It is because the current rating system places to much weight on CDs and not so much in phases percentage as it used to be. What happens is that usually players play many simultaneous games and when they miss phases or go into cd because of vacations or whatever, they do so at the same time. Thus someone{s rating can swiftly go from A to F, while maintaining a similar percentage of phases missed out of phases played to what they had before.

I think we should invent our own rating system. A school-rating is not a good solution.
(Everything below 60% is F).
The system is very flexible. I can change the ratings on the fly without any problems...

@kaug. What butterhead said. The RR is there to convince people that not to care "unless they are winning" is wrong.

RR is there to make people think twice as they're about to join a game: "Is the phase lenght right for my RL? or is it too fast?" or "How long could it last this game? 10 weeks? Will I have some long vacations within next 10 weeks?" and so on. Experience will teach you what are the games you can join without NMRing. And how many.

CDing because of vacations.
Well, if it's a few days long vacation you should vote for Extend. If the players in that game don't vote it, this is cheating, IMHO.
If it's a vacation longer than 5 days, well, there are 2 cases:
1) YOU KNEW IT BEFOREHAND. This is the most common case when you have a 1 week or longer journey, vacation or something. As you know it, you should stop joining new games that could still be on as you leave. So when you leave you'll have a few (or none) ongoing games and it will be so much easier to find a sitter. If you don't find a sitter, you'll have to ask for a Pause. And if 1 game won't get paused, well, not a big issue: you can easily recover 1 CD. So stopping joining new games makes things easy.
2) YOU KNOW IT LAST-MINUTE. This is the CDers' most favourite excuse. I don't believe it happens that often, but if into your life there are sudden 1 week journeys then YOU should live with it, NOT WE. However you still have to do your best to get you games paused, extended or find a sitter (that is the easier the less games you're playing).

The current rating system doesn't place too much weight on CDs. It places too little on NMRs. That's why some people who play hundreds phases each month feel like they are authorized to miss phases. Missed phases get lost in the Ocean of thousands phases they've played and they get no sanction for their bad behaviour on this site.

I believe there are people here thinking they're playing Tetris or Pac-Man, not Diplomacy.
They think they're playing with their computer, not with other real people.
So they think they can give up any time they like, not they're committed with people.

Those people probably didn't read what their first responsibility is:
"Use common sense and respect other players."
http://www.vdiplomacy.net/rules.php

If you can't find a sitter and you can't pause 3-4 games when you leave and hence you get 3-4 CDs, it's because you were playing too many games. You did not use common sense.

If you join a game although you know you'll soon have to leave for a vacation, you're not respecting other players.

That's what RR is for: to teach respect and common sense to those who don't got it.
You have to put all your effort to avoid NMRs: when you decide to join/not join a new game; when you decide to ask/not ask for a Pause/Extend; when you decide to look/not look for a sitter.

NMRs ruin everyone's fun. To find a way to avoid NMRs is your responsibility. If you can't face it, the RR will do it for you.

Not sure as to what an Unbalanced CD is entirely. However, what I find as an important factor. Is that the ones that start losing, enter their draw in hope others will to. Then leaves, all make the value of a game change. Seems that is usually the difference maker. Ones that are close and can take advantage of the CD'ed player gets advantage over the rest of the board. Making us even have to have a reliability rating and a way to control it so that the competition is equal in every game. Personally, I enter orders and ready them right up to my last unit on the board. It is a honorable thing to do for the competition of the game. I sometimes allow my known and trusted allies to take my centers while I try to hold up a player that never followed through on his words. I am big on the out right lying about your intentions and giving up just because your not winning.

The system and ability to make sure a reliably player can only join is a brilliant idea. However, I do feel that playing to the last piece needs to be added somehow. Also would love to see some form of voting on Trustworthiness, Unsure, or Not Trusted to be able to be voted on (after the game or even during it) for each player to vote on the others that were in the game. That kind of information can lead to a even better game in my opinion. Everyone will not get the Trusted votes. Some will find that they feel a certain player was not honest. However, sometimes game circumstances brings on betrayal that has to be done. So that you still have a chance to survive. Most of us know the difference and would honestly vote that way, I believe. You will have the occasional player take it personal and give you a bad Un-trusted vote, or whatever you want to call it. Then there are the ones eliminated that you never got to work with or even have an opinion on. Those would be the Unsure or what you might call neutral votes.

I know this idea doesn't eliminate the need for the reliability rating we have in place now. However, If one joins a game, doesn't compete, quits, CD's, out right never follows through on his words. This could give everyone a reliability of play, this player brings to the board on a competitive standpoint. All are, or could be also controlled as to rather or not to allow them into a game. With the same basic choices as to who is allowed to join when setting up the game.

