From: dyer@rtsg.mot.com (Bill Dyer)
Subject: Re: Some thoughts on changes to the Adjudicator
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:52:25 GMT


In article <1992Nov18.194611.3627@muddcs.claremont.edu> irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith) writes:
>Various folks have suggested policy changes to the judge; here are some
>comments.
>
>More GM control: I agree with Rick's comments about using dedication and
>NOLIST to control a game; however, sometimes folks lose a mail connection
>for a few days, and find their dedication score plummeting. While folks with
>chronically flaky mail feeds probably shouldn't be trying to play games that
>require huge amounts of e-mail communication, even a one-time speeze can
>smash a newcomer's dedication score if said newcomer has signed up for a few
>high-speed games.

I agree with most of this.  However, maybe the way dedication scores are 
calculated needs to be changed.  I don't mind a delay here or there if
someones mail feed goes out.  What I really hate is the players who for
some reason fail to participate fully.  In the game I am currently in,
communicating with some of the players is like pulling teeth.  I know this
would be hard, but I think if all the people who were not really committed
were weeded out, there would be a lot less load on the judge.  How to 
do this?  Well I don't really know.  Another thing I hate is people who
quit the first time they have a minor setback.  It is too easy with the
judge to jump into a game and if things go bad simply quit and jump into 
another game until you finally get into a winning position.  People who 
do this should be prohibited somehow from playing if they do this too
many times.  Again, this should bring the load down.

>
>What I'd prefer is a modification to the game startup procedures, which
>someone suggested recently: rewrite the judge code such that a seventh
>player signing on triggers the judge to send a letter to the moderator,
>rather than starting the game immediately. The moderator would then check
>out the player list, and send a 'start' command to the judge to actually
>start the game. I don't know how hard this would be to code, but I can't
>imagine that it would be too difficult.

YES!  In the game I am currently in, we didn't even know that England had
lost his email access until way into the game.  Of course I made the mistake
of joining an unmoderated game, this probably didn't help.  Anyway, I think
there needs to be some way to check to see if all players are still in when 
the game starts.

>
>Setting a maximum number of concurrent games: I give this idea two thumbs
>down, if implemented as a simple count of games. First, there needs to be
>some way to account for "mercy killings", positions players take over simply
[some stuff deleted]

I agree, if I am in a losing situation in a game, I don't want to quit,
but I would like to have the option to start up in a new game.  I think
if you limit the number or games, you will only encourage players to 
jump ship in bad situations, causing more problems in the long run.
 
>No unmoderated games: Not a bad idea. It's probably a lot easier to find
>replacement players for moderated games, since the moderator can beat the
>bushes looking for players. This would probably reduce the number of games
[More stuff deleted]

Again I agree.  From my limited experience, unmoderated games seem to 
drift along and have big delays due to people dropping out.  With a 
moderator, hopefully these delays would be shorter.  

>
>No press in standard games: I'm not thrilled by this one, but I think it
>would help reduce the load on the judge. I think it's more cool in some ways
>to be able to communicate entirely with players' personae via the judge, but
>it definitely increases the amount of traffic the judge has to deal with.
>Perhaps setting standard games to use no press by default, but allowing the
>GM to allow press if he or she thought it would be appropriate?
>
[even more deletions]

I disagree with this one too.  I like all comunication going through the 
judge.  That way I don't have to remember (or create aliases) for all the
players.  Of course if it was a choice between no press and no judge, I would 
take no press.  

Overall, I think that if traffic on  a judge is a problem, the total number
of games needs to be limited.  At a certain point don't allow any more 
games to be created.  Also, I think if a the judge is set up on a machine
with a little more horsepower, I don't think load will be a problem.  If it
is, more than one judge needs to be set up.  

I would love to set up a judge on my machine at home, but I am limited to 
dial up access that costs per byte and connect charges.  I would also need
to get a second line since I would like to make voice calls once in a while.
So, me setting up a judge for public use is out of the question.  Of course,
I may try to set up a private judge for games among my friends.  It is so 
hard to get people together to play that maybe this would be a good way to 
run things.

I hope that some new judges get set up because I love to play Diplomacy.
I would even be willing to pay a small charge (if I could be fairly sure
I would get a good game) as someone suggested.   I would also be willing
to lend my programming skills to modifications to the judge if needed,
but I can't guarantee  how much time I will be able to commit, I 
already have several other projects going and of course there
is always work :-).

[sig deleted]

Later,

-Bill



-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
|  I am not a .sig, but I play    |Bill Dyer  (708) 632-7081        |
|  one on the net.                | dyer@rtsg.mot.com  (work)       |
|                                 | or p00112@mail.psi.net (home)   |