Why, Devonian, that's brilliant! Excellent suggestion. That would definitely solve the problem.

Yeah, it would be better than having games ruined. I'd have nothing against this feature, if the game creator is the only one allowed to post (anonymousely) on that thread.

But it would be a weird solution anyway....all games are already advertised 24/7 on the Games page. You can check them all , compare them, choose, and then join the one you think it's the best for you.
With this new feature we would have the Forum spammed with as many threads as the starting games are (now "only" 21, but even more, often), and none of them saying anything new or anything different from what you can check by yourself opening the already existing page where all advertisements are.

Killing the Forum to save the Anons - vs. - killing useless Ads to save the Anons.
Well I prefer the latter, but if there's no other way to save the Anons, I could be ok with the first.

Only "Special Rules" Games like "teams" or "no stabbing" or "tournaments" should be advertised, IMO. Because the creator must have a room to explain the rules and the interested people may want to ask for clarifications or discuss/propose rules.
And they're not so frequent to spam the Forum. Never seen more than 2-3 SRGs starting at once.

Maybe each request can be appended to the same thread to avoid spam. That way if it is annoying, it can be muted.

Also, I was mostly thinking this would be a nice feature for finding replacements in anon games, since I think fewer people check the open listings.

Append: good idea, but wouldn't this thread be a rough copy of the original "New" and "Open" advertising link? Just with less informations....

Yes, true about replacements. If people looked more often at "New" and "Open" games, there would be no need to advertise the games anymore. And if there were no Ads, people would look more often at "New" and "Open" games. It's a circle.

This story reminds me Italian government. When they discover a bad, backfiring law, they don't cut it out. They add a new bad law trying to minimize the bad effects of the first one, usually failing and adding much more bad effects.

The point is that advertising games is useless because they're already advertised.

You can keep things simple, allowing only SRGs' Ads and forbidding the others.

Or you can complicate the whole point, trying to work around that fact that advertising standard games is useless (because they're already advertised) and unfair (because the game I created is not more important than the one you did), and adding new features and rules to minimize the bad effects of the first bad rule you set: allow all Ads.

If a tree gives rotten fruits because it has rotten roots, you must not add fertilizers and pesticides, you must cut out the rotten roots.

This would not create a new "law", it would provide a way to reconcile the rule against revealing players in anonymous games with the desire to find players in anonymous games.

Yes Devo, I know. I also have the desire to find players for the Anons I create. That's why I'd like to encourage people to open the "New" and "Open" pages more often than they do, instead of typing/reading useless-spamming forum-unfair Ads.
See a starting game Ad? Perhaps there's a better game starting...check "New"!
See a replacement-needed Ad? Perhaps there's a better Country to take over... check "Open"!

I was only saying what the simplest solution is. But if Oli wants to have fun coding some complicated feature that may have some bad side effects, I'd be ok (obviousely).

I think I am mostly coming from the point of view of seeking a replacement in anon games. I agree, we really do not need advertisements for anon games in formation. But a CD in an ongoing game may have a very short time before the next phase change and the consequences of not finding a replacement are more disruptive.

Very true. Time is an enemy.
But it's not the only one. And I believe it's not even the main one.
As you can see in this recent threadID=27021, after 9 hours and 1 bump they haven't found a replacement for Bulgaria yet. And it's not even a bad take over!

We should encourage people to open those damned links to "New" and "Open". In other threads, for Open, I've proposed two solutions:
1. Now, in your RR, you can balance 1 CD taking over 1 CDed Country. It's working, now Open games are somewhat less than ever. But I believe it'd work better if 2 TOs were needed to balance 1 CD.
2. A TO is usually not a good deal in terms of D-points (I can get into details if you're interested). It should be instead! So...half bet for TOs! If now the system requires 30 , it should be 15 ! Who will take over for 95 a Country that will probably win? So little to gain, so much to lose... even if you got the 95 required (and many people haven't got all that points avaliable). You colud object that majority of TOs require, say, 8 or less to join, so making it 4 or 3 wouldn't change much things. True. But it's also true that someone (the player who CDed) already paid for that Country... increasing the pot is not more needed than finding a replacement! who cares to increase the pot? I care to find a replacement! So a Country that now is worth 8 or less, could be taken over with only 1 . Recap:
current worth up to 8 --> 1 to take over;
current worth > 8 --> half worth to take over.

