I would say #4 it should be easy enough to see if someone is using the CYOC feature to cheat the system by seeing if players are always picking the same countries and allying with each other in those games

I vote #1 and make it against the rules to break anonymity via PM or global or otherwise before the game starts. I think people ally with the same people over and over and this would discourage it.

I would vote #3, but im cobfused as to how you anonymize both countries taken AND people. How is #3 different than #1? After all, if im about to join a game, i can see what countries are availabke, hebce, ill know which ones are already chosen. Granted, i wont know WHO has which one, but isnt that the same as #1?

The best solution is to do nothing and encourage this setting to be used ONLY for special rules games and tournaments that require specific nation assignment. These games should be extremely rare. However, the follow up comment to #4 is completely inaccurate. It's not difficult to suspect or even to report cheating of this kind. Its difficult to prove, which is why we continue to be plagued by it and by fears of it. This is why this game arrangement should be shunned. We as players have the ability to police the prefaced behavior ourselves by not creating or joining such games.

An idea arose in the Sopwith SRG, where we used the in-game system to assign players to colours of the airplanes.

Anyway, the idea of a 3rd type of pot system that does not affect the vPoint or dPoint rankings for SRGs would be beneficial. As it stands we will need to cancel this game because a draw would effect each players vPoint rank.

The point is that would it be possible to arrange to have an option to have games non-ranked, and from there link this to CYOC games?

btw/ I am in favour of option #1.

#4 is by far my favourite choice. And of course, the more informations are available, the easiest it is to detect suspicious things.

#1 and #3 (anonymize the players) could make it VERY difficult to recruit players for large variants in password games. And for those who really want, any game has the option to be created with anonymous players.

#2 (anonymize the countries during the pregame) could be nice if it is an option and not an automatic setting.

Shocking. Retillion objects to any controls over CYOC games. What possible reason could there be for objecting to this? Those stated above are simply hogwash. There's actually nothing wrong with options #1 or #3, but they are *only* necessary if people abuse the built in flexibility the system offers. In that case I absolutely change my vote to option #3 because it's clear that this community is not going to be able to manage the ability to choose their nations without personal reasons of favoritism or grudge. If options #1 and # 3 present too much difficulty that's too damn bad. Play the game the way it was meant to be - with random nation assignments.

Some inputs about those proposals... well let's see WHEN they'd have an effect.

IIRC, there are 2 concerns about this CYOC feature. In short:
1 - It would help cheaters, letting them premeditate and pick up those countries they think are the best for cheating (neighboring, alternate, opposite, or whatever they think the best picking-countries strategy would be);
2 - It would encourage casual cheating, because one could choose to be neighbor to someone he thinks will be a good ally.

Well, we have 2 main kinds of CYOC games: Anon-CYOC and non-Anon-CYOC.

- - -

Let's see Anon CYOCs first.
I believe this kind is the most used, does anyone have some stats?
Also I don't have any stat, but - for the little time I've been a Mod - I'm under the impression that the few metas we found on CYOCs were actually into *Anon* CYOCs.

Anyway, noone of the first 3 Oli's proposals will have any effect on Anon CYOCs, because players and countries are *Anonymized already*.

- - -

So we are talking about *non-Anon* CYOCs, the only other main kind left.
And probably, we’re talking about non-Anon CYOCs that are not involved in some Tournament or some SRG, because basically everyone agrees that the feature is very useful in these cases.
This could be extended to all Private games, because if someone sends me a Password for such a game without any explanations, I'd ask for them. So we're probably talking about non-Anon *Public* CYOCs only. Anyway, it's not much important. Let's consider non-Anon CYOCs as a whole, no matter whether Public or Private.

Now, about the first concern I numbered at the beginning, noone of the first 3 solutions looks useful.
Example. If you notice a non-Anon CYOC Classic was just created and you want to cheat in it, you call your cheating-mate and "Hey mate, please join gameID=xxxx as Russia. I'm Turkey and we'll play a Juggernaut!". That’s premeditation.
Anonymizing anything won't prevent them from cheating. Because they started cheating before they joined the game. It was premeditated. They’d know who they are, whether the CYOC was Full-Anon, Semi-Anon, non-Anon or Anon-in-pregame-only.

