Ctrl+C
Ctrl+V

That's not at the same time. You're an engineer. Surely you know the difference between concurrent and consecutive.

I was just telling michael the closest thing the site has to multichat.

But, if you want to be a smart-ass about it, it wouldn't be hard to make a script that would send the same message to multiple people at the same time. You could even have it paste it to your country's tab so it was all in one chat window.

I could write a script that could do it to multiple people across multiple games plus email it to myself and the mods, but it would still technically be consecutive, even if by milliseconds as javascript doesn't do true threading where you can set up a series of threads to start based on a timer.

Now, I could write a C# program to do all that truly concurrently, but that obviously wasn't his intent in asking..

Michael, be aware that copying and pasting the message may get it to both, but they won't know they were both copied on the message like the system you are looking for would allow.

Well, that's a preposterous argument. By that logic, nothing is "concurrent" because there will always be a slight difference in time. In this context, what is important is what the user experiences, not how it's implemented.

Also, michael, I hope you learned your lesson about asking a perfectly valid and simple to answer question on the Forum : )

I answered him with one word. You gave him a smarmy answer that didn't really answer his question and instead acted like he was stupid and didn't know how to copy/paste.

I didn't answer at all, but just felt like sticking my nose in a thread where it didn't belong in a way that contributes absolutely nothing but weak humor. Just trying to emulate most of the forum.

ITT: Draugnar is a little bitch.

I think the bigger issue with copy-paste is that you can't prove to both parties that you sent a verbatim message to both of them.

Actually, draug, I would probably have to argue that even if you wrote it in c#, at some point in time, once I start bit-monitoring, there will be something that goes sequential in that silicon...At the very least, the messages will arrive to their respective recipients at distinct moments in time, even with an infinitely fast refreshing screen, simply do to their failure to occupy the same point in space.

:P

@krellin - Technically true, but with multiple processors and multiple cores, threading can be virtually concurrent. But even if you have a thread controller waiting for the instructions to start the child threads, it still has to issue the call sequentially meaning there will be a few processor cycles difference between the first and last threads' start times.

Draug, sending things that appear to be happening at the same time to the user is effectively just as concurrent as proper threading with multiple processors. This is really stupid for this context.

heh heh...what won't we argue about?

It's moved on from that, ghug. Let the software engineers chat, k?

Yo Draug, don't pretend to know shit about me, k?

Yeah ghug you don't know shit about multiple threading and sequential processors

You don't know shit about ghug. He eats people down there. :-)

Yeah but can he eat two at once?

Well the idea is to have a confirmation for both people that they are seeing the same message ( like TO: and CC: on the email ) When you are playing in person - you can talk to two people at the same time and in some other games there is a way to send message

to several people and they know they both got the same message.

Yes, clearly the real issue is assuring both parties that you sent the same message to both, and preventing one from claiming otherwise.

However, the idiots would rather argue about the issue of concurrency, which is not a practical issue for these messages nor what the OP seemed to be concerned about.

Hey Michael,

Yeah, we get what you want and it would be nice, but unfortunately we don't support that feature.

The best you can do is address your message to both players and copy and paste it. Those players would then have to verify amongst themselves that the message is the same. It's a bit of a pain, buy in practice it's not that big of a deal.

Which I suppose is problematic if 2 people are scheming against the third. So, your only options in that case would be to use global or send a screenshot of the message.

But, that actually doesn't even matter. Even if I sent the same message to 2 people, I could always go to one and tell them I wish to change my plans.

So, copying and pasting seems like a fine, if unelegant, solution.

Screenshots can be faked as has been discussed several times in the past.

And yes, abge and I both new what you meant. Which is why I simply said "nope". A succinct and accurate statement regarding the site's abilities.

Frankly, I don't want simultaneous messaging. Part of gaming your allies is "This is what I said to France..." instead of "message to both:..."

Having that tool would destroy a part of diplomacy, imo

What point is there to faking a screenshot? It would be trivial to show it was faked.

No, krellin, it would make it more like F2F

You could use crypto, post an encryption to global and then send the keys to the intended parties over the private channels. However, then you give those parties an easy way to reveal that message to a third in an undeniable fashion.

If you were going to do that, why wouldn't you just send them both an email?

Not significantly more like F2F. As long as you have an undetectable private messaging option with any of the other players, simultaneous messages will offer nothing more than copy/pasted messages.

@oct, Yes, I agree that in principle it should be no different, but there may be psychological differences to someone claiming that you didn't copy paste the same message vs claiming that your multi-cast message was retracted.

Anonymous games prohibit emails because that would presume you are no longer anonymous, abgemacht.

See, this is far more productive than semantic discussion of concurrency.

I liked the other conversation better.

The other conversation was stupid. Nothing can be truly concurrent, so what really matters is what level there is effective concurrency. You seemed to be ignoring that and just talking for the sake of talking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi7gwX7rjOw

We were discussing the finer pints of apparent concurrency, but thank you for being the reigning judge of "stupid". I guess being a moron and judgemental asshole makes you an expert at what is and isn't stupid.

I'm not calling you stupid, Draug. You clearly understand the finer points of concurrency, and that's cool. I'd be happy to discuss the finer points of concurrency with you all day; you'd probably teach me something useful. My point is that it derailed the thread and could have confused someone. For the purpose of diplomacy, sending the same message to two people in quick succession is concurrent and the best solution. You attacked abge on a technicality, which would imply to the casual observer that his answer was wrong, despite its being the best answer available (or at least as good as yours).

Arguably, sending the same message to two people in such a way they know with certainty they go the same message is concurrent messaging. Copy Paste is not as it doesn't have the certainty the message went to both people. It is a different strategic element. It would be like pulling Russia aside and telling him something, then pulling Turkey aside and telling him something, versus pulling both aside and telling them at the same time in a face to face game.