Interesting proposal, YCHTT, shame could work as a deterrent, although for some people even the RR is not a deterrent.
However, what we want is to understand the causes underlying these problems:
Why don't you usually take over CDed Countries? Why almost nobody does it? Why, even when they do it, the thing is almost never immediate?
so that, when we think we have found all of them, we'll be able to think how to remove them. It's a thing you can't do if, first, you don't perfectly know the problem.
We have found some, listed right above.
Your opinion? Anything to add?

I agree with the issues of the takeovers. First and foremost is the cost of taking over. And I don't just mean points. The hit to ones stats is a big discouragement from taking over CDs in bad positions or even ones in good positions knowing plans are already in place. That said, I took over a 2 or 3 SC nation to be nice in a gunboat recently and turned it into a 6 SC nation to get a survive and, as it was PPSC, I even made a point profit.

Sorry sent to soon...

I would have to say that 3.1 isn't fair. I encourage people not to quit as many do. I take over CDs on occasion (as I'm sure others do), and the mere fact we are having these discussions proves not everyone is to blame. For everyone to be to blame, the site would have to consist of quitters and the complacent who aren't motivated enough to look for the reasons and the solutions.

@Guaroz,
"Thank you for the example, what you meant is much more clear now. And yes it is a valid example but it involves preferences of the people."

- I think it goes beyond preferences. I think PPSC creates an environment and culture that rewards gentlemanly diplomacy, unbreakable alliances, and absolute trust. WTA rewards militant diplomacy, fluid alliances, and trust based on parity. As a result, a take-over player is already on the outside of any potential alliance in a PPSC world.

Yes, PPSC is a preference. But, its impact substantively changes the whole culture on the site. Your items 2, 2.1, and 2.2 are mostly due to pre-established alliances that are unbreakable. If alliances were more fluid the new guy would be given a chance.

@YCHTT
1) Ok
2) Yeah 3.1 is not expressed perfectly. Of course not everyone is to blame. Actually we think that noone is really to blame, since we found many more causes that discourage players TOing CDs. I put 3.1 there as a reminder of what has been said before. Is it a cause? Well, if MORE people TO CD, then there would be LESS games staying in an "Open" status. Right?

@Devo. I'm going to put it in the list if you think it's a cause, because I'm not the one who decides what is a cause and what is not. I guess it'll be a exciting discussion! :-)
I just hope we won't lose sight of the general problem we want to solve. That's why I tried to "filter" it. I'll type just "PPSC": please tell me if you have a better phrase that summarizes your thought.

Just for pleasure of discussion, now.
What you said can be right, especially if you see it from a FtF player's perspective. But since we're talking about causes, my doubts about considering it as a cause are mainly 2:
1) Please look at the example I provided last Thursday. I can make a hundred examples like that one. Shouldn't we consider WTA as a cause as well, then?
2) If so many users like, create, join and play PPSCs (IDK if there's a stat, but I feel that PPSC games could be the majority), then how could be PPSC a cause for users to not TO those games? Users like PPSCs! They look for them!

That's why I said we shouldn't get into preferences. I've heard people saying that gunboats are not real Diplomacy, or that anonymous aren't real Diplomacy, and I've heard this kind of philosophical discussion about almost every single preference you can set as you create a game. Noone is right and noone is wrong, I believe. Just preferences. Not causes, otherwise each preference could be a cause.

PS. 2.1 and 2.2 are not "my" items. Someone else said them. I found them being causes (even agreeable causes, although I don't love them) so I copy/pasted them. I warned there could be some "edit" in order to put them into a summarized cause-form. Then noone objected anything. Until nobody does, I think we should call them "our" items.

Third Recap:

1 - CDed position are not worth the buy-in.
1.1 High profile CD's are too expensive
1.2 If buy in is too high, chances of reward are often slim
1.3 Many of the countries on the open list are either screwed or perceived to be in an untenable position
1.4 The idea of paying to take on someone else's mistakes is rather distasteful.
1.5 The stake is too high with no prospect.
1.6 Too probable to get a survival/defeat status. It wrecks personal stats.

2 - Even good-looking positions are risky because of diplomatic situation you may find.
2.1 Sometimes people don't deal as well with the new guy or won't call off their attacks if they were taking over the undefended centers
2.2 people have conducted a day or more building relationships and plans, would that many people really throw everything away since I took over the CD?
2.3 PPSC

3 - VDip community is not involved.
3.1 Everyone is part of the problem
3.2 People don't even bother to look at take over positions
3.3 Most people simply aren't that dedicated.

