I find that symbol very useful. Indeed, when I check a game in which I am playing, it allows me to write first to the players that are logged in. It improves communication by allowing more exchanges of messages between players before a Phase happens.

Another use, is that it allows to initiate more easily an instant chat dialogue with a player via PM.

And for the record, I never play anonymous games.

This PM situation...what is the real difference between an in-game message or a PM message? The PM reasoning just doesn't apply!
Discussion with those online first is valid but so very minor vs the unfair advantage in knowing NMR's are more likely,

This unfair argument does not seem real at all to me.

If any supposed advantage exists for everybody, then it is equal and it is fair.

It makes me think of somebody who would say that it is "unfair" to play, for example, chess, which is a totally fair game, with a stronger player because the game would then become "unfair".

How shocking! Retillion is whining about the unfairness of something... What a crock of shit. What's unfair, dude is you rolling into games with a ready made list on ongoing alliances. That's what is "unfair." Until that behavior stops, your opinion on this any other topic of 'fairness' is worthless.

The currently logged in message does allow you to see who is online, and that could facilitate more rapid conversation exchanges. In that respect it does serve some purpose. However, it also offer possible exploitation of anonymous games, and the feature that shows a player's online status, should really be offered as a choice upon login or in the settings tabs. There is no harm done in offering players the ability to lurk, and this would enhance the gaming experience of anonymous games, which some of us do play in specifically to avoid certain types of unethical gaming.

@ RUFFAUS 8 :

Can you read ? I have just written "This unfair argument does not seem real at all to me."
And then, you write "Retillion is whining about the unfairness of something..."

Can you read, RUFFHAUS 8 ?

I am also wondering about something : right after you have written your incredibly stupid message, you have already a +1, even though there are, at this very moment only 31 players logged on !

I am seriously wondering if you gave yourself this +1. But that couldn't be made with your account, could it ?
So, would the player who gave that +1 identify himself please ?

And by the time I wrote this message, you even have a second +1. How interesting...
Is there a second player that cannot read either ?

And there you go : RUFFHAUS gets, again, right away a +1 for his latest message !

Also, I did spell out this feature is available to all, the problem still remains, it is counter to the game being the same to all and is especially troublesome in larger games where one area has a NMR about to happen whole in another area the players have no such "lucky situation", these people gain an advantage and are made aware of it ahead of time! So while it is available to all, it certainly does give an advantage to some and not to all. NMR's a the scourge of online Dip and they throw game balance out the window but now to make this already horrible situation even easier to take advantage of??? Who supports that? If you want to support such advantages that are not intended, then you are a poor sport and should be shunned!

The unfair advantage does not seem real?
So you have no problem with England about to NMR, all can see it but you are playing Turkey and you can not adjust your order accordingly. Is that FAIR?
Hey, it's available to all so it can't be unfair? Nope, some gained an advantage while others did not, that sir is UNFAIR.

..and I gave Ruffy a +1 as well
too bad we didn't have any negative option, retillion would no doubt be floored at how many he picked up here!

@ Tomaha :

1° It is you who are complaining about the unfairness of something, not me !
2° Regarding the rest of RUFFHAUS 8's message, it is just a personal attack. How could you possibly agree, or even disagree, with his comment since you have never played with me ?

@ Everybody else : who gave the other +1 to RUFFHAUS 8 ?

Ignoring any rivalries between players, I agree with Retillion; in a non-anon game, I'll often send a message to the people who are online before replying to messages from people who aren't. Order of operations and all that.

No doubt that is a slight advantage of knowing someone is online and should be used. But the question is, is this more help or does it do more to harm the game in rewarding unfair advantages and the ability to help break the anon aspect (when in play)?

And no kidding Retillion does not argue the unfair angle. He looks to take advantage of things and his past posting point this out, he does not want to win a hard fought game, he simply wants to win at any cost, quality takes a back seat to his personal gains.
I pointed out how it most certainly IS unfair and he simply states I am the one complaining while he games the system to his personal advantage again and again.

I wasn't going to mention this but since Retillion asked...
How could anyone agree or disagree with his comment?
I went and looked to see if he is on to something or is he simply getting personal based on what he simply assumes?
Sorry pal but Ruff is on to something, I see at least 4 or 5 players you have played 5 times or more (over 1/3 of your games include these few players). I have to say this is looking quite fishy to say the least!

I find the order status usefu; if a player has not yet saved moves, I know that if I message them they will see my message before they make their moves. I also agree with Retillion that I message those that are logged on first to maximise the chances of a fast reply. It's also another useful indicator of whether someone is ignoring your messages.

@ Tomahaha :

Please try to see it the other way.

I, of course, do not support at all NMR's. You can see from my stats that I care a lot about not NMRing.

Would you please think about the idea that if the consequences of an NMR are potentially less problematic for the NMring player, then he will possibly not care so much about his NMR ? In other words, if a player knows that his potential NMR will cause him only minimal damage, then, he will even care less about NMRing.
We don't want to protect even more NMRing players, what we want is to educate them, to sensibilize them with the fact that a NMR is really terrible. For example, players should not join games that will last longer than they can afford. Players should also not play too many games simultaneously.


Regarding the end of your latest message, Tomaha, you should know that I prefer by far to play password games in order to be sure that I play with good communicators that are also pleasant players. That doesn't mean that I have always alliances with the same players. And so, when I meet a player that I find pleasant and interesting to play with, I invite him again in future games. Just like when you invite players in your home for a ftf game.

