@DL : LOL! :-)
@PE: sorry, I don't have the time to type a long fake reply like you did with me. This is my last post on this thread.
In case you're really willing to get my vision to solve the main issues on this site, just re-read carefully this thread from the start. There's nothing more to add. And try to use a bit of imagination, my advice.
In any of all the other cases, just please stop kidding me. Thank you.

Oh look, you're back to insulting again. I'll take that as a concession.

Alright, so Guaroz obviously has no answers to my objections. I think the issue has been resolved, unless Decima or others want to sound off.

This is not the game "the last one who posts is right/wins", PE.
And honestly, I missed your solution, unless it's just "everything is ok this way".

The operation that Guaroz asks you to do is:
"imagine a v-dip website clear from standard games forum ads.
In this fictitious website long-time players are used to choose which game they want to join only through the search page. (You can already set any kind of filter to find or create what you want).
This way anyone joins what fits him the best.
New users are teached to do the same."

I did it, and I see no drawbacks.

Welp, forum crashed while I was posting. tl;dr:

(1) You're both incredibly insulting. Cut that out, I asked nicely multiple times already and apologized for my own missteps.
(2) You both haven't responded to my objections, so I'm going to assume you can't prove your case that ads should be banned.
(3) My solution has always been "implement the suggestions put forth by Devonian and Guaroz, but don't ban ads, because ads do help."

(1)
Relax, you don’t want to imagine me insulting you. There’s a difference among “insult” and “discuss”. Either you can’t tell this difference or your insult-discuss border line is set too low in order to carry on a discussion. I invite you to raise it up.
(2)
Your objections are based on the current situation. You are used to think with the “constraint” of the current way-to-do. Reading from your posts it doesn’t seem you want to move from that point of view (you won’t take this as an insult, I hope). We’re talking about a v-dip site where the users’ habit is changed. Users are all educated-and-used to observe the “new”, “open” and “search” page. The tools are already here and they are enough. As Guaroz said, “you can make an aware and well-thought choice of the game you're going to play” through those pages. No more people creating duplicates, no more anon-games screwed, more space for interesting topics on the forum, no game unfairly made more visible than another one, no need to hand-guide the others, everyone is put in the condition not to be influenced by advertisement and to make the right choice for himself.
(3)
Glad we agree on those 3 . About the 4th, in the assumption that we are in the condition mentioned above… ads are in the best hypothesis redundant.

The only thing we still need is education. This kind of habit change involves hundreds of users. It will take some weeks to be effective.
Unless you may want to tell me that this “deprivation” of your freedom-rights should be unacceptable.

"Relax, you don’t want to imagine me insulting you. There’s a difference among “insult” and “discuss”. Either you can’t tell this difference or your insult-discuss border line is set too low in order to carry on a discussion. I invite you to raise it up."

Condescending crap like "This is not the game "the last one who posts is right/wins", PE" is insulting, yes. Guaroz stopped replying to my points and implied I lacked imagination and forward thinking instead. I said that because he did so, he clearly had no reasonable objections left, and that unless you or others wanted to sound off, the discussion should be considered resolved, as he was no longer discussing anything. Then you come in all high-and-mighty and act like I'm just trying to score some points on the Internet, and considering you still haven't replied to the objections I can only assume you still think I'm doing so.

"Your objections are based on the current situation. You are used to think with the “constraint” of the current way-to-do. Reading from your posts it doesn’t seem you want to move from that point of view (you won’t take this as an insult, I hope). We’re talking about a v-dip site where the users’ habit is changed. Users are all educated-and-used to observe the “new”, “open” and “search” page. The tools are already here and they are enough. As Guaroz said, “you can make an aware and well-thought choice of the game you're going to play” through those pages."

I'm not unable to see new ideas. My point is that your new vision for the site and your policies are disconnected. As I've pointed out repeatedly, advertisements *do* help - they catch the attention of people who aren't looking for the games in question but would be interested in playing the positions, and match up those interested parties with those games. Large games and CD positions routinely get filled only because of advertisements, because people who *weren't* looking for them see them elsewhere and decide they want to play. Your and Guaroz's entire "vision" is predicated on the assumption that people only join games because they consciously meant to find a large game or CD position and looked for it on the registry (thereby making ads redundant). That assumption is false.

"As Guaroz said, “you can make an aware and well-thought choice of the game you're going to play” through those pages."

But *that's the whole point.* A *choice* to go look for the game. That *necessarily implies they were looking for the game.* That *isn't always the case.* The assumption does not hold, and the associated arguments must find new basis or fall.

