If your level of thinking is actually on the level what it seems to be on this thread then all I can say that good riddance.

That's not nice Ramsu.

While I think Tomahaha is wrong about removing options (seriously, make everything an option. If something happens to be more effective for cheaters, good riddance because then there are less cheaters in the games you do feel like playing), I still don't like people not feeling home, even if it's just a stupid site.

Something that was brought up earlier but perhaps overlooked is another option. Is there a way to have players choose a top 3, and then assign countries based on that? There would have to be a disclaimer that not everyone will get a country they picked, but it's something I've seen with some PBEM games I've played.

That could be done by a mod sendric. I've offered many times to becomes that person if needed, especially for SRGs and Tournaments.

Doesn't really solve the 'problem', though it is a nice option. The cheaters would just pick the same 3 countries like Germany, England and France or something like that.

I still think cheating is just as easy with random assignment though.

Steephie - and that's when the mod would notice that 3 people picked the same "top 3", and would investigate. They'd be being watched asap. Also, the mod could always just not give them one of their top 3.

And I still think you're wrong.

World map. You and I decide to cheat. Random distribution gives us central states and central Asia. Bam. Cheating chance completely ruined. In CYOC, that wouldn't happen.

On a larger map, you are right, drano. On a smaller map, even randomized countries wouldn't necessarily preclude the possibility of this type of cheating. It just makes it slightly harder.

drano: you're thinking in the wrong order.

You and I decide to cheat. We don't take a big map, so not world map. Random distribution gives us 2 countries close to eachother, because there simply are no distant countries, if there were, we wouldn't have picked the map after all.

Bam. Cheating. In CYOC, we'd still be 2 countries close to eachother.

My point: if you decide to cheat, you decide to not pick world map.

So we agree then that CYOC makes cheating easier on big maps? And that it doesn't matter on small maps?

Doesn't that prove the point that it should be removed as an option and only done by mods? I mean, if it makes cheating easier AT ALL (and we seem to agree it will on big maps), it shouldn't be an option.

Steephie - maybe YOU wouldn't pick big maps, but you never know. You can't speak for the cheaters because you arent a cheater .

In would actually argue that cheaters SHOULD pick big maps because its harder to pick cheating out when it might just be an alliance. Far easier to hide it.

"Old Fart" ...damn, the truth hurts!
"Good riddance" ...yep, great attitude for those who disagree and actually care about things, either accept the way things are and refuse to change or be gone with you! heck, I'm glad I will not be missed!

Ignore ramsu tom. He's got 35 missed phases out of 220 and only 111 messages sent in the 5 press games with large number of people that he has finished. Clearly he's not concerned with being a quality Diplomacy player.

Well yes, I have missed phases, as I had something better to do with my life, for example studying for my matriculation exams, so I quit internet totally for that time period and thus missed my phases.

This isn't my first Diplomacy site either, and I am new to this site, and prefer gunboats. Both of you show too much of "If A, then B, and only B" thinking.

A) If said option is available, it makes this site full of cheaters.
lolwut?
B) He has X ammount of missed phases out of Y and only Z messages sent in the Ä games..... so therefor he is not /concerned with being a quality Diplomacy player/.
Total: 9 games on this site. Of which many I joined to get my ranking back up, meaning the games were in their last stages, or the country was already dying. Case in point the layered game I joined.

Removing the option is bad way to deal with cheaters, as it makes literally (aggravating a bit) 0 difference for them to cheat. And if you are concerned about cheating in those games don't join them? If nobody joins, there is no game, thus no cheating. If we have said option we'll have more diversity in the games we can play.

Nowhere did any of us say this option created cheaters, what we said was it simply made cheating EASIER. Would you like to crack down on cheating or make it easier for them to continue to do so? And remember, early negotiating before the game is full IS CHEATING, then you have a slew of cheaters here in those option games. Please don't try and tell me nobody contacts others before the game is full, most I have talked to don't even think this is considered cheating!

I've been doing some thinking on what you and others have said Tomahaha.

The precedent right now that I believe should be upheld is the right to play your game how you want to play it, without hindering how someone else wants to play it. I'm going to try to use a theoretical example here:

If player A wants to play a game where he wants to eliminate the potential for cheating as much as possible, he should choose settings that follow that line.

If player B wants to play a game that he wants a specific start, he should choose settings that follow that line, understanding that the potential for cheating is increased.

@Tomahaha: I agree with the statement that CYOC has higher potential for cheating than a randomized game, but with that said, I do not think its right for you to limit other players options because you think there may be a chance for cheating. Overall, I think the amount of cheaters on this site is relatively small (note that I did not say non-existent). So the likelihood that you are going to seriously run into this problem is probably slim. But I will agree to the point that even a slim possibility of cheating is still a possibility of cheating.

@Everyone: To that end, we must find a solution that allows everyone to be happy as much as possible. In this case, I believe the one who must make the sacrifice is the player who is afraid of the cheaters (I use the word afraid for lack of a better word, no offense is intended). In this sacrifice, if the player wants to avoid the potential for cheating, then he or she must refrain from using the option. By demanding it be removed, you are taking away from those who use the feature honestly and without cheating. That is why it is wrong.

