Players are not required to pause. Rule 5 refers to things such as:

"I'll pause if you agree to move HOL-STP"

OR

"I won't unpause until we draw."

The original game suggests and was often played with a “gamemaster” that played a neutral role and could feasibly call or negotiate a pause to a game for such an instance as you described. There have been similar arguments to the position that a game that doesn’t in fact have 7 players participating in the initial rounds should be cancelled. If such a game was being organized to be played in a physical forum/format then the game inevitably wouldn’t start until 7 committed players were achieved. The question of what should happen in this online format where any one player has no control to pause/stop/or cancel a game if one player CDs or leaves inevitably giving one or more players an advantage on the map over others often arises as a point of contention or discussion. Those players who have that distinct advantage are seldom willing to cancel for presumably the same reasons why one or more players are unwilling to pause the game you are currently in; no incentive or advantage in doing so. It is a reflection of the general social study and written studies/papers of the online experience; an ability to protect ones identity or anonymity decreases ones own civility/morality and allows one to behave in ways they never would publicly or allow to be expose to those who know them and would thereby hold them accountable.

To quote the original board game rules.

"Methods such as listening in on other negotiations, forging false sets of rules, and editing other players orders is all part of the game."

Given that none of that is possible on WebDiplomacy, I think it's a totally valid strategy to use whatever means of leverage you have to get your way. Metagaming being the one exception to the above point.

Admitting that the refusal to pause is for a strategic advantage should be grounds for the mods to forcibly pause a game. But not pausing in and of itself is not against the rules. Some people refuse to pause on principle.

Jeccles - did you try and organise a babysitter?
When you say you gave everyone time to act, are you presumming that pauses have to be granted or a valid reason given for not pausing?

@rommel - "I think it's a totally valid strategy to use whatever means of leverage you have to get your way." For a game to work all players must have a shared understanding of what is and isn't permisserable. Kestas gave us the pause to help us, so i think it is only fair that he can dictate its use.

@draugnar - if diplomatic discussions about pause/unpause are not part of the game; breaching them shouldn't cause an event which interfers with the game. Force pausing someone will only open up out of game arguements that the mods will struggle to police. The rules are clear at the moment - all remaining players have to agree to pause; players can not use the feature as a diplomatic tool.

You don't have to honour a Pause request, but having a player NMR changes the dynamic of the game, possibly in your favour, possibly in somebody else's. If you honour a Pause request you're doing the requesting player a favour. If you don't honour the request you, and everybody else, get to take advantage of the requesting player because you now know they're going to NMR, but doing so risks having them quit the game completely.

However, if you demand an in-game favour in return for Pausing that's a) going to annoy the requesting player, b) gives you an unfair advantage if he agrees, c) it's breaking rule 5 and d) could only be done so using some form of in-game communication (mostly), which the Mods would have access to. So basically you're going to annoy a player who then has evidence of rule breaking to take to the Mods. Probably not a good idea.

you are entitled to find a sitter to play for you while you are away.

this would prevent you from going into civil disorder and thus changing your game. Though the sitter will of course not be you and thus not conduct diplomacy in the same way you would have... still it is better than missing your turn.

@ Maniac - It's there to help us, so it should never be used for anything other than it's intended purpose? If that were the case in all fields, the ability to use the (now old) tactic of having the game "bug out" and change your orders to 'hold' when you said you would help someone into an SC. That's a system used to help us (put in orders to an automated system) but we still misuse it from time to time. It's all part of the game, and should all be considered valid. In games with friends, I'd even support trying to hack their accounts to change their orders on them -- it's all part of the Diplomacy experience.

@Rommeltastic, that may be 'diplomacy' as the rules are written in the rulebook, but as the rules of this website are written 'hacking your friend's account' is grounds for banning you permanently. meanwhile misusing the pause will likely get you some more minor punishment, like 90% of your points perhaps... or whatever the mods deem appropriate.

@Maniac - The made have made it clear that refusing to pause to get a tactical advantage is against the rules and they will act on a case by case basis. In that you are incorrect, my friend. Therefore blatantly admitting a refusal to pause is for tactical reasons is metagaming and should have the game forcibly paused and the metagamer removes for cheating.

Mods, not made and removed not removes

@ Orthaic - In real life, if someone needs to leave a party and asks for the game to be delayed until the morning, 99% of the time the people say "sorry, but we'd like to finish tonight". If you ask for a pause of a week on Webdip, it's natural for some people to say "No thanks, I want to finish now." Because they're invested mentally, and emotionally in the game (Maybe they really REALLY want to stab someone). If you, the person requesting the pause then add "If you pause, I'll help you stab X", suddenly they have good cause to again. It's negotiation and deal-making of the best kind.

If someone really needs to leave a game for something like vacation, they shouldn't have committed to playing it in the first place when they knew such an absence would occur.

Rommel, what is your point? the rules are the rules as they stand.

are you arguing that they should be changed? or are you saying people should use the pause as a diplomatic tool in breach of the rules?

i'll disagree with both, i just want to clarify what you're arguing.

