i'm not familiar with the no-press games, but even for regular games, if you had agreed to a draw in the global tab, you have effectively agreed to a draw. the post at the forum is just a message to kestas. you can't change your mind. usually kestas takes some time to draw the game, and the situation can change. what you're doing is exploiting the current system where automatic draws have not been implemented. IMHO, your behavior is unacceptable, Feckless!

Thank you, alamothe. So, in your opinion, what if, while waiting for Kestas to draw a game, the situation were to change as dramatically as a player going into civil disorder, and another winning the game? Should the game be retroactively drawn, and the CD player given a share of the loot?

Feckless, this is why you don't agree to a draw too early, but once you do agree to a draw, you are bound to it as alamothe says...

Also, I know this is diplomacy and full of lies/stabs, but a no press game is set up on an honor system that is intended to eliminate lies/stabs as much as possible...

perhaps i was too harsh, however i still believe it is unfair if you change your mind after the orders have been processed! draw is so hard to engineer

If I was bound to it, Marx, the game would have been drawn by now.

You may be right, alamothe, perhaps it is unfair, and for this, I apologise to all involved for my error. Still, with a 600 point pot at stake, and no clear consensus emerging, the game continues, I'm afraid....

No...you are only bound to the draw AT THAT TURN.
Because things can change drastically...so draws are only binding in the turn it was offered.
Next turn, everyone has to agree again...(or imply by NOT disagreeing)

If Gobbledydook is correct, then England is equally responsible for this lamentable state of affairs....

BTW, do retreat and unit placing phases count as separate turns in this context?

...Spring and Autumn.
The two 'seasons'.

Feckless, this point obsession is a large part of the problem... I'm not arguing about how many points are on the line and how that affects the decision making, I'm discussing a philosophy/theory that is independent of points and should be upheld even when nobody else is looking or knows about it... It's a question of ethics, which I think do, or at least should, exist in diplomacy... Well, certainly in a no press game at least!!

Anyway, I guess this is why I tend to exaggerate at times. As far as I'm concerned, if you break the rules, you break the rules, regardless of the extent to which you break them. If one player influences a second player's decision making, that first person might as well be submitting orders for both in that game... Again, an exaggeration, but I just can't help myself!! ;-)

PS - Yeah, I know suggesting a draw is technically diplomacy, be we've all discussed how that much is acceptable as well as a simple response....

Rait wasn't a player at the time, and didn't influence anyone's decision making. What's your point?

So MM, if I join all your no press games, if I see the game is about to end and I am not the winner, can I start talking in global and get the game cancelled? You've identified a problem, but have not offered a solution to it, other than cancel the game.

It seems to me the solution is that if you feel Rait cheated and Feckless has no morals, don't play with them.

Here is the comment which started this:

Tue 06 AM Autumn 1917: sorry, still can't see the reason for draw ... English are about to break, Germans are about to expand etc. - there is still lot's of activity on the board - why draw.... it's WTA after all ...

I posted this in the global forum after rait's comment:

Riat - there are different opinions as to whether draws should be allowed in no press, but I think that we can all agree that discussing positions and prospects is against the rules :/

I still believe that this is the bottom line. Whether it influenced Feckless Clod is irrelevant. Regardless, for reasons I Won't discuss now, I don't very much care what happened or what happens from here.

But I do believe that there is a much larger and certainly more important issue at stake: The time at which draws become binding.

Treefarn's solution isn't really much of a solution, since it would prevent MM from starting or joining any games that aren't password protected....

Actually, now I think about it, that's pretty good....

My solution was that we have a Technical Draw, a TKO of the diplomacy world. Once the game was compromised, all remaining players split the pot... though I did offer another solution of Feckless... excuse me, Clod, agreeing to the draw on the forum that he agreed to on the global message board.

BUT, as far as this actual game, I agree with MajorTom on two counts. First, I don't very much care what happens from here, even if I also do think Clod owes the players in this game and of this website the respect of upholding his word. Second, that there is a much larger issue at stake, which is why I continue to beat this dead horse.

Finally, regardless of how much Clod and Rait may or may not detest me at this point (and Treefarn, for that matter, though my interactions with Treefarn are an entirely different topic of discussion!) , I'd be more than happy to play my next ten game with any/all of them. I play games on this site to have some fun and I find all these guys very interesting/challenging/entertaining to compete against. Like Vampiero said to me once, though not verbatim, this dialogue is all a result of good-natured competition.

PS - I'm a bit surprised nobody went off on my ethics comment... though, this too is why I sometimes exaggerate, people tend to quickly tune me out, so I really got to kick and scream to get a little attention sometimes!! ;-)

Detest you? Lol.... I'm not quite so easy to wind up, my friend! I don't think that your penchant for exaggeration benefits your argument at all, but I do admire your tenacity....