"No more people creating duplicates"

Duplicate what, games or ads?

"no more anon-games screwed"

We've gone over that solution so many times I've lost count. Screwed anon games are not a necessary condition of advertisements; objection doesn't stand.

"more space for interesting topics on the forum"

Like what? The forum isn't short on space and yet we have very few discussions period, interesting or otherwise. Advertisements aren't crowding out interesting discussion; the fact is that there just isn't very much interesting discussion, on virtue of not having discussion at all. The last thread on the first page is from 5 days ago. Removing all advertisements, your last thread on the first page would be from a few weeks ago. There's no discussion being crowded out.

"no game unfairly made more visible than another one"

I've already answered this point multiple times. There's nothing "unfair" about someone doing something to make his/her game more visible that literally everyone else can do.

"no need to hand-guide the others"

What does this mean? People don't use advertisements because they're too incompetent to check the page...

"everyone is put in the condition not to be influenced by advertisement and to make the right choice for himself"

We're not talking about McDonald's advertising here. You're really selling the vdiplomacy population short by implying they can't think for themselves right now and just blindly run to the first advertised game on the forum.

"ads are in the best hypothesis redundant."

No, they aren't, and as long as you guys continue to assert this statement falsely and without responding to my point on it, you'll continue to miss the entire point of why advertisements ought be kept.

"The only thing we still need is education. This kind of habit change involves hundreds of users. It will take some weeks to be effective.
Unless you may want to tell me that this “deprivation” of your freedom-rights should be unacceptable."

Well, on principle, you don't ban things without a reason for banning them. This reason has yet to be supplied. So in that sense sure, it's unacceptable.

... ♪ it's easy if you try ♫...

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3ozd5b/

In response to that:
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3ozme8/

going to be completely honest, I never was a John Lennon fan. I always thought Paul McCartney and Wings were ten times better than the Beatles :p

Well, better than the Beatles... maybe no. But I like Paul's solo career much more than John's, as well you do. Also George is underestimated: have you ever tried playing bass for "Old Brown Shoe"? Pure pleasure.

Bowing out of a discussion by insulting people without addressing points is bad enough, now you're sidetracking it?

I’ll just ignore the “insults” stuff cause it’s not worth to talk about it.

Since you confirm you refuse to analyse the hypothesis of a different habit of v-dip users I am forced to address your points one by one. As you wish.

a) “ads *do* help”…
The New-Open pages match better the needs of any user. Far more better than any kind of advertisement. The New-Open pages are the complete list, and they are not a non-consultable thousand fields list.
You’re comparing single-product sellers knocking at your house door with going to a supermarket yourself.
In any case ads *might* help NOW, with this current situation and habits, where the forum ads have improperly diverted the attention of a portion of the active users from the New-Open pages. And when they help, they help the advertised game to start/get a position filled while at the same time they decrease the chance to start/get a position filled of any other unadvertised game.

b) “* That *isn't always the case.* ”
If they weren’t looking for a game and they join because of ads… isn’t it what I called “hand-guided choice” ? Did they make the best choice for their own fun/needs?
Probably there was something better-fitting for them in the Complete/Official Lists.

c) “duplicates"
It’s written and explained above, on Guaroz’s posts. There’s already enough text here, I won’t copy and paste.
In any case it’s about the occurrence of *almost* duplicated games; similar pre-games types at the same time.

d) “anon-games screwed"
“We've gone over that solution so many times I've lost count “ True, I could tell the same thing, and I am amazed you still can’t agree to this.
For the last time: I never stated that advertising an anon game is the necessary condition for cheating. I can cheat even outside the website, talking face to face with you about an on-going game’s moves if I am your friend in real life.
I never said Advertisement = cheating.
Nevertheless advertising an anon game increases the potential of cheating. It’s one step towards cheating occurrence. If someone answers the Ad thread and says “I’m in” it’s two steps towards cheating occurrence...

e) "more space for interesting topics on the forum"
Unless you want to tell me that the topics treated in game ads are attractive and exciting…
Removing them will release some space and attention for something more interesting.

f) "no game unfairly made more visible than another one"
Yes, you answered. This does not imply that you convinced nor that you are the owner of the truth (the reason why I wrote "This is not the game "the last one who posts is right/wins", PE" ) .
In this site we have Reliable users, High Ranked users, but we don’t have “special” users. The game I create is NOT more important than yours. Do I have the right to launch a message that reaches the home page of 2000 users? Oh, that’s fantastic for my game, it will probably increase the chance of MY game to start, but in the meanwhile I am eclipsing ALL the others’.
Yes, currently I have this right. But indeed it’s unfair. It’s a bad habit.
If you can't agree with this, well, we just have different visions.

