This site doesn't seem to oppose "team" play.

Rules for playing on and using the site.
Forum rules
This section of the Forum is for the Site's rules.
If you have a question about how to play the game, please post in the RULES section of the Forum, not here. The site's rules for standard Dip do not substantially differ from published rules.

Re: This site doesn't seem to oppose "team" play.

Postby TheCraw » 17 Mar 2014, 19:52

Palin wrote:PPE: TheCraw just got me... and I had given the same name :(

We could call it a "Borg-Account", or a "Hive-Mind"?
Very clever, Mr. Smart...
User avatar
TheCraw
 
Posts: 17269
Joined: 05 Dec 2008, 23:39
Location: lurking, baby.... lurking.
Class: Shropshire slasher
All-game rating: 1,000,000
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: This site doesn't seem to oppose "team" play.

Postby nfowler562 » 17 Mar 2014, 19:54

Wouldn't this be similar to using this own sites resources or resources from another site to determine what to do next...that would be like hundreds of people playing as one player.
the short list is "who's not cheating"
nfowler562
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 26 Jan 2014, 05:20
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1015)
All-game rating: (1019)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: This site doesn't seem to oppose "team" play.

Postby TheCraw » 17 Mar 2014, 19:57

nfowler562 wrote:Wouldn't this be similar to using this own sites resources or resources from another site to determine what to do next...that would be like hundreds of people playing as one player.

Not sure I follow that?
Very clever, Mr. Smart...
User avatar
TheCraw
 
Posts: 17269
Joined: 05 Dec 2008, 23:39
Location: lurking, baby.... lurking.
Class: Shropshire slasher
All-game rating: 1,000,000
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: This site doesn't seem to oppose "team" play.

Postby Palin » 17 Mar 2014, 20:01

TheCraw wrote:
Palin wrote:PPE: TheCraw just got me... and I had given the same name :(

We could call it a "Borg-Account", or a "Hive-Mind"?


"Borg-Account" for the win!
Sooner or later the man who wears two faces forgets which one is real... and thus a stabbing occurs!

Gold member of the Classicists
User avatar
Palin
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: 21 Nov 2010, 02:16
Location: Kifissia, Athens, Greece
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (886)
All-game rating: (800)
Timezone: GMT+2

Re: This site doesn't seem to oppose "team" play.

Postby Tarakashka » 17 Mar 2014, 20:03

Well, no advantage of course, but if you consider that in the real world most of the decisions are made by a committee of some sort, I think it shouldn't be against the rules entirely...

in fact I was thinking of the model that would allow a game of each country operated by more than one person and having a forum and election every say 2 years within citizens of the country of course...
Tarakashka
Premium Member
 
Posts: 54
Joined: 08 Jan 2009, 12:35
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1183
All-game rating: 1527
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: This site doesn't seem to oppose "team" play.

Postby numberwang1 » 17 Mar 2014, 20:41

Twitch Plays Diplomacy?

I think itd be a disadvantage, there's only so much thinking you can do for one nation tactically on one turn and having multiple players on one account could screw with your diplomacy.
Platinum Member of the Classicists
User avatar
numberwang1
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 08 Dec 2013, 01:04
Location: chicago
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1187)
All-game rating: (1329)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: This site doesn't seem to oppose "team" play.

Postby rhyker » 17 Mar 2014, 20:43

I understand the original poster's concern about wanting it to be one on one. However, it would be almost impossible to enforce a rule against "team" play. By its nature all the "team" communication would happen outside the game. How would you know who is playing as a "team" and who is playing "solo"? With Multi-accounting or Metagaming you at least have in-game communication (or lack thereof) and coordination in-game to indicate something fishy. I guess you could track IP addresses, but that would be fairly easy to get around, and add a lot more for the moderators to do.

Furthermore, I'm sure plenty of people have coworkers or friends or just people they know who also play Diplomacy. They may occasionally talk with their fellow players about current games, (without meta-gaming). While discussing a current game is not allowed in the Forum (for perfectly legitimate reasons), by banning "team" play you would effectively be banning any discussion of a current Diplomacy game outside of a game. That would be no fun. Now, a casual discussion with your friend about diplomacy would suddenly be cheating.

In addition, would using other resources online be against the rules? There are plenty of sites with articles discussing strategies and tactics; how to negotiate, how to deceive, how to effectively stab your erstwhile ally in the back or avoid the back-stab. This adds a whole new level of complication to any rule trying to "ban" team play.

In the end I think a ban of "team" play would only create more work for the moderators, do nothing to help the game, and might even hurt it.
rhyker
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 00:30
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1255)
All-game rating: (1262)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: This site doesn't seem to oppose "team" play.

Postby McGiles » 17 Mar 2014, 21:06

Tarakashka wrote:in fact I was thinking of the model that would allow a game of each country operated by more than one person and having a forum and election every say 2 years within citizens of the country of course...


I think that could be a fun forum variant. 3 people per country (total 21), then they all discuss and "vote" on what the orders should be. If everyone submits orders, then each unit would do what the majority of orders told it to do, with any ties ending in hold orders (literal civil disorder). The more organized teams would do well while unorganized teams could have a fleet ordered to move, support, and convoy all at once (resulting in a civil disorder hold).
There are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand hexadecimal, and F the rest...
User avatar
McGiles
 
Posts: 168
Joined: 01 Jan 2014, 01:58
Location: Behind You!
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (943)
All-game rating: (1074)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: This site doesn't seem to oppose "team" play.

Postby diploguy » 18 Mar 2014, 04:02

Well it doesn't seem to concern anyone. That's fine.

I guess I approach this from a Chess background. It's very unethical to be consulting a chess computer or other players prior to submitting your next move. This also is almost impossible to govern but that doesn't prevent the ethic to exist. I just feel gaming should be individual intelligence against another's. I mean if you were playing a face-to-face game against someone and an expert walked by and your opponent asked him for advice on what he should do... well I doubt you'd be all that happy about it. If this site doesn't care to make that a formal rule I'll live with it. It's too good of a place to play Diplomacy for that to be a deal breaker.
diploguy
 
Posts: 144
Joined: 07 Nov 2011, 03:45
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1114)
All-game rating: (1110)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: This site doesn't seem to oppose "team" play.

Postby TheCraw » 18 Mar 2014, 05:27

For what it's worth, I agree with you diploguy, as far as the moves go, but remember, Diplomacy is a lot about negotiating, "reading" the other players, and guessing. Can't get that consulting a computer. (and making your plans "by committee" has NEVER worked, in my opinion, so it may hamper an account more than help it)

The problem remains that restricting it would be unenforceable.
Very clever, Mr. Smart...
User avatar
TheCraw
 
Posts: 17269
Joined: 05 Dec 2008, 23:39
Location: lurking, baby.... lurking.
Class: Shropshire slasher
All-game rating: 1,000,000
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Rules for Fair Play and Fair Use

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests