Therein lies the problem, eh

FtF is only no in the formal sense. People will still chat, use hand signals, looks, etc. They just don't wander off and have private chats.

There are some rules that unfortunately can't be applied online, and this is one of them :-( There's no practical way to prevent players from communicating outside of the site

Just because a rule can be easily broken doesn't mean we shouldn't have it as a rule. We are all honourable men arn't we - apart from the women.

We do gunboat games, so I'm sure we could do gunboat-during-retreat-and-build-phases games. Especially since that would follow the official rules, and it's the other practice that's the variant!

personally, I think that it is closer to ftf when we do have completley open chat.
In my expirience, when you are discussing face to face, you don't limit yourself to one sentence remarks and replies per turn, which is all too common here. Without the extended time, there would be no real conversation.
Mail is a different story...

Maniac&Bartels: I'm just arguing that there'd be no point putting some code in place to try and enforce the rule, I'm not saying that it's not a valid Dip rule

I think people were implying the lack of automatic enforcement for this rule is a problem, I'm just saying it can't really be done

I'm happy with non-enforcement, but I think everyone should know what the rule is. I didn't know and The Ghostmaker thought diplomacy was allowed. Uncertainty leads to the rule becoming a de-facto non-rule.

Honestly, the only reason those are rules in FtF is in the interest of saving time. Sitting down and playing a FtF game is a hefty investment of time already, and only further lengthened if there were additional Diplomacy phases for retreats and builds.

Since here the game is meted over increments the extra time is hardly noticed.

According to the Internet (I mean sites like diplom.org that know what they're talking about), postal GMs would usually require contingent retreat orders (and often build orders too) when players submitted their move orders. This was inconvenient, and a player could be in trouble if they didn't anticipate certain possibilities. Saving time wasn't such an issue then (a postal game takes months either way, just as a game here takes days either way), but they cared about it.

I agree that there's no point in trying to enforce silence during certain periods, and probably not even much point in worrying about no-talking-during-retreat-or-build partial-gunboat variations. However, it might be nice if we could set up a game to use shorter phase lengths during retreats and builds.

I know that playdiplomacy gives that option, but I also think the option here that allows immediate follow-through on orders once everyone is finished kinda covers that.

Chrispminis has got it right....

Again I'm not argueing for or against allowing diplomacy during retreats - just want to know what the rule is.

Kestas says 'I'm not saying that it's not a valid Dip rule' which means that it is still a valid rule. If Chris and Maple and others want to change it that's fine. But lets all, know the rules and play by the rules.

Who cares? Really? Why would you want to limit communication? What possible benefit could you get from this?

Also, stop trying to say that its in the rules and thus php is wrong. Its in php and thus all changes are CHANGES. You aren't fixing it, you are changing it. So why, other than because you want to annoy people.

There's a difference between it being a valid diplomacy rule and it being implemented here though Maniac. Keep going, make use of any chances you have to communicate!

@Centurian - I certainly don't want to annoy people, I asked what I thought was a sensible question - 'is diplomacy during retreat and build phases allowed or not' That shouldn't annoy anyone, but I apologise if it does.

I like to play by a set of rules, if that makes me annoying again i'm sorry, but I can't play by the rules if I don't know what they are. I'm not suggesting it has to be policed or that others should be thrown off the site for breaking this seemingly small rule. But can someone please tell me, is diplomacy during build and retreat phases allowed or not?

YES

Even the judges allow diplomacy during retreat and build phases. The phases are just significantly shorter than a movement phase, so there is less time to get the diplomacy in.

I find that many times it becomes really hard to coordinate moves with an ally, because of the number of times he is online.

Usually, I post something, wich he responds when he is online, then I respond when I'm online... you get the notion.

Halting these procces during retreat/build phases will only hurt the game here.

It is a valid FtF dip rule, and some players may be willing to play variants that include it in phpDip (IE: People who are online all the time) but for the vast mayority, it is going to hamper their play to enforce a rule wich doesn't really apply to the case.

If you are just asking Maniac, then thats annoying. The answer is yes it is allowed, as you can do it.

In the past we have had people insist on what they see as an orthodox interpretation of the rules. Their only argument for implementing it is that is how it reads. That is annoying.

Err typo, I meant you weren't annoying in the first sentence.

Well, in a ftf game, retreats and builds aren't really official "phases," anyway... no orders are written (in my experience, at least), and we really look at it as a very brief intermission.

Retreat orders should be written in FtF because a standoff may ocurr.

We always did retreats informally.

The rulebook says that retreat and build orders must both be written. I expect that the reason is that (besides anything about discussion) you don't one person's choice to be affected by another's. If I'm France, and I'm trying to choose whether to build an army or a fleet in Marseilles, it may matter whether Italy builds that army in Naples like they said they would or not.

I'm not saying that you have to follow the rulebook in this matter, even in FtF. My philosophy is that one should break rules deliberately. (^_^)

I never knew that was a rule...
We just did it out loud, in front of everyone.

it is not the official rule. diplomacy is officially allowed during all phases, even in FTF

...Maniac, please stop annoying us

@alamothe:
That's not true; read the rule book.

Not that your FtF group should change how you play if you're happy!

From the rulebook regarding Retreats:
After all the orders have been revealed and read, the moves made, and conflicts resolved, any dislodged (defeated) units make their retreat. These retreats are written down (just like orders) and are revealed at once. no diplomacy or discussion takes place prior to writing retreat orders - all countries are on their own.

And from the rule book regarding Winter placement/disbanding:
Players write down which units they will disband (if any) and what type of unit will be built in a home supply center (if any). These orders are written without diplomacy or discussion and revealed at the same time.

Now, you can easilt discuss retreats/disbands/builds during the normal diplomacy phase anyhow. nothing in the rules prevents you from discussing the possible outcomes and what you should do in the event that X happens during normal diplomacy. Heck, that is part of the negotiation.

One more note from the rule book.
TIME MANAGEMENT
It is wise to set aside about four hours to play (yeah right! comment mine) Diplomacy. No more than five minutes should be allowed for writing orders after the diplomatic negotiation period has ended. Diplomacy and other conversation should not be allowed during the writing and reading of orders, between moves and retreats, during and after retreats, or during adjustments.

Pretty clear that the official rules don't allow for it. That being said, the game is listed a sone in which cheating is considered normal, so even those rules should be taken with a grain of salt.

that's not true

i refuse to believe

Don't you listen to that nasty rule book, alamothe. You know what's right, and that's all that matters!

I'm not saying we have to follow it, I was just being a pedant. I actually communicate as often as I can in press games.

P.S. That's a pedant: a person who is insistent on ultra-precise details at the sake of the intent of the issue. I.e. "the letter of the law" not "the intent of the law".