Deadlocked games procedure OPERATIONAL

Official announcements from the creators

Re: Deadlocked games procedure OPERATIONAL

Postby asudevil » 05 Mar 2013, 14:13

Agreed, we aren't talking about someone who is guessing right 5 years in a row to bounce...

But we are talking about an alliance acting as one vs a single player (or different alliance) where after 5 years, clearly the diplomatic chances of shifting alliances aren't changing.
Captain FANG, forum team championships WINNER
Part of the surviving nations of WW4/Haven

Unless I am in the cheater's subforum. 99% of what I say is NOT as a mod.
User avatar
asudevil
Premium Member
 
Posts: 16575
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 02:20
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1351
All-game rating: 1447
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Deadlocked games procedure OPERATIONAL

Postby Petunia » 05 Mar 2013, 18:36

asudevil (emphasis Petunia's) wrote:But we are talking about an alliance acting as one vs a single player (or different alliance) where after 5 years, clearly the diplomatic chances of shifting alliances aren't changing.

I don't think you are. Both Rick and Pedros have maintained that this will only apply in an nv1 situation not an nvm situation (where n and m are both >1) because with more than one power on each side the onus is on the players to resolve the situation, where in the nv1 situation the player on the '1' side can deadlock the game. I have some reservations about that position but overall I think it's correct.

Since I'm here, I disagree with the 'same moves every year for x years' stipulation as well. Too easy to fudge. One can piddle around GoB and Liv, for example, in one of the commonly known stalemate lines with no material effect on the deadlock. Not to mention the possibility of an extraneous unit far behind the front moving back and forth to avoid qualifying for a modkilled game (as it doesn't typically require 17 units to maintain a 17-SC stalemate line). Applying common sense on the part of the mods and reserving action for extreme situations only is the best way to handle this, in my opinion.
Any views expressed prior to Dec 2013 are solely my own and do not represent the site or its administration in any way.
I took a break from the site for a while. I'm back now. Hi.
Platinum Classicist
User avatar
Petunia
 
Posts: 3190
Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 21:57
Location: I'm a dude.
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1583)
All-game rating: (1571)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Deadlocked games procedure OPERATIONAL

Postby Mcc17 » 09 Mar 2013, 20:54

Um, a really weird corner case that seems like it would be accepted by the rules as shown here.

What happens if the ones deadlocking the game are the alliance of two/three, and the one player by himself is fine with the draw?
Mcc17
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 17 Nov 2011, 22:37
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Deadlocked games procedure OPERATIONAL

Postby Petunia » 09 Mar 2013, 21:10

Wait, so there's one player with 17 who wants to draw, and the two/three player alliance holding the other 17 and stopping him from the solo DON'T want the draw?

I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where that's reasonable... But I'm curious!
Any views expressed prior to Dec 2013 are solely my own and do not represent the site or its administration in any way.
I took a break from the site for a while. I'm back now. Hi.
Platinum Classicist
User avatar
Petunia
 
Posts: 3190
Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 21:57
Location: I'm a dude.
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1583)
All-game rating: (1571)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Deadlocked games procedure OPERATIONAL

Postby marsman57 » 12 Mar 2013, 16:51

Petunia wrote:Wait, so there's one player with 17 who wants to draw, and the two/three player alliance holding the other 17 and stopping him from the solo DON'T want the draw?

I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where that's reasonable... But I'm curious!


I don't see a case where the entirety of the two/three player alliance holding the other 17 want to avoid the draw, but I could see two conditions that could lead to this occurring.

1. One player is carrying a grudge against the soloist (maybe they were promised a 2-way draw earlier in the game! :) ) and wants to make the game drag on forever in hopes that he will eventually NMR and collapse.
2. Player A thinks that Player B can be eliminated if Player C makes moves X, Y, and Z without giving the solo to Player D. Player C disagrees or refuses on principle to thin the draw.
marsman57
 
Posts: 1473
Joined: 05 Oct 2009, 21:42
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1118
All-game rating: 1128
Timezone: GMT

Re: Deadlocked games procedure OPERATIONAL

Postby Petunia » 12 Mar 2013, 18:00

Great answers. #2 in particular, assuming a four-way stalemate, makes a ton of sense.
Any views expressed prior to Dec 2013 are solely my own and do not represent the site or its administration in any way.
I took a break from the site for a while. I'm back now. Hi.
Platinum Classicist
User avatar
Petunia
 
Posts: 3190
Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 21:57
Location: I'm a dude.
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1583)
All-game rating: (1571)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Deadlocked games procedure OPERATIONAL

