This may seem like an immature guideline but as a camp counselor this past summer i had about 6 rules for the middle school and high school boys i had to deal with. Number one on the list was "don't be dumb" and that encompasses about everything you could think of. Now I'm not saying you're all 13 year old boys, but most of the people on this site can act like one :)

Oh and if you think this is dumb then feel free to rip me a new one, and i'll just assume you have a bieber haircut, you're 13, you mix "your" and "you're" up and you spell both "ur".

1)sometimes i feel very angry when taling to some people and they provoke my abusive verbal behaviour, or i want them to think i'm angry and going to act like a jerk as i'm conducting a bit of chainsaw diplomacy... if everyone was keeping things civil i'd be deprived of a useful tool. However i think i coudl taunt and chainsaw without actually using 'foul language and insults' - whatever that is...

2) who cares, if people are going to fail to be adult and respectful then they're probably not going to have a productive conversation about analysis of facts and trust in authoritive figures... in which case a thread like the Conspiracies will fail to do what it aimed to, i admit not reading beyond the second page mostly because it was going nowhere. I fear that anyone who did was wasting their time.

and Akilies ur is a perfectly cromulent textular alternative spelling, whoever decided that only the words and spellings in the 'standard' dictioanry were the only possible words was missing some very important points about language. As discussed here: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/erin_mckean_redefines_the_dictionary.html

@orathaic: this is about the forum, not the whole site, I think. +1 the language detail.

In my opinion, only the forum should be affected if any changes are put into place.

This doesn't happen all that often, I don't think. If it got really bad, is it possible for the mods to simply "lock" or delete a thread? Of course, then a new one would probably start.

In my opinion, I don't think anything needs to be done that will affect it. It's usually good humored around here.

freedom of speech lets us know who the assholes are.
Dont undervalue that.

I called a person who was previously an ally but turned on me a "retard" after he made a bad move that cost us both inevitable total defeat in a few subsequent moves. He appeared to be genuinely offended and asked that I not call him a retard. So I did again. Apparently very upset and personally insulted, he again, in a more threatening written tone demanded that I not call him a retard because he was doing what he thought was right, and I was being abusive and having improper decorum. I responded with "retard".

The very next move he was backstabbed by the country he had just supported to help me. I laughed at him and berated him further, being vindicated, and he knew i was, since our conversations had been across several turns.

Then he apparently ragequit webdiplomacy because he CDed after that.

I'm not sure what the moral of the story is on that one. But I am suggesting that it is a possible avenue of arguement that being abusive and truly hurting people's feelings IRL so that they CD in a game is a legitimate strategy.

I have no soul.

@numberzero
lol
master strategy

@numberzero - your an inspiration!

For sure when people start researching players IRL and posting publicly here, they need to be censured. Every other kind of insult just adds to the tapestry of awesomeness that is webdiplomacy.

Keep it classy, webdiplomacy.

webdiplomacy, which of course in german means a whale's vagina.

I am truly shocked. Salem?

LJ, thanks for the thread. I basically agree with Sicarius. Folks self-sort through their forum posts, and I figure out with whom I would like to play and with whom I really wouldn't. However, folks should feel free to bring their best grammar and manners to the table. Diplomacy is, after all, a game. It is not a job, a war, or a worth validation engine. We play games to have fun (even if three powers are currently ganging up on my poor and tragically misunderstood Russia). Profanity and vitriol drive off new players and generally make things less enjoyable. I have found the community to be generally very helpful and pleasant. Folks have addressed my rules questions promptly. When I have introduced less-than-interesting forum threads they have been allowed to die painlessly as opposed to attracting hand grenades.

Of course, researching folks outside the game and introducing information here is beyond the pale as a basic norm of civilized online discourse. Let people present themselves. If some members of the community really enjoy to shock and agitate others, the best solution is to not engage their posts.

For example I wholeheartedly support someones right to hang a 'whites only' sign in their business window. If that was outlawed I wouldnt know the barber is a racist fuck.

Fuck that shit! I'll curse the assholes in-game and out if I fucking feel like it.

But I do agree I crossed a line in conspiracies.

<please reread with the intended sarcasm>

I might be in minority here, but...

I have a great example from a still-ongoing game, so I won't post it here. I do want to say that I understand why insulting someone during the game can be a legitimate tactic. But then I think of real life situation, where seven people gather up to play Diplomacy. One of them insults another to the point the person leaves the game. I would immediately stop this game, because there should be a certain level of courtesy between people who play a game.

So, I think that telling someone that their intelligence is approaching the level of a horny turtle is acceptable. However, telling that his grandma sucks dicks for living since she was 14 is not acceptable - not on the forum, and not during the game.

Or, to give a +1 to Praetorian308 - "Keep it classy, webdiplomacy".

Durden, go to hell

hehe. jk. i for one will try to keep it civil.

@Bask, I kinda like both of those statements. But, I tend to laugh off the comments. In fact it usually prompts me to fight harder to defeat that person. Besides if Grandma is still sucking dicks for a living, go Grandma.

Trying to force someone to CD through insults seems to be at cross-purposes with our strong communal desire to have everyone remain in the game to the bitter end. I respect the players with two units who keep negotiating and throwing their weight this way and that (and as I am all too often in that position, I try to keep my end up as well). Also, I suspect that folks who might CD due to insults are probably largely new or young players. They might quit the game entirely or internalize "insult diplomacy" as a great way to play, to the overall detriment of the site's tone. Won't somebody think of the socialization?

Diplomacy is a game, not a social experiment. Use whatever tools are at your disposal and don't break the site's rules to win. Period.

Every game is a social experience, if not a social experiment. In CCG and miniatures play I've seen twenty-year-olds heckling third graders at table, making them cry and winning. The adult may get league points, but that doesn't make it a great idea.

