There are two kinds of people Edi, those who think there are two kinds of people and those who don't. Thinking along those lines, there are two kinds of diplomacy: face to face diplomacy and virtual diplomacy, which would include postal play in addition to internet play.
I think the drop out rate might be higher here because this sort of site is attractive to new or casual players (as well as experiened players), whereas the email game might only appeal to experienced players. Not every new player is going to remain in the hobby for long; thus we see a higher drop out rate. That's my theory.

In taxonomy those two types are known as "Lumpers'"and "Splitters."

I'm not really a taxonomist, but I'm definitely a splitter.. So I'd say they're different in so far as it matters.

In terms of playing people over the internet, no difference.

In terms of how those people find each other, and find the game itself.. I think there's a big difference.
As Spyman says, I think a website like this makes it alot easier to find and play the game.. Ease of access broadens the audience, and that can lead to the problems you mention.

A related question for the long time players like Edi:

Is PBEM somehow different than PB(snail)M?

I would differentiate between them.

Sure they are different. If are talking taxonmy, the family is diplomacy, which then splits in two genara: face and virtual. The virtual divides into two sub-genera: postal and internet, and then on down to the species level of the various internet sites, including phpdiplomacy.

I personally don't think the term PBEM fits this website, playing diplomacy by email on the judges is very different than playing here:
- games on the judges require a human gamemaster
- the judge syntax in not trivial and requires an effort to learn
- it takes a while to join games
- a lot more variants are supported
- games take a lot longer

I play both PBEM and here and they are in my experience very different games. I guess for our generation that communication via websites is becoming more and more normal so that this is analagous to f2f play whereas PBEM is simply modernized play-by-mail. The benefit of PBEM as I see it is that there is a greater focus on the communication and alliances tend to change a lot more (are more flexible / less guaranteed) than here where it often seems easiest to simply pick an ally and stick with him.

I think the difference between play per email and on this website is that in email games, there needs to be a 8th person who adjudicates the moves he received.

here we have the convenience that a programm does that for us

Those PBEM fans: What are the best bits of PBEM that we could look to include here?

I agree with sceptic_ka, RiffArt and others that say they are different. In my view the difference between PBEM and play-by-web (PBW?) is the same as the difference between regular email and instant messaging.

I believe the reasons stated by sceptic_ka are what cause the difference in the drop-out rate. PBEM requires some commitment and studying up front. That will drive the laziest and least committed players away. It was (I say ‘was’ because I haven’t played PBEM for many years) also more cumbersome to work out the moves because the software available to work out the moves was limited so most of the time it was done by a pencil and a printed map. This has, of course, changed now.

Because it’s so easy to get into games I think many will try their hand at Diplomacy out of casual curiosity. When they discover that there is a lot more to Diplomacy than just ordering some funny-looking pieces around they may move on to other things. I think PBEM has less of this drive-by playing than PBW.

I find the culture around the games vastly different. PBEM would spawn characters like Poopsy Le Raisin and Gottfried Stabenmacher and people would stay in character in their communication throughout the game. There was a lot of writing, often very funny and elaborate. With PBW you may not hear from players at all or have to decode what ‘wil u sport iris 2 switz’ means.

The ease of use of the PBW sites offers great advantages over PBEM in some areas. I find it much easier to play multiple games which means that I learn faster. You can try out things, both with your diplomacy and tactics, and if they don’t work the next game is not far away. The forum is also great. It creates a sense of community which I like. With PBEM as I know it there was the Diplomatic Pouch and rec.games.diplomacy but they were separate from the playing which some here have used as an argument against creating a separate venue for the forum(s).

What I’d like to see added to this site are anonymous games and more variants. Also, a new forum system would be great. Splitting the current one into Diplomacy and Alternative would be sufficient for me. I would also love to see results of the moves in the order history, e.g. Army Lichtenstein move to Switzerland (bounce). That would help because sometimes the graphical representation is a little difficult to work out with all the arrows and such getting cluttered.

To conclude, I will always play the majority of my games through PBW and maybe have one going through PBEM.

In my opinion it is kind of differente.

To reasons why people resign from this type of sites. I believe it is because of the easiest way to obtain a game quickly with deadlines of hours.
In Dip2000.com where it is played by e-mail, the shortest deadline is 1 week and people only get to join a second game if they complete the first. The first games have deadlines of 2 weeks minimum. So I believe this makes the potential "CDers" not even sign in for 1 game. Here they can just create an account, look for a game that is available and join, adjudicate some moves, see the result hours later and give up if they dont like it.

Another difference is that by e-mail, and this is my experience, you get to use more communication with more than one player (but not gobal), for exemple between 3 players. Here you dont have that chance. Or you comunicate global or private to 1 player. I believe that here should be the chance of having that option, although I know it isn't easy :)

Another thing that I notice is that I send less messages on PBEM but each message is bigger than those I send here. I dont comunicate less, I comunicate "less times".

