>I would like to see a forum where the main discussion always relates directly to the game of Diplomacy<
Couldn't possibly agree more (though the occasional forum game isn't something harmful from my point of view)
>The real problem is when these discussions, especially those about new variants<
I don't mind discussing variants per se, as I believe there's great potential in such debates. To use recent examples, the threads on Crusades 1201 and Edwardian 2nd Edition had excellent feedback and counter-points that can (and likely will) serve to improve the variants' gameplay in the long run.
Small observation: The proposed redraw of Classic's icons do not constitute a variant under most metrics, though it is a visual variation.
> I don't know how we should deal with players who insult each other but also give valuable feedback<
Personally, I absorb the feedback that my eyes have already seem even when it's followed by insult, but given the website's purpose of pleasure over a board game, I prefer to filter constructive feedback from its more destructive forms.
> We must scream and yell about sub-par rating systems and "bad" unit icons.
The Hobby is saddled with attempts at "improving" - or rather, changing - all aspects of it in all ways. It's a historical aspect of the worldwide Diplomacy community, one I don't think will go anywhere.
Ever since 1959 people have been attempting to "mess with the status quo". An example: I recall how Allan Calhamer himself exposed that for many years, Italy and Turkey weren't considered neighbors the way they are now. They were considered more akin to Germany/Austria rather than France/England, yet there came Edi Birsan with the Lepanto shaking up the status quo of accepted wisdom.
Variants blow the status quo even more. Back in the Vienna zine in the 1980s, John Norris presented us with "Milan", a variant with the stated intent of improving balance by giving Italy some teeth. Decades later, Norris' vision of Diplomacy's Northern Italy has found its way into literally *dozens* of variants seeking to improve the game even more, from the widely popular 1900 all the way to Abstraction and Youngstown. And look: 1900, Abstraction and Youngstown all got "improvements" of their own, ready to be enjoyed and played and tested for eternity.
Rating systems are a Pandora's box. The sheer complexity of them, and the nuances between them. are massive, and we have hundreds (really, hundreds) of different rating systems that can be applied to Diplomacy, dozens of these *made for* Diplomacy. Calhamer's own scoring system (which we call WTA) is certainly the most popular, but in the same way as Classic, a map that can be beloved but also provide inspiration for *different experiences*.
And what other grand example you can find of seeking the different, the new, the untried, than vDiplomacy.com? Had people just "shut up" and rested quietly with the status quo at webDip, many of us wouldn't have had the pleasure of meeting each other. I am proud to be part of the vDip community, which was never afraid of confronting change - either for or against it - with curiousity, respect, but above all consideration for the game we all love to play.
>most seem to me a little too 'variant from existing ones to be worth publishing
I can understand and respect that (after all some are variations of existing ones), but I will address the "most" part.
Of the *25* variants I have been working on, *nine* are subvariants. The others have never been seem on vDiplomacy before - and in more than half the cases, were never played anywhere beyond PBEM/PBF. So I argue that "most" of my work is something original, lost in the dark depths of obscure forums.
> I would credit this to a general maturity of the people involved; even what insults there are tend to be more directed at opinions rather than people<
>this may tend towards contribution levels being self-selecting in favour of people who can handle discussions getting a bit rough<
I don't agree with the perspective that people with a reasonable level of "maturity" would use insults in any form or capability, whether at people or opinions.
If you have to resort to say "your point of view is bullshit" you are not arguing with logic, contributing reasonably to a debate or doing anything to nurture and improve good discussion. You would be simply using insult as a feeble shield to hide your own incapacity to separate person from objective.
What you end up having in the end is not "self-selection" of people who can discuss (?), but most often a circlejerk where the *matter at hand* is casually ignored in favor of mindless trading of offenses. We saw an obvious example in the recent thread, the difference being that insult even went past the "opinion" and was mostly targetted at people.
>attempting to enforce a different culture in favour of 'inclusiveness'
I don't understand this argument. Who is attempting to "enforce" what, and how?
>the occasional name calling has not particularly been an issue in the past
I disagree - name calling, under any point in time, is indeed an issue. If no actions were taken to curb unnecessarily hostile behavior in a place where people are supposed to discuss *a game*, then the problem lie elsewhere - but these are past waters.
> I am definitely of the mind that "if it isn't broken don't fix it"
A logical mentality, I must admit. However, as vDiplomacy.com's own history shows, change - and good discussion over such a change - is welcomed and embraced. Those who dislike change should nonetheless have the prerrogative to remain in the status quo e.g. don't play a new variant that you don't like.
P.S.: Thanks to @kaner for encouraging respectful debate while maintaing a neutral posture on personal disputes. I wouldn't expect less of a moderator who has the website's harmony in their mind.
As asked, I shall un-mute the respectful off-topic commenters from the other thread in the hopes that Diplomacy, not Random Internet Stranger X or Y, is the topic of conversation.