@Ruff, while you are right in some points you made some misconceptions.
PPSC's a "center-based system", similar to C-Diplo and the like, since final play position is decided by the number of supply centers held by the endgame. It's not close to Calhamer's design goals indeed, but it does approach the main scoring system used by the hobby worldwide much better than WTA.
While FtF tourneys obviously need short games due to time restraints, those have become hallmarks of Diplomacy in the process, with its own strategical considerations given the limited time and emphasis on a meta scoring. Nothing is lost in trying to replicate it in an online environment.
Besides, you clearly forget that Allan Calhamer himself made a provision for a "Short Game" in the official rules of Diplomacy - from the very first set of rules all the way to the 1990s. (http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/rulebooks/1971GRI.pdf). If an alternate way of playing written by the game designer himself isn't "Diplomacy" for you (compared to map variants) then there isn't much to talk here.
The relative size of a pot, whether large or small, relies on a multitude of things. Personally, since everyone always have 100 points in play, any bet shorter than 100 is, in my humble opinion, suboptimal - and even when taking into account proportion (compared to webDip) most pots fail to reach a 700+ pot. Discussing doesn't serve for much though.
I don't get what you say about "exacerbate the issues of playing in a points based community". If both large pots *and* PPSC scoring are perfectly allowed on this website, what is the problem of players deciding to use the mechanisms provided by the site itself in the way they were intended to?
I believe WTA is better suited to good old Diplomacy. However the hobby itself, using Calhamer's own rules, decided to make an alternate way of playing that is incredibly fun for anyone who played it - it's a thrill to lead the board within only a few years of fierce fighting. Then, players across the world added the concept of center-based scoring (dozens of them, our PPSC being one). While this concept does not make much sense in traditional "get 18 centers" play, in short games it makes for an amazing way to reward those who came close to top the board - always a much closer race than the race to 18.
I dispute that I pointed out any "negatives" about the community. I simply pointed out that there was an *unexplored possibility* that those interested might wish to flesh out.
ULTIMATELY, this proposal is about making a game *similar to Diplomacy FtF tourneys*, where there is 1) a time limit, 2) a meta concept (scoring system to decide top board/champion) underneath the purity of the rules 3) high pots to increase the odds. All of this already mentioned in the OP.
The mechanisms to do it are available at vDiplomacy.com, and - attention there - *uniquely* at vDiplomacy.com. I know that folks here - me included - love a good debate about PPSC vs WTA, what constitutes or not true Dip, etc. In any case, to suggest to "look elsewhere" or to debate the very purpose of the proposal, while certainly in good faith, is utterly useless.
Thank you for your contribution.