nope, I gotta disagree 110%
I have run dozens, if not 100 games. A "good" game master most certainly CAN reduce (not eliminate) NMR's, to suggest he can't is simply WRONG. I have done it myself many MANY times! I even gave you an example of how it can be done, I know for a FACT it can be done, I have done it myself, it may not be implemented well by a bad GM, but to say it is not possible...do you argue everything stated that you simply don't understand?

It CAN be done and striving for perfection or at least making things better is the goal, simply accepting the status quo is a defeatist attitude!

delays = Bad
NMR's = Bad
you need to blance the two out, to simply say a delay will kill the game is a flat out lie if you ignore how a NMR may very well cause and even greater distraction to the game. Your partial truth (game delays suck) is correct but it is PARTLY true and a good (key word) GM is going to help mitigate the negatives of both!

Yes Tom, A good game master can do a lot of things. You're not a good GM. The first thing and most important thing that a GM needs to be is impartial. You lost that focus a long time ago. It's not something that I do not understand. I've GM'd as many or more games than you. And I 've played under many ore GM's than you. A GM that gets put into the position of making arbitrary decisions such as you routinely practice and are suggesting here is bad for the game.

NMRs and delays are both bad for the game, perhaps even equally so, but I would stress the latter, because delays affects all players and momentum loss is felt for the duration of the game. The big difference here is that NMRs are unavoidable, whereas delays are completely preventable. NMRs are a mistake, whereas delays are intentional damage inflicted on a game. Once again you would know about these things if you actually played. But you don't and your perspective is *only* that of a GM that tinkers and meddles in games and plays against players that you do not like or feel are doing too well.

It's telling how you equate a disagreement of the level of damage as a lie told by me. I disagree with you, so I'm a liar? No Tom. I'm not a liar. I've seen you abuse power as a GM dozens of times. So when you start advocating things like a moderator that manages a game to the extent you've just described, I know first hand how bad it screws up a game. I've seen you do it.

The moderator functions are to assist players having fun ion games, not to inflate your desire for absolute power or to stroke your ego.

1. You claim I am a bad GM?
You claim you have hosted as many games as I have?

Yes you are a liar on both accounts!
Have you won the Fred Hyatt award for GM Excellence? (awarded by the Diplomatic Pouch) I have, I have been deemed an "excellent" GM by an impartial body. What award have you won? You want to poll the many players here on Vdip that I have or currently am running games for? Ask them ALL if I am a poor GM and lets see how many claim I am a bad GM....you want to do that? I guarantee the answer will find ZERO support on your side!

You hosted more games than I have? REALLLLLLY? You have been hosting games for almost 20 years now? and lets remember who set up the game forums you ran....it was me, I KNOW you have hosted VERY few games while I am near 100 or more. Have you GMed games for multiple website tournament games? Have you been part of multiple web site tournament committees? That answer is another NO.

Face it, you are once again blustering and puffing your chest spouting LIES.
It's bad enough to lie but to tell lies that are easily proven as such...shame on you, a good dip player should know how to lie better than this very weak attempt!

and as far as your claim a willing and attentive GM would have no effect on reducing NMR's. Buddy, I gave you a few real life examples! You want to say I'm wrong but the facts speak for themselves. Yes the reduction would be few but a few here and a few there do add up, your claim that nothing would change falls on deaf ears.

Now, please if someone can support ANY of what this guy says, please speak up!
Please support something he has claimed to be factual, I proved my part, he did nothing but shout a bunch of nonsense that has been proven to be nothing but lies.

The Moderator function may very well do as you suggest, but it absolutely can help improve game quality as well, your ignorance knows no bounds!

No, I'm not a liar. While I have no idea what the Fred Hyatt award for GM excellence is, nor do I care. When was that? When was the last such award given out? I have a trophy from a highschool soccer team in my parents' basement somewhere too. All that proves is that you *were* a good GM once upon a time. You're a terrible GM now. Yes, Tom, terrible. I don't need to poll anyone. I've played in your games for a decade. You're horrible, and I've explained why. It's not that you're inaccurate. It's not even that you feel that the GM is more important than the players (which is bad enough). It's that you have no ability to be impartial. you take sides and actively campaign for certain players to win and lose. That's absolutely unforgiveable as a GM.

