Very tempted to start a thread about how email is different from "real" mail.

Four points here.

"Goldfinger -
"Why should they be denied the option to retreat?" Because that is what the rules state. look at the rules. If a country is in CD, it cannot retreat. It is disbanded. Right then. If a country is taken over AFTER the dislodgment, it should not be given new rights. The rules are clear. if you are in CD, and dislodged, you are disbanded, That is the rule. What you are suggesting is not Diplomacy, but some other game"

Point 1: The reason for this is simple. In real life you have to take a phone call so you walk out of the room. You miss a turn and the people decide they don't want to wait for you to come back so they have someone step in and take over for you. 1 turn, little consequence for the person who took over since they only missed one turn. On this site we give 2 turns before forcing someone into CD. This is due to live games and because we know internet problems exist. When someone takes over a position here they are 2 turns behind already, so we do not further punish them by taking away a retreat or build phase if it is available to them. This means that in real life a replacement loses a turn the original player missed and a retreat/build phase. On this site you lose two phases, the same as in real life, so to encourage people to take over a position as they see it, the extra turn of punishment is not enforced. While you may not agree with this method it is the one that the site designer and members in general found/find appropriate.

Point 2: While I don't agree with your view here you are welcome to email the site owner and designer of the code, Kestas and express your views to him, feel free to pm me if you need his email address.

Point 3: You're coming off as fairly hostile and arrogant, whether you mean to or not.

Point 4: Please refrain from discussing ongoing games, even though you didn't mention the game it's fairly obvious to anyone involved what you're taking about and this discussion could indirectly or directly encourage players in your game to treat Turkey AND you differently then before. This is known as metagaming (allowing factors from outside of the game to influence game decisions) and is prohibited on this site.

yaleunc-
"I think the mistake you are making is failing to distinguish between the start and end of the retreats phase."
But this is the point. The rules do not allow a 'retreats phase' Once dislodged in CD, no retreat is possible

Starside: Please calm down, my friend.

To the rest of you: Technically, he is right. I don't necessarily agree with everything he is saying, and he's being more than a bit impetuous, but yes he right. I think he'd calm down faster if some of you were able to recognize that his point of view has merit.

@Starside - you hit on it there. In FTF there isn't a retreats phase really. No diplomacy is conducted and you just right away handle it. However, you must realize that it is *impossible* to do that online, thus creating the necessity of a retreats phase.

Until you jump that hurdle, you can't see the points that we're saying. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying if someone takes over halfway through spring phase he must enter all holds. You say if he is in CD at the beginning of the retreats phase he must disband units. However on the website it is only if he is in CD at the end of retreats phase that the unit is disbanded.

Goldfinger -
I really get what you are saying, and I understand the necessity for a retreats phase.

But that is not my point or the real issue. Lets try this, and talk about retreats as two different scenarios:
1. Retreats when a country is in CD. This is where you are not following the rules. When in CD and a unit is dislodged, the rules say it is immediately disbanded.
2. All other retreats. For all other retreats, I have no disagreements whatsoever. You have it right, it makes sense.

You are applying the same logic to two different scenarios, with one clearly explained in the rules, and the game logic simply does not follow the rules.

Al Swearington -
I really am quite calm, just passionate about what I believe. Thank you for seeing the correctness of my position here. Retreats are defined differently and specifically by the rules. The game logic applies the same process to two different retreat scenarios.

This is a silly argument. Diplomacy the boardgame was designed to be played face to face. IF someone leaves and "CDs" they left. No replacement is coming. Diplomacy the webdip way is based on the DATC and the Judges which are a different animal. They have a retreat phase wher you can negotiate a bit in it and they have the ability to have someone take over a position because there is a player pool to draw from and there is more likely to be a CD because of the anonymous nature of the internet versus your friends giving you shit for taking your ball and going him as a quiter. Different medium, different circumstances, a need for slightly different means of handling extreme situations.

Alderian - you wrote "The bottom line is that as long as you do not acknowledge that different environments lead to different needs there is no point in further conversation." I do see your point on the need for a retreats phase. I have no problem with that. I suggest that you don't see that the rules treat retreats differently, depending if the country in CD or not. A country in CD should not enter the retreats phase - the units by rule are disbanded. No retreat orders are ever written. This doesn't penalize the person who takes over a country in CD. The unit will have already been eliminated, and he sees what he is getting.

ALL -
I won't post on this thread anymore. I've made my points, and we disagree.

Actually, page 17 of the latest rules clearly states that it is a phase. It si phase 4. Retreat and Disbanding Phase. And while it says the a country in CD must disband, the fact that someone took over during the Retreat and Disband Phase means the country is no longer in CD. Nothing in the rules says it disbands immediately. Page 18 under Cvivl Disorder states "if they are dislodged,, they are disbanded. No new units are raised..." No where does the word immediately appear in the Civil Disorder section. It only appears in the retreat section where it says "If there is no available province to which to retreat, the dislodged unit is immediately disbanded and removed from the mapboard".

So you are incorrect in stating the rules say the unit is immediately disbanded if the country is in CD.

And please do post and show me where your rules say immediate. I'm looking at...

www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/diplomacy.pdf

@Starside - I understand what you're saying and if *only* the CD'd country has a retreat then it is as you say and it immediately progresses with the disband. It is feasible to not allow a CD'd country to have the option to retreat the phase they take over, but you have to ask yourself if that is fair in an online setting.

@GF - Did you note that the rules don't actually say what he claims they do?

I did not before, but now I do.

@Draugnar, I disagree with you.

