Yeah but an easy change for not very much benefit still has the same rate of return as a very difficult change for a very significant gain.

And I'd prefer it to be kept the way it is. I played diplomacy once before this site in FtF, and this site's rules <i>are</i> diplomacy for me. I don't really care what the real rules are, because I'm used to these.

And the name that you give something, if it's the same thing, doesn't really matter.

I don't know what people are used to who have never played the real game, but this makes more sense, I believe.

This as been discussed at length in the past.

It is my understanding that people felt 1 missed move didn't warrant a CD. Life can sometimes get too hectic and missing 1 turning the player CD for a year simply interrupts the game too much. Again, this is my understanding of the consensus from a while back.

Yes, the idea is that anyone can miss a single turn, and there is no point in throwing them into CD straight away. I know I've totally missed turns before.

Doesn't the system also have it's basis in the rulebook as well? I can't remember...

@ abgemacht & TGM: JECE is *not* suggesting what you think!

Reading the rulebook, I think that JECE is correct about the proper terminology; if someone fails to submit orders in some phase, then their government is in ‘civil disorder’ for that phase. This is not a permanent condition, however; if you submit orders in the next phase, then you're not in civil disorder in that phase.

The rulebook doesn't give a specific name for the situation in which someone could be replaced by another player; it just advises to ‘allow someone else to replace any player who leaves the game’. As far as I can see, JECE is happy with the way this is done now; it's only the terminology that conflicts with the rulebook.

Ah, my goodness! All three of you misunderstood me, it seems. And does nobody know what civil disorder is in real Diplomacy? From the rulebook:
"
If you leave the game or otherwise fail to submit orders on a given
Spring or Fall turn, it’s assumed that your government has collapsed.
Your units all hold in position, but don’t support each other. If
they’re dislodged, they’re disbanded. No new units are raised for
the country.

If a country in civil disorder has to remove units, the units farthest
from the country are removed first. If units are equally distant, then
remove Fleets before Armies and then in alphabetical order by the
provinces in which they’re located.

It’s probably best, if enough players are present, to allow someone
else to replace any player who leaves the game. Players should decide
what policies they will follow before starting the game.
"
Guess what that means: WebDiplomacy follows the rules for civil disorder for any missed turn, even if a country is not labeled as being in civil disorder. The "policy" on the WebDiplomacy site is to allow other player to join a game only after two turns. This state is not, as this site terms it, "civil disorder", but something else which should not be named 'civil disorder'.

Thank-you, Toby Bartels. You have phrased what I meant well :-)

Are there any comments after this clarification?

Should I be sending this in an e-mail instead of posting it on the forums?

Or here: http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/ ?

You should address it here, it's just that no one cares because it is trivial.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...

Get off the semantics, JECE. An NMR here acts identically to a CD in face to face. It was named differently so the term could be used for a completely abandoned position. Maybe the nation should go CD then Abandoned, but does it really matter? The EFFECT is the same as the rule is implemented exactly as it is specified in the rule books.

Ahhhh but this is where you are wrong. CDing is slightly different from simply missing a turn. The critical points are that in FtF the player is assumed to be gone, so dislodged units are autodisbanded and if a country has too many units then the farthest ones are autodisbanded. However, if you just miss a single turn on webdiplomacy.net you can come back and enter a retreat order. Its only when you are in CD (after the next turn of missed orders) that the units is auto-disbanded.

Personally I prefer the status quo.

Not true. If you were there for the moves, but miss the retreat you units are auto disbanded even on an NMR. Likewise, if you are there for move and retreat, but mis build and you have more units than SCs, then units farthest out will disband. You are ASSUMING (danger Will Robinson) that you are missing the move phase.

>CDing is slightly different from simply missing a turn.

Not according to the rulebook. You can be right there in a FtF game, but for some dumb reason you don't submit orders; you're CD (for that phase).

Sorry, Centurian, I misunderstood what you were saying. I think that you are correct.

Draugnar, you are not understanding Centurian. According to the game rules, if you miss the spring or fall moves, then you do not get to retreat or build/disband. On this website, if you miss the spring or fall moves, you still can come back and do a retreat and chose your build/disbands. So there is a slight functional difference.

However, I would assume the FtF rule is that way to keep the game moving. On this website, games don't have to move so fast so it isn't a big deal.

On the other hand, that would be quite the penalty for not turning in moves. On the other other hand, a harsher rule might lead to more abandonments.

Compare the other difference in rules between FtF and this website: diplomacy is allowed during retreat and build phases.

All the same, I agree with JECE about how the terminology should work on the website. It doesn't seem very important to me, but I were designing it from scratch, then that's how I'd do it.

No, Centurian is not correct. It is incorrect that for a CD "in FtF the player is assumed to be gone". The rules only state that "If you leave the game or otherwise fail to submit orders on a given Spring or Fall turn", you CD.
As for being allowed to issue retreats, that is an entirely separate issue. By your reasoning, the rules say that a power is not allowed to enter orders during the retreat and disbanding phases. I have issue with that. The rules say, I repeat, "If you leave the game or otherwise fail to submit orders on a given Spring or Fall turn . . .". That means you have to miss an entire turn. The rules already cover what happens to a unit that is not given an order during the order writing phase (covered in the diplomacy phase of this site). From page 3: "A unit that is given an illegal order (or no order) must stand in place. (The unit holds.)" From my understanding, this means that you can come back for your retreat and disbanding phases. Even if the intended rules don't allow this, you have contradicted yourself anyway. This site allows people to join a game during the retreat phase and during the disbanding phase. I know since I have done so. Despite the previous claim of otherwise, this means that the site holds no difference between what you call "NMR" (what does that stand for?) and a country in CD.
I have previously brought up the issue of diplomacy being allowed during the retreat and disbanding phases, and I think I have come up with a solution of sorts. And by the way, I do not believe that the diplomacy phase and order writing phase should be separate. That would be pointless.

‘NMR’ = 'no moves received’

JECE, Centurian is correct. There is a fine distinction. But I think everyone either doesn't care or prefers it how it is.

IMO:

JECE is correct that the terminology here doesn't quite match the rulebook.

Centurian is correct that the rules here don't quite match the rulebook either.

How's that? (^_^)

Uh, guys. I tried to justify the opposite. How am I wrong?

In:
*Whether or not this site makes distinctions between its NMR's and CD's (other than with phase times and the ability to join games)
*Whether or not the real rules allow for submitting retreat or disbanding orders during a CD
I believe the answers are no and yes.

There are functional differences from a website and Ftf. This rule is an example of this functionality changing the game ever so slightly. If you think about the board game, with retreats being just minutes long, and the general the lack of online community ready to take over countries, making it an auto-disband makes perfect sense. In the reality of an amateur online diplomacy site it doesn't.

You aren't wrong, in that if this was the board game it would be different. But its not a board game, so its not.

I'm pretty lost. I think we are mostly talking about terminology and semantics. As for functional differences, part of that is because there is a difference between playing this game in a face to face setting with limited time compared to playing only over a period of months. So the fact that some rules are a little different is okay by me.

my interpretation of the rules on the functional difference between a 'CD' retreat phase for the 'real' FTF rules vs this online version of the rules is exactly the same as Centurians. I think he has pinpointed the functional difference which, IF we adopted JECE's premise, we would also have to implement (to be totally true to the 'rules' of FTF).

That said, I think rumley has made the most coherent point so far in this thread (and twice at that): "But I think everyone either doesn't care or prefers it how it is."