Don't be so fast to lump me in there, Ms. Bent. I said it was a legitimate tactic for some to do it as it is part of the game. Please don't assume that I believe it to be anything less than dickish if a reasonable need is presented. I'm not going to give you a pause because in Spring 02 my opponent wants to go get a boob job. That was planned and the boob has to suffer the consequences. But if she has a real emergency or if the game is running excessively long and a preplanned event comes into play, I pause.

In face to face play, bugging rooms and stealing order sheets is a valid tactic, but I would never stoop so low.

If you don't pause you are being a dick.

Responding to a lack of pauses with a further lack of pauses is stupid and hypocritical.

I just went away for the long weekend and had an excellent sitter watch my account for me. The experience was very positive. I think a more productive attitude, if you dislike the pause culture, is to promote account sitting more.

@Dingle: "As Toby put it, yes, the rules have been adjusted. But refusing a pause is just as much a part of the rules as asking for a pause. So how can it be considered 'metagaming'?"

1. If you refuse to grant someone a pause because you feel they have not given adequate reason for needing one, that is not metagaming.
2. If you refuse to grant someone a pause despite their having given a good reason, because you think "aha, if I refuse to pause I'll be able to grab some of his SC's while he's away" then you are metagaming because you are taking advantage of an out-of-game event (the other player's absence) to gain an in-game advantage.

@ Dingle - if the Browns are plaing the Steelers in a NFL football game and they get three delay of game penalties in a row, the Ravens can't buy in and play the rest of the game. You're comparing apples and oranges.
I'm not a fan of having multiple pauses in a game, but i've never turned down a request, even if doing so would benefit me. You can add me to the second column, djbent.

*playing

Trip - that's a wonderful example.

(2) above has already been answered. I'm done being silly and argumentative today; I'll go back to lurking.

@dingle - i am not arguing that it's against the rules. the question is, is it a legitimate tactic? we can add a second question: is asking for pausing, or not voting to unpause, b/c you are losing a legit tactic? and my answer to that will be no.

play the game, let's have fun, damn i hope i win, but i'm not going to use a pause (one way or the other) to gain an advantage. and i would like to play with others who feel the same way. yes, it does interrupt flow of play, which is why getting a sitter is preferred, but not always possible.

if i find myself in a game with people who think that a pause is such a hassle, i won't ask for it, so it's nice to know who feels what ways about it. and i'll be sure to add that to my posting for new games in the future.

@Toby: "(2) above has already been answered"

Perhaps, but if you are referring to the answers given by Dragnar or Dingle, I don't agree with their answers.

@jamie - there's no point in trying to call it meta gaming, we should just call it what it is, a dick move that is not a legit game tactic.

OK, Centurian...

Diplofool joins your new 24 hour game and in fall 01 asks for a pause because he is going camping for the weekend. Do you pause? I don't. If that makes me a dick, so be it.

Now, Diplofool goes CD and DJBent takes over.

In Fall 08, Crazyter's spouse takes ill and CT asks for a pause for a few days. I grant it (as does everyone else). Crazyter winds up having to drop out and we stay paused for 2 weeks because we all agree to find a replacement and have a mod put CT in CD so the replacement can take over.

In Spring 13, Ms. Bent has to go to see her mother in Cleveland for the week. This game is already two weeks behind schedule AND is running long. She can't find a sitter so she asks for a pause. Well, I don't like the length, but we all grant it anyhow.

I ask, does the first one make me a dick? Or am I actually being a reasonable person to expect a person (Diplofool) to fulfill their commitments to a game of reasonable length (in Ms. Bent's case, it had grown long in the tooth) barring emergencies (like Crazyter had)?

Trip, thats a terrible example. There is a rule to deal with what happens when time expires. You can't compare rules for specific games, just the presence or absence of said rules.

If the Detroit RedWings have too many men on the ice, they don't get a 5 yard penalty like the Browns would. THATS comparing apples and oranges.

There is a rule in both games to deal with too many men in the field of play, which is specific to each game.

There is a rule in Diplomacy and football to deal with clock expiration, which is specific to each game.

DJbent, so what was your conclusion about how we all feel about pauses? Based on reading this thread, because I think people are quick to say 'Tony and Dingle don't pause'. Which if you read the thread just isn't true.

@dingle - exactly, which is why i don't understand why yall are defending it.

Defending what? What specifically that I posted are you questioning?

@ Dingle: "There is a rule in Diplomacy and football to deal with clock expiration, which is specific to each game."

Yes, but in the version of Diplomacy we play on this site, there is an additional rule allowing players to seek a pause to avoid clock expiration.

Dingle is so right. Drawing a foul or commiting a foul is a legit tactic in some sports, but the teams and players that do it are generally viewed as scum. And recognizing that does not mean the person agrees with the action, just that they see it for what it is: another weapon in the arsenal to win the game.

that it is a legit tactic.

And in the NFL there is a rule allowing a team to call for the play to be reviewed. That doesn't mean they get to have the call overturned automatically. Asking for a pause doesn't mean one has to aquiesce.

I'm happy to agree with Draugnar that people who don't give you a pause, when you have a valid reason to request one, are scum.

@draug - AHA! so, it's like a foul? so there should be consequences for it? a penalty, you say? so it is a legit tactic, but it comes with consequences? not so, not voting for a pause brings no penalty whatsoever.

First, it is like a foul in that it is a valid tactic. Running a quarterback sneak and fake handoffs are also valid tactics, but there is no penalty on them. You are making a strawman argument there.

That being said, it can, and often does, come with a penalty. It brings the ire of the player who asked for it and their allies down on you. If they provided a valid reason and you were the lone holdout, it could well cost you the game.

But aren't pause votes secret in the new version?

Also, In tournament play, if you leave the table (i.e. to go to the bathroom), you can have everyone wait for you to return.

@ Onar: "But aren't pause votes secret in the new version?"

Ummm, no. Everyone can see if you have voted.

(It appears next to your name in the status area below the map)

@draug - no, you are building a strawman. =P

but you say it's a legit tactic, so it shouldn't be penalized. you can't have it both ways.

DJbent, I don't think I ever said it was a legit tactic. As I said, if you want me to defend something *I* said, please quote me.

@Dingle: I think the lovely djbent is referring to Draug's comments, not yours.