I agree - I had a similar dilemma in our league game when (perfectly legitimately) someone asked for a short pause over Yom Kipur (is that how you spell it?)....
But after we all agreed exactly the same thought occured when it took a long time for some to unpause....

I'd say you should almost always agree to the pause if the other player gives a valid reason (basically anything other than "I'm losing and I want to stall"). You can always make sure you have an agreed upon restart time. If one or more players fails to unpause at the agreed upon time, you can always contact kestas or one of the mods to unpause the game.

dont disagree DM
who are the mods?

I would be inclined to agree with you dangermouse; my only reservation is that I don't feel a player is accountable for anything they agree to in Diplomacy. Think about it: we're all a collective of cheats and liars trying to out-lie and out-cheat each other.

I agreed as I had an un-developed opinion on the matter, and did not feel there was any honour in taking the game because of a 'forced' miss of turns.

A moderator holding a diplomacy player to their word, especially in-game, is a dangerous precedent.

I think he is probably very trustworthy and I'd trust him to unpause...

i would agree always but a small part of me might hope one of my other opponents wont . he gets the blame for being inconsiderate and we get the joys of someone not moving.
win win

Personally I considerer it a great addition to the game (and I think it is more considerate to pause than to go into CD), but maybe there should be a time limit for the pause (unless there is another unanimous pause vote before the time limit expires...)

Just so you guys know, texasdeluxe is the opponent in question that made me think about this.

That suggestion may actually not be too shabby.

I have to admit, that as a Diplomacy player, taking the opportunity to take advantage of someone else's disadvantage was tempting, but I guess a better side of me got control there for a second.

And texasdeluxe, just because you're trustworthy doesn't mean everyone is.

Well, I think one aspect of the game is whether you consider Pausing and out-of-game power. By this I mean that pausing is not so much a political move, but one done of necessity of real life. In a game you can say that you are the King of England and it is accepted as BS, but when you pause I think the argument can be made that your actions are not motivated by the game itself, such as who will support you, but the inability to meet the Deadlines. I think it more a tool to deal with real life.

However, I understand that people will use it as a diplomatic strategy (though if you must rely on a player not moving your plans may have holes in them), and that it is within everyones rights to not agree to the pause. I also agree that a valid reason must be present (though you could lie about this too) for a draw to take place.

Exactly... and everyone has something they could pause for at one time or another.