Yes I did see it. I thought I was clear, this is a general rule/conventional wisdom that in my experience mods are using as well.

As always - direct from a mods mouth is your best bet, Josunice and others. ;)

When someone reports a problem with a delayed draw I look at the game, figure out if there is any way for anyone to win or progress, and if not draw the game. If there is a way then they need to explain to a moderator how they are going to do so. It is based on player positions, not on any set time limit. In a world game it may take 30 years to reach a point of no progress, so that is how long we would wait before interfering.

Does that include winning by waiting on another to CD? By that definition, you can eventually win and a full stalemate for 2 years no longer matters...

No, that is not a valid tactic.

There is NO hard-set "Force draw after X years of 'no progress'" rule. I just want to clear this up, since people have occasionally thrown this around thinking that it's some sort of hard policy and/or that they could rely on that for setting up a premature draw.

The simple reason is that a simple "X years of no progress" rule is fundamentally flawed. Here are just a few examples:

1) Sometimes it take more than X years to perform maneuvers (e.g., bringing new units to the front, swapping out fleets for armies or vice-versa, rearranging lines/alliances, etc.) in order to set up a forced-win or other position that could change the course of the game (such as being able to safely reduce the draw). Blindly applying such a rule could turn some forceable-wins, solo-races (tossups), or even just reducible-draws into prematurely drawn games. This is an important distinction since it means the difference between a win and draw in the situation of a false stalemate that only takes X+1 years for another player to outmaneuver and break down.

2) How does one even define "no progress"? Simply looking at the ownership of SCs does not take into account the possible maneuvering toward setting up a potential breakthrough, nor potential diplomatic progress toward realigning players and breaking down lines. Sometimes, a leader might even regress by drawing away from the line in order to encourage a draw reduction from the other side.

3) Sometimes, we might even be compelled to act quicker than waiting for X years to force draw. For example, in the case of a live game where it's confirmed that someone is simply waiting for an NMR to break through an otherwise solid stalemate.

When it comes to complaints about a game needing to be force drawn, we handle them and decide what needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. Occasionally, we do force-draw a game when a strategy of refusing not to is being severely abused. However, in most cases, it usually does not have to come to that. Ironically, we also get a significant number of premature force-draw requests.


Fundamentally, a game that ends in a draw is quite different than a game that ends in a solo. Solos occur due to the hard-set rule that taking 18 SCs achieves a victory. Draws, on the other hand, require the remaining players in a game unanimously agree that the game should end in a draw (or at least accept that outcome over continuing the game). In general, players are (and should be) allowed to attempt strategies toward obtaining a different outcome should they not accept the draw that others may be voting for. However, there are of course limitations in what should be considered fair and acceptable strategies. For example, things that would not be okay would include (but is not necessarily limited to) waiting for CDs/NMRs to change the position, or simply refusing to draw in demand that other players concede. If you think someone is attempting something along those lines, email the moderators and we will try to resolve the situation. Other than that, I think we have to be fairly flexible about allowing players to attempt reasonable strategies toward changing the outcome of the game, even if those strategies may be somewhat far-fetched. Also, at the end of the day, the game is diplomacy, and the responsibility of convincing a hold-out to accept the draw primarily falls upon the players involved. This is usually done by demonstrating (either verbally or through the position/moves) that a statemate line is or can be established. Of course, if a player is still holding out after being thoroughly demonstrated that other outcomes are not possible, then that could likely warrant a force draw, but it could also mean that they might have a course of action that you might not have foreseen (e.g., maybe they see a hole in your (false) "stalemate" line, maybe they are hatching a plot to take you out of the draw, etc.).

TL;DR: We do sometimes force draw games, but it's done on a case-by-case basis and there is NO hardset X-year rule.

How about a decision with regards to refusin because you want the draw reduced by someone else? That would simplify this discussion greatly. Is it acceptable to try and force the remaining players to reducethe draw further so you get more poitns/GR? To me, points and GR are outside of the game and that would be metagaming. But I'd like to hear from the mods on this.

