You may enjoy gameID=166960

Thanks. I'm spectating.

What is pacifist diplomacy? I've never heard the rules but know the term

threadID=1293904

Huh. That's, interesting. More like a Facebook debate than an actual match though no?

I'm proposing what is technically the same rules as regular diplomacy, but it's more of a role play than a match

I think that sounds interesting, but I'd prefer playing it on vDiplomacy, since it sounds like it would involve much more debate skills than Diplomacy skills.

Not sure I like the idea of "mostly holding", but I'd be into a historical (or possibly present) scenario where "off-board" things (cultural ties, proposed economic deals, etc) will influence how alliances form and war occurs (or doesn't!)

So, as you said, very much like a roleplay. I suppose it could lead to some bullshit, but that tends to happen in a roleplay. You just need a few guidelines at the beginning.

That would be very cool! I had a game going through Craigslist emails, where I was a game master, and passed messages between six players in control of a European super power, in the year 2515. Each nation's former history tied into why there were not meant to like another player, and have two allies. It largely failed because I couldn't keep up with everyone's orders (there were no actual rules. They just said, "I wanna try X" and I decided if it worked.

In this game forming now however, I would hope that it would go one of a few ways:

in theory, it would start with debating modern issues, and each player's beliefs on it would shape allies and enemies, in a "might makes right" debate form.

Or, you take on the character of the ambassador you are. Example, me being a 22 YO white boy in Texas, given the country of India, would act Hindu in the games and respond to debates as a Hindu would. (This may just wind up being more racist than anything though)

Or, something like, "every player agrees moving at all is an act of aggression at all other characters" ... Then "United states proclaims they want all territory actually held by the modern United States... This is debated. US either wins or loses in a global chat vote." Finally, "something happens, and one country invades another. This causes all other nations to either watch, attack another nation, or help the first war." ...

I like the second idea best. Representing your nation's interests is the thing I had in mind.

Well, join the game. See if we can make this work

I'm in. But I'm against the holding every time.

It should be public press only.

Why not do an AH RP in classic?

Well, joining and not following the ground rules would either ruin the game, or add a "barbarian factor"

Why not do what?

Here, Kingcyrus

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=166960#gamePanel

Spectate that

How about "only Russia can move; everyone else must send one strongly worded letter to Russia per turn"?

That could be a Russian tactic? I guess. I don't think it would turn out well for Russia

The United Nations was largely created in the interest of keeping members safe from each other, by the policy of, "if you go to war, the rest of us will go to war against you."

This game is meant to start with that sort of treaty already in effect

I'd rather us have a historical scenario, when diplomacy wasn't so pussyish.

Well this just got awkward.

Hah, did multiple people just leave the game? Was he multying on a game that is played by his own rules?

Fairly confident he was trying to double dip in his United Nations ;)

I, for one, think Ludwig Van should be commended. Cheating in a UN variant is about as true to real life as one could get.

Guess he takes his roleplaying seriously.

So are we still going to do this?

Not sure if this UN type idea is a concept people were really interested in or if it was just one multi, but you guys might find the "Formal Diplomacy" variant interesting. It has a UN like flavor.
http://diplom.org/Zine/S2005M/Birsan/Formal_Diplomacy.html

If this is happening, can someone looking after the game email [email protected] with the expectations for the rules, please? This is important, as it sets everyones expectations for moderator intervention (if any), and avoids (too much) post-game argument.

From http://webdiplomacy.net/rules.php:

"this email should include participants, pause agreements (if any), end game requirements (if any), and alteration to press rules (if any)."

We should have a FIFA variant where cheating is both allowed and encouraged.

can we have a game where every single player gets banned world game i like it lol

Isn't that just an average world map game, 2WL?

(Disclaimar: No. Cheating is not allowed in world games or anywhere else).

What if we had a game master who had a thread and introduced scenarios?

Is one of the rules "no cheating" ?
It is, oh well that's Ludwig done and dusted.

Oh its a simulacrum of the UN
So it's don't get caught cheating.
That's Ludwig done and dusted

Or is it, don't get caught cheating without powerful allies to bail you out.
Crikey, Ludwig's a three strike loser

I make absolutely no suggestion that anyone cheating on this site can dodge the consequences of such actions.
I am super impressed with the efforts made by those running this site to keep the show honest

Maybe if the Mighty Mods were running the UN it would work a great deal better than it does. Or, depressingly, not work at all.

Because you couldn't get enough honest people to have a quorum

@2ndwbiteline
Your FIFA comment forgot the "well rewarded" to go with the allowed and encouraged.

Hey folks! Only three more players needed! It should be a lot of fun! Come on and join!