Re: Discussion on scoring systems ...

A:  If you don't find people blasting each other all that much in online play, then I agree, A is a fine criterion.

C:  Actually, if I were F or G, I would have tried harder to win the game.  Particularly if I were G.  Outpacing the other side of the board to control one's heartland, followed by jumping over stalemate lines, the classic two-person alliance, is only meritorious if you're keeping an eye on stabbing your ally for the win.

The game was really unenjoyable, not because I got a third-place result, but rather, because what was going on was extremely tried and hence boring, and I had the misfortune of being in a position largely impotent to affect it.  The only thing I could have done differently would have been to hasten the downfall of the east by attacking neighbors... I would have finished on a slightly larger third place result had I done so.  Whoop-dee-doo.

Anyway, my basic point was, scoring systems should not favor one play style over another... the open-ended decisional tree one can pursue towards victory in Diplomacy is among the most elegant elements in the game, that gives it in large part replayability.  Note also that F & G are already rewarded more than T in my example, by your "S" criterion.

One last thing on "C".  As I understand what "tempo" means, you can have a tempo advantage for one section of the game, and then surrender it for another... it's mercurial.  I know they have a way of measuring it in chess, but I'm pretty sceptical about getting a contentfully accurate representation of it in Diplomacy.  And, of course, there are also going to be those who argue that only the final result should count, and not how one gets there.  

I'm not in-principle opposed to the "C" criterion, but I think you're opening yourself up for a ton of haranguing... fair warning.  ;)