For example. If I was in a Classic and started as Austria. Have a player in Turkey with a 75% trust-able, 15% unsure, and a 10 untrustworthy rating compared to an Italy that has a 30% Trust, 20% unsure and a 50 untrustworthy. I would definitely be more willing to trust and work with the Turkey player. Not that it eliminates me from willing to work with Italy (as some of his untrustworthy votes could have been personal vendettas and can be overlooked). However, a more defensive strategy toward Italy would most likely be in my mind if he offered me Peace, NAP, or an alliance.

I know stabbing and misleading is an important part of the game, I get that. However, it can be done with some form of class IMO. Then add in that Untrustworthy players are not just ones that lie or stab, but rather in the face of your peers did not compete to the best of their ability or just gave up and caused a unfair advantage for the non neighboring countries next to them on the board. A kind of Competitiveness rating mixed with honorably system, that a lot of players seem to talk about.

Just some thought of what I would like to see added to our profiles. Information that can help determine what type of player we have in the game. To me if you join a game you should try to play until eliminated. Not just playing if everything is going good. Competition is what I think we all want. Unfair advantages is the most common form of draws, I have found. In the spirit that we join to play and then have to draw because someone quits or wont try. Then it's join another game and try it again. Seems to take up and wastes a lot of time for those of us that truly like to play. Join a 3 day phase game with the full intentions of it taking 3 days and never tries to hurry someone or complains about them wanting to work on there diplomacy with others. I get so tired of players that are in such a hurry. That is what the choosing of joining a 1 day phase compares to a 3 day game give you time. Why join if your wanting it to go faster. You agreed when you clicked the ok to join based on its stated pregame set up. Then as soon as your waiting you start saying Globally how "it should take this long to do this". Guess what not everyone is accessible to internet 24/7 nor do they not discussing plans with others and waiting on replies. To me this comes all back to trust. Did you join? Did you not agree to play? Are you not trying? How is all that fair in a competition standpoint to the rest of us by quitting? Do you join to cause conflict for no reason and then vanish?

I guess in one word I would have to say, "Commitment" rating of how we play and if we play to the end. All in the name of competition to the players that are remaining in the game after your gone.

@Oli:"I think we should invent our own rating system. A school-rating is not a good solution. (Everything below 60% is F)."

I think this rating is good. Perhaps adding the "E" group from 40% to 60%, keeping "F" for 40% or below. But it's a minor issue.

"The system is very flexible. I can change the ratings on the fly without any problems"
Fine. IMO, missed phases have not enough weight. Current formula says 100-(Missed Phases*200/total Phases)? Well, I'd multiply Missed Phases *300 or *400. Or divide Missed Phases by total Games, not total Phases.

The reason why there are so many "A" is not because there are so many reliable players. It's because some players missed 80 phases in 200 games (40%) and he's still an "A"!
Not enough weight on NMRs. This is a major issue.

Then we should help people to not miss turns. The right to have a pause is very limited, now. We should expand it. Cheaters don't vote Extend, and if you ask them why, "I didn't notice someone asked for it" is the answer.

@Guaroz:
Regarding vacations there are two issues.
First of all, many times people just don't vote Extend or Pause. I agree with you that this is poor behavior, but it is what usually happens. Regarding sitters, there is no one willing to take over more than one or two games at a time, and I for one usually have over ten at the same time. I also know plenty other guys have faced the same problem trying to find a sitter.
The 2nd issue is in Gunboat games, where there is not a chance to explain when the pause is needed or when the extend is needed and it is usually just ignored. This is further harmed by those who vote extend cancel pause and draw because they are sick of the game, They should just vote draw and cancel and leave the extend and draw votes for when they are really needed.

Also, I for one try to join long phase games so that I can play the clock when I go away for a short vacation, but when longer vacations are taken (which are indeed planned ahead) or business trips (and they usually happen with short notice), many people here simply refuse to pause or extend for unknown reasons to me. I agree with you that it sucks to play with NMRs, but some people here prefer certain CDs to a pause, and take advantage of it to try and win. All of my missed phases have been due to people not pausing when a longer pause is needed or to not having internet (I live in Venezuela and sometimes the internet is down for as long as a week, because my country sucks in technology).

Either way, I am not defending NMRs or CDs, but just saying that the phases played per phases missed is usually a better indicator of a player's reliability than the current RR letter grade. The letter grade can shift from A+ to F if an emergency occurs, and can also go from F to A+ for a cost of less than 10 diplomacy points. The phases percentage however shows the true grit of players.

When an emergency occurs probably you got more serious real life issues to care about rather than your RR in a game. You can recover it when the emergency is solved.
And I'm tempted to say than whoever has a bad internet connection should not ruin the fun of the great majority of players, joining 10 games at one time and CDing most of them each time internet goes down. Sorry for them, I don't want them out, but they should be responsible and do only what their connection let them do. If "sometimes the internet is down for as long as a week," please join only live games or 10 days phase games. There's no point in joining a game you can't play entirely: this is not Tetris, real people are involved. RR system must do his work.

That said, I agree completely on what you say about pauses and extensions.
You are right, many player don't vote for them: why do they ignore the vote? Do they think it's a smart thing to do? Do they do it to increase their odds to win?
I think it's cheating. They should feel shame.