On page 18 it says:
---------------------------------------------
CIVIL DISORDER
If you leave the game, or otherwise fail to submit orders on a given Spring or Fall turn, it is assumed that your government has collapsed. Your units all hold in position, but do not support each other. If they are dislodged, they are disbanded. no new units are raised for the country.
---------------------------------------------

They way I read this, if you did not submit orders on the movement phase and a unit is dislodged, it is disbanded. I don't think that the word "immediately" needs to be in there to have that meaning.

However, I still think that the differences between F2F, play by postal mail, play by email, and online website can lead to rule variations and I think that is okay. The basic game mechanics are still the same. There are still no dice. Convoys work how convoys work. It is just the logistical mechanics that are different and so those types of rules can be changed and still be true to the game.

Draugnar - The rules state - "Your units all hold in position, but do not support each other. If they are dislodged, they are disbanded."
So I guess we need to define 'are' - present indicative plural and 2nd person singular of be. Since are is the present, it means it is happening at the same time. Not some time in the future. So while it doesn't say 'immediately' the use of the word 'are' means that it happens immediately. When you say we 'are' playing, it doen not mean we will play some time in the future - we are doing it now, immediately. The armies are in Rum and Bul. They are there right now. So are means immediate, in the present.

Goldfinger - You wrote -"It is feasible to not allow a CD'd country to have the option to retreat the phase they take over, but you have to ask yourself if that is fair in an online setting." Two points -
1. If you follow the Diplomacy rules and disband upon dislocation, the person acquiring the CD country will know exactly the position of the acquired country. It is neither fair or unfair. It just is.
2. It is extremely unfair to the player who dislodges a unit of a country in CD. He expects it to be disbanded. He may choose to take an action based the assumption that that a dislodged unit will be disbanded.
You can kick me off the site for discussing a current game, but here is what happened.
I was playing Russia aligned with Turkey in a Juggernaut. My Turk ally missed a turn, and it hurt me because it did not provide the required support. On the second turn when he still did not show, a couple minutes before the next move I dislodged his unit in Rum to continue the attack against Austria. I could have taken a SC in Turkey, but all his units were forward and it would have taken much time to reclaim that SC. I chose to take Rum because he could recover it quickly. This was a disaster for me. Instead of being disbanded, a new Turk shows up and retreats to Sev. The Italian took Gre from the Turk, and he retreated to Ser. As a result of what I had to do to try to recover from losing Sev, I wound up going from 6 to 3 units.

Your rule sucks, plain and simple, and is not consistent with the Diplomacy rules.

And by the way, I sent a protest to the WebDiplomacy Moderator on this situation. I never got a reply.

1 - I agree it is neither fair nor unfair. However, it still puts the position in a weaker position so that it is less likely to be taken up by another player. Having it work the way it does makes CD positions more likely to be taken up.
2 - It is only unfair if the player doesn't know how it works here. So that was unfortunate for you. But in future games you'll know how it works and therefore it'll be neither fair nor unfair.

One way to avoid such situations is to play password protected (private) games. Although another player could still give someone else the password to get the position filled.

Two mods have replied in this thread. Additionally, goldfinger (a mod) indicated in his second post on the first page that he had exchanged emails with you.

"@Starside - as we've already discussed over email"...

Starside - first off, I am a moderator and another moderator has already replied to this thread.

Secondly, as Draugnar said, if the rules stated disband upon dislocation, then it would have said "immediately" like it did in Part 4 for the retreats phase when there is no place to retreat to. However, we still don't automatically disband those units, because frankly is it worth the effort for the same result?

And finally, all someone has to do is look at the game history when coming into a game to see where a unit has been dislodged. The rulebook doesn't say they are disbanded immediately when it uses said language in regards to other instances of disbanding, so this website is in compliance with the rules.

If you wish, I will forward your complaints on to kestas. But in general, this is a volunteer website. If you want a change, code it and put it to the dev forum.

Alderian -
Look at what you wrote - "It is only unfair if the player doesn't know how it works here"
You are basically saying saying that this is a different game than the real Diplomacy. I really don't think that is what you want.

Goldfinger - you wrote "so this website is in compliance with the rules" This is simply not true. The rule says "If they are dislodged, they are disbanded." With your rules, they are not disbanded. Totally, 100% opposite from the Diplomacy rules. You rule is, 'If they are dislodged, they can be retreated"

Alderian - You wrote"Additionally, goldfinger (a mod) indicated in his second post on the first page that he had exchanged emails with you." I did get a response via email, but not to the 'Protest' email I sent.

All - Please don't consider me a PITA - Pain In The A$$. I am a newbie here, and I am a conservative and a purist. Rules are here for a reason. But if I see something I think is wrong, I will be relentless in correcting that wrong.

" I did get a response via email, but not to the 'Protest' email I sent."

Our inbox is overflowing now. We tend to take care of cheating accusations first. You will get a response eventually, but we are all volunteers so give us some slack.

A unit in CD will always be disbanded if the country is not taken over. However, as has been said when a person takes over the country, said country is no longer in CD. Again, the rules do not imply that it is immediately disbanded. You take the piece off the board when everyone else is doing their retreats. If someone were to join the game at that moment, they would be allowed to retreat.

What you want is to basically prevent people from taking over a CD'd country during the retreats phase (which I imagine would be easier to code than an alternative). The goal is to have the least number of CD'd countries possible, and that runs counter to the goal.

Goldfinger - the rules do say a dislodged unit of a country is immediately disbanded. Look back to my discussion of the word 'are'. Are is the present tense. Immediate

And according to the rules of Diplomacy, it is not possible to take over a country in the retreats phase. There are no retreats possible for a country in CD

Actually, it says

"It is probably best, if enough players are present, to allow someone else to replace any player who leaves the game. Players should decide what policies they will follow before starting the game"

I think that gives us more than enough leeway to allow takeovers during the retreats phase.