Oh - and (sorry to triple post, but this probably needs emphasising) as Kaner said, if you have any information relating to cheating please report it in the modforum. The fact that you mentioned this: "(again, I have a few pms from onlookers telling me this has happened to them)" makes it seem that you do have some information on the subject.

Redscape used to number several hundred active members and have a dozen or more games at any given time. It went through a period of dormancy as the site shut down before changing hands. Again, it's far easier to keep status quo than to build. It's taking time to rebuild but things there are going slow but okay.
As far as cheating, we spotted that real quick, I have moderator status and would routinely check IP addresses. No, cheating was a non-issue there!

And yes, cheating IS a reputation you have here! I am not saying everyone cheats or it's a rampant problem! But it most certainly is something that needs to be addressed, you can look the other way or you can do things to improve the reputation deserved or not.

FYI, regarding other sites, you mention Redscape. They do NOT have a cheating reputation but they DO have a carebear reputation. Is that fair? Maybe maybe not but that IS what others say about them and we did things to try and minimize that. It may not have worked but we did try, it was work but we attempted to work at it. We added a tourney that by design would reduce such draws and not encourage that behavior. I was part of that organizing committee and it ran for 5 or 6 years gathering teams from multiple websites and we had about twenty games at it's height.

I have been a moderator on Redscape for about 15 years now, I have helped out on the diplomacy variant bank, I won The Fred Hyatt award for outstanding play from the diplomatic pouch. I was part of helping work with several other websites develop their tournaments, I was part of the team that did the Diplomacy World cup. I designed WW4, NWO and Explore! diplomacy all now played by thousands of people.
I am not tooting my own horn here but am pointing out i do know more than you may think (me being fairly new to this website), I am no noob when it comes to Dip and I know what of I speak!

oops, I mis=-spoke (I knew it sounded wrong) the Fred Hyatt award (back in 2002 I think, though I was nominated often) was for GM excellence! and that probably means more here and what is being discussed than playing better!?

I'm not going to deny that choosing countries has every potential to have early negotiating, but I think with those that agree that negotiation before a game even starts is bad, you won't have to worry about that kind of cheating pre-game or in-game.

Now with that said, I believe someone said that no matter how many precautions and safety measures are taken, if people want to cheat, they will find a way to cheat. I believe the purpose behind the choose option is so that those who wish to create tournaments where you might need to have specific country selection or for those who play regular games with others can have different set ups (like the same 7 people playing games as different countries). True, they could just have the computer choose randomly, but the option is there to have a certain measure of control. My question in this situation is: are these people cheating because they are playing the same 6 people (or however many people depending on the map)?

In general, I tend to agree with your assessment and comparison between "quality" and "feel good." I think you are mostly spot on with this idea. The only thing I would add to this idea is the "feel good" concept applies to all games, not just ones that you choose your countries, because if that were not the case, we would have no (or very few) NMRs. These concepts are across the board, and as such, I do not believe they have any place in this argument.

Furthermore, this site was created (to the best of my knowledge) to be a place where different maps could be played instead of just the original 7-player map. We have maps for 2 players, 3 players, 4 players, and on up. There are many options and features that are intended to make the game a custom experience. If you want to play games where people's countries are randomly selected, pick that option. Don't join a game, lose, and then complain because you thought they were cheating. If they want to cheat, then let them cheat. Take down there name, block them (handy feature, isn't it?), and don't play games with them. Only play games with people who you can trust will uphold the integrity of the game and play with/against them.

I came to this site from webDip because there were so many other options of things to do with the game concept of diplomacy. The 1v1's I call "tactical diplomacy". Gunboats, I still consider diplomacy because you can communicate through your moves. I play only what I want to play. You have the ability to. So exercise that ability and please stop arguing about a feature that only might encourage cheating.

I think that everyone needs to calm down a bit leaving time to actually read and consider what's being said here. Tom's suggestions/gripe whatever are not meant to undermine or put down this community. they are mean to strengthen it. His initial post was made using language that did not account for the various reason that CYOC might be used, such as SRGs and tournaments. In that respect it's a great OPTION to have when creating games. However, absent a specific game driven reason it's avery bad idea to allow players to choose their nation, and it's bad precedent for this option to be paraded around as a 'normal' setting. Of course applying that logic to the masses here has already failed when discussing the PPSC/WTA settings. The reality is the masses here are addicted to their welfare, and suggesting that it be taken away (even voluntarily by suggestion) is bad policy.

