@djbent: Look at Dingle's 05:26PM and 05:28PM posts.

"While I will always grant a pause, they are most definitely NOT a part of the game. "

that's dingle from way back. so it seems that is your argument.

so i take it, dear mr DJ, that you agree with me that not pausing is not a legit tactic? i'm afraid i got confused when you brought in all the references to other sports and such.

The girlie got confused when we talked about sports? Ok, lets suppose Ken and Barbie were playing house...

@Dingle: Where can I consult the official rulebook for "Ken and Barbie play house"? I didn't realise there was one.

Legitimate tactics still get penalized. Would you rather get sacked 25 yards behind the line of scrimage, or throw the ball away and possibly get an intentional grounding charged against you? Would you rather exit the pits doing exactly 55 MPH and know the second place will get past you at the pit exit? Or would you rather kick it right up to the edge of 60 MPH, knowing that 1 or 2 tenths over 60 will cause you to have to do a 55 MPH pit pass and cost you the race, but you may beat the second place car out and maintain your lead? They are potentially minor infractions that are risked in ever game or race to try and hold the lead. Therefore they are legit tactics. It's up to the refs/umpires/officials/other players to decide if this was a serious infraction and to enforce a penalty if need be. That does not detract from their legitimacy.

oh please, spare me ya dumb brute.

check yall later, i'm thru here.

DJBent, I think you are quoting me out of context.
The previous poster had said "Whoever didn't pause is an ass and should be outed... pauses are part of the game...", intimating that they are required to be given.

My response, in full is below. You missed the last sentence. " While I will always grant a pause, they are most definitely NOT a part of the game. They are granted as a courtesy, not a right."

"oh please, spare me ya dumb brute."

Oh geez, take the Ken & Barbie joke as the joke it was.

I see that Dingleberry got scared of the most intelligent advocate against his position and resorted to (legitimate but dickish?) tactics to get rid of her.

Draugnar. Yes you are. Going camping for the weekend is a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to do. I don't think this game is at the top of anyone life priority, and as such I think most things take precedent over it. I give pauses to everyone, diplomat1824 (or the alias he goes by now) or not.

Toby, no, not at all. It was meant as a joke. Based on her conduct on the forum, I figured she could take a little humor at the obvious stereotype...

Then I'm a dick. Because I believe if someone starts a new game knowing they will be leaving in the first year or two and need an extended pause, THEY are the ones being the dicks. Would you like it if a painter agreed to paint your home in a week and then, 2 days into it, said "by the way, I leave tomorrow for a month long vacation". You'd sue his ass for breach of contract. Anyone who enters a game knowing that he or she will need a pause so close to the start is an ass and doesn't deserve the pause.

Well, by that definition, "I don't think this game is at the top of anyone life priority, and as such I think most things take precedent over it." any pause request should be granted, as if you're in a game that is paused, it wouldn't mean much to pause it.
But at the same time, by that definition, it wouldn't really matter much if the pause wasn't passed, as it's just a game.
I'm really feeling on the fence with this one. But think of it this way: if the tables were turned, how would you feel if your pause request was denied?

Onar, it goes back to original question. Why was the pause requested?

So, my answer/opinion on the matter: It's all situational.

I know that for me, when I request a pause, regardless of the reason/phase, I want it done. I grant the same courtesy to others.

First, I wouldn't be in the position of asking for a pause unless my own requirements for a reasonable request were met. And I believe that thos requirements would satisfy 99% of the people here. So If I were denied, it would probably be a dickish move on the part of the person denying the request. But, if I were an asshole who started a gmae knowing I would need a pause early on, I'd probably be upset because anywony that dickish would probably get upset over every perceived slight. It's the same type of person who can't recognize an incredible stab, even though they are on the receiving end of it.

Well, don't start any games with me and ask for a pause to do something *scheduled* within the first 2 years, cause I won't give it to ya'.

I would rather grant a pause request then have a country go into CD. Really how much fun is it winning a game if you get to pick off a CD nation while the others have to fight it out amongst themselves?

Agreed, Snelly.

Or should I say, 'I agree, Snelly'

(cue anti-smoking ad here)

The point is not about you not wanting to pause because "you shouldn't have joined".

What we are saying is meta-gaming and NOT a valid tactic is not pausing *because* you will benefit from the NMR.

Not pausing because you think the reasons for the request are not strong enough is acceptable, although I wouldn't do it.

Not pausing because you don't feel like it is a dick move.

Not pausing because the NMR will benefit YOU is metagaming.

This debate is brought to you with limited commercial interruption by WebDiplomacy.

And remember, it's metagaming if not pausing hurts the country without a player and benfits you at the same time. It's like scoring a goal in a soccer game but only the winning team is on thr pitch.

Xapi, now that statement, 171 messages later, I can agree with.

I'd like to point out that, based on those statements, you could refuse a pause for a legitimate reason AND have it benefit you is therefore NOT metagaming.

"And remember, it's metagaming if not pausing hurts the country without a player and benfits you at the same time. It's like scoring a goal in a soccer game but only the winning team is on thr pitch."

No no no. Its metagaming if the REASON you refuse a pause is to benefit your country...

Ah thanks, Dingle. I forgot to add that.

DJ, it's what I've been saying all along.

Xapi, either you didn't express it well, or I didn't understand it well.

This is from page 2 of 6:

" A pause has been asked for what you understand is a valid reason. A player chooses not to vote for the pause, because:

1) He feels the game is close to an end, and he needs the points to enter another one.
2) He asked for a pause for himself before in that game, and wasn't granted one.
3) He has the strong belief that you should keep your commitments (IE: Phase time), no matter what.
4) He believes his position in the game will benefit from the NMR of the player who asked for the pause.
5) He holds a grudge over that player because of a stab in that game.
6) He holds a grudge over that player because of a stab in a previous game.

Now, these are all diferent situations, some more obvious than the others. Not all are metagaming, but N° 4 certainly is.

If I haven't convinced you, then we can agree to disagree. "

This is crystal clear to me.

Xapi,
My response to that was:

Xapi,
"In absence of anything else, I do believe #4,5 and 6 are against the spirit of the game. However, if 1,2 or 3 also applies, then 4,5,6 are no longer relevant."

That looks just as crystal. So can a mod please delete the intervening 150 posts?