress game is a 'service to the community.' Please allow me to clarify.
Joining random open games goes against the spirit of Diplomacy. Diplomacy, in the classic sense of the game, can be summarized as "seven strategicians sit down at a table to negotiate secret deals and try to gain enough leverage to force rivals out, pursuing a lopsided and favorable end-game."
It's not, "seven strategicians sit down to move a few units around randomly, waiting for someone to get bored and leave only so that a rotating case of characters surprises everyone with increasingly non-sensible moves, attempting to preemptively force a draw."
The rules for the game stipulate that you're supposed to decide *before hand* what happens when a player drops out. The rules don't say "when a player drops out, the chair should sit empty until some random person comes along and decides to sit down and start screwing with the game."
You're not helping by jumping in on random games.
I wouldn't want it understood that I *wouldn't* just attempt to game you out of the game through some sort of pre-arranged collusion if you randomly jump in a game. You're not helping. Please consider not doing this.
If you are comparing Diplomacy to the real world as in "try to gain enough leverage to force rivals out."
It is not comparable. In the real world a nation may attempt to sue for peace or otherwise exit a conflict. But no nation will simply stop defending itself as happens with CD situations in Diplomacy.
I think Al was comparing more to the original board game. Internet is different of course the question is whether that means the answer here is different
Thank you for highlighting the problems posed by random mid-game joins, Ogion.
As you suspect, my opinion can be clarified by agreeing with several other users of this site that there absolutely *are* circumstances under which it is acceptable, in some cases even laudable, to join an existing game in progress.
For example, if all of the remaining (six?) players are encouraging you to join, then one can expect that you are harming no one by taking over an abandoned country.
In another frequently seen case, players will sometimes invite a 'sitter' if they need to take either an expected or unexpected leave of absence. Where not specifically prohibited, this does provide a useful service to existing players inside of a running game where such players are unwilling or unable to pause the game.
The key in both examples that I've outlined is that critical ingredients seem to be that you have been invited to join the game, you have not wandered in randomly and you are joining with the consent of the remaining players.
Since the actual game rules do *require* that an agreement is reached beforehand about an abandonment policy, one must conclude that there are only nebulous justifications for someone to feel enabled to jump in on a random game.
Not to make too much work, that suggests some way to signal games where joiners are welcome v ones where they aren't would be nice. Not sure how to implement that
Again, Al's opinions is not the opinion of the mods or Kestas. They *encourage* abandoned position takeovers and if you don't want someone randomly jumping in, you can always password your game. So, Al's opinion is just like his asshole, smelly and worthy of contempt.
Like Draug said, if you don't want abandoned positions taken over, password your game. In my personal opinion, Diplomacy is a game for seven players. If one of those players leaves for any reason, it compromises the game even more than an unfamiliar player joining the game.
One point to consider as well is that although we normally associate CDs with losing positions, that's hardly a typical case and you can usually find some halfway decent or even winning positions in Joinable Games. I don't think many players would agree with Al that a game would be better off when a six or seven center power leaves the game.
One thing you need to make clear to others in the game on passworded ones is if you don't want replacements. Otherwise, someone in the game could give someone else the password.
This is what the rulebook actually says (pg. 18, last paragraph of "Civil Disorder"): "It is probably best, if enough players are present, to allow someone else to replace any player who leaves the game. Players should decide what policies they will follow before starting the game." I think that is a pretty clear endorsement of WebDiplomacy policies.
That's funny. Because even though I know that you're a really bright person, both you and I, articulate and reasonable adults, have a disagreement about what a short passage of text actually means.
I read the above to state that you're really *supposed* to make an agreement beforehand, and that even so you're primarily meant to choose replacements from a populace of pre-vetted persons.
Isn't that a funny thing that two intelligent people can come to such different conclusions over something so minor? Hilarious!
It seems that web dip allows two agreements: either decide not to allow replacements and put on a password or agree to allow replacements and have a public game. Either way it is clear when you join a new game which policy prevails
Al Swearengen: As a user of WebDiplomacy you have agreed to the policies set forth by the points system as described here: http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/viewtopic.php?p=288#p288 (referenced here: http://webdiplomacy.net/faq.php#faq_4) Hence there is in fact prior agreement that open games are open to "vetted persons" to take over positions in, where the "vetted persons" are webDiplomacy players with sufficient points.
@Al, I'm a bit short on time, but my general position on the topic is that if players want to agree beforehand to not allow replacements they should just get the mods to add a password once the game starts.
I can understand that you're in a hurry. Thank you for taking the time to weigh in. Actually, I think that your suggestion is a fantastic one. As usual your voice is a ray of clarity on an otherwise muddled discussion board. I can agree that I will clearly post an special table rules at the time that I announce my games, and that I shall email the staff to impose a password once the game begins.
"...But the truth is, young people are knuckleheads..." says Obama. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michelle-obama-young-people-are-knuckleheads-which-why-they-need-obamacare_782766.html
So Momma Obama's finally got something right...so how's that grab you, all my young, liberal friends?
In the gameID=136203, autumn 1911. How that my Spanish fleet did not cancel Portugals support for MAO - Spa and my Mars army bounced with the guy? After 100 games I am still not sure, shame. :)
Suppose you could steal the pot of gold that is sitting at the end of the rainbow without anyone noticing. Would you take it? Would you use it to finance abortion clinics? Also, why do y'all lack any sense of morality?
just watch a Lil Dicky music video and he will show you how...........nooooooooot. That guy is such a disgrace. Just one of the many people setting a good example on how to live :(
Why did Jesus perform miracles? Wouldn't he be a much more palpable and credible figure if he *hadn't* performed miracles and just did *good deeds*? Another one: *why* doesn't the bible a) tell what we know to be true about the Universe or b) remain silent on it instead of c) say things that are simply contradictory to it?
)
Posting from your phone isn't that hard
)
)
)