It doesn't take knowledge of actual experiences of cheating to suggest that such a setting opens up game to exploitation and mischief, and the justified suspicion of it. Isn't this reason enough to add some clarification on the game set up choices that CYOC is recommended for SRGs and tournaments? I guess that's asking too much in a place when WTA is still described as an 'advanced' setting. Is it really so obnoxious to point out that while popular here that settings like WTA and CYOC are actually beginner settings, and that WTA and random nation assignments are simply the norm? just because people want to play food stamp Diplomacy doesn't make the normal settings elitist. Or is it just that the best way around this is for all of us asshole purists who want the game to be played seriously should never say anything to help folks improved and become aware? It's pretty narcissistic to suggest that purists care about calling out this nitwittery to make ourselves feel better. The entire reason for mentioning these matters is to make the entire community a better Diplomacy environment.

After three pages of discussion on this the only stated objection to Tom's suggestion (aside from the aforementioned SRGs and tournaments) are those open to dubious intent. Frankly I'm shocked to read Retillion's defense of the system as he openly admits to wanting to chose a nation adjacent to a player(s) that he feels comfortable with. He says in this very thread, "If two players decide to form an alliance before the game begins, which combination of countries should they choose in order to have the best benefits from their alliance?" The situation he just described is cheating, and there's no calling it anything but cheating. I don't know that he's done this so I'm not saying that he has. But the entire integrity of such a game is immediately invalidated if two players entire a game agreed to be allies before the game begins. This is in fact the very reason that CYOC setting should not be used for open gaming. Is this really something that the mod team is endorsing as acceptable behavior?

Amen sister!

First of all, the fact that Ruffhaus and Tom agree on a topic is mind-blowing. It's going to take me at least a week to recover from this. Second, I agree with both of them, but I also don't really care. If people are going to meta-game, then when I destroy them, their tears will taste that much better.

another Amen sister! (especially on me and Ruffhaus agreeing, when and if EVER we agree, it must be something special!)

Let's talk about sunshine and farts.

Hahahahahaha, well put Sendric.

one thing I have not seen mentioned regarding the early negotiations in a CYOC game:
All press available before a game starts is Global, there is no private chat. this means all joining players can, and will, see it. They can then go to a moderator if they feel 2 or more players are cheating by pre-arranging an alliance. The only other possible method of communication is PM, which is not supposed to be used for diplomatic purposes outside of a SRG, and if found guilty of using this method the player could, and should, be punished. Therefore that aspect of it is not as severe as you are making it out to seem.

That said: This is not a defense of CYOC. Just a statement of a fact that has been looked over. I personally think that the CYOC option should be left alone, but I can also see why people would have concerns and opinions about it.

I like CYOC being available as it might attract the meta-gamers, etc. and allow me to avoid them in my games, which are randomized.

hey, if you guys prefer to keep the quality of your games to a lower level, less than standard, that's cool! Just like cars we have luxury cars, sports cars and your economy cars. Do you want the site to be like a Kia or like a Lexus?
If your niche is Kia, then stay the same by all means. If you wish to attract (and/or keep) a better level of play then you need to accept the norms that type of player EXPECTS. This option quite simply is frowned upon and not accepted, it's like kryptonite to an experienced player!

Keep coming up with silly, meaningless feel good reasons to keep this option and you will not draw better players, simple as that!

Tom, I do think that you may be over-generalizing a little bit. I don't think having one game here or there that uses this option makes the entire site a "Kia" site. This site allows people to create their own games. If one person wants to create a game with this option, I see no reason that person shouldn't be allowed to do so. Now, if that game never fills up, doesn't that speak to the site overall that the majority of people prefer not to use that option? And wouldn't that, by extension, speak to this site as meeting your criteria for high quality?

I don't disagree with your point of view, but I do disagree that people shouldn't be allowed to use this option. This is a free country. People should be free to start a game with the CYOC option. Just like people should be free not to join that game. In general, I think this site has a high quality of players. This one game doesn't detract from that.

Don't want that option, don't play that option. No one is forcing you.

It is a good option to have for variety for tournaments or special rules games. Outside of that I can't see a reason to play it, although I created one for trying custom start variant, and would like to start 6 more to try other countries too.

UNCAUGHT CHEATERS CAN *ALWAYS* WIN IF THEY KNOW HOW.

Just had to make that clear because a certain person doesn't seem to understand.

We're not catering to cheaters and we're not specifically catering to anti-cheaters either. We're catering to players and we ban cheaters because they ruin the game for most players.

Tomahaha, your only argument is that it makes the site less professional. Who cares?

You just call all our arguments bad for the sake of calling your arguments good but that proves nothing at all.

Just come up with ONE good argument before effectively telling us how stupid we are.