Perhaps I do owe the players in this particular game the respect of upholding my word, though as I understand the current rules, such as they are, I rather doubt it, and I think that my offer to comply with a community consensus is more than adequate. I owe the other members of our community nothing, I'm sure, and the community owes me nothing. My willingness to entertain this debate, in the hope that we might reach a consensus with regard to some legal grey areas, to the benefit of all, is a free gift. :)

LOL, thanks feckless for your kind bestowal of a gift on this community. I'm sure we are all the better for it.

So what issue is bothering you MM? Is the the 'cheating' my Rait? Or the lack of ethics by Feckless? Which dead horse are you still beating, because I cannot tell.

I do agree that Rait's comments violate the no press rule. I don't think it was done with an intent to cheat, or even to influence the game though. Nor do I believe the game should be drawn on this account.

I can find no rule that Feckless violated either. So I see no reason to draw the game on that account.

^ What he said. At this stage, Marx, I'm a little confused as to what your position actually is, and what it is you're trying to achieve. To pursue this debate further, I think you'd need to respond to a number of points which have arisen.

#1) Are you seriously contending that a game should be canceled, or drawn, when one player makes remarks about the game which another player contends to be in breach of the rules of that game?

#2) Even when it is not at all clear that the rules have, in fact, been breached?

#3) Even when the player who made the offending remarks had already been eliminated?

#4) (and this is purely academic....) Even if the remarks weren't made within the game itself, but through some other medium which is accessible to all surviving participants, such as this forum?

#5) Do you dispute Gobbledydook's contention that players, having agreed to a draw in the global tab, are bound to the draw only at that turn (where a turn is defined as Spring or Autumn)?

#6) (and again, this is purely academic....) Would you seriously contend that a draw should be retroactively enforced even when a player has made significant gains, and perhaps even achieved a victory, in the interim?

My position is quite simple. Points one through five just express varying levels of the utmost absurdity. As Treefarn suggests, the logical conclusion to such contentions is that a player, faring badly, should be able to force a draw simply by a deliberate breach of the rules, or by contending that another player's remarks had done so. The logical conclusion of #3 is that a player who has been eliminated should be able to do the same....

So, e.g., you're kicking my ass in a No Press game, you inquire as to my mother's health in the Global tab, I insist that this is a coded message to Russia requesting support into Munich, or some such, and so I get to force a draw? Nuts to that.

You really need to get over this Rait thing. No-one in their right mind is ever going to agree to draw the game on the grounds that YOU think that No Press rules could be breached with an observation as vague as "English are about to break, Germans are about to expand etc. - there is still lot's of activity on the board". Furthermore, I'm still maintaining that a game cannot be drawn or canceled on the grounds of ANYTHING a FORMER player has to say, AFTER they've been eliminated. A former player is not in a position to make support agreements, forge alliances, or do any of the things that the No Press rules are intended to prevent. This would be true even if his messages to the surviving players were private (though if they were to respond, that would be another matter). Not being an active player, he cannot be subject to the rules, and his observations, however detailed, cannot be directly relevant to the fortunes of the surviving players.

I, for one, see no reason to dispute Gobbledydook's contention that a player, having agreed to the draw, is bound to the draw only at that turn. This seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. And since England ALSO failed to post a public acceptance of the draw before the end of Autumn 1917, I don't see how Turkey can be under any moral obligation to accept a draw now.

Treefarn, nothing is bothering me at this point. I think Rait’s press violated the no press rule and thus compromised our game. I don’t think it was an intentional violation of the rules (this whole “cheat” thing confuses me, wasn’t it blatantly obvious that I was kidding about that?!?!), but I do think it was done to influence the game. I don’t think there is a need to draw the game because of the violation, but at the same time I think it would be an appropriate response to the violation.

As far as Clod, I agree that Kestas cannot draw the game unless Clod agrees on the forum, which he did not. It’s not a rules violation that is the issue, it’s just an ethical violation, in my opinion. Of course a draw does not become binding until Kestas processes it, the question is when should an agreement to a draw become ethically unbreakable. In a regular press game, I can see a strong case for someone backing out of an agreement to draw, even if I wouldn’t do it myself. In a no press game, a game that is based on an honor system, largely to eliminate as much stabbing/lying as possible, I think you must stoop to a much lower level to back out of a draw.

Anyway, my main objective was to express my opinion on those two items regardless of if anyone agrees with me or not. My tendancy to exaggerate may not help my argument, but I never claimed to be a debate champion, I’m just making it up as I go along. I suppose my initial reaction to these two issues was even more exaggerated because they seemed so blatantly obvious to me. It never occurred to me, that once I point out that Rait had violated the rules that he would claim he didn’t, it was initially that black and white to me. Same with Clod since if I agreed to a draw in the global message board there’s nothing that could happen in the game that would get me to renege. A final (subconscience) rationalization for my exaggerating is that I so desperately wanted an explanation for these two seemingly impossible opinions that I stated the case very strongly in opposition to help guarantee a response… I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I’m a freak, it’s just that I’ve accepted it and some others have yet to realize it (though that number is decreasing rapidly evey second)…

