I agree that the forum should be more geared towards Dip, its variations and related matters. Enriador's enthusiasm is to be applauded, though most seem to me a little too 'variant from existing ones to be worth publishing... but at least it's on topic.

And insults are simply bad manners, you dickheads!

Most of the 'screaming' and 'yelling' about ratings systems and unit icons and other such inanities seems to come as reactions to perceived attempts to mess with the status quo, as far as I can tell.

And even with the somewhat... blunt manner with which certain members of the community tend to present their opinions, until the recent flare-up even somewhat heated flare-ups have been (mostly) civil. I would credit this to a general maturity of the people involved; even what insults there are tend to be more directed at opinions rather than people, and don't tend to be misconstrued as being outside the context of the argument.
While this may tend towards contribution levels being self-selecting in favour of people who can handle discussions getting a bit rough, attempting to enforce a different culture in favour of 'inclusiveness' or some other bullshit buzzword is more likely to be counterproductive, driving away valuable contributors for no real benefit.

...but really, the basic point was that even the occasional name calling has not particularly been an issue in the past; if you're looking to consider it one now you're much better off focusing on why this specific instance blew up rather than focusing on a system and culture that has worked absolutely fine other than this one time.

Have a +1 Mouse, balanced, fair even-handed. IMO!

Ref "reactions to perceived attempts to mess with the status quo", I am definitely of the mind that "if it isn't broken don't fix it". Seen too many organizations, community groups, get someone new in to run stuff and the new guy cannot resist trying to change everything... so half the energy gets diverted into the process of change ... governments are inevitably subject to this due to politicians' massive egos and differing political objectives. The result is that a substantial percentage of public expenditure goes into funding change rather than primary activity ...

Has the mute-happy player in question even done the requested unmuting to see this discussion?

>I would like to see a forum where the main discussion always relates directly to the game of Diplomacy<

Couldn't possibly agree more (though the occasional forum game isn't something harmful from my point of view)

>The real problem is when these discussions, especially those about new variants<

I don't mind discussing variants per se, as I believe there's great potential in such debates. To use recent examples, the threads on Crusades 1201 and Edwardian 2nd Edition had excellent feedback and counter-points that can (and likely will) serve to improve the variants' gameplay in the long run.

Small observation: The proposed redraw of Classic's icons do not constitute a variant under most metrics, though it is a visual variation.

> I don't know how we should deal with players who insult each other but also give valuable feedback<

Personally, I absorb the feedback that my eyes have already seem even when it's followed by insult, but given the website's purpose of pleasure over a board game, I prefer to filter constructive feedback from its more destructive forms.

> We must scream and yell about sub-par rating systems and "bad" unit icons.

The Hobby is saddled with attempts at "improving" - or rather, changing - all aspects of it in all ways. It's a historical aspect of the worldwide Diplomacy community, one I don't think will go anywhere.

Ever since 1959 people have been attempting to "mess with the status quo". An example: I recall how Allan Calhamer himself exposed that for many years, Italy and Turkey weren't considered neighbors the way they are now. They were considered more akin to Germany/Austria rather than France/England, yet there came Edi Birsan with the Lepanto shaking up the status quo of accepted wisdom.

Variants blow the status quo even more. Back in the Vienna zine in the 1980s, John Norris presented us with "Milan", a variant with the stated intent of improving balance by giving Italy some teeth. Decades later, Norris' vision of Diplomacy's Northern Italy has found its way into literally *dozens* of variants seeking to improve the game even more, from the widely popular 1900 all the way to Abstraction and Youngstown. And look: 1900, Abstraction and Youngstown all got "improvements" of their own, ready to be enjoyed and played and tested for eternity.

Rating systems are a Pandora's box. The sheer complexity of them, and the nuances between them. are massive, and we have hundreds (really, hundreds) of different rating systems that can be applied to Diplomacy, dozens of these *made for* Diplomacy. Calhamer's own scoring system (which we call WTA) is certainly the most popular, but in the same way as Classic, a map that can be beloved but also provide inspiration for *different experiences*.

