Or you use global chat and message everyone at once.

copy and paste

That's kind of bunk that you can't have a 3 or 4 way convo

You've been here two days and your already complaining about a completely free site developed and managed by volunteers who ask for nothing in return.

You are an ass of the highest order...

@ Draugnar: What? Surely you realise that Kestas is a millionaire now thanks to Plura!

Warboner,
I think what you meant to say 'Man, I wish you could have a 3 way convo. I seem to have some free time, I will write the code for that, since this is an open source project. That's assuming people want that capability in the first place (which I don't). In WW1, I don't recall the Kaiser getting on the phone with his counterparts in a conference call.'

Well Dingle, if "beeing like WW1" is the objective then there is a lot wrong :P
Never did many real life games, but 3 (or more) way conversations is usually how its played then, right?

I totally think that warboner is an ass btw. Change your attitude, dude!

The game is based on pre-WW1 intrigue. I don't recall 3-way messaging available in WW1.

Personally I wouldn't want three-way calling. I don't want Germany to KNOW what I said to France, I want him to think what I told him I said to France.

DJ +1

Also I agree with Dingleberry, Draugnar, and sqrg re: warboner's ass-ness.

Isn't this game based on a boargame created by Allan B. Calhamer in the 50's? And that last one is based on pre-WW1 intrigue, sure.
Note, i'm not advertising multi way convo. Not sure it would add that much anyway.
I just dont think the reason for not having it can be: "Because its more like WW1". That would give an argument against playing live games, since its even less like WW1 than longer phase games, etc.

well, i think that n-way conversations is perfectly reasonable. in FtF games we would have them. i dont think it ruins the spirit of online play in any way and it would be completely optional. no one forces a person to participate in any type of conversation that they dont want to be part of.

although i disagree with warboner's method of dissing the site because personally, this is the best site i have seen out there by far, i dont disagree with simply placing a request for something that he would like to see on the forum.

i wasnt here very long before i asked that kestas install a user search feature to look up a specific user instead of hunting the forums for the name and clicking it.

I agree with Stukus- for me, it's not whether it's authentic, it's whether it's good for the game, and a 3-way conversation would ruin the game.

I think it's a very similar issue to the one the other day about a system for showing your orders to people- if it's there, then people will expect me to use it if I'm trustworthy and will suspect me if I don't. OK you could start inventing "I said that in front of him because..." stories to tell each of them, but that's a whole new level I just don't think it needs.

I always try to avoid the 3 way conversation in live games. I like being able to say 'Like I just told France...'

Playing face-to-face games easily admits of multi-way conversations, considering the fact you can say, "I need to talk to Germany, England, and France," and all you have to do is step into another room to talk with those three.

Yes, although what Dingle said about not wanting that (even in FtF games) makes sense to me.

The nature of Diplomacy in a face to face game is most definitely permissive of n-way conversations. In fact cheating is even encouraged in the original rules. Obviously there isn't a place for cheating in the web version (it would be difficult, and undermine the community precedent), but a n-way chat is a more than reasonable request.

That being said, you would need to overhaul the chat module all together.

on first learning the game, i thought it was just a limitation of this site and not a question or not whether it "ruins" the game. isnt it part of the game? like SteevoKun said, you do it in real life games.

id love to see that n-way chat option.

KK and FL,
As I stated previous, I would be against it. I do NOT believe it would ruin the game, and I think it IS a reasonable request. I just wouldn't like it.

It was more the fact that the OP had a really lousy way of 'asking', and he assumed that just because he wanted something, that would mean everyone would.

There would definitely need to be a total revamp of the current chat feature though.

How much work would it be to implement a Google Talk portal or something for videochat, or audiochat? We could probably create a much more sophisticated chat feature if several of us put our heads together.

If the mods are cool with it I would definitely be up for volunteering some coding time towards implementing a multimedia chat function with n-way chat. Live text chat would also be a component.

@DingleberryJones - I agree, it was a stupid way to ask... but the more I think about it, the cooler I think the idea is.

"How much work would it be to implement a Google Talk portal or something for videochat, or audiochat? "

Blech! That would the end of my time on this website, unless I could opt out. I'm fat, ugly and mute. Ok, well, maybe 1 of those, but still...

Oh come on, would't it be worth it, if only to play games with hellalt and stab him so we could hear him go off with audio?

lol it sooooo would!!!

Yeah, but he probably sits around naked playing this game. Allow me to say 'Blech' again.

Would it require a total revamp? I was thinking if in the normal chatbox where you select which country you want to talk to, there could be a list of check boxes on the side where you could select countries to CC (carbon copy). The post would have to be proceeded by a specially formatted line that indicated who all was copied on it. I say specially formatted so that it isn't something that could be faked. Black and italics or something. And heck, maybe throw in a BCC (blind carbon copy) option as well.