- "If someone really needs to leave a game for something like vacation, they shouldn't have committed to playing it in the first place when they knew such an absence would occur."

that is debatable, i'm currently still playing one league game, and i have to head away in about 10 days time. It may be finished before that but it would be entirely possible that it continues. I didn't know how long the league would take when i signed up, and a 25 hour game could go one until a 1908 draw (8*3.5 phases = ~29 days) and equally to a 1921 solo (21*3.5 phases = ~10 weeks)

you don't know if it will clash with your holiday plans, even if you make them 2-3 months in advance.

I agree that there are good reasons to not want a pause, i have had games of mine which have failed to hold my interest after a long pause. But that isn't what is at issue here. The rules are there for a good reason, the most annoying example would be not holding a game to ransom by refusing to unpause and instead demanding a draw.

This should be strictly against the rules, and that kind of situation is what this rule is for. If someone breaks this rule and anther player in their game complains to the mods (emails them) the mods will be required to act, likely removing he offending player or simply forcing an unpause.

Do you have a problem with such mod actions?

@Rommel - That kind of negotiation is metagaming and against the rules. Pause nd unpause are outside the game and using them in negotiations is metagaming at it's worst.

@ Orathaic - To be clear, my only point was that NOT pausing the game is acceptable behaviour: albeit not necessarily "nice".

"You don't know if it will clash with your holiday plans, even if you make them 2-3 months in advance".

True. There will always be reasons for pauses that are valid (and I've never refused to pause a game for someone) and there are also reasons that are not. Pauses anytime before the mid-game are what seem to irk players - the people asking for pauses SHOULD have known they were going to be busy (the previous point I was making). However, you're right in saying that sometimes games stretch beyond the realm of being able to predict when they'll end.

"This should be strictly against the rules, and that kind of situation is what this rule is for. If someone breaks this rule and anther player in their game complains to the mods (emails them) the mods will be required to act, likely removing he offending player or simply forcing an unpause."

I totally agree. I like the rules on the site the way they are now, and have never actually acted against these pause rules. I do think that one nature of the *true* Diplomacy game is that cheating was allowed, and often encouraged, and that this site has broken away from that nature for good, and practical reasons.

@ Draug - Against the rules of the SITE, not the rules of the GAME. If I want to finish a game, and everyone else joined with the intent of playing, I have the right, I think, to want to finish that game without a long pause interrupting it. It's not metagaming, it's just gaming.

@Rommel - agreed. I wasn't saying you don't. You have every right to refuse to pause *unless* the reason isn't because you want to finish the game, but instead because you want to take advantage of a CD. And while that is impossible to prove without you incriminating yourself, the example in question *was* of someone incriminating himself.

"I do think that one nature of the *true* Diplomacy game is that cheating was allowed, and often encouraged"...

So, in a face to face, I threaten to kill you later that night if you don't support me for the win... Is that within the rules? What if I have your loved ones kidnapped and hold them for ransom, the ransom being throw the game to me or they die?

There has to be a limit where acceptable cheating is defined and a line that cannot be crossed. We draw that line here with things outside of the game (metagaming) and multiple accounts. Metagaming is a broad term and some of it is within the realm of acceptability (researching a players favorite openings and learnign from past experience with that player) while other forms are not (refusing to pause to get a strategic advantage, refusing to unpause to force a draw, or teaming up with a friend and agreeing to an unbreakable alliance before the game even begins).

A line must be drawn to keep the cheating within the game and this is where Kestas and the Mods have decided to draw it.

in the meta game (on webdip not face-to-face) you choose not to be a dick to people so they don't mute you and refuse to play you ever again (which would reduce your players pool)

This doesn't not stabbing them, but it does mean you take into consideration that they may need a pause because rare weather conditions have destroyed their home. (as the flooding in Australia did earlier this year)

@ Draug - But that's against the LAW. You couldn't get away with that legally. If you managed to find a legal way to do it, I guess it would be fair.

Though, threats are a valid tactic.
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/postal/certain_way.htm

@ Orathaic - Yea, totally. There's a degree of metagaming that I think is good for most people to do.

Hacking is against the law, yet I saw it "encouraged" as a valid tactic here.

Where has hacking been encouraged here? It is clearly forbidden in the rules.

The 10th post down or so, just ctrl+f hack and you'll see it.

"Hacking" carries such negative connotation. Taking someone's orders and re-writing them in FTF is legal. Changing someone's orders if they leave themselves logged in, or if they let you know their password (or use a really easy one) is a continuation of that same practice, just online.

Again, I'm not endorsing it, I'm just saying it's valid.

Actually it's not under the rules of this site. An account cannot have more then 1 player except in the case of account sitters. If you change someones orders you are multiaccounting, using more then 1 account for your own gain, it doesn't even have to be your own account. I know the passwords of 1 or 2 other players that I have account sat before, if I were ever in a game with them I would never dream of messing with their orders for any reason.

I think common sense should be applied a bit more often by cirtain people. Unless I am much mistaken, physically stabbing someone and leaving their bloodied and dismembered corpse unable to enter orders is not specifically forbidden by the original rules, however I dare say such actions would be frowned upon. In the same blatantly obvious way, hacking just ain’t right.

Nor would I. But I like the way that the wording of multiple accounts inadvertently stops that as a possibility...

Also, +1 Octavious