One more idea come to me just yesterday. If you want to check Open now, you have to click on "Games" on the top of this page. Then the Games page opens on the default "Active" games. Have you ever cared about Active? No, you need one more "click" (on "Open") if you're looking for a TO. Open is hidden!
So the idea would be this: there's room enough for 2 more links on the top of this page.
Now they are:
Home Forum Games New game Settings Help Variants
But they could be:
Home Forum NEW OPEN ARCHIVE Create Settings Help Variants
You'd have a quick link to Open and New, while you could find the rarely used:
My games Active Finished Search
clicking first on Archive.

Just 3 simple ideas. 1 & 3 are surely doable. I don't know about half-bet.
But if all 3 were implemented, many people would spontaneously look for a TO, instead of waiting for a "replacement needed" Ad.

I can't believe you're serious, PE, when you debate my arguments with those reasonings.

Anyway, if you intend to keep your convictions, keep them, I will keep mine as Guaroz will.

I believe that advertising STANDARD games on the forum is:
- a bad use
- redundant
- harmful in case of anon games

I'm not interested to continue this philosophical discussion that far, nevertheless I'd like to know from any mod/admin if a clear rule about game ads has to be stated or if it's just ok this way.

@Guaroz,
1. Good idea.
2. Good idea. (I proposed this last October)
3. Good idea.

As far as my knowledge extends there is no water-tight rule saying that you should NOT advertise an anonymous game in the forum.

My solution to the problem regarding the advertising of games in the forum would be to: PM a disconnected 3rd party, and ask them to advertise the game in the forum for you, with the advertiser acknowledging that they are simply advertising and are not actually participating in game in question.

Personally I take a more relaxed view, anon is anon, and I have played gunboats before where I am 100% certain of a players identity during the game, but was proved wrong when it ended!

I guess the meta-problem being discussed here is: where exactly do the boundaries of a game begin and where to they finish?

and this is what I love about Diplomacy.

Well no, kaner. We didn't discuss meta-problems or abstract philosophies.

We discussed very practical and concrete problems.

And, to summarize, looks like Devo, DL, and I agree on the fact that the root of all these practical problems is that people don't use the "New" and "Open" pages.

This lead to:
1) Not enough CDed countries taken over
2) CDed countries taken over not enough soon
3) People (esp newcomers) not thinking enough on what games they're joining because they don't compare all starting games. A bad choice lead to join games that don't suite RL's needs and this lead to more CDs
4) People making confusion whether a game is Private (owned by the player who set the PW) or Public (owned by all VDip community)
5) People willing to advertise on the Forum the Public games they created. This may not look like a problem but it leads to:
5.1 Threads just repeating what's already written in the "New" and "Open" pages, usually with incomplete/uncorrect informations.
5.2 Threads screwing the Anonymity of games.
5.3 Like in a circle without a way out, more people ignoring the "New" and "Open" pages.
5.4 Forum spammed with lots of basically useless, often damaging threads.

That rules don't forbid Public games advertising was clear, that's why I think they should. This point was cleared in my posts (from the 4th on) that maybe you didn't read.

Your "solution"... yeah, I don't like it but it could be a palliative for item 5.2. But you proposing just it makes me think that you don't have a wide vision on what's been discussed here.
Perhaps you just scrolled the thread in 3 minutes, without really reading it.
That it would be confirmed by the fact that you didn't even mention the solutions we proposed.

-*- . People don't use the "New" and "Open" pages . - * -

This is the main problem, the rotten root that produces more problems.
So please kaner, if you're interested in our problems and if you have time/ will to do it, please read the whole thread carefully, first.
Thank you. :)

Few thoughts.

(1) Fixing the problem of people ignoring "New" and "Open" pages isn't necessarily done by banning advertisements. It could help, but there's no reason to assume that ban is a panacea.
(2) We have completely unfettered advertising as it is, and the forums aren't clogged with advertisements. The advertisements do constitute a fair portion of the forums, but they're not crowding out legitimate discussion, because...
(3) There just aren't that many non-advertisement threads on the site.

