It's still in development. It's not ready.

PS: While we are at it: better naming-ideas please. I'm no native English speaker.

PS2: Please remember a CD usually imply 2 or more NMRs.

Integrity has two definitions. Honesty is one. But, it also means whole or undivided, which could be appropriate in this situation.

No, Retillion is right on this. Integrity is a worm hole we don't even want to consider trying to measure. The secondary definition pertaining to whole/complete/undivided has nothing to do with turning your orders in or sticking to games. That definition has to do with matters like structural "integrity" of say a bridge or a building or a light post. Integrity in a Diplomacy context would refer to matters of play style, honesty, respectfulness, politeness, yet it could also very easily be construed to mean ethical behavior. If you have to start quantifying ethics with a score, we may as well quit playing right now. And trying to quantifying integrity in terms of in game honesty and whatnot, is contrary to the principles of the game.

^back to Oli's question (and remembering that this is a work in progress):
what would be a better name for this?

A better question is, why even have this? What is the point of it? Didn't we just revamp RR so that we dont' need new "ratings"? What was the thought behind this? I don't recall seeing it anywhere in the forums, which is where these things usually get hashed out lately. Personally, I don't see any point in it unless people are really just dying to have a "rating" for taking over CDs. Which to me makes absolutely no sense, since then you could end up having really reliable people (who just don't care to take over CDs), being ranked low or even negatively in "integrity" or whatever it gets called. Doens't seem right.

If he had listed the name as "Commitment to site integrity", I think it would not have the same confusion and could work. However, he could also just say "commitment".

I disagree Devonian. Just because someone doesn't take over CDs doesn't mean they aren't committed to site integrity. Maybe the person just has their plate full with their games and can't take any more? Maybe they're committed to helping new players and as such, don't have time for CD takeovers? There's a lot more to helping site integrity than just taking over CDs.

Best example: what if the person is a Mod and spends all their time doing Mod stuff? Does that mean they aren't committed to the site's integrity because they don't take over CDs?

well, the ability to discern your play-mates according to CD/NMR status is available to you right now.
We want a system that recognises players that take over CDs. So what would be good wording to recognise this?

Perhaps something just obvious like "CD-Takeover Ratio" or something similar? So that it's blatantly obvious that a low rating on that doesn't necessarily mean they're a bad player?

Which BTW, should just be something simple. Perhaps CD's taken over/CD's on a person's record?

That way, everyone would know that someone with a 5 ratio takes over 5 times as many CDs as they have CDs themselves?

I just think it's important not to try to make it anythign similar to "reliability" since we already have ratings for that. We don't want to muddy the waters.

How about "Devotion"
this word lends itself real well to what you are trying to accomplish. CD takeovers show you are devoted to the site and the community. No NMR's shows you are devoted to the game and the other players. Devotion in no way tells us anything about honesty, simply you are devoted to making the site better through your actions! Reliability tells us about your lack of NMR's but not about CD takeovers. Devotion is a perfect word for what you are trying to measure!

White knight might work for take overs. Players join to restore balence to a game or pick up and difficult but not lost positions.

White Knight Devotion rating...

or we just make it obvious and call it "CD-Takeover rating". No need for a fancy name that will only confuse people who don't look into it deep enough...

I think CD-Ballance might work too..

+ 1 CD takeover rating (or balance..).
keep it clear and simple.

are there NMRs in this formula? If so, CD-ballance or CD-takeover mean nothing to those who have 0 CD, 0 takeovers and 20 NMRs. It would be confusing.
I liked Tomahaha's reasoning. If "Devotion" is not good, how about "Dedication".

No, please no. We already HAVE something that includes NMR's. It's called "no-NMR" on your profile! Please let's not try to make yet another reliability rating out of this!

All this needs to do is show people how often people take over CD's compared to how much they CD. (CD's taken over/CD's) would be a perfect formula. Let's not overly complicate this by turning it into yet another confusing, conflicting reliability rating of sorts.

drano, Oli didn't say what he's trying to make. He just asked what name would be better than Integrity for that formula.
About people being confused, let's wait to know more about this work. Not much we can criticize, atm. You don't judge a book by the cover.
Really, you look the only one confused here. Everybody's just trying to find that name.