No, I am not overstating this in the least. Take me for example. I have heard many good things about this site, I have also heard some bad things but the good outweighs the bad and yes there are many variants here and a lot of games always going on. But when I saw that as even an option, that sent shivers through my spine. It's simply horrible, any site that would think this is in any way normal or acceptable sends a signal to me that they are simply not serious about keeping cheating to a minimum. I could try to find a game where this is not allowed but why? why search for a game that does not allow cheating on a site that accepts cheating? No, it's enough to keep me away!

I'm trying to think of something similar
Murder is illegal but would you visit a city that has a reputation for murder? Then while checking if this reputation is valid you find that city does little to prevent murders? It's the same here, a very simple and accepted standard is being objected to. The stink certainly affects the entire site. This is an easy fix guys, this option you want to defend is not an accepted one.

That's a bit of a drastic comparison, even for you.

Like I said, keep it as is if you want to be more amateur, there is a niche for amateur!
If you want one good argument then how about reading what I have stated over and over?

This option makes it easier to cheat...period
Yes cheaters will find other ways to cheat but does that mean you should make it easier for them to do, just allow them to do so and work around them? Even a real strict reporting still ruins the game they were playing doesn't it!?

don't play that style of game if you don't like it?
But you are asking someone to play on a site that makes cheating easy, we are to think it's only going to happen in that game alone or are we to EXPECT that site-wide?

and guess what, I am not alone in thinking this. Take a look at who is supporting my position ...some of your best players here. I am not alone.

and please yet again, show me a good argument to support the option. Any that outweigh the cheating aspect. If game integrity is not your first priority, then keep it as is, those who want to improve the level of competition and those who want to reduce cheating, those people are on my side, this is NOT one vs the rest now is it?

Tom -

I'm sad to say it, but you might just have to give it up. Ruffhaus, while crude, does make a good point sometimes. You're not going to be able to convince some people, as some people feel that the ability to create CYOC games is more important than minimizing the ability for others to cheat.

To all those arguing for CYOC -

YES, you are right that even without it, people will cheat. But like Tom said, why make it easier for them by leaving CYOC around? I mean, COME ON!! It's almost like you all are ASKING for people to cheat with it. It's so blatantly easy to cheat the CYOC games it's not even funny. If I wanted to, I could cheat in every single CYOC game and no one would ever be able to prove it. Is that what we want?

I'll chime on on this bait thread yet again.
"and please yet again, show me a good argument to support the option. Any that outweigh the cheating aspect."

Tournaments/pre-arranged games where people already know who will be playing. Damn. That's one.

You don't change a good option because cheaters could use it, just like every single other option/variant/whatever. You add the good option and catch the cheaters as always.

A better analogue would be that all bars with alcohol should be closed according to you because a 6-year-old could ask for a beer. A much better solution is to deny the 6-year-old a beer. Easy as that.

It's a nice feature that gives you completely fair options.

To adapt your dialogue so it fits the bill better: what you're suggesting is putting a city on lockdown because there are rumours of murder. What we're suggesting is not bothering with rumours and shit but just locking up the actual murderers.

Also, if I have a reason to go there, sure, I would visit such a city, why not?
If you think I get shot the moment I get out of my car in Detroit, I recommend living in a house in Disneyland.

It's the happiest place on earth after all.

"If I wanted to, I could cheat in every single CYOC game and no one would ever be able to prove it. Is that what we want?"

If I wanted to, I could cheat in every single vdiplomacy game and no one would ever be able to prove it. Is that what we want?

Shut down this site, before you ruin it!!

/Sarcasm.

I actually counted the support for my idea and of those who have posted ...very few! I did have several PM's in support but will not count those. It would appear few care about game integrity, that's fine. I will indeed look for games elsewhere, this is no sort of place for me (or any other who actually care about quality of play). I saw a rather big problem that is simply rife with potential to cheat, a situation that is simply not accepted elsewhere (being able to negotiate before the game is even full) yet that is simply a non-issue to most here. These people do not care about reputation, then let them enjoy the ignorance, reputation is made for a reason and the refusal to try and better things says volumes about this site.
...not for me any longer!

Ramsu - that can easily he done by mods. I've even volunteered 3 times now tondo that if the mods have too heavy a workload.

I will play the game I am in, I will post things and discuss things but the game I am in is my last unless people demonstrate a willingness to improve.

@drano019
What can be done easily by mods?

Sorry to hear you say that Tom. You'd have been a great addition to the site, but alas, much like in other threads about things similar to this, people don't want to hear from those who are well known and respected in the Diplomacy community. What could a guy who's been playing Dip for decades at multiple sites and zones and PBEM and ftf possibly have to teach them? After all, they clearly know best. You're just an old fart, clearly you don't understand.