I'm honestly not sure what the anti-advertising crusade is for. Something to check 5.2 is legitimate, sure, definitely, that's why I liked Devonian's programming suggestion. 5.1 and 5.3 aren't advertising problems per se, and 5.4 is not really a concern in light of the fact that (a) with an adjustment to account for 5.2, they're not damaging and (b) there's not much forum activity outside of game concerns as it is.

(...continues from "This lead to:")

5.5 Unfair different level of Advertising. Why a person that works with computer has the chance of bumping his ads 8 times a day while who plays Diplomacy once a day or even less, at home after dinner, cannot. On the New page they're equally advertised. The same goes for Open: all CDs are bad and must have a chance to be taken over.
6) Duplicate Games. People don't read "New" and don't know which games are already starting. So they go directly to "New_game" and often create a game very similar to one already starting. So 2 similar games will split people interested in that Map/Variant and often none of them starts. It happens more often than you think. Once I saw 3 Modern gunboats (only small differences in phase and bet) created within a few hours: after 9 days they all got 5-7 joiners...none of the 3 started...1 could. Similar for Open: before you create a game, check Open! Maybe there's a good position to take over on a game similar to the one you wanted to create.
. . . . . .

Btw, when a game doesn't start each joiner got this automatic message:
"This game has been cancelled, and you got your bet of 10 back:The game didn't reach the x required players; try finding players to join before creating a game, create a game with a longer phase, or join an existing game."

This is a good message for a site with 100 users. I like the advice to " join an existing game.". A "longer phase" makes me doubtful: the problem could be that the game was 5-day phase so making it longer is pointless! While "try finding players" is a dangerous advice if the game was Anon. I'd substitute it with:
"Perhaps this game was just a duplicate of another one starting as well. Please check what games are starting before creating a new one"

I'd also add "Pehaps your game just sucked, or you put too many restrictions, or an idiot Victory Condition", but it would be too much! :)

. . . . . . . . .

@PE: The Ads are not the only problem so removing them can't be the only solution. If you do only that, yes it would be good but it wouldn't be enough, that's why we agreed 3 more proposals. Please re-read my previous post (and read the 3 other proposals).
We uphold that Advertising Public games is useless in the best case. Often, there are cases it's damaging and harmful for players' fun.

So I don't know why you are so anxious to keep Public games' advertisings and you're focusing only on this aspect after all that have been said. As well as IDK why kaner focused only on Anons, but at least this thread started from there. Perhaps it's just lack of immagination or lack of a global wide vision of the issues in this site. Yes, this is what I like in Devonian and Decima Legio: they try to put all their efforts in trying to get a global vision.

However, if you really care to keep them it would be useful that you bring to our attention some cases in which Public games' advertisings are indispensable. If there's any.

Do you have to be so insulting? Just because I comment on part of the issue doesn't mean I'm too closed-minded/unimaginative/shortsighted to address the whole problem. I'm commenting on what, specifically, I see wrong. I didn't disagree with your previous proposals as stated, that's why I didn't comment on them.

But as of yet, all that's been stated is the repeated argument that "advertising is harmful" when there's no reason I see to think that's the case - again, excepting anonymous games which are indeed problematic. And I don't believe that you have to have a good reason not to ban an action; rather, I believe you have to have a good reason to ban an action instead. It's not a defense of public advertising per se (about which I am indeed fairly indifferent), but the principle that any discussion framed on banning/keeping things should involve the question "Why SHOULD we ban it?" and not "Why SHOULDN'T we ban it?" So yeah, go ahead and call me shortsighted again, you really hit the nail on the head there, bub.

Of course it's almost never indispensable - the only times where I'd argue that it makes a major difference are WWIV and Chaos games - but hell, most of the ads, from what I see, are for games with CD positions. Sure, people don't use the Open Games tab enough, but the fact is that, in light of the fact that they don't, ads are useful for getting those games filled. So they clearly do some good... and again, you keep saying they're harmful, but I don't see how.