4- Psicological side / Lack of incentives
4.1 There is little incentive to pick up games (or for players in the game, to ensure games get picked up) sooner rather than later.
4.2 RR is not an incentive for those who have never missed a turn.
4.3 People forget to look for TO and do it less frequently than they would like.
4.4 There's not enough time for users to realize a CD happened and one more game is Open.

5 - Various impediments
5.1 Players "full up", already playing what they can handle
5.2 A player may hate some of the game settings (Map, Pot-Type, Press Rule etc...)

- - - - -

Did I forget anything?
Is anything not clear (please remember my english sucks)?

Any more causes?
C'mon a little effort everybody! Why people don't join open games?
Anything more about timing?

I'd wait until Sunday evening for more ideas, then we go on. Ok?

____________________________________________
Why don't you usually take over CDed Countries? Why almost nobody does it? Why, even when they do it, the thing is almost never immediate?

To allow for some experimentation you can now set the turns and how many times the NMR-CD-extend-feature should work in the gamecreate.
The default is only 1st turn, and only one extend.

YCHTT hinted at a cause that neither he (nor I when I mentioned it earlier) explicitly stated in "cause only rather than solution" form but that seems to be a key problem.

The anonymity of CDing with little consequence. RR attempts to address part of the issue, but naming the player who just got replaced especially in anon games as YCHTT suggested (and I strongly agree with) points to the fact that often, when a player CD's in anon games from decent positions, and those positions do get taken over (though usually after the game is already impacted), no one knows who was responsible for that high profile CD, and those in the community who care enough can't actively moderate their game creation (should they choose to do so) to avoid playing with that player in games they don't wish to be ruined by high profile CD's. I understand there are sometimes extenuating circumstances from RL that lead to CD's from respectable players, but let's face it, in most of our experience I think we can all agree that these are the exception rather than the rule. Additionally the respectable players who do NMR/CD because of extenuating RL circumstances usually communicate and explain to the community eventually what happened.

Most serial CD-ers don't bother communicating.

@Guaroz,
I assume you mean this example:” In a WTA game, there's no point in TOing a small country if someone else's missing a few SCs to win: you'll have a "defeat" and your bet totally lost... while in a PPSC you could have a "survive" and the chance to gain something or get your bet back....you'd have, averagely, more often something to fight for..”

I cringed when I read this because it sums up the PPSC mentality. Which is… Whatever you do, just protect your points, and if you can get a few extra points, while “causing” the dominant player to win, that’s even better. The WTA mentality is STOP THE WIN at all costs.

While it is true that there are plenty of people on this site that will take over a country with the “Protect your points reasoning”, it is ultimately a losing proposition:
The buy in is a bad deal. (Applies to both WTA & PPSC)
The upside potential is worse for PPSC than WTA. (PPSC play for a few extra SC’s, WTA play for draw.)
The game position is often below average. (Applies to both WTA & PPSC)
And most importantly, the diplomatic climate is stacked against them. (The two dominant PPSC players will want their SC’s. In WTA, the second dominant player will want their allegiance to force a draw.)

My point is that PPSC is a mind-set that is in this site. It is likely here to stay, but it makes taking over less attractive. BTW, I was not using this example in comparison to FTF, I was comparing it to the other Judges that I have played on. On the Judges, the mentality is much more WTA… PPSC is not even an option.

In regards to your second question regarding PPSC being more common in game creation. Yes, but all the negatives are neutral at game creation; they are not neutral at take over.

Haha yes! Sometimes I hoped nobody would have TOed it just to know, as the Anon ends, who the hell was the user who CDed! IDK if it's a "key problem" but it's surely a good point. Gonna add it in next Recap. Is "The anonymity of CDing with little consequence." a good summary for you? And... which section?

- - - -

@Devonian. Yes but, aside the unsolvable philosophic debate about what is more funny (that's why you find both options: you choose what you like the most), and assuming that a certain CD position can't realisticly play for the win, I'm saying that in WTA you can only play for one result: the draw. So in WTA if you don't see a good chance to draw you won't take over. While in PPSC you can either play for the draw (that usually means more points) or for what they call "a good survive" or even to just give it a try if you believe that in the worst case you'll have some of your points back and a survive (not a defeat) in your stats. You may not like it, but the same position has much more chances to be taken over in a PPSC than in a WTA. So I believe that WTA pot-type is a cause more often than PPSC is.

- - - -

Now everybody please consider, IE, Modern II. Am I the only one who noticed that when somoeone asks something like "Help! Please take over this Poland! Very good position!", he's usually an ally of Poland? Or maybe an enemy of the enemy of Poland? Very rarely it's someone not involved in Polish battles...
I mean: If Germany is fighting both Poland and France and Poland CDes, I've never seen a Germany asking for help. Rather often I've seen a France Rarely someone else. And what if nobody does? And why sometimes nobody does?

