Maybe I am naive but I think you are overstating the metagaming problem and I certainly wouldn't want it removed as an option.

There are several ways to ensure that you are playing with mature, quality players and sometimes it is fun to play with a favorite country. Safeguards include:
1) RR requirement
2) min # of phases
3) high bet
4) password

Well it is only an option. Most people looking for a good quality game choose random assignment. I believe part of the reason it was created was to make possible certain tourneys and leagues where starting positions were set. However I do agree that for just a regular game, the standard setting is random.

There are benefits to this, the first example I can think of is team games where it allows people on the same team to pick their countries so they aren't on completely different sides of the board. Another is 1v1 games in tournaments, where you might want to play the same variant twice with the two people switching which countries they play the second time.

not overstating anything and the option should NEVER be allowed. You want to look the other way regarding metagaming, fine, let's do that for the moment. But you still are left with the very real problem of players signing on early having an advantage over those who sign on late. Player A and B sign early, they no doubt start discussing things, player C (or better yet player G) signs on just before the game starts, everyone has alliances ready to roll. This guy is at a huge disadvantage! That should absolutely NEVER be an option, you can't give me a reason to allow it!

the supposed benefits listed so far
1 vs 1 ...not "Diplomacy"
teams picking countries so they are not apart ...you are only helping make my point. You are allowing this team to get an advantage! Keep trying, and should you eventually come up with one viable reason I didn't think of.... every other game is ruined because of this. You want to figure a reason to allow a travesty? It's not fair, it's not "diplomacy" it's not allowed elsewhere, it gives you a BAD name by anyone even half into the game as a hobby!

I was told discussing moves before the game starts is considered cheating. I have a few problems with that... 1. Does everyone know this? 2. You allow buddies to join a game as neighbors, no doubt they plan on working together or why be neighbors? That alone is CHEATING! And now you expect these cheaters to not discuss the game between themselves? How can this be allowed? It's a bastardization of the game, no doubt about it. You want to give this site a better name? start with this "option"! I know about many sites and their reputations.
Webdip ...amateurs, lot's of NMR's
Redscape ...carebears
vdip ...metagamers

You have that reputation like it or not, real or not, this sort of option only gives that reputation credibility. Do something to start fixing that reputation, it's a freaking easy fix...do away with this as an option!

I can think of more reasons to allow murder in society than I can to allow this option in Diplomacy. Because you can come up with an example, that makes it ok? So we should allow murder, after all I can name several examples where it would make sense. No, you NEED to what is best for the game and in turn what is best for the entire site (society?). can you tell this shocks me?! Why any would support an unsupportable position (unless they are cheaters?) is also beyond me. You something broken, you should try to fix it, this "option" ...it's broke, now fix it.

Jesus christ! Why is your premise that the whole system is broken?

Has there been a mass outcry of meta gaming and other cheating on this site? Not in the last year, there hasn't. I am sure that it happens but not nearly in the rampant proportions that you depict.

The ability to choose your own country as an option has a number of benefits on the proviso that *ideally* none of the players will have made pre-arraged alliances before the game starts (and a reminder pre-arranged alliances are forbidden except in SRGs; and in private games players can do what they like)

The Mod-Admin team will catch players who meta-game.

Having said that here are the advantages to having the choice to choose your country as an option:

1) If the game is an anonymous game then this option allowed players to choose a country that they haven't perhaps played before, or play a country that they prefer or one that is a challenge to them.

2) It makes setting up various Special Rule Games much easier for the players themselves. SRGs such as team-games, or XvX tournaments, or even1v1s are made much more easier with this option see: http://www.vdiplomacy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Tournaments_and_Special_Rule_Games

3) This site is quite flexible and is dedicated to variants based on diplomacy. We don't have human GMs and this allows for a larger amount of variant types to be played more often than any other site I know of. If you prefer you can think of choosing-your-country as a variant in it's own right. While I personally don't join full-press, non-anon games with this option (but would happily join a global-press, non-anon game with this option) - I don't hold it against anyone who chooses to. Just as there is a split in the community regarding Gunboat vs Fullpress (or WTA vs PPSC) the simple answer is if you don't like that variant-type don't join it.

Ultimately this option offers players an additional option to their playing experience.

*forgive the grammar, I haven't had my coffee yet.

