In the postal days it was a point of honor for the veterans to take over as replacement players for shattered positions. Then again we had no system that would score them and penalize the player for doing so. In fact there was a tradition started and is still kept up in the Face to Face world that in the case of a stand by player, the positive results are attributed to the new player and any negative results are attributed to the prior player. This was a way of rewarding the replacement player and since it was generally the veteran players who did this, the idea of taking over a replacement position to specifically ruin someone else in the game for a metagame reason (ie rankings/scoring) was greatly diminished. Nearly all veteran players would not want to soil their reputation by such demeaning acts. Then again this was an era when you played under your own name and you were dealing with adults for the most matter.

I think the current system for replacements on here leaves room for some big problems. I started two games with 101 point buyins in order to make sure that I would get people who weren't likely to be multi-accounters.

Now a completely brand new player took over for a CD nation in each of these games. One of them took over for Italy and was able to do it because it only cost 70 something points to take over 3 SCs. Nevermind the fact that it cost everyone else 101 points to get a starting position.

I definitely like the idea of a replacement player gaining the positive results, but not getting hit with the negative results if it goes badly.

Edi wrote: "in the Face to Face world that in the case of a stand by player, the positive results are attributed to the new player and any negative results are attributed to the prior player."

I assumed something similar was in place here, so when I first signed up I took over a couple one-center countries to learn the ropes. I was surprised when I get saddled with a defeat almost immediately.

Seems to me that the credit for winning and losing should be similar to the old postal days to encourage people to pick up hopeless countries in civil disorder. We'd have far fewer games ruined if there were a real punishment for dropping out, and no punishment for taking over countries in civil disorder.

I'm new to phpDiplomacy (not the judges, just php) and took over a couple of real losing spots in the hopes to maybe survive to the end of the game and get a few extra points. My first and only finished game to date has me as a loss because of the untennable position. Had I known the negative stygma from it, I would have been more careful in my takeover selection.

There is no real negative stigma in reality. Nobody goes around laughing that you had 4 'loses' except of course a few people whose own validation of it is a stigma on themselves... ((not to be confused with a Stigmata which happens when you play Austria too often while drunk))

Most people realize that Diplomacy is a game where if there is one winner there are 6 who did not win.

What is needed is not just people who take over weak positions, but people who actually PLAY them and write to people, tell a few jokes, do a little song and dance and make the boring mundane death of single center countries something rather sad and depressing for the rest of the board at this holiday season, so that they will not so cheerfully grin at the prospect of another Civil Disordered gifted supply center.
(Now what did my wife put in that eggnog??)

I think it was too much nog and not enough egg...

I think of how wins, losses and saves (as well as runs by baserunners already on base) are allocated in baseball for a relief pitcher. After a handful of games taking up CD positions - I have concluded that it's a completely thankless job and I don't see myself doing it again unless the system changes. Indeed any gains as a replacement player should probably be rewarded at a higher rate than the original player because the replacement player starts with a handicap - often people are already allied against you and even more often the player you replaced did a poor job of communicating.