"Why SHOULD we ban it?"
- never indispensable
- when (rarely) useful there are alternative solutions useful as well (or more)
- usually useless
- too often damaging
- banning it would help solving several other important issues

Now please make your own list (I've never based my discussion on this, in my last post I just said that it would be useful to know if there are arguments against):
"Why SHOULDN'T we ban it?"
-
-
-
-
-

___________
PS. "Do you have to be so insulting?"
Sorry, I may have insinuated that you lack in immagination :O
But I've never said (or thought) that you're "closed-minded" or "shortsighted".
PE, the problem talking with you is that you see insults everywhere in the posts of who disagree with you, while you should watch YOUR posts. Please read above what you wrote last friday:
"Your entire mentality regarding this issue is unbearable. ... it's self-serving, shameful and repugnant. ...if you're too lazy to check it and thus call for a ban on advertising games just to serve your anal-retentive desire not to join a game that doesn't exactly fit your specifications, shame on you. Just shame on you.
... your fundamental position is completely illogical. "

My logic says that if A finds illogical what B says, then B finds illogical as well what A says. That's why I never say to anyone that what he's saying is illogical. Because I don't think I'm the only one owning a brain.

""Why SHOULD we ban it?"
- never indispensable"

Not a good reason. Virtually every individual feature on this site is "never indispensable."

"- when (rarely) useful there are alternative solutions useful as well (or more)"

So? If it helps more than it hurts, that there are more effective solutions isn't cause to ban it.

"- usually useless"

Not true. Plenty of CD positions have been taken over due to advertisements. It has certainly done some good.

"- too often damaging"

You still haven't explained this.

"- banning it would help solving several other important issues"

Like? The only legitimate concern I've seen so far is anonymous games, and Devonian proposed an excellent alternative that allows the continuation of advertisements while handling the anonymous games issue.

"Now please make your own list (I've never based my discussion on this, in my last post I just said that it would be useful to know if there are arguments against):
"Why SHOULDN'T we ban it?"
-
-
-
-
-
"

That's the whole thing. You don't make arguments for why something *shouldn't* be banned. The fundamental axiom of a free society is that you don't ban something without good reason. The burden of proof is on the side wishing to ban, not the side wishing to keep instated.

But since you asked:
-Advertisements have helped fill replacements for CDs.
-Advertisements, outside of anonymous games, do not hurt the game(s) in question.

That's the crux of my argument. The first one is demonstrable: check the ads and see how often they get filled. It is a fact that they help fill CD positions, and while other methods may indeed be more effective (we can't demonstrate this yet, having not yet implemented other methods, but it's certainly the case that they could be more effective), as long as they cause less harm than they prevent, they should be kept.

And the second one, admittedly, is not demonstrable as one cannot demonstrate a negative; one can only rebut a positive. As the positive - that they do harm - has not yet been rebutted, I maintain that the negative is correct.



And re: insults. I realize my complaint was rather ironic given my own fairly vitriolic post before. I apologized for that post, and stand by my apology. I'm sorry that my rhetoric set us on a more personal path - but I do ask that, in light of my apology, we move away from that path and keep it professional.

However, I must take issue with your statements on logic. Logic is objective. One doesn't "find a statement illogical" - a statement *is* illogical, or is logical. Now, whether I correctly assessed the logicality (or lack therein) of your post is up for discussion; I do, at this point, retract that assertion as, at the time, I didn't say *what* was illogical (and, looking back, I can't see it).

I maintain logic is objective, not subjective; and that my statement was simply objectively false. I believe that should be an agreeable position.

The main purpose of the forum is to talk about the game of Diplomacy. the point of advertisements on the forum is to get games of Diplomacy started. therefore, Advertising games on the forum is perfectly legitimate.

That’s the point of pro-forum-ads users:
Ads help games to get started. Ads help CD positions to be taken over.

Let’s suppose that the number of “join this game” clicks on this site is 100/day.

If you believe that a forum ads increases this number, well you’re right. I mean, if you believe that someone who was going to join 1 game, actually joins 1+1 games after seeing a forum advertisement.