Rules are generally rubbish and this site has been great for its open use of opinion etc...I am sure we are all sensible enough not to have to go through this and if you truly get annoyed by this stuff or have to resort to threats, then you need to take a big fat look at yourself and remember that anyone can be a tough guy on the internet!

Play the game. Its the reason we are on this site. Anything else is just plain bollocks.

Ok normally I'm not one to complain about stuff like this. I've put up with four years of swearing and insults in a high school locker room, and just as long on the rugby pitch, so I've see a broad range of cussing. However, this isn't a locker room or a rugby pitch. I think that when you play Diplomacy you expect something of slighty higher quality. As Baskinelli said, "there should be a certain level of courtesy between people who play [the] game." That's all I'm arguing for. I may have gotten a bit extreme when I asked for a set of rules, but there should be some way of assuring that, as Ges said folks "bring their best grammar and manners to the table." Sorry to keep quoting but you guys just put it way more eloquently than I can. I guess my wuestion now is whether or not something to ensure a certain level of class be maintained is 1) a good thing to do and 2) even a possibility in application. Thoughts...?

"bring their best grammar and manners to the table"

Not everyone here is native English speaking (in fact I'd say the total native English versus non-native is nearly balanced), so "grammar" is for the birds. Additionally, some of us do significant diploming from our cell phones where trying to type long, full, well-formed sentences is a pain in the butt.

Why not just add to the site's rules "Excessive swearing and personal insults will not be tolerated in in-game chat or in the forums. Those who violate this rule will be given a warning. Further violations could result in <insert punishment here>"?

If we start stifling freedom of expression with words, then the next step is to stifle ideas. this is a slippery slope y'all are proposing.

My understanding of Diplomacy ethics was changed by this discussion of how to get out of a stalemate from 1971. (http://devel.diplom.org/Online/StalematesAtoY/locked.htm)

The author discusses negotiation strategies for someone who's been stalemated by one major opponent and a number of smaller powers. After discussing a range of ideas, he says:

"You have one last stratagem to employ before you must ally with the other major power: see if any of the remaining minor countries will throw supply centers to you for money. When this stratagem (or your money) has been exhausted, you are forced to ally with the other major country(s)."

Without blinking, he proposes real-world bribery as a strategy. I looked for evidence that this might be a joke...I'm pretty sure he was being serious. Food for thought...

But in anonymous web games, you don't know who is on the other side and what an appropriate amount would be. If I knew it was figle or Ghost or even Kestas, I could throw a night's poker winnings their way. But it would take a lot more for strat or abgemacht.

Draug+1.

I'm ex-military and the worst I've experienced here is as nothing compared with the level of swearing and piss-takes and wind-ups and out-and-out racism expressed there.

Yes, there are a couple of dick-heads on this site (as there are everywhere) and there's a couple of people who I avoid playing with because of how they behave. But that's just me.

Oh, and personally, I think going after someone by finding out about them IRL and then winding them up about it is going far too far. If somebody did that I'd urge Kestas to ban them. Remember, it's only a game, chill guys, chill.

I've apologized twice for that in the other thread. I went to far but I'm tired of apologizing now.

@pastor - What he doesn't say is whether he would actually pay up though.
@Draug - I'm more than happy to accept any donations you have :P

I've either elaready lost or doing fine right now, fig. But if I find you in a game where I need some help, Western Union can help us out with an international payment.

@Draugnar: If your slippery slope idea were true, most of the forums I frequent would have rules that "stifle ideas". Just because a rule is made to curb certain behaviours, it does not mean that those in charge are suddenly going to go mad with power and start making other rules banning other unrelated bahavours. Most forums have rules regarding flaming/swearing etc and they continue to function perfectly.

I'm talking about setting them in-game. You should not dictate how a person may act in order to get their desired behavior when the game is clearly about lying and cheating and doing whatever it takes to get the desired result.

The game is not "clearly" about "doing whatever it takes to get the desired result". The classic game is about several people competing to conquer a representation of Europe. You do this by making deals and breaking them, by earning trust and by deceit. Personal insults may potentially help you win, but they go against human decency. Despite the fact that we're all playing a game of lies, that does not mean that we should stop respecting one another.
And in game, or out-game, your slippery slope argument is bullshit.

I want to re-iterate that if you don't like people saying bad things to you, you might want to play gunboat. Implementing a "hurt feelings report" system is silly.

So basic respect is not an option? There's no room for "this is a game and it's supposed to be fun so lets not make it personal"?

What i'm saying is that I don't take being called names personally, and I always go into each game fresh, even when I play against people I know, and dislike.

If others don't do the same, I suggest filing a hurt feelings report?

I like this site because it allows for self and group moderation very well. Don't like how a player plays? Don't play with him. I have a black list and so do others who have been on this site for a while. Let's not give the mods more work by implement arbitrary censoring requirements.

As to the forum, if you don't like a person, you can easily not read their threads. I'll admit that there currently isn't a good way to deal with people that don't break the rules, but never contribute either (such as mapleleaf). For now, I say, just deal with it. Maybe in the future something like a "mute" option will come along.

Abgemacht +1.

Just deal with it, if you don't like it, don't read it. The people that play this game and play this site are, in my opinion generally rather intelligent and rather well informed people indeed, so i am sure when it comes down to it we can sort it ourselves!

As soon as you add the aforementioned 'hurt feelings report' system, it all becomes very cumbersome. I do like the idea of paying for supports though, can Kestas add a 'pay me to help you tab'?

You already can: use the donate feature.

I'd quite like a user-level mute feature, although perhaps it should have a timeout. That is, if you mute someone they should automagically become visible to you again after say a month. This would stop people being accidentally left on a blacklist.