Postby marsman57 » 12 Mar 2013, 18:47

By the way, slightly off-topic, but the other day I was in a situation where the potential soloist was the one demanding that we cull the draw by one player before he would accept indicating he could stalemate us forever. I boldly said we could also stalemate him forever before we would cull (in reality, I would have been willing to cull, but it had to be on my time and the soloist was being a jerk about it). He, whether because of reading these principles or just in a desire to clear the game from his docket, proposed the 4-way draw. That same round, one of my allies (not the one he wanted culled) NMRed and the would-be soloist gained an advantage he might have exploited to get the solo. Luckily, there are no "takesies backsies" on draws, so the NMRing ally quickly accepted during the retreat and the game ended in probably the most satisfying 4-way draw I've ever been in.
marsman57
 
Posts: 1473
Joined: 05 Oct 2009, 21:42
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1118
All-game rating: 1128
Timezone: GMT

Re: Deadlocked games procedure OPERATIONAL

Postby WHSeward » 18 Apr 2013, 20:30

This procedure is a good idea. Just having it should be enough to discourage waiting for the other side to NMR in a stalemate.

rick.leeds wrote:However, some members believe the process should be much longer - that a true deadlock can't be evidenced in just five years. Some members don't believe we should be taking any action over this at all.


The views that rick.leeds is identifying with some members are extreme minority opinions in the hobby. Postal GMs and PBEM judges both typically use a 3-year clock in stalemated positions as the signal to force a game to end. Having no method at all is unheard of in my experience. Of course both postal and judge formats have GMs so I understand why Mods would want fewer games going to them so using the longer five-year rule makes sense.

That said, some of these conditions do seem a little too extreme.

rick.leeds wrote:2. There must be no more than FOUR players active in the game. This is, of course, for a 7-player game; if the game had less than 7-players (eg, AM) then the number of players will be modified (AM - no more than 3 active players). This is because, if there are any more than this number of players, the game has too much room for change.
3. The game must feature a potential soloist and an alliance preventing the solo. A 2v2 alliance structure will not be considered as, again, there is room for movement within that structure.


While most stalemates are going meet these conditions, they are not typically required in the hobby. Again I get that the Mods don't want to be burdened, but still, conditions 4(a), (b), (c), & (d) should really be all that is necessary to assure a Mod that a real deadlock has arrived. If a player wants to convince a Mod that he intends to stab his ally then Mod doesn't have to act. Requiring draw culling to have a process to end a stalemated game on the other hand, is not the norm and leaves an a bit of a loophole in these procedures.

I don't know if/when this will ever be re-examined, but if it ever is, I hope consideration will be given to moving to a procedure that is more in the mainstream by eliminating conditions 2 & 3.
"As a general truth, communities prosper and flourish, or droop and decline, in just the degree that they practice or neglect to practice the primary duties of justice and humanity." WHS

A member of the Classicists.

Ask me about mentor games. Send me a PM or post in the Mentoring forum.
User avatar
WHSeward
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 22:16
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1633)
All-game rating: (1647)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Deadlocked games procedure OPERATIONAL

Postby gareth66 » 18 Apr 2013, 21:35

I don't quite understand why we're re-debating this. It was all debated at great length before the announcement about the procedure was made.
User avatar
gareth66
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 18:09
Location: Uk (North Midlands)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1485)
All-game rating: (1638)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Deadlocked games procedure OPERATIONAL

Postby WHSeward » 19 Apr 2013, 00:09

gareth66 wrote:I don't quite understand why we're re-debating this. It was all debated at great length before the announcement about the procedure was made.


I am sorry I don't mean to be "re-debating" anything. I am new here and what discussion I can find on this topic happened just two weeks after I joined and long before I waded into the Forum. (I can tell there was still more discussion before that, but no one linked to any other threads and I haven't bumped into them yet.)

I had read the mid-January discussion before posting and I would point out that at least in that thread, there was no discussion of the points I have raised regarding conditions 2 & 3 being a bit excessive. I do expect it is too late for any immediate change which is why I closed with "if/when this will ever be re-examined..."

One last point. In my short time here I have noticed the PlayDiplomacy community seems approach problems like these in a vacuum and come up with our own unique answer based on the inputs and opinions of the Mods and the (small number of) active participants in the Forum. Sometimes I think that is great and the fresh thinking is good and results in interesting, new approaches. But sometimes I think we might do well to take advantage of the 50+ year history of playing this game remotely either by mail or email and in tournaments. There really aren't too many issues that we face that haven't been encountered before and it might be good to try to keep this site's procedures in the mainstream of the hobby rather than going off an reinventing the wheel.

After reviewing the threads on the deadlocked games issue, I think this is/was one of those times.
"As a general truth, communities prosper and flourish, or droop and decline, in just the degree that they practice or neglect to practice the primary duties of justice and humanity." WHS

A member of the Classicists.

Ask me about mentor games. Send me a PM or post in the Mentoring forum.
User avatar
WHSeward
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 22:16
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1633)
All-game rating: (1647)
Timezone: GMT-8

PreviousNext

Return to Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest