if i am being too vague let me elaborate:
ive come across, in a couple of current games (without giving away too much)
a situation where all of the following applies:
i fight with an ally over 1 SC, where it is clear (without bullshiting the other guy) that i should take it in a reasonable alliance.
in fact him taking it would be bad for both. but still i cannot reasonably explain to my ally WHY that is the case. whether its because he doesnt quite understand how support works (and more importantly, cut support).
or because of any other reason.
they seem to be unresponsive to commonplace suggestions.

btw, this thread wasnt meant to be a whine about "those damn noobs". just trying to figure out if anybody else has encountered this problem. and how you go about fixing it

Broadly, I experience the same thing. Have yet to figure out how to work around it

I agree. With noobs in the game, the winner(s) will be determined in a more random way, which will decrease your chances of winning if these are normally high for you. Same with NMRs.

In Diplomacy the winner is most often the experienced player that
1) first identify what powers on the board that are under control of noobs
2) also is the best to handle the noob psychie (listening politely turning the noob mind his way)
3) have enough of energy/stamina to handle the noob.

These 3 abilities are the ones that makes someone a great Diplomacy player.

Personally I could clearly improve my item 3 in the list above.

Noobs aren't the only ones to use the mute button, space cadet. And I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between those new to the game and those new to this forum.

For instance, I'm quite new to webdiplomacy but have played the game on and off for 30+ years. So the mistakes I make are (hopefully) system-led rather than rules-led.

Also, without new players the game will eventually become stale. New blood brings fresh ideas (or resurrects long forgotten ones) which is good for everyone.

And finally, 'great' diplomacy players are made not born. We all have to learn somehow and experience is the best teacher. If more experienced players take the time to share and explain then the noobs get better quicker.

It's not necessarily harder. It's obviously much more difficult to solo against a bunch of good players than it is to solo against a bunch of new players.

You have to take a different approach, though. A new player is not going to immediately understand why a bounce in the Black Sea isn't hostile, or why they shouldn't stop you from taking Sweden in 01. Players who not only propose plans but also explain why they're proposing those plans do very well in games with new players. Players who just assume that everyone will understand their plans without explanation do not.

May I offer these observations.
1 all "newbies" are not "equal" in ability & experience. Some "newbies" are just new to this site & have considerable experience.
2 "illogical" / emotional play is not the monopoly of inexperienced players, I cite myself as an example.
Captain meme makes a useful point, more effort in explanations of options/ choices, with the possible consequences explained as well. Don't "proscribe" but offer choices.
As always it's about finding "common purposes" / common interests. Sometimes they will insist on a poor choice, so you have to let them make mistakes & learn from that.
Be clear from the start, you have experience & skills they do not have, and that they have to respect that. How you deliver your message is almost as important as the message. So it's a balance, get it right and they will be receptive, get it wrong...
Some newbies are worth the effort, others are not.

I've only been playing the game for a couple years now, so I won't pretend to be good, but I will say playing with new players has been pretty fun for me. Because I've read most of the articles, I am familiar with many "standard" openings, and new players just do what seems right for them to complete the 18-solo objective. Usually it doesn't work it for them, but t seems like playing in person, people always go for the solo, where online it seems like some people are over-eager to Draw as soon as they make a few gains in the Diplomacy points.
New players can be a hassle though, especially online. I have played a game before where I told another player it was in my best interest to keep him alive to keep another player from the solo, and he basically told me I had 4 new pieces and I could direct him as I wanted to. Easier for me to solo, certainly, but not challenging or fair to the other players anymore. I've also seen that new players aren't likely to talk much at all, especially in low-bet games. With less to lose, they just try to go it alone

Depends on the level of noob. People in their first game or three are a mess. It can sometimes be very difficult to convince them of what's actually good for them. With slightly more experienced noobs, ones that have played a few games and actually understand basic tactics and moves, it's actuslly quite easy to manipulate them. I find a good strategy is to give them more of the gains at the start, to make them more loyal. Even if they're a bit stronger, it's fine, since they aren't as capable.

deeply dippy: i think youve misunderstood. this post is not me trying to be arrogant against "noobs". im well aware no one starts with knowledge. and admit myself to be not very experienced.
quite the contrary: i put this post up because i keep getting my ass kicked and i dont know where im going wrong.

and i think pregrine falcon hit the nail on the head here.
though everyone made great points, i think the issue is realizing what level the noob is playing. as in:
realizing early enough how he thinks, how deeply and using that to your benefit