Okay, Clod, here’s your response:

1. I think cancelling the game would be an imperfect/appropriate response, just as continuing the game would be an imperfect/appropriate response, it’s a lose/lose situation.
2. When things are unclear, a judgement call needs to be made. The mere fact that it is unclear supports the fact that cancelling the game is at least somewhat appropriate, though perhaps much more imperfect.
3. A player that joins a game is technically a part of that game until the game is over. This was pointed out to me when I was joking around about taking over for a CD player in the same game that all my units were eliminated.
4. No press isn’t limited to the game itself, you are not allowed to discuss the game in person, by phone, on the forum, anywhere/anyway.
5. Heck no I don’t agree with Gobbledydook, that’s just his personal opinion.
6. I think once a player agrees to a draw, then he should draw the game, even if in the mean time he has won, absolutely, 100%. It just dawned on me that I should consult the actual rulebook, which states, “players can end the game by agreement before a winner is determined.” In my opinion, as soon as all players agree to the draw, the game is effectively over, so there should be no backing out and no more chances to stab. I do think, however, that if not all players have agreed to a draw, that you have the right to change your mind, but the moment everyone has agreed, game over. Yeah, this line from the rulebook, as well as all of our input to date have drawn me to this conclusion, once everyone agrees to a draw, the game is over, period.

Reading the 3rd reply on this thread, and subsequent posts, no, I didn't realize you were joking about Rait cheating. Whether you intersperse subsequent posts with smiley faces doesn't change that.

And to Feckless, I don't think whether Rait has been eliminated releases him from the no-press rule. No Press means No Press, regardless of if you are alive or dead.

It's amazing how people's ethics are always on their side. =D

As an impartial third party here...

I think that Feckless Clod is entirely within his rights to renege on a draw. I wouldn't even agree with Gobbledygook's interpretation. For me, a draw is not official until Kestas makes it so. You can renege on any press made in-game. The subject is subjective enough that it does not warrant any punishment for Feckless Clod.

I think that the game's integrity was compromised. But mostly because you guys actually discussed a draw in a no press WTA game... A soft draw in WTA? Press in a no press?! You all compromised it by posting in the global tab.

I don't think Rait should have posted his opinion on the draw, but I don't think anyone should have posted... so I wouldn't single out any blame for him at all.

I think this whole situation is far overblown, and MadMarx, just let it go. You're pushing this whole categorical imperative nonsense on very subjective matters which have little effect on anything other than your personal gratification. I know you'll claim that you're just exaggerating and you thought that this was obvious to everyone, but what's obvious to me is that you only ever "exaggerate" your outrage and when you feel you have been wronged. =P

Try adding a =P

Come on Treefarn, I'm a math guy, not a word guy!! The most common definitions of the word cheat are described with words like defraud, swindle and deceive. All these imply some sort of malicious intent, which I can assure you was not the case and I was only joking if that conotation was implied (since I felt it was so obviously not the case). One definition of cheat is to violate rules, which I believe is what happened, but that definition takes no stance on the intent of the cheat... Anyway, I hope it is clear through subsequent comments that I think the comments were made with nothing but the best intentions, but they did leak into a grey area that I feel crossed the line... This is why I prefer 1 + 1 = 2, it's much easier to avoid lengthy debates, though the lengthy debates can be very interesting...

Furthermore, my initial comments were somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction to the situation that was meant to start a conversation that would hopefully enlighten my (and hopefully others) thoughts on the situation. My opinion isn't locked in stone, it's constantly evolving as new perspectives get brought up...

Good.... because I really think you should give more thought to your opinion on whether it is appropriate to draw a game just because one guy says the rules have been violated.... if Kestas were to agree, I would ask him to please draw game 4932.... the bloody Russian moved to Silesia, and it's NOT FAIR! If it's not at all clear that any rules have been breached in that game, then canceling the game is at least somewhat appropriate, according to Marx, and otherwise, I'm going to throw ALL my toys out of the pram, and cry until bedtime.

Also, I was talking to Ingrid, the tea lady at work, about another No Press game I'm losing.... I hadn't realised that "you are not allowed to discuss the game in person, by phone, on the forum, anywhere/anyway".... Ingrid was 72 years old, she had never learned how to use a computer, didn't speak much English, and I rather suspect that she had no idea what I was talking about.... and just as I was getting to the most exiting bit, she died.... but I had inadvertently broken the rules, even so, so can that game be canceled?

I'm normally a stickler for rules, but I'm afraid that the rulebook's contention that “players can end the game by agreement before a winner is determined” isn't strictly applicable on phpdiplomacy.net, where in fact only Kestas can draw a game.... and since Kestas, tragically, has a life, and has been known to take his time over this, Chrispminis' claim that "a draw is not official until Kestas makes it so" isn't so much a statement of his opinion as it is an accurate statement of an unfortunate fact....

Roll on automated draws....