Yes, I've GM'd as many games as you. I've been in the hobby for 20 years as well and far more active in it than you. You actually know nothing about my Dip history. I've GM many games in the community that we both know, and you know very well that I GM'd many games there over the past decade, easily as many as you. And unknown to you I've played at and GM'd games on various other sites simultaneously to my time there (Apolyton, DipWorld, The Academy, Cat 23, The Diplomacy Wordmasters Tournament, and several home grown clubs that focused on global variants). I've easily run 100 games. I lost count of how many. Maybe you didn't know that, but it doesn't make me a liar either. I've been mentored by great GMs, and played game run by great GMs. I know a great GM when I see one, and you masquerading as one is a joke. You're an embarrassment to the hobby now. Yes, you put in a lot of work, and you never fail to publically thank yourself for it either. But work along does not make a great GM. Your inability to be impartial makes any game you run a complete farce. Would like me to lay out the details in specifics? I can. I've played through it and endured you working against me as the GM no less.

Shame on me for revealing you as a fraud? I think not. You gave no fact supporting you opinions that are completely off topic here. Delays kill games. NMRs are survivable. Delays kill games. If you have no learned that in your 20 years of Diplomacy experience, then you're an idiot. Oh wait, we might be on to something. There are no tangible facts to support either side of this argument because what destroys a game is highly speculative, and it takes an analytical perspective to decipher that challenge. But surely a Fred Hyatt award winner could do this, right? Why is it in your games that you refuse to accept deadline extensions? Why is that? Why is it that you insist on games running of a strict schedule with deadlines on Tuesdays, always Tuesdays, regardless of whether that works better for the players or not? Please tell us why? I know why. It's because game schedule and structure keeps game interest moving, and because delays kill Diplomacy games and they do so far more than NMRs ever can.

Circling back on topic, you've managed to forecast a completely unrelated intention on this game feature because your thirst for power is so massive, and you're need to be relevant is so great that you have to reach in an d take something that was created to allow players to manage special rules games and tournaments that this adjudications software can not support, and turn it into your own little version of playing God in a Diplomacy game. You are a very very sad man. Quest on in search of relevance, Tom. You have no idea what you're talking about, but you need to be in charge at all times.

Nope you hosted virtually nothing on red scape. And beacause you think I'm bad because I call you on your comments that makes me bad? Let's ignore what everyone else has to say, after all we all know all that matters is what you think, please find even ONE person who thinks I am a poor gm ...just one

Until then your statement is a flat out lie. I have given proof to rebut your claim, time for you to back up your assertion and until then you will be known as a liar pal!

How bout we create a special rating for the mods? so like after a game all players will vote how well the mod did his job and we can have some sort of ranking? So the higher ranked mods will get piority of hosting games over lower ranked mods. These mods could be nominated by the vDip community. The criteria could be dedication ie does he give up when facing a lost cause or fights to the end, irritating the heck out of his opponents and other stuff which the vDip commuity wishes to see

Please refer to them as Game-Directors (GDs) so that we don't confuse them with the mods of the site.
Having said that I think your idea to vote on a reliability of a GD would be a fine addition, but have no idea how it would be able to be implemented.

GM is the term used elsewhere, even in the games rules this person is referred to as the "Game Master". Voting on how well a GM did may be a good idea but I see some potential problems there. First, the first such GM's (or mods or GD's) is an unknown and it could take a very long time to build up a base of votes. It does not answer the whole who should or who should not fill such a role?

But let's say this all works its way out, I can see problems with such votes still. My main problem is a good GM should not need to worry about upsetting a player or two. Don't get me wrong, you want him to do his best to keep people happy when possible and as a general rule he should do so, but there will be times when he needs to be a bit of a hard ass, having him try to solicit votes makes him alter the way he should be performing his role. I would think the better way to do this would be to have any satisfied or unsatisfied players report this to the moderator team....maybe even a "form" they could fill out? This way the mod team can compare notes and ask about any such negative reviews. If a GM has ONE negative review, has a good reason for that negative review and all the other players have nothing but good things to say and even negate that negative review, then it is not held against him even slightly! But a pure vote system would have a good GM affected negatively! Do we really want player reviews to dictate how a GM should perform his duties? But if the mod team were involved, then he still gets reviewed by his peers, only more fairly!

