How would you police this?

I'm interested. I think I lie relatively rarely in Diplomacy anyway.

@ssorenn, I imagine you wouldn't. Just trust people not to be assholes.

This sounds like fun to me too. You can count me in.

@ssorenn "I don't think that there is a way to enforce this, so we would need 7 good sports."

I'd be up for it!
I've always favored the tactical bit of diplomacy over the backstabbing and manipulation part (not to imply there won't still be manipulation of some sort).

@Balduran you can manipulate people by threatening to form agreements with others or threatening to attack, but once parties make an agreement then it must be stuck to until otherwise agreed. If the agreement has loopholes you are free to exploit those, but can't break it.

Sounds nice, but I will not have time for it until next week (18 Feb), so if you don't have enough player and (want to) wait until then call me in.

So far we have:

1. johnsmith177693
2. Clownie
3. DemonOverlord
4. Balduran
5. WolfpackCorey
6. Kakarroto (maybe)

Much as without the possibility of evil good has no meaning, without the option of lying there is no value in honesty. This robs honest players of their greatest trump card. The idea sounds good, but in practice I reckon it'll fall flat.

It could be fun... Let's assume Germany gives all his orders to France. France could stab Germany in giving them on 'global'. Given none lied, Germany would be tied to his words. ;-)

you should invite Trump, he doesn't lie, he's real

Are we allowed to use alternative facts?

Will chat be all global? Otherwise, a man can simply manipulate others by lying by omission. Example:

I am Germany. I tell France I'll support him to Belgium, and share this news with England, while prompting England to make a southern opening and informing him that I'll support HIM to Belgium if he manages to land in Picardie.

That's just an example; obviously in this one it'd be better to just straight up ally with England. But you get the idea.

This is an interesting idea, I have a few questions however. First off, if you want to stab an ally can you notify them that you willbe stabbing them and that way you wouldnt be lying to them or are you indefinitely bound to them (or until they agree to break the alliance). Second, would an agreement to "work together" be considered a loophole and a way to form a temporary alliance with someone? These are 2 of my biggest questions, and I think I would be interested in joining a game like this.

"Much as without the possibility of evil good has no meaning"

Uh, what? Of course there is.

1. johnsmith177693
2. Clownie
3. DemonOverlord
4. Balduran
5. WolfpackCorey
6. Kakarroto (maybe)
7 Dammmmdaniel

I would be in to this if Kakarroto can't play. (I am NOT saying I won't play with Kakarroto... just noticing that he is a 'maybe.')

Please have RR of at least 80

Dammmdaniel RR: 67%

I HAVE A HIGH ENOUGH RR! LET ME PLAY! PLEASE LET ME... um... ahem... (increasing decorum...) Fellow Webdippians... since my reliability rating exceeds the minimum requirements suggested by DemonOverlord, I offer my services as an opponent in this most excellent most honest of games.

come on I messed up a couple of games but when I truly Dedicate to a game i DEDICATE.

Hmmmmmm

@Octavious that is a possibility but I think it's worth a shot.

@CptMike yes that would fit in with what I was envisioning.

@Clownie I didn't envision all chat being global, but that's an option. Your scenario is a good example of where we probably need to clarify the rules. Once we get 7 we can iron out all of the details.

@sandyshu47 1. I hadn't envisioned it that way. I envisioned that once you agree to a permanent alliance you can't give unilateral notice to end it. All parties would have to agree to end the alliance to end it. But we can iron out all of the details once we get 7. 2. I had hoped people would say things more explicit than "let's work together". I envisioned people being very careful with their press. For example, you might say "let's work together until <certain conditions>", and can then reassess after that. Or, you could say "let's be allied for the entire game" which would be binding.

@Dammmdaniel sorry but your RR is too low.

@dargorygel you're in.

Current roster:
1. johnsmith177693
2. Clownie
3. DemonOverlord
4. Balduran
5. WolfpackCorey
6. dargorygel
7. Kakarroto (maybe)

Yes, yes! The "Please-don't-lie-to-me" rule. I love it! How do you accomplish it? Easily. Just remove all in-game messaging. Then no-one can lie, because no-one can make any promises to begin with! Interesting idea, though. But, as most have probably mentioned, good luck policing it.

I'd like to give it a try. Please consider me for the roster, maybe as an alternate unless you play a variant that can handle more players. My RR is 97% or so.

you do it hauta and i will give you 'hell'!!

Brad, you will kindly note that in our last game, I was a gentleman. And in case you didn't stick around to watch, as soon as you got defeated, England, France, and Turkey did a drive-by on my ass.

Hauta is in so we have our 7. I'll write up some detailed rules and we'll have a period for public comment and debate, and then we'll start the game.

I'll take a slot if you're looking for a substitute. I'm a high RR (95%) and prefer not to lie in games anyway, so this wouldn't be a tough adjustment for me.