Your NMR stats are indeed IMPRESSIVE and admirable!

as far as the NMR'ing player, if he is going to NMR, then he doesn't care about consequences. It's either a total accident (like my lone NMR that was due to traveling 12 hours and then when I got home I simply crashed and woke up seconds AFTER the 3AM deadline) or this person simply doesn't care. I can think of no examples where someone who would think about consequences to an intentional NMR, never ever.

His NMR causes great damage to the game more often than not, to allow some to take advantage of an impending NMR only makes that damage all the worse.

To batallion, again, I can't agree with your ideas.
Claiming the orders not submitted indicator allows you to contact your partner ...really? That's pretty weak, it's a made up advantage trying to make this feature look "useful" at best. And an indication that someone is ignoring your messages is another weak excuse, if he writes you, he didn't ignore you, if he didn't write, he ignored you. Simple as that. I could argue just the opposite even.... say this person logged on for a moment only to check this or that but had no time to reply just yet he fully intends to get back to you later (and yes I have seen this in my current game just last turn, a persons orders were in but no reply, he later got back to me and nothing nefarious happened) Now you think your ally is ignoring you! No, this is nothing but an attempt to allow the feature you enjoy taking advantage of.

The logged in function is more useful for forum conversations. It lets you know if you should bother waiting from a reply from someone you're talking too. If they aren't online anymore then I know to check back later. Same with pm conversations.

Now THAT is the best argument made so far!
I am not saying this is the most horrible thing in the world mind you, but I see the benefits being so minor while the negative impact on a game is so much more.
...Let's do away with all laws pertaining to murder because if we do, it could help save money on public executions. The benefit is far less than the negative effects.

The thing about JMO's reason for it being useful is that the logged in indicator can show up for another 20 minutes after the person has closed the browser tab because that's how long it takes the system to realize they are gone. Unless of course the person logs out every time before they close the tab.

I like RUFFHAUS' idea of having it be a setting. When I'm not in (m)any anon games, I am happy to show up online but sometimes I want to be in more stealth mode.

Oh Retillion, you poor soul. It just drives you crazy that none of your likely lads are available to +1 your nitwittery. I see that you found a couple of them in the meantime. Bully for you!

If you were truly concerned, you could have checked my online status, and seen that I had been logged in this entire time. Now, of course maybe I emailed Tommy and promised to buy him a pumpkin spice ale if he gave my post a +1, but you'll just have to sweat that one out.

We all know why you prefer to play in password only games, and it has nothing to do with fewer NMRs, and everything to do with assuring that your bodyguards are present in the games. Just because a player does everything that you ask him to does not make him a good communicator. Your games are a joke, and anyone who reviews your game history can see this.

The whole logged in display thing is rather intrusive and offensive. If I am posting or messaging you, then I am obviously on line. Why is there a need to display this?

It does affect anonymous games, and compromises the very nature of the anonymity within them, which is why the thread author raised the point in the first place. That Retillion does not play in anonymous games is really not germane to the discussion other than to illustrate that he is here commenting on something that he has no perspective into.

The ability to cloak your online status would be a valuable asset. Think of it like turning off the chat feature on Facebook when you don't want all the chicks that you are talking with stalking you. And when you're free to chat, you can open your availability up. That's the conversation being suggested.

I thought your logged in status wasn't revealed to others in anonymous games. Did I never see it because I happened to just never be online at the same time as anyone else?

Being able to cloak and reveal your online status at will would be a very nice feature.

mmmm, Pumking!
http://www.stbcbeer.com/seasonals/seasonal-imperial/pumking-beer-page/

So there seems to be a number of potential options being advocated here:

1. complete removal of the 'logged-in' symbol
- site wide, no exceptions
2. conditional removal of the 'logged-in' symbol
- the logged-in symbol does not appear if you are playing in an anonymous game
3. optional removal of the 'logged-in' symbol
- an option in your settings to remove this symbol from your display stats
4. no removal of the 'logged-in' symbol
- things are just fine the way they are

----

I have no idea how difficult any of these changes would be to make in the code. But from a players perspective I quite like option number 2.

I like #3 but #2 is fine also.

plus one more option I missed (which is an off-shoot from the 'logged-on' discussion):

5. removal of the orders received/saved notification
- perhaps have this as an option on game creation?

It depends on how much the site cares about anonymity of the games.
You guys know that semi-anon games basically can’t work.
If only I had time and will, I could easily spot who is who in the Benchmark Tournament games running on. EVEN IF they are gunboats.

If kaner asks for votes, my vote is for the rough option 1.


Option 5 has my favour also; it’s a parallel argument that has been debated some weeks ago.

Kaner, I'd give your last post a +1, except that I'd be subject to investigation of multi-accounting with you.

Options 1, 3, 5 all look good. Option 2 is better than status-quo, but still somewhat Orwellian.

Another thing to consider with the logged on symbol is that removal of it frees players from worrying about why someone is online, but not writing back to you. Once a gain the psychotic girlfriend metaphor comes into play. I've actually had players (and moderators) attack me over my log-in behavior. As someone who plays multiple games on multiple Dip sites there are times when I log on, study the map, write a note, and get called off to work, family, sport, drink, etc., forgetting to log off. This "crime" has gotten me accused of all manner of dishonestly and unethical standards, when it's frankly no one else's business if I am logged on and active or logging on and banging blondes in the next room. If the moderators really had a valid concern, they would design the site to force to to log in again after a period of inactivity. This is not the case (save for an isolated tyrant here and there). Removing the logged on symbol not only helps preserve anonymity, it provides additional personal privacy, specifically that which would lead to fewer instances of Kathy Bates-like paranoia.