All -

I could be wrong (and Oli, please correct me if I am), but it seems like this discussion went *way* off on a tangent. Oli appears to have implemented this feature for SRGs and Tournaments, *not* for general use on all games. The arguments that are going on here seem to revolve more around the purpose of the GM or GD in *all* games, not just SRGs and Tournaments.

To be honest, I feel like this feature was implemented to take some of the work off the Mod team, which I find to be a great addition. I don't think it was intended to start a philosophical discussion about GMs or GDs and how they're supposed to run *all* games. It seems to me it was intended more for tournament directors to be able to modify games in their tournaments as needed, or SRGs to be modified so that they can run smoother. Maybe we should shelve the arguments and focus on what this topic was supposed to be about?

Ruffhaus did mention the tourney aspect, I did mention that may be the case. But it was not specified that this was the reason and can I ask WHY NOT?
Why not allow such oversight and "caretakership" of ANY game?
Is there any reason why you would not want this? Because it has not been done is not an answer and i gave real life examples of how it most certainly could/would help ANY game. Maybe the intent was aimed at tourney's and maybe even if allowed this will ONLY happen in tourney's? But why restrict it? Do you have any reasons to not allow special attention be given to any and all games? Again, maybe I'm off base here, but why is thinking outside the box a bad idea? It seems to me that it work and I have given examples of how it would help so why NOT allow it???

oh, and never did I say or imply this would be used in ALL games, but where a GM WANTED to do so, like some of the larger WW4 games for example ...why not? But please do not think I am suggesting all games require this, no, no, no, that was not my intent! My idea is to simply ALLOW this for any and all games not to REQUIRE it!

Tom -

I suggested reining in the arguments because first, we need to get this implemented for a simpler grouping of games: SRGs and Tournaments. Then we can have the argument about opening it up to all games. When big changes are made, it seems wise to implement it in a small fashion first, then roll it out in a bigger group. It seems foolish to hijack this thread (which was created about SRGs and Tourneys) and make it into a big argument when the feature just got rolled out.

Let's see how it does in SRGs and Tourneys (and perhaps refine the features like the 50 game limit?) first, and *then* open up the discussion to all games. There's no rush here, really, so why not try to perfect the system first, and then make it bigger? There's enough issues with it right now that need to be corrected, so why not fix it while it's small?

I see no reasons to wait and improve things. I also saw no mention of tournaments only, I spoke up about making a difference and trying to improve things. Yet again, any time changes are mentioned, people here balk at them. Nobody likes change and they simply want the same as we always had. I will not speak of it any more, I am growing tired of trying to make things better and getting shot down each and every time.

Tom -

Seriously, get off the high horse here. I'm not *balking* at implementing the feature, I'm merely suggesting that perhaps we implement it small first, see how it works, and *then* talk about implementing it site-wide. There is a *huge* difference there.

As for having "no reasons to wait and improve things", seriously? We already pointed out the foolishness of having 50 completed games be the only criteria for creating the moderated games, and we have *no* criteria as to who should be the GMs of the games. And you want to implement it site wide? Even though as of now, we have heard no word as to whether these "moderated" games count on stats? You're willing to allow these games, which can be created by total n00bs who just play 15 games at a time, and moderated by anyone, and which can *count* for your stats, to be played site-wide? Seriously? You don't see the problem with that?

"lets wait" ...sounds like a balk to me.
But It most certainly is not YOU, I am complaining about, the overwhelming replies to any and every comment made (as you fully know) is never met with any sort of acceptance. Any changes I see ever mentioned are for the most part scorned. People here are GENERALLY un-accepting of change. I have no problem with debating an ideas pros and cons, i have no problem with testing it as you suggest either! I even mentioned how this would affect only a very few games, I simply asked why not ALLOW it knowing few would use it...that alone is equal to your testing idea isn't it? But those who simply dismiss any and all ideas, well that irks me. I have mentioned ideas in at least three threads, you were supportive of those others and you know full well, the debates were to change nothing. Here I was encouraged to see a change (Yay!) but when I mentioned how this could help the overall site, it was bashed and turned personal, I was nothing but supportive yet it turned sour and yes, that has an effect on me, when people constantly dismiss ideas and call me names, yes I get disenchanted to say the least. No high horse, I'm simply tired of getting any and all suggestions dismissed.

oh, and NEVER did I say total noobs be allowed to moderate anything. I was the one to speak out against that idea! Please do not claim I made this statement, I am completely against that idea, read what i stated on that and do not make such false claims in my name.