So we should work on it. People must change his mind about voting Extends. I made my proposal, I hope someone will listen or do a better one.

>>>"Regarding sitters, there is no one willing to take over more than one or two games at a time, and I for one usually have over ten at the same time."
As I already said, as you know you're going to leave you should stop joining new games and pause or extend all you can. It's your responsibility. So, even in the rare case of a sudden departure, you'd find a sitter easier.
But if you often have a sudden departure, why do you play 10 games at one time? Do you want to ruin our fun?
Play less games, play them better. Same effort, more fun, less risks for your RR.

I believe Guaroz is hitting the issue on the head. It comes down to commitment. Thus we are each asked a second time are we sure we want to join this game. That is twice you have committed to playing not only base on Phase length but also to play every phase until the end of your countries demise.

We have to have a standard to verify who is responsible and who is not. The RR is attempting to do that. There are flaws as we all have noticed and is a work in progress. It will get better with the more input from all types of members. Serious ones, newbies, and the occasional visitor that comes and goes as he has time. It is a Responsibility of each individual to only join in game they can commit to and handle playing at one time.

I am not perfect either. I have 3 NMR on my profile. I simply did not delegate my time to all of my games equally and thus the NMR happened. I was involved in some big diplomatic relations in another game. Got busy planning and discussing issues. Ran out of time before work and forgot to check of what games will phase before I get back home. I believe they all happened in a Gunboat game. No messages to check and not realizing at that time that the games on the Right were listed in the order of nearest to phasing. I failed my fellow gamer's in that game. Oh, and it cost me the game for sure. This to me was a prime example of not being as reliable as I thought I was. I have learned a couple things since then. Double check on phasing and rather or not I will have access to a computer by then, and don't join Gunboats. As I like to communicate and since I do so much of it. Games that I have no messages in seem to be looked at last.

This is my responsibility to understand my issues and faults. No one else is to blame but myself. In the eyes of the competition. I failed them as a player along with failing to hold up my end of the agreement when I joined. Yea that busy diplomacy game was running congruent to the NMR'ed game. Still no excuses is acceptable. It falls on me as a fault.

These games are addictive and I love to play also. However, I too sometimes have to catch myself in joining more games then I can play and keep up with. Back to the Responsibility issue at hand. Might be funny but maybe we need a site for Diplomatic Anonymous.

I can remember back when I first started this game in any form. Just a couple years ago. Never played before or even heard of it. Was introduced to it by a friend and fell in love with playing. I too found that I enjoyed it so much that it seemed to slow and thus I join another game to play. Next thing I knew I had no point to join others and had to wait. I figure out that it was the planning and organizing that I enjoyed. Finding a fellow player willing to go alone and working together on a common goal. That is what I enjoyed the most and desired from the game. Once we got started and play commenced as the plans worked out. I wanted to start new ones in other games to see if they too could work out. The desire to play and start up alliances and NAP's was so enticing that I spent my points and was forced to wait.

Then along the way is when I noticed the reliability of others changed the games outcome. How it was unfair to all the other players involved. I even notice the cheating of the ones close to a CD'ed player were always the ones that never though Cancel was the right thing to do. How they all wanted that win and was willing to take advantage of every angle. Some games the players would unite to force him to lose or cancel. In others some others just up and quit. Neither was that much fun and was truly a waste of time. I also notice the complaining of trying to hurry up others to Ready their orders sooner then the designated deadline for phasing had commenced. To me that is a choice we all make when we join. If you want, like, and can reliably play faster 1 day and faster is your best options. However, if you decide to join a 5, 7, or 10 day game. Don't complain, as some player chose to join these games based on the fact they knew they have the time to check back in and when it phases for sure. I mean seriously, if you don't want to wait on them. Don't join. It seems so simple yet others are still doing it. Even in a game I just started with 2 day phases. A WWIV game. Build on the first phase. People complaining that it shouldn't take 2 days to decide what to build. Point is understood we all know this. However, there are other aspects of the game that other players do that do take up the entire time designated at start up. Jobs, internet access, RL, and flat out Diplomacy between nations in a game that is played by many in different time zones. All have there right to wait and make sure they have done all they can and have personally decided on what they want to do. That is why it is set up for slower play.

Guaroz, also mention to me on a personal note that my trust voting would be not useful in Anonymous games. I would like to add to that maybe it is something that could show up on the countries list under the word anonymous. No name just there trustworthiness percentages. That is if we ever go to that type of rating system. That is not what is at issue here. Was just an idea I wanted to throw out there.

@ Oli. I always vote pauses on any game, even on Gunboats, because I believe that if anything goes wrong I can PM you (or a Mod) and say "Hi Oli, this gameID=0000 is stuck since 3 weeks. Can you do anything?"

Am I wrong?

I always put in stand-in orders first thing I log on before any diplomacy, so I don't NMR (unless I completely miss the whole phase).

Yes, I do the same Gobble. :)