Anyway, I prefere this way of playing, much more than PBEM. The secret is to get enough points to enter games where the pot is higher and the players are less likely to go CD, or play in the tournaments, like the league.

What I like better about PBEM:
- NMRs do not result in that country ordering all holds, instead they get kicked after a waiting period and the game waits for replacements.
- possible shorter turn times for builds/retreats
- game masters
- lot of possible press settings

@figle: I'm not sure we want to change this to include even best bits of PBEM as this site is very good at what it is. I think the major issues are with NMR's and CD's that can completely unbalance a game, as well as sometimes it's frustrating when people don't communicate (although I've met this in PBEM too unbelievably).

Whether NMR's and CD's can be improved while keeping games flowing isn't easy: I'd suggest that CD's can only be taken over by players with +100 points (say) to ensure they're not picked up and dropped by new players. To encourage better players to pick up CD's we'd have to eliminate the cost to do so (and the winnings? perhaps pay 1/2 of the initial stake that the original player put in as a compensation, but not provide any winnings - so that it's not only the very best CD positions that are taken up). Another addition might be the chance to simply CANCEL or ANNUL a game if a player goes into CD (I've had a game where the biggest two countries were cheating, got banned and then were taken over. Fortunately the new players were honourable enough to draw the game since the cheating completely ruined the balance, but a vote to annul the game would be nice in these situations).

Perhaps point penalties for NMR's?

Another suggestion to minimize CD's and NMR's would be a "mandatory" beginners' game when you first sign up - I don't know what the rate of signing up is and whether this would be feasible. Perhaps instead of that, cap new accounts ability to play in larger-pot games (e.g. can only pay 5 points/game until have completed one/five games). Often we see people spend all of their points to join a 700-pot game, either unknowingly or knowing they'll get their 100 points back if they lose. Sure I could join games which cost +100 points to play, but I'm thinking of others too.

Another improvement I'd like is either not to count CD's in stats or to count them separately. Similarly, I think at the moment anyone who goes CD and is taken over doesn't have that appear on his profile? That ought to be changed: "name and shame".

As for communication, I'd love to see a "proper" forum (not to flog a dead horse) simply because this one frustrates the **** out of me. I think it would encourage players to be part of the community rather than just play games, and therefore hopefully encourage more communication in-game. I think it'd be easier to organize games of like-minded players, to have post-game statements, public-press games, discussions on games (e.g. the School of War) if we had a "normal" forum like the developers one, but I know that there are problems of integration and that some people like the forum as it is. Plus with stickies etc. league organizing/recruiting should be easier.

Okay, wow, that's a lot more than I intended to write at the start! But that's my tuppence.

Neither. I grew up playing this face-to-face and this isn't remotely similar. I also played by e-mail in the 90s and for the reasons sceptic_ka succinctly outlined, it also isn't like PBEM. I never had the patience for play by postal mail, which is too damned close to real-time for my tastes. :)

I like RiffArt's idea for point-penalties for going CD -- shoot, put those points into the pot for the game! We're the ones who have to put up with that player's slack. Of course, that might also spawn a whole new wave of multi-account scamming. I also like the idea of a CD counter in the stats. And I've said enough about my opinion of a need for a real forum.

The rest... well, it ain't broke, don't fix it. I certainly wouldn't go back to PBEM, and I'd probably even hesitate at face-to-face. (Actually I'd fire up the projector and the living room computer and make everybody sign up for a phpDip account...)

Hey Edi, I'd be honored if you'd join our live game. I've read your articles and I think you've met my son in a tournament.
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=11395

This brought up some interesting points and I would like to echo it in one of the Hobby Zines... anyone have a problem with that write to me at
EdiBirsan AT astound DOT net.

PBM= Play By Mail and is the way this hobby got started in 1963. Games typically had a 2 week deadline with 1 week for retreats and adjustments. The shift in mail service generally in the late 60's and early 70s then dragged the deadlines out to 3 weeks and eventually even 4 weeks.
The advent of the Net replaced that and there are now only a handful of 'zines world wide.

PBeM= was what was described as playing over the net at first on Compuserve and others.

The features mentioned here= longer writing, writing in a role playing nature, are not intrinsic to the play by email messages as opposed to play by a web site. That is something that is generated by the player base and either a Message or a Web system can support both. The most extensive role play was actually run on the Web by Claudia Miscia in his team game web site: Cases Foedoris which is not closed.

Message systems can be and are automated from what I understand on some of the judges.

Additionally there are Web Based adjudication systems that send out messages to players' personal email when the turns are adjudicated as well as when in game messages are sent via the web site. Most notably in its full amount range is www.Stabbeurfou.org and to a lesser extend playDiplomacy.com.
These features are totally absent here... and something I suggested as well as others but is beyond the code priority acceptance by the code committee who have other features that they would rather do on priority.
That there are anonymous games available on web based automatic adjudications on both Stabbeurfou and playDip.
There are some variants available also on a few web based sites but there are a lot more available on those message based systems where the GM can enter the adjudication manually.
The deadline aspect is interesting in that the Message Featured system has no restriction to going to shorter deadlines. For example it was very popular to run games in France on a Monday-Wednesday-Friday schedule so as to conform to people's work week and leave the weekends alone. The web site 18centres.com was built on that exact schedule. That many of the DJudges run on a weekly schedule is the decision of the GM's not the system.