@Tomahaha: Now I know this has been stated before and your response has been, "Well if this feature remains on then it ruins the quality of the site!" To paraphrase another common phrase, I say, "Quality is in the eyes of the player." Your opinion that the site is, to use your words, "amateur" or "low quality" is your opinion only. No one is expected to give a crap about your opinion. Those that do, will, and those that don't will not. I have only ever argued this debate in the defense of those who use the features honestly and with integrity. To continue to argue this point makes you sound like a child throwing a temper tantrum because they aren't getting their way. Personally, I don't think you are a child, so I ask you to put yourself in the shoes of the person who truly uses the CYOC honestly and with integrity. Is it fair to them to remove the feature because someone else is cheating? I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the answer is no. And if you can't agree to that, then I am forced (by your doing) to conclude that you are not debating this subject rationally. Again, I am not trying to be offensive here, but I will stand by the fact that I am trying to prove a point.

You are missing what was said
I suggested some way of assigning powers based on a ranked list. Drano has said he had volunteered to do exactly this. So where is the problem? You do away with early negotiating, you reduce the odds of people trying to set themselves up as neighboring partners, yet people have a real strong chance of playing that power they wanted to try, everyone wins. Yet still people argue about this...they focus on what was not said.

and if a "feature" leads to "some" cheating
Then yes, I would say it should be disallowed even if it meant NO power assignments being chosen.

But again, that is not the case here, we do have a moderator volunteering to take that task on!

It is not the mods job to fix your game for you. That is why that feature is here in the first place.....

My bad, indeed you didn't state so. But the general idea of my posts remain the same. You even said that you can come up with more ideas to let people murder each other than to keep this option available. People have listed reasons to keep it. Now deliver, what are your reasons to allow murdering?

Anyway 10/10, would get caught again.

"quality lies in the eye of the player"
...not true in the least!
*Cheaters are not quality opponents!
*Players that drop out and NMR are not quality opponents
*People who do not negotiate with others and play it on their own are not quality opponents
*People who do not understand the rules are not quality opponents
*People who do not understand the negotiation aspect of the game are not quality opponents

I don't care what the eye of the player thinks, if he encounters these types, it's simply NOT a quality opponent! Are you trying to say we are all the same? There are not several people here on this site that you do not think are very good players? Or do you think we are all the same? That is of course an obvious answer, some are better than others making your claim flat out WRONG

Explain to me how you get to determine who is a quality player? What makes you so much better than all of them?

haha, why reasons to murder?
You see someone who just raped a young girl only 4 years old, you happen to have a gun in your hand. It would be murder to shoot him, after all, he's now finished. I happen to think that a good reason to murder but should it become law?

We could go on and on with such crazy reasons. Those are pretty much what some proponents of this allowance are coming up with!

@Tomahaha- Personally I think you are going about this the entirely wrong way. Calling our site "amateur" and "low quality" just because we have a feature you don't like is quite rude to Oli, who has spent countless hours working on this site for us all to enjoy. We may not be the biggest and best Diplomacy site, but we certainly aren't the worst, and it's certainly far from "low quality" here.

I am going to likely get bashed for this, but I will say again what others have said: If you don't like it, don't play it.

Does CYOC make it easier for cheaters to cheat? Probably, yes. But between our very active and vigilant mod team, and our actually relatively small cheating problem, it is easy to combat this cheating.

@Drano- Yes, the mods COULD do manual shuffling of countries... But with the amount of SRG's played here, that would give the mods even more work to do, taking away the time they could be using, oh I dunno, looking for any of those cheaters you guys are so concerned about. My opinion- take it or leave it

As is, CYOC makes it a lot easier for games to get started. If you keep the CYOC option, the mods work a little harder to watch out for cheating. If you get rid of it, they work a LOT harder and taking care of the constant request for country shuffles in SRG and Tourneys, while focusing a lot less on watching for and catching cheaters.

Explain who a quality opponent is?
You ARE kidding me right?
READ MY LIST, some one who is none of those, he could be a quality player!
But someone who is any on that list, you simply can not call them a quality player now can you! yet someone said it was simply in ones own eye, nope, you can't say you beat a quality field if nobody even understood the game and half dropped out, who's fooling who?

Imagonnalose -

What tom is saying is that there are players that just aren't quality players not matter what. The guy who ignores messages and NMRs is NOT a quality player. Anyone who thinks he is, is just wrong.

Think of it like football. A quarterback who throws 3 interceptions a game is NOT a quality player. It doesn't matter if the 5 year old watching thinks he is. Quality is NOT in the eyes of the beholder.

Butter head -

Did you miss my multiple offers to do the shuffling MYSELF?? I offer my services so that the mods aren't bothered!

There are MANY quality players here. But there are also many poor players and cheaters here. Go to other sites and you find this to not be the case. Honestly some of these "premier" sites are not for me, too cut throat and too competitive. I am only saying there is certainly room for improvement and if you refuse to improve and look the other way, you are doing nobody a favor!