Guaroz -

I'm anything but confused. Implementing yet another "reliability"-ish formula by tying NMR's/CD's to CD-takeovers would be silly. All you'd be doing is muddying the waters as to what means what. There's absolutely no need for another reliability-like formula. We have all the data we need.

Now, a CD-Takeover stat showing those people who are willing to take over a lot of CD'd positions is cool, give them some recognition.

sorry, but Drano is correct and not confused at all. This is a DIFFERENT rating having nothing to do with reliability. When fixing the reliability, CD takeovers were taken out of the formula, and rightfully so since reliability has nothing to do with taking over CD nations. people were repairing their rating while not showing any better reliability!
But CD takeover is important and should be recognized, with this no longer part of the mix I think Oli is looking for another way to reward this effort and he posted this idea...

so Drano is 100% NOT confused, this has nothing to do with NMR's nor should it, nor will it!

Tom, care to explain why? It's because you do like NMRs or because you don't know CDs are made by NMRs? Just guessing... :)

I didn't find strange NMRs in a formula that involves CDs and TOs. Whether NMRs should, will, must or would or won't be in that formula...well, it will depend on what that formula will be for.
Do you mind explain it to me?
or go on talking about nothing, if you wish.

"But CD takeover is important and should be recognized,"
- not sure why you're talking about this, but yeah, I agree CD takeover is important and should be recognized.

"with this no longer part of the mix"
- which mix?

"I think Oli is looking for another way to reward this effort and he posted this idea."
- do you "think" or do you "know"? I ask because the difference is, respectively, to talk about nothing and to talk about something.
Anyway, this thread was opened by Retillion. Oli just said:

Oli (100 Mod (P))
PS: While we are at it: better naming-ideas please. I'm no native English speaker.

Tom, I liked your answer. Why you don't like anymore what you wrote, I miss.

I will open a new thread for this with a clean start and a complete overview what this number should be used for any how this is supposed to work.
This thread opened because I made some coding-changes that are not ready. Most of this is still in early dev-stages. Soo early that I didn't want to start a forum thread, because I do not know too how this will deveop.

Please use the new thread to discuss. This thread has too much half-information to continue discussion.

this part should not be moved to the new thread, so I will answer on this older thread so as not to confuse with the new stuff...

Guaroz, I think you are a bit confused
this is what has transpired:

Another thread involved the Reliability rating
In that thread we discussed changing the formula. The old formula allowed players who had NMR'ed and/or went into CD to improve that rating by taking over other powers that had gone into CD. While taking over such positions is helpful and noble, it in no way should improve ones "reliability". Reliability is judged by not missing phases and nothing more, so this CD takeover was badly abused.

That was a done deal, this is no assumption.

But we did discuss that with the changed formula, it might be more difficult to get players to take over CD positions. We of course want to encourage this behavior and with the reliability formula changed, what to do?

I assumed nothing, I phrased it as "I think" to be polite to Oli and did not want to put words in his mouth, but since you ask if I think or I know...
I KNOW!

It is no assumption in the least to say it has been decided Cd takeover will in no way be a part of reliability formulas, Guaroz brought this up and it was not applicable in the least.

Ok, the new thread is open for discussion.
Let me know your ideas.

Guaroz, would you care to explain why it is that every time you are losing an argument, you throw out the baseless accusation that those disagreeing with your poorly conceived concepts somehow favor the occurrences of NMRs? It's bad enough that your opinion dictates every decision behind the scenes , regardless of the merits of ideas submitted by others, but you cannot even be satisfied with your chokehold over Oli and the mod team. You have to accuse players looking to improve the Diplomacy environment of favoring policies that produce more NMRs, typically speculating some backhanded cheating allegation as a component of it. That's interesting behavior from a mod team member in an environment where players are forbidden to even discuss the fact that cheating exists here.

Certainly Tom does not favor NMRs. To suggest so is asinine. Aside from the fact that it's a pathetic debating tool to say so when it is in fact your mandates to Oliver that drive the site towards a culture of irresponsibility is insulting to everyone here. If you're going to weigh in publically (for appearances sake), please try to stay on topic.