I think I have covered most of the factual points raised, and that still brings us to key difference as to collection of peoples where I think the issue comes from the casual nature of being able to quickly join (and the subsequent problem of multi's and high drop out rates).

Casus Foederis (not Cases Foedoris) and the remains of the website can be found here:
http://www.casusfoederis.org/index.htm

I think the term "Online Diplomacy" fits much better.

The hobby got started in the late 50's as a face-to-face board game, but I agree that play by postal mail popularized it. One thing we do lose compared to face-to-face is being able to see other players talking with each other. We used to play this with a sort of beer-drinking-party atmosphere, so there was a lot of milling around and socializing... and it really adds a lot when you glance across the room and begin wondering if Germany and France are just talking about chicks, or if they're planning something nefarious... While you'd lose the casual socialization angle, it might be interesting if public press (or maybe an additional tab) noted which players were talking with whom. There are few secret alliances in true face-to-face games.

@NinjaPirateRobotZombie: sorry but an extra tab telling everybody who is talking to whom would be silly. It would just lead to some people sending everyone dummy text every few hours to cover any possible real text.

I have to agree, it's just an aspect that I really miss from face-to-face games.

When looking around the web for a place to play diplomacy I came across a number of PBEM sites. I still play on one for interesting variants. I find that it is generally populated by older people who write more. With some of my allies I have exchanged novels worth of text. Because of the longer deadlines and lack of messaging format you have to say alot of different things in one email. You then watch for what the other person focuses on and what they don't.

The lack of cds and nmrs is more related to the type of people that would commit to this more drawn out format. It isn't quick and bells and whistles that attracts the youth today (not that I'm old, I'm just cynical). Its easier to become involved if you are doing well and its easier to ignore it if you aren't.

The human gm system makes variants easier to implement and allows a judge to institute controversial rulings on the fly if you are dealing with lots of complex house rules. PBEM is thus better for variant play. The more complex the variant the better it is for it.

For simple standard diplomacy, as long as you are playing with established players, there is no comparison to this site.

I'd like to echo the many comments here on CDrs/NMRs, and the suggestions to fix the situation.

In particular, I think something should be done to change the take-over system:
-Tracking take-over's separately from clean starts in a player's profile.
-Doing something different with the points so the cost/benefit ratio is a little more reasonable

Both of those fixes would help reduce the problem with recurring CDs for a country. They could also attract more experienced players to lower level games, potentially increasing the level of play and helping the newer players learn a bit more.

@NinjaPirate (and others, I guess): if it's the adjudication aspect you don't like about f2f (which I'm assuming from your projector comment it might be) then Realpolitik is a program you can download which will adjudicate (I use it to keep a record of my PBEM games since it keeps a visual record of everyone's orders &c. it can be useful when you can't remember what happened in 1902!). It also has a couple of dozen variants built in. If anyone was running a f2f game then I think it's the quickest and easiest way to adjudicate.... of course you do lose something by making a machine do the heavy lifting, but it would make things run smoothly.

I was speaking very theoretically. That would require me to get all 7 people in the same place. That was a lot easier 20 years ago when me and all my friends were unemployed. :)

The other thing you lose compared to real face-to-face is *spying*... trying to overhear that Germany/France conversation in my example. That was always fun...

RE RiffArt
I would like to add a number of game-start settings to phpDiplomacy, but these all have to be discussed first because most of them come with a performance hit. However, they include:
->Anonymous Option
->Starting Map (First set would just offer Standard,Fleet Rome,Winter1900 - could in the future add more maps but this would be an efficiency issue)
-> Points/Distribution (Already exist, just adding to try and make a complete list)
-> Phases (Various options including no-cycle-at-weekends, pause after X phases etc)
-> Victory Condition (Standard, Conquest (for those who hate draws), Draw only (for variants where you may have 18SCs without winning))
-> CD Condition (Standard or just 1 missed)
-> Pause on CD? (good idea to offer this, if so pauses game)
==========
A cancel command has been suggested several times and I believe it has been added. The idea was to pay everyone 1/7 of the pot, so those who were killed by cheats don't loose out.

Oh, Edi, was this sparked by my e-mail? =P

"In taxonomy those two types are known as "Lumpers'"and "Splitters.""

Good call. In this case, I do feel that website hosted Diplomacy is distinct from classical PBEM. As to the higher drop out rates here, I think that's because a game can be started with less investment. The higher investment required for a PBEM leads to greater retention. On the plus side, PBW is far more popular than PBEM and while we have a high drop out rate, we definitely have a higher rate of people who give Diplomacy a shot. I don't know if this is already the case, but I'm sure that before long PBW players will be the majority in the Diplomacy hobby.