So there's only the second concern left.
We're talking about whether one of those 3 ‘solutions’ could discourage casual cheating in non-Anon (Public) CYOCs.
Mm. Personally I don't believe this be a huge issue, but older Mods could be under a different impression, if they think that non-Anon Public CYOCs are so common and casual cheating into them is so likely.

- - -

About *casual* cheating in non-Anon CYOCs, please consider also 3 little things that might reduce effectiveness of proposals a bit more :
- Before you choose a (maybe good) neighbor, you should check whether the Variant in question might be unbalanced and how.
For example, if you're about to join a non-Anon CYOC Africa, then picking Morocco (17.1 SCs Ø) with a bad neighbor could be better than Egypt (4.5 SCs Ø) with a neighbor you think might be good.
Well, playing CYOC on unbalanced maps makes little sense already, casual cheating on them makes even less. If there are only bad countries left available, you don’t try to cheat, you join another game.
- Pregame silent strategy is fairly available for everyone in the same measure.
While joining a non-Anon (Public) CYOC, everybody knows which players are already in, hence who's out and could join, how many and which spots are left to be taken.
Everyone is free to join the game or not. You're free to leave it forever if you don't like someone in it (like you are allowed to do in any other kind of non-Anon games).
You're even free to leave and re-join it later - at your own risk - if you think another Country is better. Any the reason be, except for agreements with anyone (like in any other game, also in CYOCs negotiating before the game starts is forbidden).
These things go for everybody, so a casual cheater has a hard life, whether he joins early or late, because it would be easy to catch .
- Press-rule. In any Gunboat, talking about the game before the end is forbidden. So if you talk about it before you possibly join it or if you talk about it in pregame phase, then you're already cheating, and it's not casual cheating. No matter whether the Gunboat is CYOC or not, cheating is never casual in Gunboats and those 3 proposals do nothing against premeditated cheating, like I said before.
Since players-chats are disabled during pregame, Full-press and Global-only are the same here. Working around game messaging/press rules (Site's Rule #3) is still forbidden, so talking outside the game before the end isn't casual cheating. It’s premeditated. It would become casual cheating *****so proposals would affect it**** when some negotiate on Global during pregame. Wow.

(Btw ,this goes for every game, not only CYOCs. Indeed, I wonder why the new automatic message from GM:
"GameMaster: Please remember that negotiations before the game begins are not allowed."
gets displayed in CYOC games only, while it would be good for any game.)

- - -

Those were my 2 cents. Clearly I believe that any of those 3 proposals would affect a very small number of games, which makes me doubt if they're worth the effort, but that's for Oli to say.
To not mention that I'm inclined to think they would be backfiring. There's a reason why cheaters usually hide themselves into Anon games. If ever, it’s the Anon feature the one that mostly helps the cheaters. Clearly it’s also very useful, so nobody ever proposed to un-anonymize games just because anonymity actually helps (and encourages) cheaters.

________
tl; dr.
I think this is about whether anonymizing players and/or countries during pre-game phase would be good or damaging for preventing casual cheating into non-Anon Public CYOC games with Press.
So not that many games.

This is because proposed solutions will have no effect on premeditated cheating and they’ll have no effect on Anon CYOCs, on basically all Private CYOCs, on Gunboat CYOCs.
Aside those, no better inputs I can give.

btw, kaner's proposal looks very interesting. A third pot-type like that would be not only useful for some SRGs and (maybe) for this issue. It'd be also perfect for basically every Tournament.

Clearly Guaros (as usual) has no concept of what's going on here, or the reasons for the concerns. And (as usual) he arrives with 20+ paragraphs of blather denying that any problems exist. I particularly like the added comment about the short time that he's been a moderator, since he's been a moderator for well over a year, and is the driving force behind any alterations to the site. Basically if Guaoz doesen't like it, it's not going anywhere. Oliver, if you are really Guaroz in disguise, then please just say so. Otherwise, you really need a better adviser because this guy has no clue what the game of Diplomacy is about, and surprisingly for all his access to the site and every minute detail of our conversations and log ins and what not, he has very little idea of what is going on here.

The *only* reason that any of Oliver's ideas need to be considered is because the moderators tolerate this behavior by ignoring it. All it would take is for a firm policy condemning certain activity, and the 90% of the behavior would go away. All tat is necessary is for the leaders of this site to note that CYOC games are available as an option to accommodate certain types of games, and that regular Diplomacy play should not allow players to choose their nation. The is absolutely nothing wrong in suggesting methods to curtain prearranged alliances/conflicts via sign up, and to suggest that this behavior does not go on here is just plain ignorant or intentionally covering it up.

