Visible only to registered users who aren't the players themselves, of course.

Exactly. In effect, defeated players already have this capability in a game even though they can no longer influence a game with their moves, except it is mixed in on the global message board. I'd prefer a different message tab, since Global messaging among players is not the same as commentary by outsiders.

I think it should be visible to the players. It would be a bit more fun and sure someone can shout out "watch for that convoy Russia!" But Russia still has to decide if that's what is enemy was going to do and there's always the possibility the player isn't going to do that so it's still just as random. If anything it could confuse Russia.

This new feature should be called "media" since the media reports their opinion and the countries can either act on the accusations or not.

Only games specifically set up with this in mind should make use of something like this. Since that's fairly rare, I think the forum works fine.

I disagree PF - I think commentary on games in the forums separate from the game is too disconnected, and who knows if this would be rare if the feature were enabled. It would be great for training too, to have experienced players help newbies get up to speed, answer in-game questions without concern that it is coming from another player who may have an agenda, etc.

Have it be optional (opt out, though). But hells yea. Ive wanted to do this on SO many games

It also seems like the messaging functionality is largely in place, so this isn't too crazy of an addition - the larger work would probably be making it an option in the game set-up. I'd like to see it where the players themselves can read the "media" comments, but cannot comment themselves there - that's what Global messaging is for. This feature shouldn't be allowed in no-press games or during no-press phases in Rulebook Press games.

I think this is a really good idea. My view is that a feature like this should be a non default option for full press games when the game is created, I think it should be visible to players in the game, the players can "respond" in global messaging.
One question I'd pose is, would it only be an option in a full, or partial press game ? Would it be available for those grubby gunboat style games ?

@Peregrine Falcon, discussion in the forum of an ongoing game is not allowed, though comments that are extremely carefully worded, very limited comments that do not identify the game, players etc are sometimes allowed to be made in the forum.
PS, you stubbornly obtuse blockhead, when will you admit you made a huge mistake by not letting me keep Liverpool in that game, and given your recent comments about allowing different styles of play, then why did you foolishly try to impose your rigid, inflexible standards on me in that game ?

I should clarify that remark, I do not say PF is a stubbornly obtuse blockhead as a statement of fact, I say, it is my opinion that PF played like a stubbornly obtuse blockhead in a particular game

I don't think it can work when press isn't normally allowed (gunboats or Rulebook press no-communication phases). Comments from the peanut gallery could influence a game too much, serving as a possible vehicle for communication that otherwise wouldn't exist. For example, if observers discussed and agreed that the best set of moves for certain players would be to cooperate in a certain way in a gunboat game, that would make those players much more likely to coordinate in that way, where otherwise, they would just be guessing at each other's moves and hoping they independently come to that consensus.

I wanted Lvp back. It's mine. It will always be mine.

As for the actual topic of discussion: MajMitchell, you are actually incorrect. It is against the rules to discuss limited-press games (such as GB and PP) on the forum, but not Full press games. It's generally considered poor taste if unasked for, however. It's for that reason which makes me think it's an unnecessary or even counter-productive setting. While it could be a nice option for Peanut gallery, School of War, or other teaching games, I think the vast majority of games and players would not want to have outsiders injecting their opinion.

And this would be different from discussion in the forums of an ongoing game (which is not allowed in any meaningful form as MM notes) since it would be right there in the game for everyone to see - so it's not like any player has a side communication channel that other players are unaware of, which seems to be the main reason for no forum discussion of ongoing games.

Another option would be the peanut gallery communication is hidden from active players in the game, so as not to influence their moves, but be a great place for spectator commentary - which would be great in tourney games or high stakes games which might garner some observers. To make this work, the peanut gallery comments would only show to logged-in accounts who are not part of the game.

Oooh - and then the players could review the commentary when the game ends, which would be valuable to them to see the critiques associated with their game play after it's done. Sorry - liking my own suggestion even more now.

With this tweak, I'd make the peanut gallery message board part of every game automatically, but default it to be hidden from the active players, so the game creator would need to change the default to make if visible to the active players if they want more of a teaching game or heckling from the crowd to be part of the experience.

@PF in that game when you took on the CD England was Liverpool yours ? NO it was not, and if you want me to help you in a game, then I'd suggest that informing me you will attack a sc that was MINE when you joined and asking for my help and well is just NEVER going to appeal to me in any way, shape or form.

Oops a typo..and asking for my help AS well

& bump, to get this thread above all those countless political "Trump" threads

Credit to Lethologica who basically proposed this early in the thread, and I completely missed his point at the time, but seeing it now.

Bump - just because I'd like to see others weigh in.

I think a messaging option that is invisible to players during play would be a fine idea. It could possibly be made an extension of the 'spectate' feature where spectating gives the right to comment too.

However, to be fair to the players there ought to be a spectator count visible. 'Celebrity' or high-stakes games could attract a lot of viewers - just like in any other 'sport'.

Also, it would be important to apply the usual forum standards re abuse to any messages and so full accountability would be essential.

I want to do this

Bump, cause - c'mon - great feature request, no?

OMG - A feature that would encourage spectating and focusing on the play rather than the oft off topic posts in the forum. That would be ludicrous.

Maybe try an email or comment on the GitHub page. Forum posts are not the ideal way to ask for a new feature.

Hmmm...where do you comment on the GitHub page? Not seeing that here: https://github.com/kestasjk/webDiplomacy
I'll try an email.

Bumpity bump

The mods like the idea, but developers on the site are backed up with important work fixing things that are broken, so it could be a while unless I try to warm up my own creaky coding skills. Maybe....

Bump bump. Sly pups with a great idea.

it really is, although would the people IG be able to see the comments? maybe there could be an option for that when making games "players can see outside commentary/players cannot view outside commentary"

like 2 options instead of just one or the other