Two issues I see with that idea are as follows:

1. There is no point trying to stop a solo. Once someone is getting close, why stop them? You won't get a draw out of it and odds are that person isn't going to be losing a significant number of centers anytime soon, so why try? You could stop them with a stalemate, and then what? You end up conceding anyways.

2. Say you're playing a game that requires more than half+1 centers to win. As soon as you hit the half+1 center count, you can stop playing. Secure your lines in a stalemate and wait it out, eventually everyone has to concede to you without you doing anything.

I understand the frustration with people playing for a draw. But draws exist for a reason.

^ Basically what Spartan said. Draws are annoying at times, but they're still a very essential part of the game's mechanics.

I profoundly disagree with what you think, however even assuming that the mechanism of "draw" is an important part of the game, a game should be played it this way:
one player, one nation, and you play to win, then if you end up in a "draw", patience, no one won. no glory. everybody lose.
With the current mechanism the majority of people who pretend to be players, but do not understand the spirit of "diplomacy", play the entire game for a "draw". So coalitions of 2 or 3 nations are formed from the beginning and other players are doomed. The game itself is doomed. So sad.
If you do not agree please, do not write more. On other sites what I suggested worked well.

"Put in the title of the game: NO DRAW ALLOWED, and in the global chat write:
THE GAME ENDS WHEN NOBODY FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS CONQUERS OR LOSES A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF CENTERS. IN THIS GAME THE SIGNIFICANT NUMBER is 2 (EG).
WHO HAS THE MORE CENTERS WINS THE GAME AND THE OTHER PLAYERS MUST CONCEDE THE VICTORY. IF THERE IS A TIE, THE GAME CONTINUE FOR ANOTHER YEAR, AND IF THE SITUATION DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME MUST BE CANCELLED.
actually on this particular "diplomacy" site the players who play for a "draw", are a plague"

Alternative: Put an EOG year on it, since the person winning will automatically get the win when the game ends, nobody in their right mind what vote draw in an EOG year unless they think they're not going to be winning for very long.

yes, it is an alternative.

I will add a feature for moderated games to allow the game-director to block vote-buttons. A global "Disable Draw-vote"-option would cause too much trouble for the mod team, for the reasons stated above.

I'd love to play under this format together with you and some of your multis, lol!

epic :)

There is something I don't understand about this draw discussion. In order for there to be a draw, don't ALL the surviving players have to agree and vote for the draw? It only takes one player to prevent a draw. Am I mistaken?

yep you are right...

I don't think that a capital-letters title and a message in Global is the best way to set up a SRG.
Some could join it by mistake without reading the title and noticing the Special Rules too late. You don't see the Global chat of a game from the new games' list, and if you are the last one who joined, you can't even leave it.
You may say that such inattentive players are uncommon, yes maybe. Personally I don't pay much attention to titles, I focus on parameters, so I wouldn't bet on it. But why take such a risk when there's a better solution anyway.

I think it's much more safe to open a new thread, explain the SRG, recruit enough players who agree with the rules and then create a passworded game. No mistakes would be possible.
Interested people would also have the time to ask for clarifications. They'd even have the time to get answers, if the thread-opener hasn't got banned earlier. Lol.

If you use the "game-moderator"-feature while creating the game you can post a description-line that's displayed in the game-description.

The only oddity about the voting for draws is that the votes are cast publicly. This allows the voting to be used as a diplomatic tool to force the game to end because the single player wishing to play on begins to have no choice. Secret ballot draws are better because they allow for a more pure game, but absent a GM to evaluate whether or not the lone player obstructing a draw has good cause, the present system works better. As Oli suggested, you can achieve a no-draw parameter by setting up a moderated game game, which is in effect creating a GM. The system he established also allows a player in the game to be the GM if that is a concern. Naturally that is a scenario that would dictate a lot of trust in a player/GM.

Don't you effectively set up a no-draw game simply by never voting for a draw? If you want a no-draw game, just state at the outset that you will never vote for a draw. That is an option that every player has.

If you are eliminated the other players still can vote for a draw.

Why would an eliminated player care if the survivors vote for a draw? Sorry if I'm being thick. I'm just trying to understand the issue.

I was in a game where I took over a CD with one army and one supply center. The best outcome that I could reasonably hope for is to survive until a draw, playing the two major powers against each other. I was in a position where they both needed to prevent the other from taking my supply center.

I succeeded -- I survived and the game ended in a draw -- but I was baffled as to why one of the powers agreed to a draw. In this game I was Russia and the two powers were Italy and England. When it appeared to me that Italy had gained an advantage, England proposed a draw, and then whined and complained that a "loser" like Russia (me) shouldn't be allowed to participate in the draw. I said that if he didn't want me to participate in the draw, then his only recourse was to eliminate me from the board. He still whined and complained. But here's what baffled me -- Italy who had gained an advantage and could go for a solo, voted for the draw! That was fine for me, but it didn't make sense to me.

It seems to me the real issue is a deadlocked stalemate where nobody can effect change on the board and somebody refuses to vote for a draw, forcing all the players into a never-ending game. I would call that a "never-ending game" problem, not a draw problem.