If you instead, as I do, believe that the number of “join this game” clicks remains 100/day regardless of game ads, but through game ads you’re just moving some users (users likely to be hand-guided by ads) from 1joining list unadvertised to another, and from 1take over unadvertised to another … your assumption is wrong.

“New” page. “Open” page. “search” page where you can set any kind of your own game options preference.
That’s all we need; anything else is ***at least*** redundant. And this single reason should be enough to get rid of forum ads.

and you have no way of knowing the actual numbers behind this so all arguments are based on assumptions and opinions

and all your arguments about CD countries are missing one fundamental point, no one wants to take over a country they feel is screwed over completely and I'd say at least 75% if not more of the positions on the open page are in a hopeless stop, since a lot of people jump on them as soon as the player quits, so I would support and ad in that situation so a player could be found before the country got so messed up no one would take it

that being said, I believe ads may or may not be good based on the given circumstance

and as to why we shouldn't ban ads, all I have to say is that it is the right of the players to make ads and the majority of players should not have one of their rights on this site taken away because a few people think they should

@Butter. First of all thanks for your post: it helps the discussion in the heart of it.

>>"The main purpose of the forum is to talk about the game of Diplomacy"
**Yes, agreable. That's what we're doing here.

>>"the point of advertisements on the forum is to get games of Diplomacy started. "
** Uhmm... yes and no. Mainly no. Because if there were no advertisements, the games would start anyway. People would just check the "New" page and choose the one they think it's the best for them. Am I missing anything? If no, the point of advertisements must be another. Any clue?

>>"therefore, Advertising games on the forum is perfectly legitimate. "
** Well, until what is before "therefore" is under discussion, we should wait to say what's after.

PS. Could you please say to PE that YOU called me Anon Police? I just followed the joke.:)

. . . . . .

@PE.
"So? If it helps more than it hurts..." Good point. In the whole thread I tried to explain that it hurts more than it helps (if it helps). The same did DL. If we didn't convice you, I'm afraid we'll never agree on this.

-Advertisements have helped fill replacements for CDs.
*** Oh! There are solutions so much better than an Ads! And you've already read them. It is like saying that horses help you to go from Moscow to Vladivostok! Well, they help! ...if you believe your only alternative is your feet.

-Advertisements, outside of anonymous games, do not hurt the game(s) in question.
*** "..while on the other hand they help the game in question to start" you could add. Well, thanks, this is a point that's worth a discussion.
The point is that while an Ad helps one particular game increasing its chances to start, it damages another unadvertised one decreasing its chances. No? Isn't that what Ads are for: to get more visibility than other games? It's unfair! Why the site should advantage people who have time to sit glued at the computer, already playing 10 games, making ads, bumping them, over those who can't? If you think it's few people, please mind that who doesn't have the time to advertise the games he's in, probably doesn't even have the time to read this thread.
One starting game is not more important than another one!
If you think I want to deprive you of a natural right, well you may look at it as if was an anti-trust rule. To grant the fun (and the rights) of those who can't advertise the games they're in, you deprive someone of a right that he doesn't really need (because he got already enough fun) and that he's actually abusing it, depriving the others of an equal chance to get their games started.
See... you don't complain of anti-trust rules unless you're a truster [is this the correct word?]
So:
- never indispensable
- always damaging
- for the (fair) purposes they are believed useful, there are alternative solutions more useful than them
- banning them would help solving several other important issues

What are we waiting for?

@Shep. ahah you're smart my friend! :)
But I outguessed you on "the right of the player", please see what I just addressed to PE.
And, about CDs, if all the 3 solutions Devonian and I agreed on (pls read above):
- 2 TOs for 1 CD
- Half bet
- Visible "Open" link
were impemented, the first thing you'd do as you log in this site would be looking for a Country to take over. You would have even forgotten the bad old times, when Ads were allowed... long ago, when there were 29 open games, now they're 2 or 3...

*Oops...for God's sake... They "abuse" this "right" not intentionally of course, but unwittingly, being not fully aware of the consequences.

"If you believe that a forum ads increases this number, well you’re right. I mean, if you believe that someone who was going to join 1 game, actually joins 1+1 games after seeing a forum advertisement.

If you instead, as I do, believe that the number of “join this game” clicks remains 100/day regardless of game ads, but through game ads you’re just moving some users (users likely to be hand-guided by ads) from 1joining list unadvertised to another, and from 1take over unadvertised to another … your assumption is wrong.

“New” page. “Open” page. “search” page where you can set any kind of your own game options preference.
That’s all we need; anything else is ***at least*** redundant. And this single reason should be enough to get rid of forum ads."

So your argument against ads is that every single person who would have taken a CD position via advertisements would have also checked the Open tab and done so that way in absence of CDs, and therefore that advertisements are redundant?

If that is the case, then while we obviously cannot verify this without delving into personal anecdotes, I must say that your position here is factually incorrect. I know, because I personally have taken over a handful (3-4, I think) CD positions that were advertised in the forum *specifically because* they were advertised in the forum; I was *not* looking to join a CD position via the Open tab, and just happened upon the advertisement in the forum. And furthermore, I'm certain that if you polled others you would find similar results; perhaps not from y'all (as I can only assume you wouldn't make that argument when your own actions contradict it!), but from other site users, especially those active on the forum, who (at least per findings on webDiplomacy) tend to be more dedicated to their games than those who do not use the forum. By targeting forum users via ads, you are pulling from a pool which is more committed to the community (by way of engaging people personally) and thus has added pressure to finish the jobs for which they sign up. I wouldn't cite this fact as a particularly crucial point in favor of ads, but it is there.

"* Uhmm... yes and no. Mainly no. Because if there were no advertisements, the games would start anyway. People would just check the "New" page and choose the one they think it's the best for them. Am I missing anything? If no, the point of advertisements must be another. Any clue?"

The point is that the assumption you make regarding people just checking the New/Open tabs just doesn't hold, or at least those of us arguing for the legitimacy of ads say it doesn't. I just mentioned my own anecdote earlier in this post, and as I said there, I am certain I'm not alone. Sure, for those who are *seeking to join* a CD position, ads may be redundant - I'm iffy on that, but would not mind just assuming that for sake of discussion, noting that it's not necessarily the case. But again, I don't think they cause harm, the ads; and for those who are *not seeking to join* a CD position, it does matter. People can just stumble on an ad in the forum for a game they wouldn't otherwise have checked out, and decide to play it. That would undeniably be a good thing, but you would not have it happen without the ad. And yes, like I said, it happens; I've done it.

"Good point. In the whole thread I tried to explain that it hurts more than it helps (if it helps). The same did DL. If we didn't convice you, I'm afraid we'll never agree on this."

I mean... I'm just not seeing the clear-cut argument that proves it's harmful. I continue to see the claim, and some legitimate points about the situation at large, but nothing that decisively connects those points to the question of whether the ads are harmful.

"The point is that while an Ad helps one particular game increasing its chances to start, it damages another unadvertised one decreasing its chances. No? Isn't that what Ads are for: to get more visibility than other games? It's unfair! Why the site should advantage people who have time to sit glued at the computer, already playing 10 games, making ads, bumping them, over those who can't? If you think it's few people, please mind that who doesn't have the time to advertise the games he's in, probably doesn't even have the time to read this thread.
One starting game is not more important than another one!"

I don't think this point holds up. Firstly, like I said before, ads can pull in players who wouldn't have been looking to play otherwise. Thus, the chances of an unadvertised game being filled aren't decreased: the unadvertised game's pool of prospective players is limited only to those who check the Open tab, whereas the advertised game just pulled a player who would not and did not. It's like saying that the chance of Person X finding an apple on the ground decreased because Person Y found an orange on the ground. They're two different fruits, two different players, and the chance of finding one shouldn't affect another.

But more to the point of fairness - how is it unfair? Sure, ceteris paribus, no game is more "worthy" of having someone join compared to another. Our aim should be to fill as many games as possible, not to fill only some games. But the point is that the situation is not ceteris paribus: Person A spent the extra time to get his game advertised, and so has done more work to get his spot filled compared to Person B. Banning advertisements doesn't make it unfair, because it just keeps the playing field level, but it does deprive committed players an extra opportunity to get a CD position filled, and I don't see how that is a good.

