How many would I need to take over? How much does each take over boost it? My RR drop was caused by circumstances outside my control I can and will explain that to anyone interested.

http://www.vdiplomacy.com/reliability.php?userID=1346

Perhaps this would be a good time to ask a question that has been bugging me: what is an unbalanced CD? I presume CD is Civil Disorder, but what makes it unbalanced?

I see. I will make this more clear in the description. If you got a CD in your stats you can balance this by taking an open position in an ongoing game.

Unbalanced CDs are the number of your CDs minus the number of your “Take over”.
(Unbalanced CDs can be zero or more, not negative)

Provided that you have some Unbalanced CDs, if you take over a CD position this gives you a 10% or RR boost.
This is because taking over some other CD positions is considered in general a good service to the community, while leaving a country in CD is exactly the opposite and gives you a -10% RR penalty.

It seems to me that leaving a nation in CD does considerably more damage to the games and the community than taking over a position in CD does it a boon. Would it not be a good policy to have that restoring your RR took twice the number of good deeds to rectify each dirty deed? I think that would provide further incentive not to CD, and put folks on the path to redemption in a much more credible status. It also accounts for the fact that you can pick and choose your games to do good deeds, which might only include 1-2 turns, but many games are left with multiple turns of a ruined nation by players abandoning games. I'm not suggesting that we attempt to quantify the damage done, but it is important to note that the damage done to a game from a CD is considerable, and in my view not repairable by a one game stand-in.

2 takeovers needed for 1 CD inflicted?

The ratio, if any, is hard to quantify anyway ...

At least two. Otherwise there's very little incentive to stop players from CDing. We see it all the time when a player that wrecked games a few months ago returns and finds his RR rating in the nether regions, making it impossible for him to join games. His first thinking is 'Let's see I screwed up three games by abandoning them so I need three takeovers to play in a game with those folks I screwed over ago. How can I get this done by Thursday?' He then looks for the three weakest positions in the available games rosters and intentionally gets himself beaten so that he can restore his RR (by Thursday). I'm not advocating a lifetime ban, but I think that it ought to be a little more difficult to prove yourself "reliable" again.

The system has worked pretty well so far, many games with CDd players get filled because of the 1:1 ratio in their RRatings. I see your point, but what about those players who - for whatever reason - have to deal with issues that don't revolve around the hobby of diplomacy? We want to remain fair to those who have to deal with real life issues, and by forcing these players to play 2 (most likely unrepairable positions) to gain their RRating back seems a bit harsh.

Is a better solution available, apart from bombarding the moderators with requests to fix RRatings?

THERE everyone. I have a 97% NOW we can talk high stakes.

My solution would not be inflicting defeats on your record for positions you take over!

Everyone has to deal with RL issues that revolve around things other than Diplomacy. Most of us manage to do that without screwing up the games we play in. You say, "We want to make it fair..." That's great. You want to make it fair for the players that came in here and played irresponsibly and disrespectfully, and then immediately credit these players with the same reliability ratings of players that have never put a nation into CD. That's fair?

It's mindboggling that you or any other of the moderator thing that a 2 for 1 ratio of takeovers to abandonments is harsh. What exactly is the point of the RR system then?

Let's look at the cat who started this thread. Grand Admiral Thrawn reappears here looking to start a high stakes Dip game, but it is noted that he has a very low RR at the time (it was 40 just a day or two ago). Today it's 90. If you can screw up a game that players invest months playing, and pop up again and make it all go away in 2 days, why even bother having a rating system? My proposal of a two repairs for each mess up, would have taken the Grand Admiral an extra two or three days? Is it unfair to ask players to play responsibly for a whole week before restoring their rating to the levels of those who have played for years without ever doing this? Where does fair even begin to enter the equation here? How is this fair to the majority of us who manage the ups and downs of real life without screwing up games here.

I"m with Ruff on this one. The fact that Grand Admiral Thrawn was able to boost his RR from 40 to over 90 in UNDER 24 hours is just mind boggling. And based on the way stats are calculated, there's not even a record anymore of the previous situation. IIRC, if you CD in a game, and your nation ends up being defeated (which is extremely common as people fight over the carcass of the CDed nation), you get a "defeat" instead of a "resign". Then, if you take over a lost cause and lose right away, it's as if you never CDed!!

Part of the solution IMO would be to keep permanent records of CDs. If you CD, no matter if you get defeated, or whatever happens in that game, it stays on YOUR record as a CD. That way, even if you repair your RR by taking over other games, people can still look at your number of CDs to see how many times you've screwed a game over. You better believe that people with 10 CDs and a 90+ RR would be looked at differently than someone with 1 CD and a 90+ RR or 0 CDs and a 90+ RR.

@ RUFFHAUS 8 : I fully agree with you +1

@ drano019 : yes, before seeing your message, I wanted to propose exactly as you did that a trace of CDs should be kept forever +1

As it is now, the statistic called "unbalanced CDs" is totally worthless. As a matter of fact, I never take it into account : I only look at the number of missed Phases, even though it is not enough because it doesn't tell anything about the real number of CDs.

Keeping a PERMANENT record of previous CDs : that is a statistic that would be VERY useful !

Retillion and Ruffhaus aggreeing = mind blown.

You all raise a very good point. I actually agree with you both, though I did have no control over my CDs. They were not due to negligence, but rather I was incapacitated.

So are you trying to start, ahem, a Game of Thrawn's?

Perhaps that was my intention? Haha!

Were you incapacitated for all 33 missed phases? How many games was that? How can you have so many missed phases, and yet only one resign?

I agree with RUFFHAUS and drano. Its hard to find a good high pot game on this web site; so I'm disappointed that I won't be joining it.

“Resigned” or “Left” takes into account only the games that you have abandoned, no one else has taken over and your previous country doesn’t get entirely conquered.
As far as I know, “Resigned” games stat is a heritage from Webdiplomacy.
Unfortunately, “Resigned” games stat takes into account only a small part of your actual CDs; it is indeed a permanent record of CDs, but it’s incomplete.

It is quite a worthless stat, I agree. As same as it is the “Unbalanced CDs” the way it is defined.

Would anyone be interested in the game though? The 150 point bet game?

I would, depending on the players though...btw, do you really want to spend nearly all of your D points on one game?

Yes. Because I can always get more if I lose.

I dislike that way of thinking, sorry...

I'm open to play a... 69 bet game does it sound good?

Oh, you frakker. I see what you did there! The subtlety of that.

I'm potentially interested.

And 150 works for me.

Good. That makes the list

1. Grand Admiral Thrawn
2. Steephie22