Skip to main content

The Ethics of Diplomacy - Part 5: Aliases

The online game is full of aliases.  If you join a website to play Diplomacy then you're asked to provide a username.  There's nothing wrong with that although it does, perhaps, take away something from the community of the Dip hobby.


As in most things, there's a history of this in postal Diplomacy and this is usually seen as a way to be anonymous.

With online play, however, it may be possible to change your username.  This might be simply because you realised the name you chose was not a good choice.  For instance, a number of players may use a version of their email address which may not be the best idea.  If you come across someone who is an idiot who thinks it's acceptable to harass players off-site then using your email address could be a mistake.

Sometimes it's realising that the name you chose really does you no favours.  I come across this every day at work.  I deal with younger people who don't necessarily think much about what they should put in an email address.  One address that sticks in my head started with 'fannylane'.  It doesn't really matter whether you're British or American, calling yourself 'fanny' isn't a fantastic idea.  (In this case, there was a reason: Fanny Lane was his address... although an unfortunate one.)

Online, occasionally, you come across usernames which show a similar mentality.  The name is meant as a joke, usually, but the player realises that, actually, it wasn't the greatest idea.  More embarrassing than funny.

Sometimes, though, players simply want to change their usernames as a form of anonymity.  To some extent, this is the reasoning behind usernames.  It allows you to play online without giving out personal details.  Nothing wrong with this, especially as there are a number of people who will use those details for criminal reasons.

However, they want to change the name regularly.  This may be because they've earned some success and are therefore being targeted.  It may be that they're a prominent member of the community and they're experiencing some targeting.

It may be that they've played badly using one name.  They might have been a quitter, one of those people who leave a game at the first sign of a problem.  No resilience.  But they then realise that they're doing themselves no good by acting like this and they resolve to change.  Part of that change might be that they want to change their name.

The question of anonymity is that it can simply cause confusion.  Many sites offer players the option to play anonymously.  You can hide your identity while the games running.  Excellent.  Don't need to change your username then.

Some people think that a player shouldn't be able to hide from their past mistakes.  And, often, while you can change your username, your record goes with you.  This means that, no matter how many times you change your name, you can't escape your record.

On the other hand, how many times do people research the players they're up against?  Changing your username might be enough to hide your infamy.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with being able to change your username, providing that it isn't allowed when you're playing a game (which would be overly confusing for players in the game) and that you're not allowed to change your name too many times.  There are genuine reasons why a player may want to change their name.  Rarely do these reasons need regular changes.


THE ETHICS OF DIPLOMACY series:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tournament Scoring - Part 4: Supply Centre Scoring

The thing with tournaments is that a lot of games end in a draw.  This means that DSS systems aren't necessarily going to produce a great result because a lot of players could well finish on the same score.  An alternative to DSS is a  Supply Centre Scoring  (SCS) system. I'm going to use the game above as an example to explain SCS systems.  (The game is from Playdiplomacy and so the colours are different from those I use for my maps.)  The game ended with the following outcome: England - 12 SCs Russia - 9 SCs Turkey - 8 SCs Italy - 5 SCs France , Germany and Austria-Hungary were eliminated, with 0 SCs each. Supply Centre Scoring systems are based on the number of SCs the players owned at the end of the game.  The basic pattern is: A solo results in all the points available.  No other player scores points. A draw will be scored using the number of SCs the players hold at the end of the game.  In the above game, on ...

WHAT IS DIPLOMACY? - Part 5: Variants

A variant is a game of Diplomacy where the rules or context are different from the standard game as designed by Allan B Calhamer.  There are three types of variants: context variants, map variants and rules variants. Context Variants Context variants are those games that are played with a wider context.  They may be tournament games, other scored games, or remote format  games.  These aren't often recognised as variants as such, as variants tend to be within the other two types discussed below.  But the context the game is being played in will have an impact on how some players will play the game, and so they are certainly a variation of Dip. Maybe they should be called "variations" rather than variants but does it really matter? Map Variants Diplomacy has been adapted to different maps, or boards.  Not surprising as the general idea of the game, pitting competing powers against each other in a localised region and time in history, can be adapte...

Tournament Scoring - Part 1: Tournament Games are Variants

Tournaments have come to be a big part of Diplomacy, whether face-to-face or online.  If you're running a tournament you need to be able to find a winner, and so a scoring system has to be introduced.  In this series of posts I'm going to look at different types of scoring systems and discuss the pros and cons of each one.  And I'll end the series by discussing my own, as yet, prototype system. The first thing to be aware of is that a scoring system will change the way people play the game.  It has to do.  If you're playing and you need to do well then you need to play to the system.  This means that the way the system affects the way Diplomacy is played. Tournament games are already a variant of Dip.  Ideally, they wouldn't be.  Players would be able to play x  number of games and play them as they would any other game.  In FTF play, you'd expect the game to run until they're finished or time runs out.  Online, there should ...