No, I want a link to it on this forum. But I'll just look through his posts for it.

Thanks.

Oh, why is that, smiley?

I'm linking to it on another website (The LessWrong site that I frequently link to). They had an experiment where they studied game theory by playing two games of diplomacy, and I'm trying to link them here. They'd find that report fascinating.

Thanks again.

Actually can you e-mail it to me? I'll just post it on there. He appears to not have put it on this site, which I thought he did.

I've temporarily unhid my e-mail address for you.

It's done.
Two games? I guess it's just to get a sense of how the game is played.

Yeah, there's a reason I'm sending this to them. :-)

Got it. From both amac and zultar. Thanks so much.

You are welcome. It actually would be interesting to read/research diplomacy with some game theorists. Does anyone know of anything like that?

http://lesswrong.com/lw/79r/prisoners_dilemma_as_a_game_theory_laboratory/#comments

Yes. :-)

Wow.. I read this the first time and kind so confused.. Because it wasn't showing me Zultars posts because I muted him in a game right at the end (it was a game that started right after they introduced it.) And I guess I forgot to unmute him.. >.> Can you send it to me too? PM is fine.

I put it on my SkyDrive with my personal statistics.

http://tinyurl.com/DiplomacyReport

So basically it's a set of pre-established strategies for gunboats then. Otherwise, it would be some good AI involved right?

You muted me, Scmoo? What the hell for?

Ahh, it was a lesswrong post on game theory that introduced me to diplomacy in the first place. So you're RobertLumley smiley?

I am, Manas. Who are you?

I have *so* been dying to find someone who also hung out on both sites. :-)

This reminds me of an idea for an article analyzing the possible usage of Diplomacy in explaining the weakness of tit-for-tat I had several months ago. The main point was supposed to be its bad performance in gunboats (my null hypothesis) thanks to high noise inherent in the signals conveyed via orders since tit-for-tat fails miserably in noisy environment, it loses it's main selling point of milking cooperative strategies. Since I lacked the statistical modeling apparatus or skills necessary for its creation, I gave up although I still think the underlying idea is factually solid - despite the hype tit-for-tat receives for its 2 wins in Axelrod's tournaments from those who use it as a supportive argument for their cooperative worldview, I see it as a subpar strategy in non-laboratory environment.

I've never posted on lesswrong actually. It's on my live bookmarks, and I just read the articles. My username is brahmaneya.

Pssh. Lurkers. You should get on sometime. :-)

FYI (everyone's I) I'll be working on some additional statistics this semester. Dunno if i'll get it done but I'm hopeful.

Some of the bigger projects include the minimum number of centers a country should want to control before it can feel comfortable that it has a draw position (90% likely), the "path to victory" and a layout of the various centers a country controls when it wins and it will be displayed in a thermal-style layout, and a spattering of other statistics mostly comparing the 'average player in online diplomacy' with the pros of online diplomacy, PPSC vs WTA, and online diplomacy vs PBM/PBEM and FtF in terms of win/draw percentages to see how similar they are.

That's sweet.
I don't drink, but I would take you out for a beer if I ever meet you in real life, Tru Ninja.

I don't either but I live in southern Kentucky (Bowling Green) so stop on in sometime :)