Yeb - thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Please do opine on Draug's note on a situation similar to my game referenced at the beginning -- in that case a stalemate line was established, so I moved to create space in hopes that an "undeserving" nation be cut out of the draw. There is no press, so no way for someone to say "no fucking way." I could have spent a bit more time backing up in hopes of a more favorable outcome (such as abandoning Tunis to see if that moved England to act).

I have a question if mods are giving input:

There are certain situations that can arise in the end game (especially around Iberia) where a player can have a position where they have two possible moves A and B and the defender has two possible moves C and D to counter. If AC, nothing changes. If AD or BC, the first player wins. If BD, the game is stalemated.

If you look at this from a game theory standpoint, the attacker can win with arbitrarily high probability by choosing A 1 - epsilon of the time and B epsilon of the time. My question is (and I want to stress that I have been in this position before in a face to face game, so it happens), do I as a player have the right to make epsilon really small? In other words, can I make the "safe" move A 100 times in a row before randomly choosing B? Perhaps I could even just claim a win and save everyone time? What would the call be here?

Oh, come on, in English uclabb...

Gen. Lee -- essentially, he's saying this: Imagine a situation where two players have to out-guess each other in order to change the stalemate lines (Maybe you built too many fleets, and you have to use one army to support-hold either Munich or Berlin, for example).

Hypothetically, the best way to win in this situation, as the attacker, is to hit Munich over and over and over and over, year after year, so that the defender is *sure* you're going to keep hitting it. Then, at some point, you switch to Berlin, and bam, you win. How long would the mods allow that kind of situation to go on?

He must be on the sauce ......

2 years :)

The situation you proposed is a simplified game theory problem, but that usually has only n=1 try and not n>1. You should analyze this from the perspective of the other player. If he plays C, either nothing changes or you win, and if he plays D, then either you win or you stalemate. Given that a stalemate is better than a status quo, the second player should choose option D in which case you should choose option A. The likely result is that you win. Now if the second player also realizes you are able to analyze this, he would choose option C, but then that wouldn't change your approach as A either gives you the win or status quo.

The issue then comes in where you have done this for a number of years. Realistically, I think the mods would come in after some reasonable finite number of years and force a draw just like it would most likely happen in a face to face tourney, but not before you have been given your fair shake of chances. This is uniquely different because it is not a sure stalemate.

That is just my opinion, not an official mod/admin position.

If you are currently in a "guessing game" with someone and guessing right can let you win then I would probably not be inclined to interfere, but as Zultar and Yebellz have mentioned every situation is case by case.

But what about the player trying to get the drawreduced, gunboat or not? Is that an acceptable delay of the draw when it is clear from actions over time and, in press games from press, that the solo stoppers *will not* reduce the draw.

"Gen Lee, did you see my reply? THERE IS NO HARD SET 2 YEAR RULE."

What is the rule then yebellz? If you decide on a "case by case" basis what are the relevant considerations? Personally I don't think England refusing to reduce the size of the draw is a consideration. England has every right not to support another power, even if that power has just one supply centre.

IMHO even "case by case" decisions need some hard-coded guidelines. And this is a an excellent example of where formal guidelines should apply.

I suggest if there is not a rule about games that have had no movements for a certain period due to a locked stalemate that the site needs one. We can't just have players refusing to draw until players go CD.

... okay I just saw Yebellz's more detailed explanation. Indeed it can take time to bring forces around into play. But if manoeuvres are still being made, then this does not meet the criteria of two years without a move.

... I see now josunice did try to open the game up, an act which was worthy of continuing play for a couple of years. But even then if oneside holds its lines for a period of time (two years for example) after the offer has been made, there comes a point where you need to say game over.

Yebellz's answer is the same one I would have wanted him to give.

