>It's still an external factor? Why is it not relevant?

I am not *using* it. Check your quote from Wikipedia again. If I knew that the player were sick and likely to go NMR but had not been able asked for a pause, then that would be using out-of-game information. If I caused the illness to create an NMR, then that would be using out-of-game resources. But if I use only in-game information and resources in my decisions, then that is within the game.

If the mere *presence* of an external factor creates metagaming, or creates metagaming on behalf of those that it helps, then agreeing to pause is just as much metagaming as refusing to pause. The idea that considering the game position when deciding whether to accept a pause is somehow *outside* the game is just silly. You simply have an opinion (one I share, as it happens) as to what a good player should do, but it is not required by the rules, and the decision is taken entirely within the game. (But this point has already been made.)

There is still the issue of what the boundaries of the game are. There is a long tradition in Diplomacy that, as the game is sneaky and underhanded anyway, anything is fair game, including
* breaking into people's rooms to read, steal, or substitute orders,
* impersonating people by letter, phone, or email, and
* lying about people's out-of-game relationships to influence others' opinions about their likely in-game trust or lack of trust.
I don't think that anyone has stooped so low as to cause illness.

Although the FAQ doesn't say so, my impression of the standards here are that the game should be confined to this web site. Therefore, causing illness is out, as would be most of the devious tricks listed above. (Possibly cracking someone's account could be OK, but I expect that it wouldn't be; it violates the usual norms of Internet communities, in any case.) The FAQ clarifies that, even within the site, different games should be kept separate. That is, it is not intended to contradict Wikipedia's definition, but to clarify it by specifying where the game ends. Without such clarification, Wikipedia's generic definition is useless; you need to know what is outside the game.

That's arguable. It's dickish, but I would say it is the player's perogative to be dickish. It's also unprovable. Are you a mind reader? Or are we going to start hooking people up to rather unreliable lie detectors?

Sorry, that was in response to this...

"Of course, not pausing simply for in-game advantage is certainly metagaming of the bad kind."

I've done that ^_^

In a face to face game: Myself (England) and Ally (Germany) broke into X(Turkey)'s house, got on his computer and read all the correspondence on skype/aim between him and Y(Russia). Then won me the game.

When we fucking play we fucking play bitches.

@Sayjo: "In a face to face game: Myself (England) and Ally (Germany) broke into X(Turkey)'s house..."

See, if you did that to me, I'd call the police, and then you'd forefeit the game while you were in jail, so I'd win.

If anyone's interested I'm still waiting for Kestas to answer my private message, but will post the response here in due course.

He'd probably have time to ask for a pause before getting hauled away, which you would be obliged to grant based on this thread.

I don't think so, Dingle. If you actually read my previous comments I have never said that pauses should be granted in all circumstances - just where the person asking for a pause has a good reason.

I don't think "I need a pause because I've been arrested for breaking and entering in an attempt to cheat at this game" counts as a justifiable reason.

Innocent until proven guilty. 'I need a pause why I fight an unjust charge against me.'

But in the example cited, Sayjo admitted his guilt: "...[we] broke into X(Turkey)'s house..." so he could hardly claim the charge was unjust.

Unless he lives somewhere where breaking into people's houses isn't against the law...

Have you ever seen a trial that ended on day 1 with the charged pleading guilty? Everyone pleads not guilty.

Back to argumentative and silly?

@Dingle: "Have you ever seen a trial that ended on day 1 with the charged pleading guilty? Everyone pleads not guilty."

That's absolute rubbish, lots of people plead guilty.

In criminal trials in the UK, the majority (around 60%) of defendants enter a "guilty" plea.
(Source: Zander, Michael: "Cases and materials on the English legal system" (Cambridge) 2007 - page 321)

And I believe the figure in most US states is closer to 90% due to plea-bargaining.

Fine, put him in the 10%. At his initial arraignment he will plead innocent. He will plea down later. So give him the pause.

Besides, he will be arrested, charged, and released until trial.

There is no point in continuing this, Dingle. You're being stupid.

Lighten up Francis

Dingle's just having a little fun, Jamie. And in the US we have this other plea called "no contest" which states you don't dispute the facts as presented, but you don't believe they are indicative of the crime for which you are being accused.

For instance:

Undercover Officer: "Defendant was observed smoking marijuana. A search of the defendant revealed a 5" lock back knife in his pocket and a nine millimeter hidden in his sock. No additional evidence of any crime was found on his person. We arrested him on possession/usage of an illicit drug and for carrying an unlicensed/concealed weapon for the 9mm and the pocket knife. Only the possession and use charges are presented today as the 5" knife is smaller and it was later learned that he has a valid conceal/carry and the gun is registered to him."

Defendant pleads no contest to the pot charges as this is a misdemeanor that, with the amount involved, usually carries no jail time and he needs to get to work that day.

For those of you following this, I am still waiting for Kestas to reply to my private message about the pause votes expiring every phase, but when he does reply I will post it up here as I promised.

I still haven't heard from Kestas.

Kestas, I know you're busy, but it's five days since I messaged you. Any chance of a reply soon?

Why don't you e-mail him?

I've sent him two private messages already. I would assume that, since he has just brought about the introduction of the private messages feature, he might check his own messages at least occasionally. Otherwise why should I assume he checks his email any more often?

Don't be a dumbass...

Private messages get lost in between game notices, and forum posts get lost between other forum posts.

An email is the safe way to go if you want an answer. If you don't want to do that, but prefer to be morally outraged by his non-respondiness, be my guest.

"Private messages get lost in between game notices"

What's the point of them, then?

I'm not being morally outraged anyway. I know Kestas is probably very busy, I was just bouncing this thread in the hope he'd notice it.

Well, I would say that the point of them is to be able to contact players who don't have their e-mail accounts as public.

Yes, a message might get lost, or even read in a rush and then forgotten about, that doesn't mean the system is worthless, just that it's worth... less.

After nearly a week I am still waiting for Kestas to reply to my query, so I will post it here again in the hope of attracting his attention. It has also been sent twice by private message.



"Hello Kestas,

Please can you change the way pause votes work - back to the old way?

I don't mean about the buttons vs /pause. I mean the fact that if you vote for a pause in a given phase, but the pause doesn't take effect in that phase (because you are still awaiting one player's vote, for instance) then all the votes are reset and you lose your vote. The old way, where your pause vote remained 'live' until you cancelled it, was much better and did not need changing.

Since 0.9 went live, I have been in more than one game where a player needed a pause, and had good reasons, and where all the other players were happy to allow them a pause, but due to not everyone voting 'pause' by the end of the phase, the pause did not take effect even though all those playing wanted to pause.

If you are unwilling to reverse this change, could you please explain why you feel the new system is better?

I apologise if I sound critical - many of the other new changes in 0.9 are very good. It's just this one point that is bothering me, and several other players.


Regards,

jamiet99uk"



Kestas?

bounce

jamie, just email him.

http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=320