It's against the rules? Why, I think it's essential to discuss proposals if you're working with someone, or to issue threats such as 'if you build in so and so consider us at war!' Where does it say it is against the rules?

Exactly, building is part of planning.

In the rules it says its against the rules; however, I and I expect many others don't follow it here. I think the nature of this format would make it very inconvenient to include that rule

I think it is in the rules to save time during face to face games, which makes a lot of sense to me. However, I certainly don't mind conversation during builds/retreats over the internet. We need more discussion in this format anyway.

Yes, in face-to-face, the retreats/builds phase is shorter than the normal movement phases.

To be honest, I keep overlooking it when playing in here.

...I suppose that dangermouse is also referring to me & our long-phase game :)

Actually, not at all Rait. That game is a whole nother story (72 hour phase where Turkey has started logging in once or twice a week - just enough to bog down the game without going into civil disorder).

I don't know the reasons behind the rule, maybe it's like whalen says - it's just a time saving device for a game that takes 12 hours to play regardless. But it definitely and clearly states that no discussion of any kind may take place during build and retreat phases.

Personally, I think that rule is unenforcable in phpDip and I'm not dead-set against communication during those phases anyway. I certainly use them some of the time.

Actually the no discussion before retreats and adjustments was put in the original set of rules because the rules were designed for Face to Face (FtF) play and that would just make the game horribly long.
When the hobby started in the postal days in the USA nearly all House Rules allowed it as it was unavoidable and unenforceable. What was done is to put shorter deadlines and this carried over to the PBeM days.
In the United Kingdom at the start of their postal hobby they had one group of zines that insisted on conditional retreats and adjustments. This meant that with your orders to the GM (remember this is before PC's) you had to put in a potential retreat for all units that could be retreated or you risked having it retreated Off The Board (OTB). Likewise with builds and removals. As the UK hobby advanced this style of house rules became less and less popular and they doved tailed into the American style.

Thanks for the background Edi. Very interesting.

It'd definitely against the rules in FTF. But in PHPdip, due to different time zones and other communication difficulties, I have no problem using/delaying these phases to et extra press in.

get*, not et

I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed here. I always do.

I don't think the rule would be unenforceable here. The messaging function could simply be disabled during builds and retreats phases. I'm not saying this is a good idea, however....

The beauty of Diplomacy is the openness of the rules and how in person it is legal to spy or eavesdrop on other people's meetings.

but what about my msn? it just doesn't stop working during the retreats & builds

Feckless, disabling posts would do no good. Just check their profile and email them directly. Or exchange emails via post ahead of time.

That which you can not enforce you have to accept. There is no practical way to enforce non-negotiation retreats and builds executed in the manner of the original game so best to just accept that negotiation will happen and that phpDiplomacy is and has to be a variant of Diplomacy. A close variant, but a variant none-the-less.