opinions?

The issue that arises is whether or not one Decides to require convoys to be explicit or not. On this website, when an army is order to move to an adjacent space and there is a possible convoy. The convoy must be explicitly declared or denied. So, whether or not the French army cuts support is based on whether or not he specified "via convoy" or "via land"

Well, that is why on this site when you specify A(Bel)-Hol you have to specify via land or via convoy.

If you specify via land, then it cuts support.

If you specify via convoy, then isn't the traditional resolution that the fleet dislodgement happens before the army can be convoyed to cut the support of the dislodgement?

Yeah, what he said.

Just to elaborate:

The relevant "disputed issue" is 4.A.3 in the DATC test cases
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/#4.A.3
which deals with whether or not armies can be "kidnapped" by an unexpected convoy between adjacent coastal provinces. Note that this can be a real issue by creating an unexpected swap.

However, this website takes implements choice D in regards to this issue and requires the intent to convoy or travel by land to be explicitly declared (when both are possible).

You can see all of the choices on the "disputable issues" that this website made, if you click on the link to expand the "choices" section on this page
http://webdiplomacy.net/datc.php

Yes, that is how this site rules it.

Explicit convoys were set up to avoid someone convoying (say) bel to pic, and taking bel with their army in pic.

But the 'explicit' solution means you are allowed to deny convoy, and you're not allowed to deny support.

It seems a little unfair...

Actually, it seems that the choice that this website is in fact choice E, and not D, since every move order with possibility of using either land or convoy must be explicitly declared. Choice D actually states that explicit declarations are not necessary and that implied intent to convoy happens if the convoy is by the same country.

So, it seems that the website is actually following choice E.

Personally, I like the explicit convoy solution that this website chose to implement. It prevents army kidnapping that may cause unexpected swaps.

@orathic: you could deny a support hold by attacking the unit that you anticipate to give support. Although, I guess you are referring to the case of a unit offering an unwanted support move when you are trying to arrange a self-bounce. That's a bit annoying, but I think that makes for interesting play and isn't as ridiculous as army kidnapping. Surely it's easier to imagine how an enemy unit could ruin a self-bounce with an unwanted support move. Imagine that as the enemy unit preventing the other unit from getting in to properly create the bounce.

yes, i can easily imagine that in the confusion of war several different armed factions orders may be unclear and misinterpreted.

And somehow the ability to deny a convoy route (even though the rules do not give a player this power explicitly) does seem to make more sense than to deny unwanted support - but this is a game, an abstract one at that, it's not about 'making sense' it is about making convincing arguements and carefully taking advantage of the rules to make it appear tha you meant to do one thing even though you knew the result would be detrimental to your 'ally'

That is why incomplete orders, or orders which are unclear are an important part of the game (at least in the tabletop face-to-face version, i know not in this variant) But the spirit of the rules seems to intend to allow such a terribly weird thingg as kidnapping of armies.

n'est pas?

Now i kinda tend to agree with yebellz - so my arguement is just for arguements sake - that and trying to play devil's advocate as best i can. Still i am not convinced that this is the best/proper version of the game...

still i'm not sure why the rules state that a convoy route is prefered... that just seems a little odd.

"...it is about making convincing arguements and carefully taking advantage of the rules to make it appear tha you meant to do one thing even though you knew the result would be detrimental to your 'ally'
That is why incomplete orders, or orders which are unclear are an important part of the game"

Those are very good points. Allowing ambiguous, unclear, invalid, incomplete, redundant, or conflicting orders does allow for interesting aspects of the game to come up.

I believe the website was created a with an accessible, beginner-friendly philosophy that motivated the rule and design choices (i.e. the drop down menus instead of a text box for order input). Maybe this philosophy caused a compromise on implementing something truer to the spirit of the game, but these compromises have to be made somewhere. I'm not too sure there is such a thing as a "best" version of the game. I think every implementation of the game (even those played face-to-face) is going to have some "house rules". As long as those are reasonable, well-understood and consistently applied, then I think it is fine.

For those who are unaware: WebDip's "house rules" consists of the choices made on the DATC "disputable issues" (most of which follow the DATC suggestions), the order entry interface preventing invalid/ambiguous orders, and these two issues:
1) communication is allowed during retreats and adjustments phases (except in gunboat of course)
2) the game ends immediately after a player gains an 18th SC after the fall move (before retreats are processed even if a retreat could prevent/delay the win)