Finally, regarding the slippery slope argument ("If we allow them to be advertised, the forum will be FLOODED!!") - that is clearly and demonstrably false. Look at the forum right now. This is what unfettered advertisement looks like. And the forum is by no means flooded. Furthermore, the advertisements probably will drop when implementing the other good ideas posted here. So even without banning the ads, you will see a reduction in advertising. So I don't see how this fear could possibly be actualized.

"If you think I want to deprive you of a natural right, well you may look at it as if was an anti-trust rule. To grant the fun (and the rights) of those who can't advertise the games they're in, you deprive someone of a right that he doesn't really need (because he got already enough fun) and that he's actually abusing it, depriving the others of an equal chance to get their games started.
See... you don't complain of anti-trust rules unless you're a truster [is this the correct word?]"

Actually, as an economics major, I happen to be an expert on the subject of antitrust laws (well, okay, not an expert - Internet joke). Antitrust laws don't exist out of "fairness" to the less-equipped businesses. Antitrust laws exist because monopolies are bad for everyone but the people running them - they distort free markets and drive costs up unnecessarily. They're unduly inefficient.

The analogy, then, does not hold. One, advertising is *more* efficient for getting CD positions filled than no-advertising, because advertising *does* pull in some people who wouldn't otherwise check the Open tab. Two, advertising does not create a monopoly on CD positions being filled by any means. As you and Decima Legio already argued correctly, for those people who check the Open tab, advertising has no effect. So all advertising creates a "monopoly" on are players who would only see advertisements anyway, and wouldn't check the Open tab. Advertising has a "monopoly" on players who can only be serviced via advertising. And that monopoly is not a bad thing, because the monopoly only exists because there is nothing else to service these players, not because the monopoly cut other forms of filling CD spots out of business.

Finally, the monopoly analogy doesn't hold because there is no monopoly on advertising. Anyone can do it, and the cost in terms of time, energy, etc. is negligible (less than a minute of time and a few clicks of the mouse and strokes on the keyboard). Nothing prevents a person from advertising, so it isn't equivalent to a monopoly.

"So:
- never indispensable"

I once again point out that being dispensable is not a bad thing. Furthermore, I have already addressed this point, and my rebuttals were not addressed in kind. In situations like that in the future, I will simply write "AATP," and if I find myself writing "AATP" repeatedly to the same point, I will simply assume there is no counter to my rebuttal and that the objection drops, at which point onward I will ignore the objection.

"- always damaging"

How? AATP.

"- for the (fair) purposes they are believed useful, there are alternative solutions more useful than them "

This is a restatement of "never indispensable," with the addition that ads are somehow less effective. I've pointed out throughout this post how they are *more* effective at getting players than their absence would be.

"- banning them would help solving several other important issues"

Like? AATP.

@Guaroz:
Why should we ban it:
-Reveals anonymity of games (anon games being advertised, 1 or 2 people may announce that they joined, and the game advertiser are all now known to be in the game, meanwhile everyone else is completly anon.

On top of that when its a choose your own country game, you can tell which country the game advertiser is, completly ruining the anonymity of the game.)

Why we shouldn't ban it:
-Convenient
-Easy to locate
-Fills games faster
On logging in you can see recent posts in the forum to the left of the page. Making it instantly grabbing your attention and instantly accessible. Meanwhile to find a new game, you would have to go to the games page, new games page and look through a list of 3 pages.

1/3 of advertisments on the forum (during my brief look) where regarding games that were a few hours a way from expiring and needing a few people to join. The ad brings attention to the game, and it fills just in time (or gets cancelled anyway).

Lastly when there are special rule games, those special rules need to be made clear and the people need to know the rules.