Making extra channels where multiple people belonged to the channel and such would probably require a lot more work.

So THAT'S what CC and BCC mean...

There was no three-way messaging in WW1? Really....you mean three representatives of different governments never got together in one room? Haaa haa haa...How retarded. As if webDiplomacy is some great true-life reenactment of WW1 anyway! lol

only as a variant

@ Alderian:
I think KK is referring to the code of the chat module. I can imagine that it is not as easy as "Adding a CC option" and make it look pretty.
The whole thing might need a good (long) look to implement this.
Then again, i have no clue how the chat module is written.

Yeah exactly, it would take a while, but if there are a few devoted individuals we could probably put together a pretty good dev team.

I have no problem with the idea. In fact, I'd like to see it be something like you might do in real life. E and F are chatting and decide to pull G into it. Are they telling G the truth or just feeding him info to either spread to his other allies or act on, only to find it was what they wanted him to do so their real plans would succeed,

Draugnar: Exactly. The following quote doesn't get it: "I don't want Germany to KNOW what I said to France, I want him to think what I told him I said to France." (Stukus) You don't want him to know what you're telling France privately, you want him to think what you're telling him might not be the whole story.

warboner: I actually thought about that before. I think it is a good idea as well.

Tru Ninja: The point of talking bout it on the forums is to see what people think about the idea. Suggesting features on the forum is perfectly reasonable. (if you actually agree with this then I read what you said wrong.

KaptinKool: (to ". . . overhaul the chat module . . .") Or add a whole lot of buttons. I thought about that as well, and yeah, it would be time-consuming to implement.

KaptinKool: Multimedia, if it is indeed possible, should be banned from anything that's not a live game.

Alderian: BCC is just copy and past, unless you mean you want the guy you're talking to know that the quote of whomever is authentic, like a leak. But I think that (both the CC and BCC) would be a bad idea, if I understand it correctly. Unlike the multiple channels (which could still be coded using your idea), your system doesn't really let you see what the > 2 people conversation looks like.

My idea is that there should be checkboxes that select what channel you want to look at, like 'France', 'Italy', etc., and also select one of two bullets, to control the operator, AND or OR (with default set to AND).
The channel with the AND operator selected would look like what one of our normal tabs display: have the old chats and then the space for you to respond.
With the operator OR it would just be a tool to find all the messages between you and another country/ies, regardless of whomever else was in the audience. (You could include, here, "from France", "to France", "from Italy", etc. modifiers, to find, say, every message France told Italy and you together, but that seems like a not-so-useful complication.)

@JECE - why? That makes absolutely no sense. I see some of the people I play with in my day to day life, I have video chatted with an opponent before... why would the site not want to feature this (if it were possible) in all of its games?

First off, regarding authenticity and this: "I don't want Germany to KNOW what I said to France, I want him to think what I told him I said to France." (Stukus)

So you send a message to one CCing the other and then (or beforehand) send another message telling the first that the message you just sent (or are going to send) is just to fake the other player out and here is the real plan.

What you do lose is the ability to lie to player A about your conversation with player B without player B knowing about it.

So even if you do it to be "authentic", nothing prevents you from sending followup messages to just some parties changing things.

As for the amount of work, the previous discussions talked about basically needing one channel for every possible combination of players. My suggestion gives the same flexibility but without having to figure out how to support potentially thousands of channels.

Also, it gives you that OR option you want since if you send a message to player A and CC player B, you would see it when looking at your chat channels for both player A and B.

KaptinKool: I guess you have a point. Bandwidth?

KaptinKool: Of course that would be a reason to ban it from live games . . .

Apologies about my manners, I wasn't trying to be a dick, and was not aware of the communal nature of the site, if I could, I would rephrase my original reply - but I still think it is a good idea that would add value to the gameplay.

Warboner came around :D
Smack 'm around with a wall of text and they see the error of their ways...

Alderian: I don't understand your first paragraph, unless it's just stating what the next three paragraphs are going to be about.
And you elaborated nicely on what Draugnar and I just said in your 2nd through 4th paragraphs.
Your 4th paragraph outlines how you could use elements of your model to code any model, such as mine. And just to clarify my model, it doesn't actually use more than 6 of your 'channels', because there are only 6 characteristics (like, 'I and A-H', 'I and F', 'I and U. K.', 'I and R', 'I and T' and 'I and G'). Two or more of these 'channels' can be combined or excluded to show different sets of messages.
As for your 4th paragraph, you're right that your model offers what is effectively my OR option, but it then doesn't offer any way to see solely the conversations with 3 or more people (the AND operator in my method).