And what other grand example you can find of seeking the different, the new, the untried, than vDiplomacy.com? Had people just "shut up" and rested quietly with the status quo at webDip, many of us wouldn't have had the pleasure of meeting each other. I am proud to be part of the vDip community, which was never afraid of confronting change - either for or against it - with curiousity, respect, but above all consideration for the game we all love to play.

>most seem to me a little too 'variant from existing ones to be worth publishing

I can understand and respect that (after all some are variations of existing ones), but I will address the "most" part.

Of the *25* variants I have been working on, *nine* are subvariants. The others have never been seem on vDiplomacy before - and in more than half the cases, were never played anywhere beyond PBEM/PBF. So I argue that "most" of my work is something original, lost in the dark depths of obscure forums.

> I would credit this to a general maturity of the people involved; even what insults there are tend to be more directed at opinions rather than people<

>this may tend towards contribution levels being self-selecting in favour of people who can handle discussions getting a bit rough<

I don't agree with the perspective that people with a reasonable level of "maturity" would use insults in any form or capability, whether at people or opinions.

If you have to resort to say "your point of view is bullshit" you are not arguing with logic, contributing reasonably to a debate or doing anything to nurture and improve good discussion. You would be simply using insult as a feeble shield to hide your own incapacity to separate person from objective.

What you end up having in the end is not "self-selection" of people who can discuss (?), but most often a circlejerk where the *matter at hand* is casually ignored in favor of mindless trading of offenses. We saw an obvious example in the recent thread, the difference being that insult even went past the "opinion" and was mostly targetted at people.

>attempting to enforce a different culture in favour of 'inclusiveness'

I don't understand this argument. Who is attempting to "enforce" what, and how?

>the occasional name calling has not particularly been an issue in the past

I disagree - name calling, under any point in time, is indeed an issue. If no actions were taken to curb unnecessarily hostile behavior in a place where people are supposed to discuss *a game*, then the problem lie elsewhere - but these are past waters.

> I am definitely of the mind that "if it isn't broken don't fix it"

A logical mentality, I must admit. However, as vDiplomacy.com's own history shows, change - and good discussion over such a change - is welcomed and embraced. Those who dislike change should nonetheless have the prerrogative to remain in the status quo e.g. don't play a new variant that you don't like.

P.S.: Thanks to @kaner for encouraging respectful debate while maintaing a neutral posture on personal disputes. I wouldn't expect less of a moderator who has the website's harmony in their mind.

As asked, I shall un-mute the respectful off-topic commenters from the other thread in the hopes that Diplomacy, not Random Internet Stranger X or Y, is the topic of conversation.

">The real problem is when these discussions, especially those about new variants<"

Don't miss quote me please! The sentence finishes: "at least in recent weeks, become too heated." I am not talking about discussing variants, I am talking about 'heated' discussion.

@Enriador, Change and addition are very different. Change (the way I am using it) requires subtraction, whereas addition leaves everything the way it was with some new things added.

In my opinion the status quo can be added to without corrupting it. New variants can be added, and players can choose not to play them. I do not consider adding variants to be changing the status quo. Some of the things you proposed (new icons) would change the status quo.

The point I was trying to make is that variants have always been added, the point system has always been the same, and unit icons have always been the stupid little green tanks. That has always been fine. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

But we aren't here to discuss this. The only way this point relates to the topic is that if we did not argue about such things then there would be no reason for this thread in the first place. I don't want to discuss those issues here. I want to talk about what kind of forum we want to have here on VDip.

Do you have any ideas of your own about that or do you just want to reply to other peoples comments?

>Don't miss quote me<

I wasn't disagreeing (or agreeing) with your overall point, I merely used a relevant section of your sentence to make a related commentary.

>Change and addition are very different. Change (the way I am using it) requires subtraction, whereas addition leaves everything the way it was with some new things added. <

Change may require subtraction, indeed. Like with the Classic icons issue, as the original icons would would have to be "subtracted" to make room for the "additions".

> I do not consider adding variants to be changing the status quo.

I don't think it either. They are, as you defined well, "additions".