Basically, it's more of a hard and fast guideline. Is there a realistic plan beyond "Hope the other side gets sick of waiting and NMRs"? If so, then the player(s) should be given time to try that plan. If not, the mods should draw the game.

In this case, pulling back from the line and encouraging the removal of Germany is a realistic plan that had a non-zero chance of success, and josunice should have been given the chance to execute it. Once that failed, I would hope the mods would tell him to either come up with a new plan that had a non-zero chance of success or draw the game.

The case that uclabb brings up does happen in the rules; there is a situation where if I am willing to wait long enough, I can drive my winning chances to 100%. I would hope that if such a situation comes up, the mods would allow a player who explains the situation to them to drive their winning chances up as high as they'd like to.

Draugnar said "To me, points and GR are outside of the game and that would be metagaming. But I'd like to hear from the mods on this."

Playing for maximum points is not metagaming, it is the entire point of having points!

--

The problem is no one knows if someone is on the verge of cracking or not. Players A, B, and C may all say publicly they will not turn on each other, but Player C may be telling Player D privately that they are thinking about it, etc...

I think that a rule that if there is a stalemate line set and no supply centers have changed hands for X amount of years would be an okay one. How often does this situation really come up though? Even when I threaten to draw out a game to reduce a draw, I have never actually refused to draw if a stalemate line was set.

However, if the largest player pulls back from the stalemate line and one of the other countries moves in such a way as to break the stalemate line, the game should continue even though there /used/ to be viable stalemate line

@erist - That is why you are on my list of "never play withs". Kestas has repeatedly saidvthe only reason for points was to allow games where noobs couldn't join. Now that we have passworded games, points mean nothing. That attitude is also why many of us don't play big pot games. We play a more pure game as Mr. C intended it to be played. You play some bastardized variant on the same board with the same basic rules but a completely different goal.

I think CSteinhardt helped clarify it even further. I concur with his view and explanation.

Draug: I don't agree. If anything F2F diplomacy as it has traditionally been played is even more tilted towards trying to get solos and small draws. Here you can just draw, call the game a wash, and move on to the next one. IRL you know this game is the only one you'll have for the day. Personally, I think the purest form of diplomacy would substitute money for points and allow draws to be negotiated (ie; "we can draw, but I get 20 of the points and you get 10" "No, no, I won't draw for anything less than 15") etc. But that's just because I come from a poker background where negotiated endgams are the norm.

I am a serious poker player as well. Negotiated endgames? Are you serious? That's called collusion and will get you banned from the casinos I play at. The only allowed negotiation where I play is small and big blind can chop (pull their plinds back) if no one else has called or raised.

Maybe you misunderstood me, I am not talking about hand collusion, I am talking about dealmaking at final tables in tournaments. Deciding how to split the remaining prize money becomes just as much of a psychological game with bluffs and counter bluffs as the actual poker play does.

http://www.pokerlistings.com/strategy/tournament-nl-holdem/deal-or-no-deal-the-final-table

You're in Cincinnati right? I grew up in Forest Park, my parents are still there. I'll buy you a drink and take your money at the poker table next time I visit them and you can berate me for preferring small draws to big draws.

If Jo Sunice apologises and promises never to do it again he won't have to be banished to vDip (where all the great players hang out).
Does that sound fair ......

@Draug - As a poker player, you know that, during tournaments, this kind of collusion happens all the time. You get down to the final table and everyone starts talking. When we get down to X number of player, we will all just split the pot. This is clearly collusion, and is not frowned upon. It is also kind of like wanting to get down to a certain number of players before divvying up the pot.

In no press more allowance at the end must be given. In this case, I moved back and then tried to move back some more. Germany deserved no favors from me.
@Draug - spare the high and mighty bullshit about points. As

As it stands now, you need to research gr and be a regular to operate without points as a quick way to try to ensure a better quality game. GR is not the holy grail, and points are not perfect, but when you play oj your phone in spare time, points works well...