There was a intriuging suggestion is a previous Diplomacy thread saying all negotiations should be public, in the thread itself. Moves would still be secret until revealed. Kibitzing from non-players is encouraged.
Is anyone interested?
I would be.
Haven’t played in about 8 years now… but I’m down, if you don’t mind a rusty player.
Not at all. I imagine not playing for a while might not hurt you with this format. You still might want to refresh your memory of the move rules.
Ahhh… it all comes flooding back: Turkey and Britain are good, Italy sucks. Fleets are worse than armies, except when they’re impossibly more powerful…
For those in my situation:
Not sure how Machiavellian one could be in a wide open format. Might be interesting. But I think I’d want to watch one first.
Public discussion, but PM’s allowed to allow for dubious deals and backstabbery?
Becuase, really, what’s Dip without a good stabbing?
I believe these rules were meant to encourage front stabbing instead of back stabbing. Don’t worry, still plenty of stabbing.
The best stabs are when you tell someone straight to their face that you’re about to stab them. Plus, stabs don’t have to be coordinated with anyone else.
I thought about allowing PM’s for stuff, but I think for at least this opening try we should keep it “pure.” You can always try a spoiler tag and hope…
(I also though about playing this open communication along with the “Chaos” variant, but I want to leave with my sanity intact.)
Chaos AND all-public press would be almost pure chaos. Worst would be Chaos / all-public press / all-black (unattributed) press. Any volunteers?
I will refrain from chaos, if that’s ok, but Put me down as willing to give this one a shot…
I went from the 2nd mightiest power on the board to a crushed shell of patheticness in my last game in about 2 turns.
I long for revenge!
Would we be allowed psychoactive drugs?
I would be interested - although I got schooled horribly last time I played Diplomacy against dopers. 
wevets
garygnu
Tristan
Hawkeyeop
ScubaBen
Diomedes
Shibboleth
So 7 people have posted in this thread so far, but Shib has specifically requested not to play. With live games, we could just write things down and then open them all simultaneously to determine the results. I guess in this sort of version, we’d need a GM, as well. That would require 8 people?
We probably should get commitments from people though, to get this rolling ,right?
/in.
In.
Vote Diomedes
Oops, sorry wrong game.
I don’t really want to play at the moment, but I wouldn’t mind going on the back-up list. Seemed to work well for me last game I could also probably be talked into being GM if no one else volunteers.
::kicks thread::
Any more interest?
I’d be interested in a regular game. This format seems to encourage cheating, and takes away the fun two faced nature of the game.
So, how do we want to do moves?
We still need seven participants, one to GM. I don’t see how we could play fairly without at least having our moves being sent in secret.