^^request a cancel and if the coalition disagrees they are a bunch of selfish little shits and deserve to have a battle of endurance.

Eh. Cancellation sounds bad. I've always been under the impression it's supposed to be used for games so broken they shouldn't be considered as having been played. A standard stalemate doesn't seem to qualify.

But I concur with the last bit. Both sides are deadlocked and the "fun" rule can be applied both ways. The only fair way to do it is to battle it out, imo.

I use cancel instead of a draw whenever there are too many people for a draw to be worth it. If the coalition agrees to deal with any of the small powers to reduce it to 2-4 players, then I will definitely accept the draw when they are gone.

I'm the same way. I don't object to people who use the reduce-the-draw argument as a pretense to stab and win -- after all, this is Diplomacy -- but I tend to concede when I've been stopped.

There was a similar discussion about this same issue not all that long ago... I wonder if my thoughts have changed since then. I recall defending Babak (not that he needed my shoddy posts) when he won a game after clearly being stalemated by convincing one of the other two players to stab the other. He'd been stopped, but instead of accepting the draw right off he got someone to make a major diplomatic error which gave him the win. I wouldn't do that myself, but I'm okay with others doing that. I seem to recall... maybe MadMarx? Claiming that practice was wrong. It was an interesting discussion.

*same way, in reference to the last sentence. Not the Cancel use, of course, already defined my use of it.

@Eden - I've been there and convinced the others it was in everyone's interest to continue, but had they been stubborn and I not made any progress in changing SCs in 5 years, I would have drawn. That's the risk we take when we sign up for a game with people whose GR is significantly below our own.

I must agree I like DDST's idea of supporting the major powers into the minor powers until they accept it to show them you are serious about drawing but want the size reduced. But the key is that progress is made within a matter of 3-5 years, so no need for a forced draw. In that situation fun is being had by all (save maybe the little guys) and it is a perfectly acceptable way to get your reduced size. No one is *obligated* to do the size reduction, but they are encouraged and their fear of a stab for a win reduced.

Eden, let me ask you a question. When you're in a game where somebody is getting close to a solo, and the others all stop fighting each other in order to prevent the solo, but one little 2-center guy takes the opportunity to stab his larger neighbor and causes the stalemate effort to fall apart, how do you react? If you're like most people here, you get extremely pissed off and start hurling the worst insults you can think of at the little guy. But the strategy you're pushing here (reducing the draw after a stalemate is reached) actively encourages little guys to behave that way - if they're going to be excluded from the draw anyway, why not stick it to the person who took all their home centers? The only incentive for small powers to back off and enable a stalemate is the expectation of being included in the draw if it happens. IMO you're being way too concerned with points and ratings here at the expense of future game quality.

^If it's a WTA I don't see the point other than revenge, and IMO it's stupid to follow emotions in Dip because it gets you nowhere. In PPSC I guess it might be done simply to get a rebate on a few of your points, but the player should really try to become a pivital factor in the stalemate or find a little stalemate line of his own so the other players can't kill him without taking too many armies off the lines. Also, he should take as many SCs as he can that are not crucial to holding the line, but leave the rest.

coffeebean: That's exactly what should be going on in a higher-quality game, I think -- that is, the players should be trying to reduce the draw. The reason this is even a question is because so many leaders moronically refuse to back off the stalemate line and let the coalition kill unessential members. The only reason why little powers ever get the chance to play for the draw is because leaders let them.

The goal for the little powers should be to become involved enough in the stalemate line to BE an important power, as the good shock trooper explained above. Run to the Munichs and Berlins and Spains and Portugals, run! There's no need for them to go "ah screw it, gonna stick it to someone" when they have a chance to be in the draw. They can't be a nonessential part -- doesn't mean they can't be a part.