g) "no need to hand-guide the others"
I told more than once this fact (yes, fact, not opinion): 2000 users which don’t ALL share your same opinions-attitudes-habits. Someone might be lazy to check the New-Open pages, someone might be unaware about checking, someone might be unused to check, someone might be like you, someone might be like me...

h) " McDonald's "
See point above.

i) "ads are in the best hypothesis redundant."
Oh, for God’s sake, Eden, if you like to copy and paste do it, but please don’t distort-and-paste.
I wrote: “in the assumption that we are in the condition mentioned above… ads are in the best hypothesis redundant.”
And the condition mentioned above was: Users are all educated-and-used to observe the “new”, “open” and “search” page.

I know you’ll answer this post in a matter of 8 hours, President Eden. And you shall still be defending the “status quo” (blindly in my opinion). If I don’t reply, please do not assume that I don’t have arguments anymore. I will be away for 4 days.

I love how this debate is still going on. It's truly a useless argument on both sides. the fact-of-the-matter is that whether you think they should be banned or not, they won't be. why? because Oli isn't going to ban something as silly as posting ads on the forum. think about it: If he hasn't banned our random stupid spam threads yet, why would he ban something actually dealing with the game? and besides, if he bans Ads, that means no more team games, no more treaties games, no more any special rules games that we make up. and also, how would you even code something like that into the site? you wouldn't. which means Oli and the other mods would have to go through the forums constantly to make sure there is no Ads being posted, which frankly I don't think they have the time or interest to do. so all in all, this is a silly debate that is going nowhere on both sides.

There really isn't a point to discussing the insults. You're continuing to say all kinds of insulting crap even though I ask you repeatedly not to do so.

"Since you confirm you refuse to analyse the hypothesis of a different habit of v-dip users I am forced to address your points one by one. As you wish."

I still don't see a hypothesis to analyze.

"The New-Open pages match better the needs of any user. Far more better than any kind of advertisement. The New-Open pages are the complete list, and they are not a non-consultable thousand fields list.
You’re comparing single-product sellers knocking at your house door with going to a supermarket yourself."

I'm going to need this analogy explained more. I see, vaguely, the comparison, but I don't understand the point, and as I'm interpreting it, it has flaws. As I could very well be misinterpreting, I'm instead asking for further explanation.

"In any case ads *might* help NOW, with this current situation and habits, where the forum ads have improperly diverted the attention of a portion of the active users from the New-Open pages. And when they help, they help the advertised game to start/get a position filled while at the same time they decrease the chance to start/get a position filled of any other unadvertised game."

For the millionth time, no, they don't, not always. For those people who are just perusing the forum, not looking for a game but available to play one, ads provide a way to match those people up to games they wouldn't play even in your perfect world where everyone checks that page every time.

"If they weren’t looking for a game and they join because of ads… isn’t it what I called “hand-guided choice” ? Did they make the best choice for their own fun/needs?
Probably there was something better-fitting for them in the Complete/Official Lists."

Is that for you to decide? No. It's for the person in question to decide. *That* is the ultimate issue at hand here - your side seems unwilling just to allow people to decide for themselves how to utilize advertisements. Your side acts as though it can decide what people want better than the people themselves.

"It’s written and explained above, on Guaroz’s posts. There’s already enough text here, I won’t copy and paste.
In any case it’s about the occurrence of *almost* duplicated games; similar pre-games types at the same time."

Both frequent checking of the New/Open tabs *and* advertisements would *reduce* this occurrence.

"True, I could tell the same thing, and I am amazed you still can’t agree to this.
For the last time: I never stated that advertising an anon game is the necessary condition for cheating. I can cheat even outside the website, talking face to face with you about an on-going game’s moves if I am your friend in real life.
I never said Advertisement = cheating.
Nevertheless advertising an anon game increases the potential of cheating. It’s one step towards cheating occurrence. If someone answers the Ad thread and says “I’m in” it’s two steps towards cheating occurrence..."

No, no, I mean that we've gone over this point countless times, and every time since Devonian posted his suggestion, I've said that I would like his suggestion implemented if possible. Banning anon ads (or limiting semi-anon ads to the game creator, or both) is fine... I don't think it's strictly necessary or even makes sense (though we've gone over it enough), but it's fine.