>That has always been fine. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

I believe the old icons *do* have defects from a conceptual and historically accurate point of view, and *for me* that's reason enough to change them - and that's ignoring the fact that if this website had improved just what is broken we wouldn't have half the features we do. However:

1) I understand and accept that the conceptual reason (same unit for all powers) is a matter of personal preference, and historical accuracy isn't in everyone's thoughts.

2) No one is forcing anything to change. Proposals are made, ideas on that are exchanged, and that's it. The rest is history.

>I want to talk about what kind of forum we want to have here on VDip<

>Do you have any ideas of your own about that<

l gave some in the post just above yours - I believe we should keep forum discussions focused on Diplomacy (and the usual light-hearted forum games), its variants and tactics, perhaps its lore, and absolutely avoid personal attacks between users.

>do you just want to reply to other peoples comments?<

Of course I do. Why would I ignore elegant, well-meant considerations on the topic?

Jesus Christ! Are we back on the icons? A mod has stated that *you* can't change icons for any variant *you* didn't code. Get off the fucking icon train already! FUCK!

(ᗒ ͟ʖᗕ)

That's about how I feel regarding the ever regurgitated icon drivel, Chumbles.

Enriador - this thread is about forum etiquette, please stay on topic.

Lol ... That didn't take long!

Meh! what are you going to do.... mute? The "Winning" thread is the only one I mute. For some reason it shits me more than Icons and CD notifications in fog of war.

>please stay on topic.<

Oops - didn't realize I was going off-topic merely by directly answering @uber's statements on changes, additions, broken things and status quo. My sincere apologies. Coming back to the topic:

I believe we should keep forum discussions focused on Diplomacy (and the usual light-hearted forum games), its variants and tactics, perhaps its lore, and absolutely avoid personal attacks between users.

Now that I recall about the CD notifications in the other thread, I certainly welcome suggestions on new features as well.

Icons already?
Damn it!!

kaner406 wrote :
"please stay on topic."

Yes, of course. However, I would like to correct one factual error. Indeed, ubercacher16 wrote :
"the point system has always been the same"

That sentence is false. Indeed, some 5 years and a half ago, Oli opened a thread in which he asked about
"Input for an alternate scoring system" : threadID=38097

By the end of that discussion, a new points system was added : the vpoints.
The reason I mention this here and now is because that system has caused many problems, and because, some time in the future, possibly next month, that important question will be brought back. And I wouldn't want that some players believe that "the points system has always been the same", which is false.

Back to the topic.

I think that most of the threads should indeed be related to Diplomacy but I strongly disagree with the idea that we should have "a forum where the main discussion always relates directly to the game of Diplomacy".

For example, a few years ago, RUFFHAUS 8 opened a thread about the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir

That thread became a very interesting conversation with some very strong disagreements. It was fascinating for me to see different persons defend their different ideas with a lot of passion, as is often the case with questions related to History. The discussion was sometimes really heated, but overall I found it great and instructive, even though I have studied History and even though I knew that specific event rather well.


Regarding the nature of the language that should or should not be used in the forum, my opinion is that we should all try to always stay polite. I myself have never used any strong word here at vdip (as far as I know : English is not my native language) and I myself do not like at all rude language in an internet conversation : it is so easy to be a "keyboard warrior" with a loud mouth, while in the real world, reality obliges you to be more respectful.

However, I think that we should not forbid any kind of language. Respect should of course be present in our conversations, but if sometimes a few nasty words appear, then so be it : freedom of speech is by far much more important than politeness.

Finally, on a practical point of view, this forum is not very active. If some rules limit what can be discussed about and how it can be discussed, that will obviously not render this forum more alive.

A minor point on language, Retillion - while you may not use 'rude' words (though really, the classification of those is so damn nebulous; we (Australia) even had a recent court case where calling a political leader "you cunt" was considered acceptable discourse), your tone of conversation can very often be read as quite condescending towards anyone holding views that differ from yours.

For the most part, I have few issues with that, but given the discussion is about general etiquette it's worth raising that tone of communication can be as important, if not more so, than the specific words used. There have definitely been posts on here, by multiple people, that included no 'rude' words, that left me feeling significantly worse than, say, a flat rejection of 'nah, fuck off, your opinions are shit' would have.

