We all know the Long Long Story idea. I thought we might try it with each person contributing a complete sentence. Perhaps we can still have a funny story that is a bit more coherent. (Plus I'm bored at work)
Like the other story comments are parenthetical. (Like so)

please look at the game "alexander". From Spring 1905 to Autumn 1905 there seems to be a discrepancy. Russia moved his army from Sevastopol to Rumania somehow in one move, it says he moved from the Black sea but that is incorrect because there was nobody there... I'm Turkey by the way

Should they be completely closed to the public, or should they be viewable?

At the moment you can't see any info other than the game's summary, but sometimes people want to view a game being run by others but which is private, eg in tournaments.
Would anyone be against letting everyone see the map in private games, even when they're not a member?

If you have another suggestion it can't include extra game configuration options, I don't want a checkbox saying "Make this private game viewable? [Yes/No]", and it can't include things like having an extra password to view the game.

Since there was interest expressed in the thread for the last no-press game, I've created another.

URL is http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2446 and the password is "nopress".

Remember, by joining this game you agree to no communication about the game with any of the other players.

I had my French army in Wales moving into London with support from my fleet in the English Channel. A clear 2 on 1 with no way to cut support and no way for England to support London.

It was incorrectly adjudicated as a standoff.

Please fix this.

Open to anyone

Gamelistings page does not work for me anymore

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 8388608 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 294913 bytes) in /home/.mio/phpdiplomacy/phpdiplomacy.net/header.php on line 239

I posted something similar in another thread, but this is a request (suggestions) for improved communication within games. The purpose of this functionality would allow communication similar to what could be accomplished in a face-to-face game of Diplomacy.

Requests (Suggestions):
(1) Allow everyone in the game to know which players sent messages to which other players. Perhaps this could be included in the move history section, or a new tab could be added for communication history. The contents of the messages sent between other players would not be known, but a list of who communicated with who would be displayed. For example, if Russia sent a message to France during the Spring 1904 turn, then the following would be displayed: "Spring 1904: Russia sent a message to France". In a face-to-face version of Diplomacy, normally a player could see who was discussing with who, even if the contents of that discussion was unknown.
(2) Allow for messages to be sent to multiple players at the same time. Perhaps add an "inlcude" tab that allows to select additional players to send a message to. When someone receives a message that was also sent to other players, it could include a comment such as "this message also sent to [xxx]", where [xxx] is the list other countries the message were sent to. This would allow for group discussion that includes some countries and excludes others.

The above should be easy to code, don't change any rules of the game, and allow for interaction similar to a face-to-face game. This is different from the Global Chat feature planned for version 0.8.

Do we have a Hall of Shame? If not, I volunteer to help in the creation of one. Known multi-accounters and such would be included in this list after being verified as offenders

Just a quick query, but I think that Finland should be starting as a bright and troubling orange. Makes no difference, I know, but..

Apologies if this has already been pointed out.

2 months of diplomacy and im still hooked with this boardgame. I cant believe this game is not so popular as it SHOULD be.

Of course, diplomacy is not at the same level of GO but i have to admit that phpdiplomacy is my main page and during the day some dip game enter my mind.

this is a great game. His inventor had a flash of light shine upon him when he made this game.

First off; how is the pot split in a draw? Do players each get an equal slice, or do players get a slice depending on how many SCs they have?
If they get an equal slice that would encourage players with more SCs to try and get rid of the smaller players before drawing the game, and make draws more likely to only occur in the event of real stalemates. If they get a slice depending on their SCs that might be considered more fair.

If there was some kind of automated way of voting to draw a game would approval from all players be needed, or would it only need votes from players representing, say, 60% of the supply centers on the board? If it required everyone's vote the larger player might veto the draw vote to try and wait for the other players to get bored with the game and let them win.

If you have other ideas please make sure they're simple and don't require each game to be configured with their own drawing rules

So in one of my games one of the losing players has been intentionally slowing down the game for the past few years. They only log in once every couple of days to avoid going into CD and when they do log in they do not finalize their orders.

I asked him about it, here is a piece of the conversation:
11:22 PM Are you slowing down the game on purpose?
01:21 PM This is my previlege. It's all I have left :P

Aside from poor spelling, does everyone agree with me that this is in bad taste? Or am I in the minority?