Tom -

Sure, you spoke out about letting noobs moderate games, *but* at the same time, you're proposing that we simply implement this site wide, *which*, would ALLOW NOOBS TO MODERATE GAMES. Don't you see the contradiction? If we just implement this completely (which is actually what we have right now), then we're letting anyone and everyone moderate games. So, sure, while you spoke out about it, you're also advocating for the very same situation that's allowing it in the first place.

Think of it this way:

Let's talk about instant replay. They just implemented it in baseball. Let's pretend they allowed any umpire to review the replay, from umpires in little league, to umpires in the pros. Should that be allowed? Definitely not! Allowing umpires in 7 year old games to review replays is essentially the same thing as allowing noobs to moderate games.

Taking that further however, let's pretend they implemented this questionable review process and allowed any umpire to review the replays. That's the equivalent of just implementing the "GM" change site-wide *without* fixing the problems first...which is EXACTLY what you are proposing! Shouldn't we fix the problems first?

no, I said we should come up with a way to only allow QUALIFIED people GM games. I mentioned the current mod team allowing that ability based on their knowledge and/or a formula (that we agree should not be set unrealistically too high). There is no contradiction on my end in the least. ONLY "qualified" People be allowed to be a game GM. (only major league umpires using your example) The only difference we seem to have is in what areas, you want tournaments only (and that's fine) I simply mentioned it should be available to other sections as well. (using your example, we agree only major league umpires can be used, you want it in playoff games only while I suggest it be used all season... that is our difference, I in no way stated the little leagues should use this!) On MY end, I think it would affect VERY few games and hows this for a "compromise" allow such GM's in WW4 games where we have a LOT of players and such an overseer might help. And this help is very very minor at best, it's certainly no game changer but it can do a little here and a little there, it all adds up? That seems to me to be a good "test" that is not tourney based but rather general population based.

lastly, you mention "fixing the site first", my suggestion simply allows such fixes are now being done by GM's simply tweaking some areas of concern, again a QUALIFIED GM, not just anybody, never did I say just anyone should be used, I specifically spoke out against that when someone posted why not let anyone be allowed! From what you are saying we do agree 100% (again)

Tom
How do you propose the selection criteria should be for GDs?

We need to come to a consensus for this

Tom, the reality is that you don't know what you're talking about. You've played in a grand total of ONE game in the community. You have absolutely no basis of perspective to jump in and start screaming that ALL games need to be independently moderated by a human GM. The entire concept of an automated adjudication system was to remove the human GM. The site already offers a moderator team to handle issues as necessary.

By the way it was not me that introduced the idea of this feature as being mean for tournaments and special rules games. You should actually read the posts, as in READ the posts. It was in fact Oli who mentioned this in the 10th post of this thread. ANd if you had any idea what was really going on here, you would know that this concept derived out of a rush of tournaments such as Dr Recommended's Traveling Medicine Show, where in order to implement the tournament extensive assistance was needed from the Mod team. The concept of allowing moderated games was to allow a person not regularly provided moderator privileges to manage presented game that need special rules and features.

You immediately jumped on this as your personal pathway to God-slike status and started harping on NMRs and how making all games moderated so that NMRs could be prevented. Aside from the fact that nobody but you wants this, it's a very stupid idea. The dynamics of Diplomacy on this site run on quick turn adjudication. Installing a human GM to pause the game every time someone NMRs is a disaster waiting to happen, opening up Pandora's box to a rush of complaints about the absence of GM objectivity (a trait that you , the self proclaimed greatest GM ever suffer greatly from already).

