Partysane makes very valid points, he makes a very similar point to me in what appears to be a better way. Hopefully his calm demeanor helps improve this situation.

As for 2ndwhiteline. So long as a player believes stalling and delaying games is a tactic "when losing," this is where the biggest problem lies.

Dear mods jmo and goldfinger,here you are an example of how you are wrong about stalemate lines in gunboats. Another game you two would have forced the draw - gameID=119929, just don't tell you wouldn't. Just pay attention next time when you intend to ruin a game.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/popcorn-yes.gif

Yeah,I know,I know,you are a funny guy. +1

Just saying - the argument is getting pretty good. I think I will charge for tickets.

Split - we do not draw games if there is a valid strategy that the player has. If we had contacted you and said "I'm withdrawing and hoping England stabs one of the other countries" then we would have said "Okay, we'll give you two years to see how that goes through." So yes, we would have likely drawn it in 1917 after you had your chance. As it is though, you only won because of an English misorder from EC to Belgium in 1919. Relying on misorders to win in a stalemate situation is not a legitimate strategy.

It doesn't make any sense man. Why throw him off his game getting him to write useless responses to you. If he didn't think he had a way of winning or shrinking the draw he would have pressed draw.

One of the rules on this site is to use common sense, and this does not make any sense.

So you can't be wrong ever? I think it wasn't like this. But this isn't about the final score in this game,it's about the stalemate line which actualy isn't the stalemate line. You would have mistaken in this one the same as you failed in that one.

A missorder Eng - Bel in '19?!? You are amazing! A missorder as it suites you. If it had been a missorder. But it wasn't,it was a move with its purpose. Which you don't see unfortunately.

How is asking for an explanation of strategy via email "throwing him off his game" if he has a plan already? Don't contradict yourself Lando.

Split - admittedly I don't know gunboats. What is the purpose of the move to Belgium then? Had he stayed in EC he could have successfully support held MAO and held the line indefinitely. I'm not saying you can't pull back and hope for them to stab each other. It's been done before and has been successful before. There's just a limit to it, that's all. It took you 4 years for your strategy to work. I'm just saying that strategy cannot go on indefinitely. The question is how long to give it, and that seems to be where we differ.

Actually, let's be a bit serious here, how long to give it is no small difference of opinion. I actually think gunboats should have a bit longer than the 2 years for press games because it could take a while to coordinate.

Ec - Belgium was becuase Germany bounced him over Holland earlier and he wanted to secure it. I know he could have holded the line.I told you - leave the final score,I wanted a 3-way but that's not the point.The point is the stalemate wasn't reached,the same as in Lando's game. And somebody needs 2 years,somebody needs 3 years,it depends. Lando had to do the same thing in his game - pull back a little but it seems he was too distracted by a high power...

I see Split. Thanks for the explanation. idk, I would have known Germany would stop trying to move there after the massive shift you made, or just convoyed to Belgium and took it the next year with the help of North Sea.

Ava brings up a good point though. There is a difference in coordination time between press and gunboat. 2 years is plenty of time for press (I think we can agree on that) but perhaps we can talk about longer periods of time for gunboat.

To those veterans out there, how long is long enough? To have any sort of fairness, it needs to be a concrete number that we can adjudicate upon.

You can't make a rule about a concrete number of years. You can contact players but you can't threaten people with:"you have x years to do that this and that". Common sense is needed from the players who delay the draw but from the mods too. I wouldn't have delayed the game anymore,I was just about to draw when Eng stabed Ita. There is no rule about it imo.

Maybe the mods should ask one of the seasoned gunboaters next time there is an issue like this. It's not as if there aren't any players willing to give their opinions on this site. Having full information is essential and if the mods don't fully understand a gunboat game, maybe they should learn or add a new mod that is well versed in gunboat etiquette.

Split4mod2014

The moderators have reacted each time (twice I have been involved with) on one person's message. I think until they hear it from all parties on the stalemate line they should stay uninvolved.

I should expand. One game I played the moderators contacted me (player on the stalemate line) about my partner on it e-mailing to request a force draw. At this stage of the game, this player had been attacking me behind the line, we were fighting with our extra units. It was a bit weird. But when I got the message from the mods I knew he would stop. I had not learned that from his moves yet.

The policy is deliberately simple, if we get a request from someone to look into a game then we do. In a game where everyone has voted draw except one person that person is contacted. If we'd been asked to look into your game Split we would have asked you if you had any strategy. If you'd replied with yours that would have been the end of it.

There is yet to have been a situation where someone has answered our questions and we've drawn the game anyways. It's common sense, we're asked to look into something and we do. As Yebellz stated some time ago, the current policy is not any set number of years because each situation is unique, which is something it appears Split and Lando agree upon. That policy works very well as long as everyone is willing to reply to the team. If anyone does have concerns about the current policy then send them on to the moderator team or Kestas.

So you're saying the policy is deliberately retarded?

There is a difference between looking into something and actively affecting it. No problems from me for you to look into these things, but you don't. You don't look into it at all, you don't use critical thinking skills and instead you force your first instinct take before really considering the situation.

Man the fuck up jmo and admit where you are wrong. Why is that so fucking hard for you to do?

You guys have Tom, zultar and Mapu on this team. They are all good gunboaters, why not lt them handle these issues?

I understand you dislike the gunboat variant, and that you signed up to be an internet moderator so you could exert power over people in a way you are unable to in real life. Neither of these things give you the right to methodically ruin people's fun on a site. This is backwards to your stated objective, although, it does jive with your internal objectives of abusing power you won't see anywhere else.

Lando, you have been asked by Kestas to avoid the back and forth on the forum, I find it very hard to take you seriously when you ignore even the site owner. I explained the site policy, if you don't like it then email Kestas.

#OCCUPYWEBDIP2013

Popcorn...check. Big gulp...check. Junior mints...check. Lets watch this one play out in beautiful IMAX 3 .

#BEATTHEHEAT

Oh wait. My bad.

I assume you have been told to avoid the back and forth and your incendiary and insulting comments on this post certainly did not help what was a productive discussion until your belligerent douchebag ass showed up.

Lando, that counts as back and forth ^

And its a little mean.

Besides blankflag, has anybody been punished for expressing their opinions?