@Guaroz-
"If you think it's few people, please mind that who doesn't have the time to advertise the games he's in, probably doesn't even have the time to read this thread.
One starting game is not more important than another one! " say what now? It literally takes 1-2 minutes to advertise a game unless it is a special rules game. you type the variant, PPSC or WTA, the bet, and post the game link, and sometimes how many more people you need... that's all. then occasionally you bump it up if you haven't reached the requirement yet... if you don't have the 1-2 minutes to do that, you probably don't have the 5-10 minutes to check your games in the first place...
anyways, I think that between mine and PE's and other peoples earlier comments, we have provided sufficient evidence to show that Ads are more helpful than harmful. and banning them is just... silly...

When it comes to site rules and etiquette, me and guaroz normally agree with eachother, this time I disagree with Guaroz, advertising makes sense since it gets people to join games.

Well fasces, most of the "arguments against" you say have been already confuted and, sorry, I won't put them in other words again. So please read them if you didn't or please say what did not conviced you.

A new argument you bring here:
"you would have to go to the games page..."
(Yeah, since we're aware that someone could find it a sisyphic effort, we proposed to move the link on the Mainpage (look Guaro-Devo proposal #3))
" ...and look through a list of 3 pages."
Perfect! Isn't it desirable?
In a few pages you got ALL the informations about ALL the games starting. In 2 minutes you can make an aware and well-thought choice of the game you're going to play for months long. Also, if you get the habit of opening the "New" page, you won't create a duplicate of an existing game on the same Map.
While Ads usually report incomplete informations (because NOBODY does like butterhead does) on 1 or 2, rarely 3 games. So you have to open the thread and then the game link to understand what they're talking about and...
- if you joined, you missed the chance to find a better game on "New"
- If you didn't join because you didn't like the game, you've wasted 40 seconds in which you could check a whole page of the "New" list.

Or, fasces, are you afraid that people would join less games than they do now? :-)

Wait...didn't I already explained all these things? Uhm yes, here are the conclusions:

...the ROOT of ALL these practical problems is that people don't use the "New" and "Open" pages.
This lead to:
1) Not enough CDed countries taken over
2) CDed countries taken over not enough soon
3) People (esp newcomers) not thinking enough on what games they're joining because they don't compare all starting games. A bad choice lead to join games that don't suite RL's needs and this lead to more CDs
4) People making confusion whether a game is Private (owned by the player who set the PW) or Public (owned by all VDip community)
5) People willing to advertise on the Forum the Public games they created. This may not look like a problem but it leads to:
5.1 Threads just repeating what's already written in the "New" and "Open" pages, usually with incomplete/uncorrect informations.
5.2 Threads screwing the Anonymity of games.
5.3 Like in a circle without a way out, more people ignoring the "New" and "Open" pages.
5.4 Forum spammed with lots of basically useless, often damaging threads.
5.5 Unfair different level of Advertising. Why a person that works with computer has the chance of bumping his ads 8 times a day while who plays Diplomacy once a day or even less, at home after dinner, cannot. On the New page they're equally advertised. The same goes for Open: all CDs are bad and must have a chance to be taken over.
6) Duplicate Games. People don't read "New" and don't know which games are already starting. So they go directly to "New_game" and often create a game very similar to one already starting. So 2 similar games will split people interested in that Map/Variant and often none of them starts. It happens more often than you think.

Lastly when there are special rules, the game is Private, so no problem advertising.
No problem for the "live" thread, also.

Proposed actions:
- 2 TOs for 1 CD
- Half bet
- Visible "Open" & "New" link
- No Ads for Public non-live games

Not a big effort to do aside (maybe) the half-bet.


@butter: I've just explained to fasces how you could better use those 2 minutes you need to type an Ad.
"have provided sufficient evidence to show that Ads are more helpful than harmful."
Yes, if you like to believe it.

However, all this remind me what they say about my grand-grand father: he made a point of honor to have never ridden anything else than a horse. He owned a horse-drawn coach. He died in 1938 and, although rather rich, never get on board a car, a plane, a train...even a bike!
He said: "It's all pointless! people rode horses for ten thousands years or more... those machines are just... silly!"

I rode my first horse ten years ago. Very funny experience. It was the last time also.
Avertisements are like horses: we don't need them anymore, aside when we set some special rule to our lives (eg, a vacation in a country resort with horses).

I think you forgot this, Guaroz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ-uV72pQKI