These games and this community in general thrives on the absence of human intervention in the games. You don't understand that because you do not play here (or anywhere) on a regular basis. The suggestion you are making are not "minor stuff" Arbitrary decisions like adjusting the scedule for Easter Sunday are a perfect example. Easter may be a big deal to you, and it is to me, but it does not stop me from getting my orders in the day before. But who is to say that Easter matters to the players? The GM? That's right! It's all about the GM isn't it? More ego boost required, right? No, Tom. Diplomacy is about the players. There are no GMs in Diplomacy. GM exist in the PBM and PBEM environment because they are necessary. They exist in tournaments sometimes because they are necessary. VDip doesn't need GMs for regular games. It's got an automated adjudication system that works almost flawlessly. Players agree to a set schedule, and that's that. It's been working for years without human GMs. It was designed specifically to avoid the need for human GMs. You've hated it for years because of that. That's fine. There's a market for human GM games. This is not it.

The consensus here is the Oli's idea to provide this optional feature is very good and very helpful. Any talk of a wide ranging expansion of this to include all game/most games is another topic altogether and highly distracting from the business at hand. Yes, I know I've participated in that conversation. Believe me, I have first hand experience with what Tom is suggesting. It might work in a PBEM environment where trust and tolerance of the human GM evolves over time. But even that sysemt can occasional become corrupted. We do NOT want to go there on automated adjudication system.

I will not allow myself to criticize personally Tomahaha because I actually don't know him.

Apart from that, I fully agree with RUFFHAUS_8's previous message.

And I also feel that this question of being GM can create enormous problems and can be related to ego questions.

First of all, thanks to Oli for implementing this further option, which I think will be very useful.

Then, my 2 cents about the discussions above:
- about the requirements for creating a moderated game, I tend to agree with people suggesting that 50 completed games is too much, but that some restriction on RR might be in order.
- about whether normal games should be moderated, I think Tomahaha is wrong in suggesting that all games should have a GM. On the other hand, I also think that there are situations where having a GM might be useful. For example, I often play gunboat-anon games, and if I have a problem (say, I find out that next week I won't be able to make the deadlines for whatever reason) my only options are limited to asking for an Extend (which might or might not be granted), or asking for the intervention of the mods. Having a GM would give a third option (and might even reduce the workload of the mods). Perhaps a solution might be to have an option about moderation at game creation?

never did I say ALL games should be supervised with a GM. Never! I did say it should be an option for all games. An option not a requirement!
I even stated only few would ever see this happen. Yet for those few games it would see a minor improvement. That is all. If you do not want to see any improvements, that's fine, may I suggest people read what I stated before they assume what one misinformed person claims I said to be true.

oh, and the go problem. A GM has a minor role, it is suggested to be allowed to only a few qualified individuals. Those that grant this would keep this to the right type of person and it could be less of an issue.

as far as my pathway to God status?
Never did I say I was going to do this, I simply stated this could help the site when used, The GM is not god, the GM would be a shepherd of sorts only, His "powers" are limited and if used wisely (restricted to a select few) he would be in contact with the games players, he would know the game intimately vs the mod team that may have no clue what is going on in that particular game. The negative points made are simply either lies or ignorance, simple as that!

(Off Topic)

@diatarn_iv.
If you have a problem in a gunboat anon, you can also find a sitter and switch your game to him. Gunboats are not very time-consuming, so volunteers sitting for gunboats are very easy to find.

http://www.vdiplomacy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Country_swap_for_sitters

threadID=44553

Also, in my experience, in order to avoid frequent delays Mods generally tend to barely consider intervetion's requests if the requester hasn't tried already all the other possible solutions.
So, if you have a problem in any game, before you contact the Mods I suggest you to search for a sitter and to vote your extend, even in gunboats.

(sorry all for this Off Topic clarification)

@Tom:
I got lost in the discussion: sorry if I misunderstood/misrepresented what you were saying.

@Guaroz (OT):
You're right, I forgot sitters (something I should remember when need arises). Anyway, I don't think that changes my point.

Sorry to chime in so late to this thread. I've felt bad for all I've asked mods to do for the tournament I have been juggling, and I was really happy to see this feature appear. I'll definitely give feedback now that I am using it.