That's exactly right. A Human GM is needed to make it flawless, but if we can get a bunch of guys online who are committed to playing fairly and honestly it would be a lot of fun. I am one of those guys. Your UN variant is very appealling, but ultimately a different game from the one I am proposing. I would be willing to try one and then the other if you'll commit to my contract diplomacy. Including myself I think I have about 4 players who will play.

I'm in, if the turn phase is longer than 1.5 days.

OK Great. I was thinking 2 day phases my be great. Anyone else care to chime in?

It should also be noted that can players can suggest that they are "considering" and offer, or that they will "most-likely" perform such and such without making an agreement, so long as it is made clear that no formal agreement has been made.

My point is be clear with other players about what is discussion and what is an agreement.

Sounds interesting. I'm in too. But we would need some metarules at the beginning, clearly defined in global. About all the details that were partly already discussed above.
I imagine contracts may become a little formal. Might be a great game for lawyers.

Lol indeed.

As Paulsalomon says, it would be up to the players not to cheat - clearly breaking an agreement in such a game would be tantamount to multigaming, and we all know how much we like multigamers :)

But seriously, if someone was going to play in such a game, then you just keep to your word - thats the point. Don't turn up if you aren't intending to do that!

Id be interested in playing such a game, but most likely the bulk of my funds will remain tied up in other games.

That is exactly the point. We simply MUST keep to our words. The rules bit is exactly right. The main rule is if you "agree" to something, you must do it. Feel free to negotiate as much as possible, but when both parties understand the terms have been set and agreed upon, thats it. You have to follow through. The idea of listing specific terms for agreements makes it all very smart.

If you want in, send me a private message. Once I have seven players I will set up the game with 2 minute phases and maybe a bet of 20? Then I'll distribute the password via private message. Sound good?

I'm definitely up for this. Just to be clear, lying is still perfectly acceptable, only agreements are binding?

although 2 minute phases might be a bit short ;)

This kind of thing would be a breeze to set up via pbem. The GM of those games can see all the press and thus could easily enforce it as a third party. Unfortunately that doesn't work out so well here.

Hahaha. Yeah 2 day phases. Lying is still perfectly fine. We just need a way to make it clear to each other that were striking a binding agreement

OK. Here's who I have on the current list:

paulsalomon27
jasoncollins
darco
ballack
don corleone
goldeye
almo

I could take a couple extra to send late passwords to in case someone doesn't join. if you're interested just send me a private message.

I am wondering if 3 day phases might even be more appropriate, given the level of messaging that will be required. Let me hear from those people, 2 or 3 day phases?

I prefer 2 day phases, 3 days becomes a ridiculously long game. (I usually only play 1 day, but I understand that this should be longer)

This post is titled "Binding Diplomacy/ no stabs", which makes me wonder something: is lying completely banned? Could you, for example, use misinformation (like claiming another player sent you a message which they didn't).

My vote goes to 3 day phases.

you totally could use misinformation. You could easily tell germany that you and France have a binding ENG DMZ agreement when in fact you do not and intend to enter it. Unless germany had an ENG DMZ agreement with you, there should be no violation there. I think everything stays the same in the game in terms of suggesting your intentions and asking for others, the only difference comes that if I want to guarantee your support or nonagression or a DMZ, then we have to begin a process of negotiating terms and coming to an agreement. If I want an alliance for instance, I probably have to limit that to a number of years or put in a 1-day warning clause or something. It could also be allowed that any agreement can be ended if both players form a new agreement to end the previous one.

Paper, the only rule is that if you make a binding agreement, you must stick to it.
Maybe a mod can volunteer to GM it? :)

Someone with some oversight would be great, but if were all honorable. Well follow the rule.

I am doubtful that no disagreements will arise. And without a form of either verification or punishment, what's to fix it?

thats just it. On this site, without a mod to watch over, we have no way to do that. But I am up for making clear my agreements and sticking to them.

btw I have a ton of work to do tonight, but I will set up the game and set out passwords and invites sometime tomorrow most likely. I am leaning towards 2 day phases unless a lot of people weigh in on the side of 3.