A case in point: gameID=166481

This game is a farce; while we all love winning, fact is a large number of disappearances has screwed the game. I'd hoped to join in as a sub to help an exciting last ditch defence - but it's more like watching a train wreck. Surely something has to be done about those, like Greece in this game, whose RR is so low you can almost guarantee a drop out?

?

So what d'you think? Stuff happens in life; sometimes horrible, that impact a player's will/ability to play. So we need a way of deterring those that do this. If it were possible I'd like to see players RR dynamically changed - RR goes down as usual, but NMRs, CDs of a year old are no longer counted in the RR; in that way someone who's older and wiser can rejoin. And they could also write to mods who should have the capability of changing the RR if there's good reason to.

Just some ideas, but it is important; a first time player in a game with such will probably not play again, unless they win as a result of course!

RR under 50%? You'll have to wait till it dies off after a year.

Whilst I am not in any way suggesting that it is true in this case, quite often those with very low RRs are cheats and will soon meet the angry end of the banhammer. Indeed, it's probably worth actively seeking out such people and giving them a good once over. Starting with the chaps in this game, why not?

Whether it is a compulsory sit-out period or setting a minimum RR for joining a game, there is nothing to stop an offender simply signing up with another account.

RR does not die off over time.

That's true d61, but most 'offenders' don't do it on purpose and it's some effort to start another email account as well. And those that do so are as likely to fall into the cheat category; which I believe is a much smaller one. I believe it's worth it to deal with the gormless and the feckless who are probably the majority.

Oct: you're right as such. Of course that presupposes someone has the time and urge to do the once over! Our mods have enough to do with the ones directly reported! (As well as the "I'm losing so they must be cheating" fools.)

Does that game have an RR requirement? If not, caveat emptor.

I think, along with RR there should be a "games on site indicator". This would be a better gauge of people, taking playing here more seriously.

Jeff, the point isn't to look after old soaks like us, but to protect the young dewy-eyed newbie who we need to get a fair chance at a reasonable game.

Ag; I know it doesn't - I'm suggesting it should!

"Whether it is a compulsory sit-out period or setting a minimum RR for joining a game, there is nothing to stop an offender simply signing up with another account."

I beg to differ :)

@Chumbles: Protecting the dewey-eyed cannon-fodder...er...newbies..,is important. I can easily envision a scenario where there are two newbies in a game, and one of them drops. The other one may be in a hopeless situation and they drop as well, not fully understanding the implications to their RR. That drop would permanently affect their ability to join "quality" games and could lead to a vicious cycle of ever lowering RR. It may appear to such a newbie that dropping is "normal" when in fact that's just what they experience with a low RR.

Ssorenn: you can see how many games in play/finished in a profile, which helps weed out the less committed before inviting them to locked games.

Chumbles: fair point that drop-outs due to circumstances beyond their control are less likely to set up a new account.

Do dewy-eyed newbies start with an RR of 100%?

If so a solution would be for new games to default to say 90% minimum RR. Anyone who falls below that would have to play games with other offenders until they get their reputation up again.

Having a default RR sounds pretty reasonable. I think it'd probably need to be XX or whatever the RR of the creator is, whichever is lower.

*default RR requirement at game creation

Of all those, the creation minimum sounds most achievable.

I'd like to throw a curve ball in to errr... muddy the waters (hey, sign me up for the schlock prose game) and that is 'live' games. I can't be the only one who's been caught by a call of nature in the middle of one and thus gets a blot; you could get a load of those if, say, you're babysitting. Ignore this! I just hate having that one blot against my name.

you should not be able to qualify for RR restricted games until you reach a certain amount of games on site

Why so ssorenn? If you are reliable, you are reliable. You can always up the points ante to keep out the newbies.

i think the unknowing part of whats 'kosher' here is some that develops as you play more. I like a lot of other people have had my RR suffer because i was not aware of what was expected of me when i started. when you sign up to play on some arbitrary site, you dont know how things work, or if things are taken seriously......thats learned, not the given--------------just my thought

Just created a second account to see what RR a newbie gets. Although you start with a hundred points you have no RR at all (logical) and you cannot join a a game with a minimum RR set.

That means newbies have to play one game (maybe only one turn) amongst the defaulters and delinquents before they could join a game with a minimum RR set. That doesn't sound too bad to me. One drawback, as someone mentioned earlier, is that they might not understand the significance of keeping a good RR.

Existing players who have a poor RR would be condemned to this nether region until they buck up their behaviour too.

Mods: it is userID=74015 - "DuplicateAccount" - please delete it.

In short:
1) use the RR minimum when setting up a game
2) ask the mods/devs to put something about RR in the FAQs and welcome message

"Just created a second account", MODS?????

*rubs temples*

You could have just asked.

Please do not make additional accounts. Ever. Period.

WebDip Admin

I did ask

I asked earlier in the thread and got no answer so I did a test. Made it very clear what I was doing and then requested deletion. If I could have deleted the account myself I would have done so but it seems there is no function for that.

I could have used a VPN but felt that was devious and inappropriate.

Being docked points for testing something as part of a sensible discussion on how WebDip works feels a bit petty to me.

Rule #1 of the site states clearly:

"second accounts are not allowed under any circumstances"

Please make sure to familiarize yourself with the rules. You can find them here: http://webdiplomacy.net/rules.php

You didn't get permission dude. Don't do that. That's plain stupid.

Sorry, I assumed common sense was a given.

>Sorry, I assumed common sense was a given.
Hàaaaaaaaave you met webDip?

Let's get this discussion back on track

*grins*

How low can you go?

http://webdiplomacy.net/profile.php?userID=71743

Lower!
userID=72013

I believe that people who drop out of games and with a low RR should have the number of game they can play in restricted to minimise the overall impact they have.
I have been playing a number of years but have never won a game. But I always continue in a game to the bitter end. It's really unsporting to drop out and there should be more of a penalty for doing so without good reason.

Engage actively in a culture that uses RR and checks backgrounds, I think that might be better than (even) more hard-coding.

I agree with Valis.

If game creators set min RRs (high ones like 90% or 95%) those who often drop out will find it hard to join a game. The only risk is that newbies may have to play with the riff-raff until they get a decent RR (probably only one game, perhaps only one turn, depending on how RR is calculated).