"reporting to the game to the mods."

Nowehere does it say they were reporting him as a cheat. Just gonna get mod intervention.

If you read the press, there was metagaming from the player (which a mod came in and discussed), so the player should have been reported too. He wasn't drawing unless everyone agreed to join another game with him.

Yeah and a mod interveined and warned him. It's actually one of the more interesting "what not to do" global press chats. But the point is, while they had every right to report the game and force a draw *and* to report him for metagaming, they only threatened to get a mod to force the draw.

If you ask me, the douche in this whole situation was the ass who refused to draw for so long then called the mods total dicks. He should be glad I'm not a mod or I would have taken away all his available points so he couldn't get into any more games until one of his existing ones ended.

^^ I take it you're not surprised that you're not a mod? :P

I especially loved how Turkey started dropping f-bombs...then asked someone to please mind their language about the same word. That was class.

without looking at the game (still) i'd say threatening to call in the mods is a bit harsh, but refusing to draw when everyone else has voted to is kinda pointless.

you can pretty much assume that once a player have entered their draw vote they are not planning to stab. Unless they tell you otherwise in private press.

Above all i hope the players had fun, i don't think resorting to calling in the mods is fun.

just to make it clear, I didn't "threaten" anyone. I just mentioned that I would consider emailing the mods to force a draw, if Turkey wanted to continue the "nonsense". I was informing/educating him about the rules which I learned after posting this topic. Draugnar pretty much said it all for me.

p.s. Turkey basically got scared when a mod accused/warned him for metagaming, and he quickly clicked the draw button. In no manner did the mod actually ask him to draw or even mention drawing the game, Turkey just knew he was in the wrong and obliged.

But... he wasn't in the wrong for not drawing. The "join another game instead for revenge" thing was, but his overall action of not drawing was completely justified. I wouldn't draw with five people in that situation and neither should anyone else.

Now, he WAS 'wrong' for not backing off and giving the others space to kill, but not in the 'moral wrong committed' sense here, just 'you're doing it wrong stop failing' wrong.

@Eden - A true stalemate line had been established and everyone except Turkey makesmore points with the draw so the other 4 have no motivation to eliminate another and risk the draw. How long would you have stretched the game out with no gains?

Ideally, see Russia and England dead. Realistically, see Russia dead.

You didn't answer the question. If they had refused to attack eash other, how long would you have held out in that situation?

Turkey tried that. He didn't make much of a case for Russia's death, which I'm thankful for, but he tried. And again I'd like to point out that Turkey drew the game because he *knew* he was out of options, and *not* because a mod asked him to.

If he really had any other viable or legitimate plans, I'm sure he would have brought them up with the mod when inquired about it, but he didn't. and that goes to show he was only prolonging the game hoping for a mis-order or an NMR or what ahve you.

I'm with PE here, he had an option. Where he failed was not backing off so that others could make a move. Staying on the stalemate line made it too risky. But again, I don't really know what all the dynamics were, I'm just speaking based on the board position and strategy.

And I'll ask you the same question. How long do you hold out before accepting the draw? The rules of the site clearly state that we are to help the mods keep the site fun. An indefinite stalemate isn't fun for anyone.

I think PE makes a viable point, but he's not really addressing the issue, which is what Draugnar is asking him to do. How long do you wait? I'm surprised this hasn't come up before on this site, especially with the higher ranked players. I would love to hear what they have to say.

I'm a 3 to 5 year guy. If I get some encouragement from my diploming efforts, I'll go 5, otherwise I draw at 3 years of no progress.

Five years minimum, after retreating to the minimal stalemate line.

I ask this: Why should Turkey have to concede in a deadlock? You all have given no justification for why the tie should always be broken in the favor of the coalition.

I did. We have a responsibility to keep the site fun. Indefinite stalemates are not fun. And if 5 Yeats is your minimum, what is your maximum?

It doesn't have to be just the coalition: If the tables were turned, say if Turkey was on the defensive, and he was the one asking for a draw, and a stalemate line was already reached, then a draw should be called. forcibly if needed.

I think it should be done Simply on the basis of whether any further progress can be made.

Another point is if the players have put in their vote for a draw, then that should be respected and it should count for something. You can't just say "Oh but trust me, I will talk them out of it, just give me 5-10 years".

And again for the record, that wasn't even Turkey's intention. His intention was purely either A)they miss a turn or B)they make a mistake in their orders. Which are both legal, but at some point that can't be your entire cause for prolonging a game more than it's deserving life.

In the postal days (1960-80's) the same problem came up over and over. What became fairly standard in the late 60's was that if there was no change of supply centers for 3 game years the game was a forced draw. To which the caveat's were added that there had to be a stalemate line or a strategic stalemate (more subjective) and that the change of supply centers between allies to frustrate the rule and drag the game out was not acceptable play.

In face to face tournaments with no time limits similar problems arise where people try to drag the game out waiting to actually tire people out or get them drunk or whatever.
Again the Tournament Director usually reserves the right to call a game a draw typically on similar grounds of good sportsmanship and realistic board position.

Players have to remember the number one line in the Diplomacy Mantra:
We play games to have fun and make it fun for others.