Could this story hide a cause? none? more than one? Thoughts?

________________
Why don't you usually take over CDed Countries? Why almost nobody does it? Why, even when they do it, the thing is almost never immediate?

i haven't read all yet, no time, but i thought let's add my opinion anyway...
1. i'd say make buy-in for open games half of normal buy-in.
2. get some sort of volunteer-list, and either send automatic or manual messages to players on the list who fit in the criteria (so you would be able to make those, so if you only want to join standard games where the CDing country has 18 SCs you can set such settings...)...
3. make it able to "ban" people out of your own games (only if you create them)
4. let gamemaster send message on global advising pause or something in case of a CD.
5. make an option when creating games to extend phases automatically, i guess this one has been spoken a lot about...

hope it's useful, going to bed now :)

@ Guaroz,
"I'm saying that in WTA you can only play for one result: the draw. So in WTA if you don't see a good chance to draw you won't take over."

- Agreed, but what I am saying is that in WTA a take over is stacked in favor of a draw, as opposed to PPSC where a take over is stacked in favor of defeat (or survive).


"You may not like it, but the same position has much more chances to be taken over in a PPSC than in a WTA. So I believe that WTA pot-type is a cause more often than PPSC is."

- On the Judges, every single game had replacements for CD's. No exceptions! But, the culture and replacement rules were different also. So I am willing to chalk it up to an unsolvable philosophical debate. By the way, I don't really mind PPSC, I have just had to change my mindset.

Devo please help me. I can't find a good translation for "stacked" in my vocabs. It's a key word in that phrase, can you help me? Or rephrase it?

Agreed, but what I am saying is that in WTA a take over is (there is an advantage) in favor of a draw, as opposed to PPSC where a take over (has a tendency) in favor of defeat (or survive).

I would like to point out another problem with CD's, I have often seen a position where on player in an alliance CD's and is then taken over by another player. I have noticed problems can occur for the player that didn't CD as they may lose an ally or have that ally turn on them thereby messing up any plans they had.

Agreed as well. Could we mix our statements and say that there's not much difference taking over the same position whether in WTA or in PPSC? :)

That would probably be a fair assessment.

@steephie22: This works already (somehow). If you mute a player he can't join your games (and you can't join his games).

If a player takes over a CD it will now send a message to global, so everybody knows there is a new player in the game. In an anon game it will show the name of the player that got replaced too.

@Oli- you are a miracle worker! this will come in handy!

The new mod-forum and the resolved issues with the Pirates-variant really helped a lot. I was totally busy with keeping the site running and the people happy. Now I have much more time to implement some features.

Yay! Can I get part of the honour for this option? :)

The combination for the block/mute was in effect the last 6 month (but not everybody knew this). By accident I discovered that the MuteUser feature is really easy to duplicate for a block feature.

@ all: we go on with the 3rd Recap. This doesn't mean that is someone finds a further cause we can't add it later.
@Leif & YCHTT: Good news: Oli solved the last cause you proposed. "In an anon game it will show the name of the player that got replaced too. " So no need to add it anymore.
@Devo: what should we do with 2.3?

I think 2.3 can be removed.

It can be debated (by weaker minds), that PPSC is better for finding replacements. :)

And, even if I successfully prove that WTA is the better, there are enough people who prefer PPSC. The best part of this game is that everyone has different reasons to play.

I'd discuss one group of causes per time, starting from:

1 - CDed position are not worth the buy-in.
1.1 High profile CD's are too expensive
1.2 If buy in is too high, chances of reward are often slim
1.3 Many of the countries on the open list are either screwed or perceived to be in an untenable position
1.4 The idea of paying to take on someone else's mistakes is rather distasteful.
1.5 The stake is too high with no prospect.
1.6 Too probable to get a survival/defeat status. It wrecks personal stats.

and, of course, starting from "curative solutions": those that remove a cause.
Only if we think we haven't found solutions that completely remove the causes in question we'll look for "palliative solutions".

So, does anyone propose a "curative solution"?

___________________________________
- We're now discussing -
Players don't usually take over CDs because:
1 - CDed position are not worth the buy-in.
How do we remove this cause?

@Devo eheheh...lol :)

I think the best solution would be to make the take over cost nothing. The player who abandoned, paid the entry price, messed it up, and now someone has to pick up where he left off. Making it half price only fixes it halfway, but I think zero buy in is best.

A problem with this solution is that many people look at "D" points as a relative measure of skill. Allowing reduced buy in, messes this up. Since, someone could theoretically only do take overs, lose 90%, and if they play enough games, they could have the most "D" points. A secondary skill rating system would be nice if this were done. (this would be nice anyway, since "D" points are not a very good system for gauging skill.)

What criteria would constitute <skill points>,..