Similarly, using 'wall of text' as an arguing method, especially combined with very selective (mis-)quoting, is a very effective manner of suppressing opposition through exhaustion. Is this an acceptable manner of engaging in productive discussion? It does not do anything actively 'rude' or 'untoward', but still seeks to accomplish the same goals.

@Mouse: Stop hitting the nail on the head; it's about broken off...
1. The WOT response gets the enemy to give in - your point is well made, but slightly masks the fact that argument itself is a game... The trouble is it's akin to farting at the games table... the farter wins because the fartees clear off down the pub (unless of course, there's a counter-farter, the game goes on in their noisome thread , the fartees nail the door shut....
2. I also have a tangential point, ref bad language - the INTENT behind language is much more important and bad language can be used humorously or ironically; straight proscription of language is clumsy, inelegant and counterproductive ...

Sorry, folks. I'm a Marine. Son of and brother to two sailors. Salty language is in my blood. Add to it that I'm an old school software engineer (my first job at 16 was slinging code for Mead in Dayton as a coop and my first job out of the active duty was developing while I was in college) and every old school dev knows that profanity is our second language. :-)

I would like to apologize for indirectly cause Enriador to start blabbing about icons.

My B.

Oh, and regarding cursing...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2017/08/28/smarter-people-are-more-likely-to-use-curse-words/amp/

Can we just talk more about farts and going to the pub? Chumbles is on to something......

Calm down. Think soothing thoughts of the ocean... or the pub... or winning on vDip...

Fuck Wolverine. First he rides on my R-rated coattails then the hairy tucker ups the anti and dies. Dick move! Well I'm dying in this one Wolvie!

Stupid phone corrects fucker but not fuck? What the fuck?

>For the most part, I have few issues with that, but given the discussion is about general etiquette it's worth raising that tone of communication can be as important, if not more so, than the specific words used. There have definitely been posts on here, by multiple people, that included no 'rude' words, that left me feeling significantly worse than, say, a flat rejection of 'nah, fuck off, your opinions are shit' would have.

Similarly, using 'wall of text' as an arguing method, especially combined with very selective (mis-)quoting, is a very effective manner of suppressing opposition through exhaustion. Is this an acceptable manner of engaging in productive discussion? It does not do anything actively 'rude' or 'untoward', but still seeks to accomplish the same goals.<

I wholeheartedly agree. Rudeness and offense comes not just from specific words, but *also* from the way seemingly innocuous words are assembled. No matter how someone aims to disrupt or corrupt a conversation, if they attempt to do so they are probably not seeking to contribute to the "productive discussion" you speak of.

>the INTENT behind language is much more important and bad language can be used humorously or ironically<

Obviously. And that's precisely why attention can be brought on these terms, as too often agressive/dismissive behavior is masked by supposedly "humorous" use of bad language.

> straight proscription of language is clumsy, inelegant and counterproductive<

Agreed. We don't exactly need an algorithm to filter certain words - the community is capable of handling bad language to a long extent. The vast majority does not, I believe, get offended by "You fucked up when you stabbed France!" or "This opening is shit". The potentially harmful action from careless randoms is the problem - especially if targetted with the specific purpose to make meaningless confrontations rather than facing and dealing with the issues at hand.

Besides, if you don't want to see someone swearing whatever, you can just mute them and free your eyes from mindless chit-chat - ad aeternum. It takes less than 4 seconds and is free of charge.

>I would like to apologize for indirectly cause Enriador to start blabbing about icons.<

It's fine. =)

Enriador: WOT
Fiona: It TALKS!
Shrek: Yeah, but it's getting him to SHUT UP that's the trick!
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) No offence meant!

@Chumbles, that's the kind of dismissive and meaningless spam that we were talking about.

You presented a (good) point, I replied to your point with another perspective, and rather than answer (as anyone interested in a nice debate would) you make a joke and... leave.

I can understand perfectly why discussions devoid of offense are hard to have (they are!), but if you deem yourself incapable of having one the best course is taking a break. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I disagree that it was meaningless; it conveyed its point quite well as I understand it.