@ RUFFHAUS
"he arrives with 20+ paragraphs of blather denying that any problems exist."
Ruff... tell the truth... you didn't read it!
I talked about WHEN those solutions would solve the problems.

“The is absolutely nothing wrong in suggesting methods to curtain prearranged alliances…”
Wow, you and I agree on something! (But… you seem to like methods that could increase prearranged alliances!).
Btw, you said it like if someone had said that there would be something wrong. Who was it?
Who doesn’t appreciate Oli for his effort in making new features? Who usually says that any new feature gets proposed or implemented here is not “real Diplomacy” or “regular Diplomacy” or “true Diplomacy”?
Don’t you think that those, who hate any newness, any innovations, any new features and then try to depict them like “this is not regular Diplomacy”, simply made a weird choice choosing this site? - *** This is an innovative site ***- That’s the new spirit they need. Otherwise they'll go on finding any newness "Shocking".
Ruff, please, help me tell to those who like old FtF Diplomacy, like was played in the ‘60s, that there’s nothing wrong with new features! Help me tell them that we need their experience to improve those new features, not to destroy them.

@Guaroz, I agree with most of what you say, however I have a problem with the area which you have called the "Pregame silent strategy"

I think that this strategy should be eliminated as much (if not entirely) as possible. My suggestion is to have non-anon CYOC games enforced as being a third pot-type that doesn't affect vPoints or dPoints in anyway shape or form. As most non-anon CYOC are SRG's anyway, then this would be advantageous for the vast majority of the players who use this function.

@kaner: That's interesting. Actually Pregame strategy being fair doesn't mean it's also desirable. I'll think through it, but I'm a bit busy atm and will be back to you in some days.
First I'd set the new pot-type though. Once we have it, we'll see how and when to merge it with CYOC. (Dunno it's clear. No time for voacubulary now, sorry).

@kaner406 :
and @ everybody :

Why would non-anon CYOC game have a different pot type ? These games are MUCH more like a Classic Diplomacy game than some other ways to play, like 1vs1 games or Gunboat games, for example, which, in my opinion, really don't have much in common with a Diplomacy game and which should have a different pot type.

I am very interested by this discussion because it was started by Tomahaha after I had invited him in a game that I had created : gameID=16774
Tomahaha has politely declined the invitation but has started a thread in which he wanted to prohibit the creation of such games ! I find it very bad, and very sad, that someone wants to prevent other people to play as they wish. I find it very bad that someone wants to restrict my freedom because of his fear that such games could be created in a way which is not the one intended by the creator of their "Holy Sacred Diplomacy" game.
For example, I have personally not interest at all in Gunboat games and I think that these are games in which it is extremely easy to cheat, especially if they are anonymous. However, it would never cross my mind to launch a discussion in order to try to prohibit such games. On the contrary : I am very happy that these options exist if they allow players to create games that they enjoy.

And so, the non-anon CYOC game that I created and which started this discussion, gameID=16774, is a quality game : I wanted to gather only players who communicate very well and who will not NMR. So far, this game is a quality game with players who communicate perfectly.
When I create password games, the players always tell me that they really have enjoyed it. I find it very sad that some people would want to prevent us from playing such great games.

Another reason why I am very interested by this discussion is because I play very few games. I like to create password games which is an excellent way to have quality games. Usually, I prefer of course random country assignments. However, I like to enjoy the option, the freedom, to choose my country, especially because I may be not interested in playing some countries in some Variants, especially in the WWIV Variants. I can afford now to play only one game at a time and I wouldn't want to be stuck for months in a game with a country that I am not interested to play with.

On another note, since I am the creator of most of the games that I play, I simply choose a country for itself and obviously not for any other player since I am the first one to choose a country. So nobody can tell about me that I chose my country because such or such country has already been chosen by such or such player.

And once again, please remember that it is MUCH easier to cheat in anonymous games !

Quality game? It does depend on each and every player taking an interest.
I was in one game where my hope to study the Variant further, or else to go out and party - forget which - led me to press "Extend" button more than once; I was reported to the MODS! That sort of interest impels one to Paranoia. [Speaking of which, What happened to the EU check-in box?] And, no, the mods gave me absolution such as the new Pope dispenses. LOL