Tom,

I was simply answering your comment that some players don't seem to know that it is prohibited to negotiate before a game starts.

Anyway, all this conversation seem to be another example of "Freedom vs crime control".

By the way, when talking about freedom and crime control, you wrote :
"I can think of more reasons to allow murder in society than I can to allow this option in Diplomacy." [YOUR EXACT WORDS]
I absolutely disagree with your statement because I find it always wrong to murder (please note that in my native language, self-defense is not murder) a human being, even the worst criminal.

But that's OK Tom : you can have your opinion and I can simply agree that you and I disagree.

@Tomahaha- I opened the table for discussion. I said, why don't we sit here and talk about OTHER options. So I am not saying keep it the same. I am also not saying just outright get rid of the CYOC option. Personally, I think there can be a better way to do a CYOC option without having to worry about having a specific person come in and change countries around, etc. but still cutting down on the ease of cheating. You seem to be of the mindset that since I don't agree with you about getting rid of CYOC, that it means I just want to leave it the same. That is simply not the case. I am, unlike some people, more than happy to discuss with you what can be done to make a feature better. Because I think the feature can be very useful, but do agree that it has it's faults that need to be worked on...

@Someone who knows the webdip code- Would it perhaps be possible to insert code into the CYOC games that automatically make it Anon until after the game begins, and also to remove the pre-game chat in CYOC? or would that be too difficult. I think that would at least get rid of the early negotiation part of the issue, at least with people who didn't already intend to cheat anyways.

@ butterhead :

I think that making CYC games automatically anonymous until the game begins would be a VERY bad idea. Indeed :

- As you know, it is sometimes difficult to gather all the players necessary for a large variant. How would it become possible to invite precise players if we don't know if they are already in the game ?

- I do think that anonymous games make it much more easier for cheaters to cheat.

As far as I am concerned, I like to create password games with players that I invite. That allows me to "select" the players, which gives excellent games. That allows me to enjoy games with players who are almost always good and courteous communicators and who almost never NMR. That is what I call "a quality game".
You know, just like when you invite people at your home in order to play a FTF game.
How would it be possible to create such games if the joining players were anonymous ?

Once again, if you don't like it, don't play it, but please let the other players have the freedom to play as they wish.

There you go again..."don't like it, don't play it"
But when you take that position and that position in fact leads to cheating and fosters a cheating culture, then that smell spreads to ALL games doesn't it? Kind of like how one bad apple can spoil the rest? You take out the bad apple in order to save the rest, you don't simply leave it and ask people to not eat the one. Yes, for a short time it will work but the crap on that bad apple does infect the rest. Same here, to accept any form of cheating and suggest it's no problem, just don't play that type of game is ignoring the root problem. It doesn't work that way and the stink spreads.

I frankly don't understand that suggestion in the least, if it's wrong, if it leads to cheating then it has to be removed not accepted and in fact supported as so many are now doing. We suggested a way around this already, one that would solve the problem and yes it most certainly IS a problem. Yet still many rally around this faulty option and simply don't care about integrity asking to simply look the other way if you find it distasteful and that is just oh-so wrong, and could never be an acceptable answer!

"Let other people play as they wish"
...already proven many are cheating, if they wish to cheat this is ok?
Or maybe just write a little note asking them not to do so.
By the way, nobody has yet stated anything about early game communications. Nobody has ever seen this and nobody wants to admit to doing it? Funny how I already know from several that it is RAMPANT. Yes, most may not have even thought it was considered cheating and they are not cheating on purpose but if they have done so, they got a benefit others did not have and that is cheating and that folks happens a lot here! Not so much willful cheating but a site wide encouragement to do so, this is and can never be acceptable, a mere note is not going to fix something so widely done for so long is it?

Again Tom, please either PM a mod or report to the mods forum (upper right-hand corner called *mods*) your several 'sources' about the rampant cheating that you claim to be occurring.

If you *know* about cheating that has occurred and do not report it then you are facilitating cheating in a far more insidious way than a simple CYOC game option.

I will not tell you something someone has admitted to in private or someone's general suspicions and feelings. I would of course report anyone I suspected! In the one game I am playing all are wonderful guys (except that joker in India).
I "know" cheating in the way of early negotiating is occurring from what these people have said and nobody seems to have a big problem with early negotiating here...it's taking a big back seat with few comments, do you wonder why?