I could maybe understand if I had viciously backstabbed the player and this was his only way to retaliate, but that is not the case here.

http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2235

we, almost all players of this game - El_Perro_Artero, Keyseir & me - have agreed on a draw. italy, who is still alive, should not be part of this draw. points should be split between germany, austria & england. italy is only holding 2 SCs and is irrelevant. please fulfill our request dear admin

We request a 3-way draw between wawlam, Gobbledydook and Mythago.
Would the above three players post your confirmation in this post.
Kestas, the game is http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2149
Please create a draw after you've heard from all three of us.

- i mention it on my blog
- in other game sites where i play i mention dip
- to friends
- call your local radio/tv/newspaper and tell them you want an article of diplomacy or you stop promoting them.
- run naked to your local "plaza" with a dip board in your hands
- threaten family and friends to gather 6 more players...or else
- if you are a religious person tell everybody that god plays dip...and is somewhere written in leviticus
- say "please please please...somebody play diplomacy with me"!

tired of negotiations? tired of being back stabbed? well come on in to the no talking no deals game about to start

http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2396
password "nopress"

strictly no chatting to other players. one country left up for grabs.

is it possible to delete my profile? I want to make a new screenname, but they won't let me use the same email address, obv.

this is a serious bug. games are starting with 5 or 6 players! this shouldn't happen. nobody likes to play games with less than 7 players. please fix it. and in the meantime i want my points back!!

Kestas can you arrange a draw for me and my opponent for game Road66
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2063

We both have 17 units and there will be no change in the position so we have agreed to split the points 50/50. Thanks.
My opponent will verify this message.

Currently, the victory condition is based on supply centers (SCs), but the points paid out are based on the number of units.

This way, it is possible that the 2nd place gets more points than the 1st place. (e.g. when the sum of conquered SCs + disbanded units is greater than the number of unoccupied SC in the last year of play)

Please calculate points based on the number of supply centers.

Whenever I click on the link to "Implosion" (gid=2306) all that comes up is a blank screen. I don't know why this is happening; it isn't a problem in any of my other games. I'd like to regain control in this game before I go CD, since I am (or was) in a good position. Does anyone else have this same problem?

If someone updates there moves to a finalizable state but doesn't actually hit finalize when diplomacy phase ends will the updates moves be automatically finalized ? or will the default hold all orders be implemented?
Based on last log in data i have reason to believe its the former, please clarify if this is a bug or feature ?

I've created a private game for some friends, but now they can't find a listing of it anywhere, and so cannot join. How can they join a private game?

"In for a Penny" Bet is 141, no password
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gid=2434

Being new to Diplomacy the game itself i'm gonna post all relevant questions for guys like me here and this could be made into a sticky post later.

Q1) How do i submit my orders and what is the submit code for asking for a convoy?
Q2) If some has neither units nor supply centers what can they do ?
Q3) Why is the Orange party never assigned ?
Q4) Is there someway a newbie can just watch a game and have access to all diplomacy negotiations between players just to understand whats going on,( guess not)
.. More later

register...fast!!

i hope to see you all tomorrow and play this game that soon will become a classic. Now i will prepare because im going to see The Police at concert!!

yes!!!!

Spring 1908, Diplomacy: Your army at Ukraine was attacked by the army at Sevastopol, but your army at Ukraine was supporting an attack against the army at Sevastopol and the army at Sevastopol has no support, so the army at Sevastopol failed.

MOS - SEV
UKR S MOS - SEV
SEV - MOS

MOS - SEV failed - very clearly 2 v 1

So, after a long thread that got nowhere in establishing the best diplomacy player of all time, one last go. Everyone may have one vote, just a single positive vote for your favourite. The votes will be checked through for double voting, or for multiple accounts voting. For anyone who wasn't following, the options are:
Kahn
Bismarck
Alexander
--------
Kahn for me (started with nothing, got loads then when he died it died showing he was the reason it built up)

Khan
Bismarck
Alexander the great

everybody is aloud to vote once and there is a new rule dont give a reason to why the person you are voting for is good but why he is better then the other two. And you give 2 pionts to your fav 1 to your second
first person to 200 wins

I will start by voting for Khan, he united all of mongalia, which is just as good as bismarck uniting germany, he conquered more land with fewer troops than alex the great did and bismarck was never a ruler, alex was an alcholic and died of alchol poising at 32 wich is why he did not conquer as much as khan but that was his fault. i think that is enough reasons on why khan is the greatest of the 3 and alex was greater than bismarck so...

Khan 2
Alex 1
bismarck 0