Btw, I have played on those automated judges--and I'm in a new one now--hate them.

Why? First of all, some have an interface that is about as user-friendly as the original DOS.

Second, the probability of communication is much lower than at Redscape.

Third, there is no personality--it's like growing a child in a test tube instead of actually having one grow. Okay, that might be a stupid analogy, but the games are sterile.

SLOTerp wrote:Slappy used Phpbb to design his Monkey Cage site. He may know something about it. Haven't seen him around in ages though (I think his handle changed to Heck Tate).

Is the Monkey Cage still going? Is there a way to get those guys back, or merge somehow? Still miss Min X's posts (well, the shorter ones.) Anyone in touch? For critical mass they would help.

It's been inactive for some time (last post in summer '12). I notice you're registered there George!

You could probably blast an email through there with Slappy's permission though most of the members look to also be registered here anyway.

Steve, that was my impression with the auto-judges as well and it sure seems like gunboat is popular at those sites (maybe that's where gunboat should be played anyway). You can't argue with 50,000 WebDip members and over 3,000 at the newer VDip site, however. I don't know how many are active but If we just get a small percent of them to come play a game or even take a look...

I was inspired to look around the internets for the old reliable diplomacy sites. Much to my surprise, Diplomacy World is still in publication. In fact, there is even an article in the linked issue on the problems with the web-based judges (p.13).

SLOTerp wrote:It's been inactive for some time (last post in summer '12). I notice you're registered there George!

Yes, they invited me, I registered, but I'm too old to change my habits and I never posted or went back after that one visit. Besides I'm used to all of your avatars. I wouldn't recognize anybody.

Well, you are right, Tom. There is no reason to overhaul the system, itself, I think. The issues are mostly cosmetic, except for managing/removing the linkage and authentication with Otto. All of my programming experience is in VB, I'm afraid.

I do recall that there were questions from GMs about not knowing how to start games and forums after Chad switched over to the new site. How about it, Neal/Brad. Can GMs have permissions that will enable them to start up games and manage forums? I'm hoping those issues are easily resolved.

My suggestions:

(1) Get rid of the old games. It makes the site look dead when there are games from two years ago.

(2) People love tournaments. The PG tournaments that ran for ten years was great (I think was one of the reasons there were so many members at one time); Bobby's gunboat tournament was great. A large-scale variant game might be good.You get a tournament that drives 50 people to the site and they see something they like, they might stay. People like to win tournaments. Another gunboat tournaments with 49 players similar to GM Bobby's or a fast diplomacy tournament with 49 players and two rounds might get people interested.

(3) If possible I think game openings should be able to be immediately seen, not stuck in new forum game assignments.

(4) Have a point system and rank people based on performance. Diplomacy players tend to have a bit of an ego...

Right now, the site is dead as far as games. If someone visited this site and was looking to play diplomacy, well, they probably would just go to another site. I'm ok with things--I've got my politics and I've now got fantasy baseball again. But games would drive higher membership that would ensure the site keeps going.

georgeatkins wrote:I do recall that there were questions from GMs about not knowing how to start games and forums after Chad switched over to the new site. How about it, Neal/Brad. Can GMs have permissions that will enable them to start up games and manage forums? I'm hoping those issues are easily resolved.

Christine was able to set up my game forum last year (Embassy Sweets), post Brad/Neal takeover. She probably knows as much as anybody about board mechanics so hopefully she'll stay on to help.

Odd, I thought for sure I posted here this afternoon. Hmmm...
Anyway, I also believe that most of the "changes" should only have to be cosmetic (look and feel stuff). There may be a bit of work unhooking Otto and maybe updating account authentication, I'm thinking. One other thing that comes to mind is somethat that GMs were concerned about after Chad's redesign, which was the ability to start games, create game folders and add player permissions to the game folders. Is this still an issue?

George, you've lost it. Not only did you post, but I quoted your post.

Yeah, I should clean my glasses. It all went to page 2 and I forgot to look! Sorry, dudes!

freeman2 wrote:My suggestions:

(1) Get rid of the old games. It makes the site look dead when there are games from two years ago.

That's a great idea. And you're right. I look at all of the old posts and think I'm on the WayBack site! :(

freeman2 wrote:(2) People love tournaments. The PG tournaments that ran for ten years was great (I think was one of the reasons there were so many members at one time); Bobby's gunboat tournament was great. A large-small variant game might be good.You get a tournament that drives 50 people to the site and they see something they like, they might stay. People like to win tournaments. Another gunboat tournaments with 49 players similar to GM Bobby's or a fast diplomacy tournament with 49 players and two rounds might get people interested.

A tournament would be a good way to try and get a lot of people back in one fell swoop. So new players would not feel ambushed, we could have a flighted tournament of self-declared newbies and everybody else. It won't prevent sandbagging, but it would at least present the notion of fair play and openness. I also suggest a non-team tournament. Teams just get way too complicated to manage and judge. I know we have had teams before and I'm sure we will again, but I think an individual tourney would be more direct, easier to run and perhaps less prone to some aspects of so-called meta-gaming.

freeman2 wrote:(3) If possible I think game openings should be able to be immediately seen, not stuck in new forum game assignments.

You are referring to new games proposed, but not yet running, I presume. Well, I think that could work as long as we put the open games under their own section, separate from the active games, of course. As they fill up and go active, they move to their regular place in the active games section.

freeman2 wrote:(4) Have a point system and rank people based on performance. Diplomacy players tend to have a bit of an ego...

Boy, we've been around the block several times on this one. I can't remember how many different methodologies we've either analyzed or tried out. Still, you are correct. We all like to have a measure of our success, and some kind of performance-based ranking would be good. And expected, I believe. One of the methods I don't particularly care for on the judge sites is the "equal points to survivors" approach to gaining points. This leads to lots of games that start and end quickly, so all survivors can share in the redistribution of points. So draws do not become a reality when you are stonewalled or fighting to stop a solo;; they simply become a tactic for point inflation.

Good ideas, Freeman. Keep 'em coming!

SLOTerp wrote:George, you've lost it. Not only did you post, but I quoted your post.

Really? I have no memory of that. BTW, I sent a note to MinX with a link to this thread hoping to entice him back at least so that he could tell us his take and maybe even join in a conversation or two.

I'm for archiving, not deleting games. Especially if someone's going to be writing about tactics, it often stems from a game that you want to reference.

geojanes wrote:

SLOTerp wrote:George, you've lost it. Not only did you post, but I quoted your post.

Really? I have no memory of that. BTW, I sent a note to MinX with a link to this thread hoping to entice him back at least so that he could tell us his take and maybe even join in a conversation or two.

That was addressed to George Atkins.