There is also a bit of an issue with the randomizer on some/all variants. It works on classic, but on variants it tends to stick you in a similar position every time. For me, I've played Fog of War a number of times, and all 4 times I've played on random I've pulled England.

The previous version of WWIV had a similar issue where you'd generally land in the same area. I know one player that always lands in North America...has pulled Quebec, Illinois, Texas, and Cuba in random games, but nowhere not in North America.

It's not a huge deal, but when it's not truly random I *sometimes* prefer to choose because it will ensure a different experience.

This site has a meta gaming reputation? 0.o
I think younare overestimating the whole thing...though i too dislike the option (because i don't know which country to choose), i join such games sometimes and just wait until the game has started, just as the others do...i have also not encountered some suspicious alliances being made before the game...
I see where you are coming from, but i don't believe your scenarios are correct :)

@Kal - I think you are misunderstanding randomness. That pattern looks pretty random to me, I think the problem that you are noticing is that the algorithm doesn't alter the random selection to take into account past countries played when selecting the country for the player.

(but I know that it can be frustrating - I've played KW901 umpteen amount of times and I still haven't played all of the countries yet, but have played some countries several times now)

@Kal: Remember, in classic the probability of pulling the same country twice in a row is 1 in 7.

The odds of getting a country 3 times in a row after already having it selected twice is 1 in 7.

People don't understand that when it comes to randomness streaks can happen.

Again, go ahead and let the games host assign powers based on a ranked preference and have him mix it up as he sees fit, that takes care of all your exceptions while maintaining the games and the sites integrity. Allowing players to negotiate before the game has started, before the game is even full, it's doing nothing for you while allowing other s to cheat. You want that reputation, then leave it as is. You will fine NO reputable site dedicated to the game as a hobby allowing this, if you prefer to be the odd man out and prefer that cheating reputation then yes do leave it as it is. As far as reputation? yes, this is the reputation I got from many people. If you want to play ostrich and keep your head in the sand then keep It the way it is!

I think you are missing something here Tom. We don't have human GMs on this site. I've read a lot of what you have read and you seem to be operating under the impression that the games are adjudicated by hand.

@kaner & @faces you guys are probably right. And while I've played a number of games, it's far fewer than others on the site so my sample size is pretty small and lends itself to the streaks skewing things. It is indeed frustrating, though, and makes it seem not random.

@Tom - when we had our WebDip install at Redscape we allowed this option also. When the meta-gaming/multi-ing happens, it's dealt with harshly here because there is an active mod team banning folks who do it. So sure, it's easier to do than at some other sites, but I wouldn't say it's all that common.

I cannot help but wonder if Tom actually understands the arguments for the option.

The arguments for the option are fine, but they should be confined to very isolated instances. It's an absolute joke to see them being used in a game that's marketing itself as high competition. But if you want to play in Retillion's self-scripted solo experience, go right ahead. He's set it up as PPSC so if you collaborate with him, you'll still get your bet back.

It's a legitimate gripe. If you look at the historical progress of Diplomacy as a game (FtF<>PBM<>PBEM<>Judges<>PBPM) then you can see where the hesitation towards accepting certain features arise from.

We need to remember that we are an open site that tries to facilitate players from all walks of life, who want to play a variety of different types of variants. I mentioned earlier that choosing a country should rightfully be seen as a variant as opposed to an option in game creation... but that's how things are programmed. The platform that Diplomacy as a game has evolved over time has thrown up quite a few arguments about the 'legitimacy' of its options as it transitions to a new way of being played.

As does all change.

If you don't like to choose your country then here's some alternatives: you can have on anonymous and choose your country or you cold create games with random assignment.

"You will fine NO reputable site dedicated to the game as a hobby allowing this"

Ever heard of PlayDiplomacy? Stabbeurfou? Two of the three biggest Diplomacy sites on the web (the other being WebDip) and both have this option. Neither site has more of a problem with metagaming than would be expected from a site of that size.

Fasces - I think the webdip code has an algorithm that makes it less likely for you to get the same country a large number of times. The country-selection (in Classic at least - not sure about the others) is weighted slightly dependent upon how many times you have played each country in the past.

Tom, I understand your concern ...