"Unless you want to tell me that the topics treated in game ads are attractive and exciting…
Removing them will release some space and attention for something more interesting."

I didn't say that at all. I said we *don't* have that activity as it is. And ads aren't blocking it. Ads don't stop people from making useful topics. webDip's forum is ample evidence of that.

"Yes, you answered. This does not imply that you convinced nor that you are the owner of the truth (the reason why I wrote "This is not the game "the last one who posts is right/wins", PE" )"

When I say "I've replied to this plenty of times already," I mean "I've replied to this plenty of times already, and no one has addressed my response." I'm not saying that because I said it last I'm right, I'm saying that because y'all continue to post here, after I posted the response, and *don't* respond to what I say, but *continue to say the same thing to which I already responded*, that I will continue to point you to my objection until it gets answered.

"In this site we have Reliable users, High Ranked users, but we don’t have “special” users. The game I create is NOT more important than yours. Do I have the right to launch a message that reaches the home page of 2000 users? Oh, that’s fantastic for my game, it will probably increase the chance of MY game to start, but in the meanwhile I am eclipsing ALL the others’.
Yes, currently I have this right. But indeed it’s unfair. It’s a bad habit.
If you can't agree with this, well, we just have different visions."

It isn't unfair at all because everyone can post. Honestly, your statement here is analogous to one person out of twenty declining to take a piece of cake, then demanding that we ban cake because not everyone wants cake and those who get cake are being unfair. Take your cake or don't, that choice is yours, but you don't have an argument for saying others' getting cake as well is unfair.

"I told more than once this fact (yes, fact, not opinion): 2000 users which don’t ALL share your same opinions-attitudes-habits. Someone might be lazy to check the New-Open pages, someone might be unaware about checking, someone might be unused to check, someone might be like you, someone might be like me..."

Okay. So why restrict their options? Some people respond to ads better than checking the Open/New tabs. Some people, as I've said repeatedly, aren't even looking for games at all, but end up finding one they otherwise wouldn't, due to advertisements. Your statement here, and previous talk about a "new vision" where everyone checks the tabs all the time, carries with it the normative assumption that only your way, without ads, and only looking at the New/Open tabs, is right. I, and others who've posted, have rejected that assumption. You cannot validate that assumption, or if you can, you haven't yet.

"Oh, for God’s sake, Eden, if you like to copy and paste do it, but please don’t distort-and-paste.
I wrote: “in the assumption that we are in the condition mentioned above… ads are in the best hypothesis redundant.”
And the condition mentioned above was: Users are all educated-and-used to observe the “new”, “open” and “search” page."

Relax, Decima, I made a mistake.

Your condition isn't relevant to my point. People who are conditioned as you state can still be browsing the forums, *not wanting to join the games in question* and thus *not looking at the open or new tabs*, and see an ad, and decide they like that game and want to join it.

Further, you have given no way of bringing about this "education" process.

Further still, all of this is built on the aforementioned - and unvalidated - normative assumption.

"I know you’ll answer this post in a matter of 8 hours, President Eden. And you shall still be defending the “status quo” (blindly in my opinion). If I don’t reply, please do not assume that I don’t have arguments anymore. I will be away for 4 days."

Ending on more unnecessary insults. Nice.

@ butterhead
The discussion has not been about banning ads for special games. All the kind of non-standard games you mentioned and live games should be advertised on forum.
On one thing you're right, though:
the discussion has been too long in comparison to the importance of the argument.
I will quit soon..

@ I-see-insults-everywhere
Somebody taught me that if I am able to remove one component from a system in a way that I don’t affect its functionality… I’ve done a good job.
You think this action would affect the system’s functionality, I do not, furthermore I think it would work better.
You don't see the point to get rid of standard game ads, I don't see the point to keep them.
You believe that ads increase the number of join-clicks/day, I believe not.

Guaroz, I am sorry, I’m not able to give a demonstration that this non-ads-policy would be a better system. If I would, I’d be a fortune-teller and probably I wouldn’t be here.
Perhaps who repeatedly asks me to do that is able to demonstrate that the current system works better than “ours”...?

Anyway, as I said, I am glad we agree on the 3 devo-guaro proposals; let’s recap them:

- 2 TOs for 1 CD
- Half bet >>> on-going discussion on thread=27344 about CD issues
- Visible "Open" & "New" link

I’ll restrict the 4th proposal to what even PE eventually agreed to:
- No forum Ads for Public non-live Anon games