It's (i). If all players remaining in the game agree to end the game, then they can end the game. Not a majority. On this site, they also could agree to end the game with a Cancel rather than a Draw.

【background】
In Japan, there is some local rules about when the game ends (except some player wins).
One is that when more than half players agree to draw, which is realized in a certain online Diplomacy in Japanese.
Another one is that when when pkayers whose SC are more than 22/34 in sum agree to draw, which was realized in a certain online Diplomacy in Japanese.

That's actually an interesting question. As written, the rules are ambiguous. A qualifier like "all players" or "a majority" would be needed to be 100% sure of the meaning.

My personal verdict- it could easily mean either (i) or (ii).

Also, I could argue plausibly that this sentence means players could, by agreement, set different parameters on the game, such as limiting it to a maximum of ten years.

On further reflection, I'm going to argue in favor of (i).

While it could be interpreted as (ii), it would be stretching the definition of agreement. An agreement implies consent of all parties involved. (ii) would be better described as a "vote", not an agreement.

redpanda: That's a good question. I would defer to one of the most basic principles of customary international law, though: that counties must agree in some way to international agreements or customs if those agreements or customs are to apply to their country. That's an oversimplification, but I think that it's an important point.

I like what sf said: "An agreement implies consent of all parties involved."

But, if all parties at the start of the game agree that towards the end of the game it takes 22/34th of the centers to vote draw, then so be it.

It seems to me that it could be either (i) or (ii) or anything else, all depending on what is agreed upon ahead of time.

Remember that the rules were originally written for face to face. I would suggest that if 3 out of 4 remaining players agreed to end the game, the game ends. Think about it, the game couldn't continue if 3 players walked away. Sure one guy could sit there and take his own moves and 'win' but by definition that wouldn't be a game. The game ends when all but one player agree (to walk away).

The ii) has been implemented on vdip, and I quite like it.

Thank you for many replies.
I found what I wanted to know was "An agreement implies consent of all parties involved", namely the conception of agreement, though other replies also are interesting.

I will comments on some of the replies.

>Maniac
I am afraid that the idea "the game ends when all but one player agree" may generates unhappy results. Suppose a 17 SC player is going to win in next turn. Then other players "agree" to end the game to stop his win. In general, an ending rule must be such that it cannot be used to such an aim. Of course, (i) is good and (ii) is bad in this view. ("More than 22/34" rule is NOT bad, because any player who is at most 11 SC will not "dash" to win.)

>stupidfighter
In contrast to your own name, you understand accurately what I want to know from my poor passage. Than you.
It seems to me that the word corresponding "agree"in Japanese does not imply (or at least does not clearly imply) "all the party," so translations sometimes misled many Japanese including me.

Functionally, when playing the board game, it usually means when somebody has to go home and the remaining players decide it's not worth continuing without him/her. Either that or when the beer runs out.

@redpanda - the question was about the literal meaning of the rules. One shouldn't look at the effect of the rules when looking at the literal meaning. I still maintain that the literal meaning of the rules is that the game ends when all but 1 of the remaining players agree that it ends.

I agree that this probably was not the intention.

redpanda: I wouldn't say that 'agreement' necessarily implies unanimity. The rules could have used better wording. But I would say that an agreement requires the assent of all parties in some way or another. If all players agreed at the start of a game to end the game with a 50% vote in favor, then I suppose that you might be able to read the rules as requiring the game to be drawn should two out of three players later agree to a pause.

If not all players on the board voted draw it will not be an agreement but an enforcement.

Unless it was a per-arranged agreement. Just like you can agree ahead of time to ending the game based on the game year, you can agree ahead of time to the draw rules.

I think the rules being not entirely clear gives players room for whatever flexibility they want. Nothing wrong with that, IMHO.