Some people have slower computers, they will be at a disadvantage. Plus sometimes people are answering messages or the call of nature. It shouldn't be a problem taking you only have five minutes.

Deliberately not finalizing orders does nothing but make me want to kill you. I hate people that do it.

I'm totally against this.
Whilst I don't agree that players need to know when the end of a phase is, if you don't finalize you shouldn't be forced to. It is up to you when you progress to the next phase, and if you are ready then obviously finalization is a good idea. However, if you are not, then you shouldn't be forced into it.

For your second point, suppose you were in the lead. You own 17 supply centres and are about to take another to win the game. The other remaining players have a brainwave and vote for a draw. With your new method this would carry without your consent, removing your probable victory.

Saying that, I am in favour of allowing a pause with 6 votes, but maybe that's just me.
An alternative I haven't considered (and wouldn't expect to happen, it would lead to increased database load) would be that you could pass a vote if everyone or the owners of 30 SCs agreed to it.

"Deliberately not finalizing orders does nothing but make me want to kill you."

I think that's an over reaction. Join shorter phase games if that's what you would prefer. There would be hardly a player on this site who does not finalize sometimes. What if you are waiting to hear from another player? The moves you play might depend on this. You can receive press right before end of phase which can make you change the orders you have entered.

Just a bit :P
As more people weigh in I expect you'll find that more and more want to defend the current finalization system rather than change it.

How about providing it as an option that may be set by the game creator? New games can either be as they are now, or eliminate the SAVE button, depending on which the game creator prefers.

Save button?

figlesquidge: 30 SC's? That seems rather arbitrary. If micronations are not ready for the next phase then let them not be ready. Forcing a draw on them is sort of silly. As for allowing only pauses with 6 votes, I would be for pausing with only a majority (at least 4 ⁄ 7, 4 ⁄ 6, 3 ⁄ 5, 3 ⁄ 4, 2 ⁄ 3 or 2 ⁄ 2). The inherent problem with that, though, is that you don't now if some players are actually there. I suppose those CD's could be dealt with after the pause.

Gnome de Guerre: That does not seem like a good idea. You would have a lot more NMR's because people are waiting for messages. Maybe with no-press games it should be forced, but that is another story.

I like the idea of carrying a pause based on SC count, rather than anything else. But why not let a draw be carried the same way?

I (very infrequently) dont finalize if i know i will be on the road/going away for the weekend so as to maximize the time until the next turn rather than try to get a one day pause. However I do understand the annoyance with people who never finalize.
especially in gunboat games!

I agree, my personal preference is to leave it as it is, it was only a suggestion! In my opinion it's at its best at the moment, and yes 30 was an arbitrary figure, was just another option some others might have liked.

Onar: Because then no one would ever win. Games would always be drawn by the losers before then.

"I (very infrequently) dont finalize if i know i will be on the road/going away for the weekend so as to maximize the time until the next turn rather than try to get a one day pause."

I agree completely sean - this is the main reason I only join slow games. Yes it can be annoying when I am ready and finalise but I have to respect the other players wishes, commitments and needs outside of this game.