But it seems to me that your proposed policy is not that good because:

a) it is principally unjustified as you take away our freedom of choice - something illegitimate in this case because your policy does not solve the problem of meta-gaming. People who aim to meta-game will always find a way to do so, and I suppose such shady, cheating alliances are not confined to neighbouring countries only;

b) it is then practically unsound because of the aforementioned problem-solution gap; and,

c) there are better alternatives to solve the problem, such as anonymity that Kaner mentioned earlier ...

@Tomahaha: Here is a novel idea, don't like a variant don't play it. Chose your own country is a variant of diplomacy just like World War IV is.

If you would rather never play a game with chose your own countries, then never play a game, but don't ruin the fun for the rest of us.

I sometimes want to test a strategy as a certain country, lets say Austria, in which case chose your country is useful as it allows me to select the county I want to play.

Team games, especially on large maps, require chose your country so that team mates start nearby.

Some tournaments sometimes require each person to play each country once, in which chose your own country becomes a necessity for the mechanics of the tournament. This was actually the reason the feature was originally requested and then implemented.

The point is Tomahaha, there is a reason this feature exists, and many people on the site love the feature. You have your own opinion, which is fine, but nobody is forcing you to join a chose your country game, so I kindly request you don't force people to not join chose your country games.

@Captainmeme: I don't think that is the case, but I could be wrong. Oli and Jmo would be better people to ask on that.

Captainmeme is right fasces. Weighted random.

I love how the knee jerk response to a very real problem is to sweep the shit under the carpet and pretend that it doesn't stink. Tom's objection to the selecting your own nation is a valid concern, and he's doing us all a favor by pointing it out. On the other hand, Kaner has correctly noted that the option to chose your own country exists for reasons of versatility in creating variants, tournaments, and/or special rules games where it is advantageous to be able to pick your own nation. What everyone here is missing is the very real concern that this option is being used in regular games without special rules, or any need to individually select starting positions. What's being missed is how players are setting up games with prearranged alliances that benefit from the ability for two (or more) players to form their alliance and then pick nations that put other players at an immediate disadvantage. The game that sparked this conversation is being touted as a game for strong and reliable competition, when the reality of the situation is that it is inviting mischief to take place.

Fasces has apparently adopted the Guaroz approach to shouting down any suggestions made here that differ from the standard operating procedure. The 'if you don't like it, don't play' response is just snide and redundant, and from someone representing the moderator team, pretty unprofessional. How nice of you to allow Tom to have an opinion (as long as he keeps it to himself). Tom's concerns are expressed not to prevent anyone from having fun, but to provide a fair playing environment free from exploitation and cheating. While there are clearly some reasons to include this set up as an option, Tom's concern that it's implementation in a game (live his new world map design) is that it's being used as a default, absent any specific reason or special rules that require it. And in spite of the hear no evil, see no evil mentality to cheating and game exploitation here there is some pretty fishy stuff going on. If you guys want to ignore it and allow it to continue, that's fine, but it's a benefit to other players looking for serious games that observations like this are made.

And just as with the now dismissed (by Guaroz) conversation that the PPSC used as a default Tom is trying to note that choosing your own country in a regular game is bad precedent. And it is. What lost in the la-la land of options here is that many of the standard diplomacy conventions are there fore a reason. So if there is no specific reason to choose your nation, then you get it randomly assigned (like picking a playing piece out of a hat). Likewise Diplomacy is a played to have one winner. Absent any specific reason while alternate victory conditions should be used, Diplomacy is a game where the winner takes all. These concepts are not some obscure preferences form old farts. They are essential elements of the game of Diplomacy, which are intentionally being pissed away here in the name of optimal variation. The diversity of game setting here is a great thing. It's a great part about this site, as it offers a wide set of choices for game set up. The problem comes when the defaults are improperly established (as the are here) and the 'regular' games take on these variant/special settings.

By the way, team games do not "require" this setting. There is noting preventing a team game SRG from being played with random nation assingments. NOTHING. It might actually be a lot more fun than the previously experiments team games that result in immediate map gridlock because Diplomacy is not a team game, and places teams of adjacent members simply reduces the number of diplomatic options. Just because you refuse to consider that as a way of playing team games, does not mean that the option is necessary or even good for them.

I think that point that needs to be stressed is that the ability to choose your own nation is a nice feature for some applications, but it should be avoided absent the special circumstances that it was created for. And this is where the efforts of voices like Fasces and others on the mod team could be better directed, since there is a ga