Right well if you refuse to discuss anything, just insisting that you're right and we are all wrong, I am done trying to talk to you.

It's taking a back seat because no one has seen it happen. If all you have to prove it is occurring is hearsay, then why should we bother talking about it? I can understand not wanting to say what other people have told you in private, but you should at least contact them and ask them to back you up on the forum.

If I refuse to "discuss anything"? What the hell have we been speaking of these how many pages? Please do give up on fixing things, your input to date has been nothing of substance. As far as reporting cheating...how can I report cheating I have not experienced. How about everyone here man up and either mention they have experienced early communication in games? Either you have done so yourself and did not know or that others have contacted you before the game started. If nobody admits this, then you are being foolish and helping the site none. If you have experienced it say so, I know it exists and happens often. failure to admit something like this when you know it happens is cheating in it's own way. Admit what you know even if it hurts your position, those who claim early communication simply does not happen...liars every one!

We are not asking for public disclosure of in the general forum - in fact cheating accusations in the forum is strictly frowned upon and not an acceptable tactic. What we are asking for is private disclosure to the mod/admin team so we can investigate and uncover any cheating that may be going on. Until it has been looked into by the mod/admin team then all that can really be said about the claim of 'rampant cheating' is that it is unsubstantiated hearsay.

Tom, you admit that you have no experience on this site, so you can't give evidence that cheating is happening. Given that, how can you claim that you know it exists?

Yes Tom, we would all like to know...

I think Tom has a point.
That chat in pre game can only disadvantage late starters.
You could also flip that when games start that late starters have the first chance to negotiations with everyone and then early joined player may log back and find a game in swing also having missed out.

CYOC is a variant like many others has ups and downs and I have seen starts in many big games with lots of banter, some strategy. The solution must be a lock out period for talk pre game.

@ Strider :

Can you please show us at least one CYC game in which players have used the pre-game chat to discuss strategy ?

If that has ever happened, any other player in the game could have simply asked them to stop it or he could have reported it to the moderators, couldn't he ? So why think about prohibiting pre-game chat ?

I am personally not very much interested by pre-game chat except for one thing : it can help to advertise the game or to give some specific informations like, for example, "This game will not start before December 01.".

Again, that makes me think of players gathering for a FTF game : should they be prohibited to talk before everybody is there ?

I again ask what is better,
to put a note on your car door asking criminals to not rob your car telling them it is illegal.
Or to lock the door!?

as far as your FTF example, perfect!
In a FTF game power assignments are not given until all are at the table. It's done by random draw or agreement among players and if they start negotiating early, YES that is cheating

Why are people so afraid of cheaters? While I don't win every game I play with cheaters, when I do win, the victory is so much more enjoyable....

@ Retillion I have to Mods and suggest they lock player to player chat in CYOC pre game. Public Press may not be a problem as all will see and either shout down or get that locked as well.
@Tomahaha if managed or shut down chat then perhaps you can be happy with a CYOC...

@ Tom :

You shouldn't compare robbing what's inside a car and cheating in a Diplomacy game : analogy is not a perfect tool in rhetoric. It can only work against an uneducated opponent.

However, if you want my answer about your question, here it is : locking the doors of your car does not really make it harder to steal what's in it. Those who steal cars, or what's inside them, can very easily open locked doors. I knew a guy who started working with tow trucks and he was taught - legally of course ! - extremely fast how to open any car.

And even if the thief is untrained to open locked doors, he can always most easily break your window. That is so true that in some countries, or neighbourhoods, people never lock the doors of their car.

@ Strider :

What are you talking about ? There is no player to player chat in CYC pre-game.

I'm not so worried about the chat function. That's all good natured fun stuff. It's simply knowing who your opponents are before the game starts that is the problem. Honestly picking your country is the lesser issue (but yes still a problem) being able to negotiate before a game started is the bigger issue! Take a standard game, You sign up as England, Bob signs up as France, it takes 3 days until you have Germany fill. People here are actually trying to tell me with a straight face that the English and French are not talking while they wait for the game to fill? Once they start talking and working out deals, the German is screwed. Yes, he COULD work things out of course but he is immediately put behind the eight ball and is in a world of hurt. How about this WW4 game that has been trying to fill for about a week now or so? about 2/3 know who is playing what. Nobody will admit it NOW, but do you honestly think every one of those players has not discussed any plans with their neighbors? And even if you think so many people are so honest, why make such a terrible situation available? Game integrity is lost. I'm honestly bewildered at how so many of you see nothing wrong with this. It's encouraging people to cheat and it's an easy fix but by God, nobody better change anything because that's just the way we do things here, what's "right" doesn't matter, it's what we are used to!

