Inspired by the recent 150cc club.. What about adding groups to the site:

1) Anyone can create a group, and add/remove its members.
1a) To prevent spamming of the "join my favorite players group!", I guess a player should apply for membership first.
2) When creating a game, you can assign it a group you belong to, and only those players in the given group can join.
3) When a game in a group you belong to is created, you get a notification in the "Notices" column.
4) You can search games in the "Games" tab by filtering "Groups I belong to".

This is a more generalized solution to the 150cc, the Ambassador mode, etc. In this case, there'd be a group Ambassadors.

It also solves the problem of semi-anon games.

Yeah, we've been thinking about groups for a while. It would certainly solve a bunch of problems on the site.

So, this may be impossible for all I know, but...
GAMES:
URL includes "gameID=NNNNNNN"
hyperlink automatic via using "gameID=NNNNNNN"

THREADS:
URL includes "viewthread=NNNNNNN"
hyperlink automatic via "threadID=NNNNNNN"

It's not only annoying that threads aren't consistent, it's inconsistent that games are consistent but threads aren't!

Ramblin' Rose Valis

Another suggestion: disable all variant maps :)
It would be an improvement if only the classic standard Diplomacy map would be playable here.

If you like variants, you could go to vdiplomacy.net, or one of the other sites.
There exist thousands of variants; it's always quite arbitrary to decide which to include and which to exclude; the criterion on vDip seems to be that a variant is properly coded. I don't know what the requirements here on webDip are, but I guess it's highly unlikely any new variants will be included. Why is Milan disabled? Why is "Fall of the American Empire IV" available, but "Abstraction" not?
If you want to allow playing variants here, then why not truely balanced variants, e.g.:
http://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=11
http://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=21
http://vdiplomacy.net/variants.php?variantID=93

Besides, points, rankings, and scoring systems tend to be more effective if they compare relatively equal things, e.g. achievements on the classic standard map.
Solo-victories etc. tend to be easier to achieve in some variants than in others. Including statistics from different variants into a single ranking makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable.
Either disable all variants, or completely exclude them from the rankings, or alternatively, have different scoring systems and rankings, one for each available variant.

PS To be honest, I don't think my last suggestion is likely to be ever implemented here, although I believe it would be an improvement.

I just went on vdip for the first time in a while, and saw that they have stats for each variant. This is great! There are over 53,000 finished games here on webDip, any hope on implementing a stats page?

jmo mentioned something that those stats on Vdip are based on code that's not nearly of the security/caliber they wish to allow here, although they're not opposed to the idea in general. If I Recall Correctly.

This is less of a site feature addition and more of a business idea for the site: My IR class in college is using paper and pen diplomacy simulations and while I am very well aware that this game isnt an accurate depiction of diplomacy IRL it is a very good practice field for learning how to negotiate and compromise while keeping your allies and yourself happy. I have a friend whos professor uses a different site that does diplomacy for his class. The way he works it is he had the class split into 7 teams (normally 2 or 3 per team) and they have to figure out how to play as their country and win the game..... to my idea, it would be interesting if this site advertised to professors to use in their classrooms, it would give the site exposure and increase the population of the site with vetted players who have experience with the interface from using it in a classroom setting. any thoughts?

While this is an intriguing way to get exposed for site, this site as far as I know is not sanctioned by the copywrite holdersof the game(Hasbro), and therefor may bring unwanted attention to site.

*copyright

And iirc, we have the okay from Hasbro. Gotta double-check on that one though.

That would make sense, didn't think of the possibile legality. If you keep the site free (as it is) then could Hasbro sue? wouldn't it be created by some art or creativity clauses somewhere?

Hasbro will not sue webDip, anymore than they have the rest of the national/international Dip community, which they haven't. Not to mention there's precedent. Not only for using Dip as a teaching tool, but using an online site in that manner.

http://www.playdiplomacy.com/teachers.php

protected* not created

So, correction. Its still technically illegal, and no websites have Hasbro permission as far as I know.

So, when PlayDip gets shut down, that's our canary in a coal mine.

ah. What would it take to pursue Hasbro's permission? just a question, if it would endanger the site then noooooooooooooooooo

That's what I thought. Besides there's no way Hasbro would sanction this site with the forum the way it is.

yellow bellied peanut brittle

I would like to offer another idea for the betterment of gaming here.

When new games are created, and this seems like it only really applies to full Press, we need to find a way where all members of game, get knowledge that the game has begun...
It seems all to often that half the board is around when a game begins and alliances are made based on the initial availability of the players around and for those that are not, they get left out to dry. Thoughts?

Just have an option to start when time has expired, not when 7 people join (like live games)/ then everyone will know when he came will begin.

Or a ping to email that says all players have joined and game has begun

Email notifications are on the todo list.

Having games that start at a set time is also a good idea, and one that has come up before.

Ssorenn the ping idea only works if there generally around and available on the internet anyways. your problem should hold true simply for people sleeping but the email doesn't solve that. Abge idea is better, although it doesn't solve different time zones. Really you should just be playing with a caliber of competition that cares more about winning and loyalty and success than it does about the first person it sees, and or with a phase deadline timer that makes you comfortable actually get back to people. while there are nice little quality of life changes that can be made in this area from a site feature perspective I think your problem runs deeper than that

your problem, being the Royal you of course

No, ss has a valid point. All things being equal, I will ally with the person who I've talked to longer. It's a big factor. Not the only one, of course, but it can't be ignored.

>caliber of competition

I agree with Abge and ssorenn. I'm quick to make agreements if I think they're sound- in a long phase game, I'm not going to tell a potential ally with a good plan "I like your idea of attacking Germany, but let's see what Germany proposes before I agree".

This is a problem with the online format. Somewhere there's a very well articulated post from President Eden outlining the problem and the advantages/disadvantages of various solutions. I don't remember Eden's conclusion, though.

So valis'a point is valid, but the problem remain that his idea only works with higher level people who understand the nuisances of the game. Abge is right, if I develop a rapport with someone off the bat, whether that would have been my first inclination or not, odds are good that I can solidify an alliance and move forward. Then whoever comes in late, is just behind the curve.

thanks for the Valisdation ss.