Too often people forget that aspect from which all other activities are derived.
EdiBirsan AT astound DOT net

Draugnar: The indefinite stalemate is the fault of both sides. Punishing one side for it is ridiculous. I don't know a maximum because I don't have an absolute standard for each game. Truthfully even a five-year minimum is in doubt -- I say that because I expect that after five years of sitting at a minimal stalemate line the other side will feel free enough to do something about it, that it's not a temporary ploy for me to sweep in and win the instant they turn their backs.

rollerfiend: Correct. Amended -- Why should the tiebreaker always go toward the group wanting a forced draw? Progress CAN be made. That's the thing. Progress in reducing the draw size. And the point isn't "I will talk them out of a draw to help me win."

Which I feel is something I haven't adequately explained. The reason I feel it's wrong to side with the drawing party at all times is because I'm not arguing from a "pull back to stalemate lines so they'll stab and I can swoop in and win." Personally, once I hit a legitimate stalemate line, I almost always concede the win. Once that happens I fall back and try to shrink the draw size -- and I'm completely honest about it, not just using it as an excuse to win. If I've been stopped, I acknowledge it.

(The exception is if I end up waiting for an inordinate amount of time because the coalition is exceedingly incompetent in killing the small parties. I only ask for either nonessential players in the line or tiny powers on critical spots to die; so in this example, England is gone because he's unnecessary for the line, and Russia is gone because while he owns Nwy/Stp, which is critical to the line... that's all. Mos/War can be lost safely. So in essence he's a 2-center power, and should be squeezed out. If France and Germany took more than five years or so with me waiting and England/Russia weren't close to dead, I would absolutely pounce, because FG were being way too incompetent.)

This, I feel, is much different from the "stalemate-line-withdrawal-as-an-excuse-to-get-them-fighting-while-I-surge-forward-for-the-win" strategy, and deserves different coverage.

Here's my alternate proposal. The logic behind not squeezing anyone out of the draw, aside from emotional reasons that should be discounted*, is always "The leader would come back and try to win while we were infighting." Since the moderators always investigate the situation before forcibly drawing, they would ask the leader his intention.

If the leader has a strategy for winning that isn't "waiting for an NMR/misorder/infighting," let them play on.
If the leader is doing one of the above, let it play out for the 3-year standard Mr. Birsan mentioned above, then force the draw.
IF, however, the leader says "I intend to draw, but I want the draw to be reduced in size because x and y players can easily be killed if I back off without losing the line," then the moderator should relay this message to Global chat.

At that point, the leader is obligated to follow through and not attempt to win. In exchange, the other players are obligated to kill off the nonessential players. The game is then drawn at a more reasonable size. If the leader betrays this obligation, the leader gets some kind of punishment for lying to the moderators.

The reason why I think this should get special favor is because the leader, in saying this, is giving up his right to try to win. All parties have agreed the game has been played out and should be drawn, the disagreement is simply how many people should be included.

To immediately force a draw is to override one party's desires for no justifiable reason. It's certainly not "fun" for a leader to get an equal share to a Frenchman living in Liverpool just because no one could root the Frenchman out in time, but that aspect of "fun" gets unjustifiably ignored every single time the game is forcibly drawn.

This solution allows for a compromise -- the coalition gets its draw, though not with everyone involved; the leader gets a smaller draw, certainly not as good as the win the leader wanted but better than a large draw.

Any objections to that idea?

So because *you* want the draw size reduced and a mod announced your intent, you think that somehow obligates the other players? Hahahahahahahaha... Bullshit. They aren't obligated to fulfill your whims and can tell the mod and you to get bent.

Let me put it another way. I refuse to be obligated to eliminate a good ally because you think he should be. How would you like it if in our world game, barzil and kenya refused to draw until you were eliminated and I was obligated to do it. I'd tell the mod who told me to kill you to fuck off and ban me if he didn't like it.

@ Eden
I disagree, the reduction in the size of a draw is an ingame negotiation.
Under no circumstance should a GM/Moderator enter into the diplomacy of a game in progress.

There is a lot of talk and 'diplomacy' that goes into a draw and the role of apparently minor powers is critical in many ways to the psychology of the game. It also presents an interesting long term affect on the hobby and the repeat play, so entering as the GM to basically insist that the small guys die is counter to the spirit of the game and the health of the hobby.

"So because *you* want the draw size reduced and a mod announced your intent, you think that somehow obligates the other players? Hahahahahahahaha... Bullshit. They aren't obligated to fulfill your whims and can tell the mod and you to get bent."

Then why can't the leader tell everyone else to get bent and not draw?

That's what I don't understand. I think the argument that they aren't obligated to fulfill the leader's whims has merit, but it has to go both ways.

No, because the site rules clearly talk about our responsibility to make the site fin. A player who refuses to draw when a stalemate is had is nebleftinf that responsibility and breaking the rules.

Stupid cell phone... neglecting and fun...

"It's certainly not "fun" for a leader to get an equal share to a Frenchman living in Liverpool just because no one could root the Frenchman out in time, but that aspect of "fun" gets unjustifiably ignored every single time the game is forcibly drawn."

I also agree that it is not "fun" to be forced into a 5-7 way draw because incompetent idiots can't even root out a few 1 centre powers. Whenever I am leading and a stalemate is reached, I contact the other major powers to remove the smaller ones to reduce the draw size. I then support those powers into any stalemate line centres which the small ones control. (perhaps 2-3 times before they realize I'm not going for win)

Should the other players be stubborn and refuse to eliminate smaller players, I suggest a cancel instead. (keeps the GR high)