@ Tom :

I am the creator of the game you are talking about.
As far as many players in that game are concerned, I know that they will not negotiate before the game begins. I know that they don't want to do that because that would ruin the integrity of the game.
As far as the other players in that game are concerned, I don't know them enough ; there are even some of them that I don't know at all. For these players, I CHOOSE to BELIEVE that they will wait the beginning of the game before negotiating.

You know Tom, I don't want to live in a world in which I suspect that the next person is a liar. Without being naive (I wouldn't trust a stranger for an important matter if I could find a "good" ["good" only in his eyes, of course] reason for which he could betray me), I prefer to think that people are innocent rather than being paranoid and see evil everywhere.

I don't know of any player on here that I play with regularly would negotiate before a game, even if they knew who it was. Usually, only people who are guilty of it themselves are worried about it. Therefore I submit that Tom is a cheater.

Oh wait, I have to post this in the Mod forum.

Retillion is not interested in your concerns, Tom. He's very much interested in the maintaining the ability to choose his "opponents" and where they play, and the CYOC setting allows him to do that. I think that he's made that perfectly clear in his posts here.

This debate has been extremely helpful in that it's exposed yet another game setting that needs to be avoided in open sign up. Absent a tournament or special rules game scenario , there's no reason to create or sign up for a CYOC game, and anyone doing so is exposing themself to potentially underhanded behavior. Clearly some folks do not care about this, and will continue to sign up for games organized this way.

If someone says to another player, "Hey mate, let's go sign up for a new game and try out an England+France alliance," and then creates a CYOC game where he takes England and his 'mate' takes France while the other players yet to come along know nothing about this, it's a form of cheating. Suggestingt hat the moderators can prevent this is simply obtuse. The moderators (except Guaroz of course) cannot possibly monitor everything that is communicated on the site, and why would we want them to? Furthermore the above contracted agreement can clearly take place with out without an onsite communication that moderators could trace, and it could simply be by inference and/or preference.

This is just one of many of the 'always done it this way - even though it's wrong' scenarios here that you're going to have a difficult time convincing folks of staying away from. It would be nice if the moderators could see the concerns and make suggestions for editing the descriptions of the game options in the creation menus. But so far there is major reluctance to call CYOC as specialty setting for unique scenarios, just like there is resistance to describe WTA as a normal setting. There is no rational reason for objection to these suggestions. The only explanation that can be given is that there is no concern for preserving the integrity of the game.

I am arguing with Ruffhaus on another sites forum about beers, Good Lord we hardly ever agree but we are of one mind here! Actually, us agreeing on anything should tell you something!

@ RUFFHAUS 8 :

Please explain us all how creating a CYC game allows someone to choose where his opponents will play.

I can tell you that a CYC game can allow someone to say "I don't like playing with that guy so let me go somewhere else; this guy and the one next to him are really good so I'd better choose another region, etc." Not sure if this kind of analysis is legal/ethical or not.

Or you can do what I do and intentionally choose spots next to players who I believe will give me a diplomatic challenge. Or I choose a country I haven't played before and think looks interesting.

It also brings about cheating accusations. "You chose that country because YOU KNEW you would work with that person." Ugly stuff that can easily be avoided.

That and I always find it fun to see what country I've randomly ended up with. Sort of a fun aspect.

I'll choose either game, but definitely prefer random selection.

Retillion, I'll explain it clearly then since you'll just claim that your English is too weak to understand this (even though you speak better English than most native speakers of the language), but I want you to understand. My use of the word opponents was intentionally written with quotation marks around it to cast an element of sarcasm to it. That's a dig at you, on more than one level. If you need me to be more specific, I certainly can.

However, on a less personal note, opponents can also be described as fellow players which in cases of shenanigans need not be construed as rivals. Also by choosing where you and your mates play, you control where your opponents can not play. This provides an immediate challenge to the integrity of the game.