5 minutes is the shortest possible phase length, so try again.

I think the point is more to discern who are considerate players, and who are sore losers and jerks.

If we had a reliability rating statistic, similar to what is on vdiplomacy.com,
that took into account how often new players flaked on moves, that would be a huge step in the right direction. I don't if that would require too much work to transfer that coding over to this site though.

I'm with ya Putin, I think 'D' may have misunderstood you

;)

I mean, there are plenty of times where I have seen a player that gets stabbed first year just stop turning in orders at all.

Has anyone thought about adding a button that would allow a player to surrender entirely? That would at least let a replacement player be found faster, rather than waiting the requisite two moves for them to go CD.

Or maybe a "jerk rating," the higher the jerk rating, the more of a jerk the player is at the end of the game when he is losing and directly proportional to the amount of time he takes to confirm orders.

Warning: jerk rating has a strong possibility of admin abuse.

"Seriously, people who are losing and decide to delay the rest of the game __an hour__ by never confirming moves need to be given a ghost rating death penalty."

"__5 minutes__ is the shortest possible phase length, so try again." (emphasis added)

I think he means that players continually do it while they're in the processing of being eliminated. It's never just one turn.

I'll admit that I didn't know you were talking about live games. I assumed you were pissed because someone took the whole day and didn't finalize causeing you to wait another hour until the turn finally ran.

But my statement still applies. It isn't their obligation to confirm moves. I don't give a fuck if it is a 5 minute game or a 5 day game. If you are playing live and can't wait 5 minutes between turns because you don't have an extra hour to spare, then don't play live. You agree to a 5 minute phase when you could play non-live and do a turn a dya or every couple of days. Expect people to take the full 5 minutes. It's their choice.

@LakersFan - We have talked about a resign button, but Kestas and the Mods (appearing nightly at the WebDip Pavilion!) feel that it would legitimatize quiting and be a detriment to the site as a result.

How about a Resign button that only takes effect when another takes over country that wants to bailout.

I don't think Etiquette has any business in ranking systems. What's next, don't like someone's hairstyle, so you're gonna want to dock him a couple ranks?

When someone acts like an ass a bunch, no one will want to play with them. That's punishment enough, I think...

If you don't like how people play, don't play with them.

I really don't care about how other people think of someone's play style.

Also, when I'm losing, I always take as long as possible on my turns because
1) I'm desperately trying to negotiate with people
2) Things can't get worse for me, so delaying the game only increases the changes of someone deciding they want to work with me.

This is War, not shoots and ladders, if I think delaying the game will help me survive, I'll damn well do it.

What's "shoots and ladders"? I've heard of chutes and ladders, but does your game involve guns or bows? ;-)

@Draug

It's a more violent game of the kids' version.

Isn't being a fucktard already accounted for in the rankings because someone who is bluntly obviously lacks the diplomatic skills required to build an alliance and hence has a smaller probability of winning the game?

bluntly=blunt

I've had people get mad at me for taking all five minutes when I was actually using the time for heated diplomacy with several different countries. Don't assume it's bad sportsmanship.

Chutes and ladders? Snakes and ladders, surely??

semck, Putin is just not the kind of guy who sees the worst in people and then would base his judgment solely on what he believes you are rather than what you actually are. I fail to see what you mean by your comment.

Good one, redhouse1938. The bigger question here, of course, is how this "etiquette" criteria could possibly even be workable. Like it's been said, what if you really need the time to wait for a possible diplomatic response? And how can we possible determine who does it for that reason and who does it to be a dick? And is it even wrong to be a dick? Purposely delaying so your opponent gets mad and makes a mistake seems like a strategy totally in sync with the spirit of the game.

"If you don't like how people play, don't play with them. "

Like you have a choice when you want to get a game together and there are limited people around. Get real. Does it just piss you off if people want some kind of incentive for good sportsmanship and not scoldings from people like you who want to reward bad behavior? WTF is up with the fact that nobody can even propose the idea of gentlemanly behavior with you and the usual suspects getting all up in arms? Who does it serve to have an anything goes, annoy-the-shit-out-of-everyone policy?

*without

The excuse that people with one or two SCs are busy actively engaging in diplomacy is pure bs.

Umm, I do it all the time, Putin. (I hate to admit that I'm that frequently down to 1 or 2 SCs....) I recently got a survive that way. If there was ever a time to start diploming, it's then.

Remind me not to play with you.

Putin33, do you realize what game you're playing?

Putin, I reviewed our correspondence in the one game we played together, and although you were NOT being rude, you WERE being blunt. That was before you NMRed without apologizing or explaining.

But again, it's totally unworkable, even if it were a good idea.