You mean refuse to draw but say "I'll cancel"?
Sure, there's no rules that say you have to draw.

yup :D

Thanks :D Then another question: can you wait till the hell freezes over if they do not accept a cancel?

Yup. As long as you keep entering orders and stuff. The other players may get annoyed tho, and decide to eliminate you.

No you can't. If you have no reasonable chance of making diplomatic progress to break the deadlock and it's just you stubbornly refusing to draw the mods will step in. Pushing it to the point where the mods must do something is, in my opinion, childish and rude.

@Sunzi - Well then why am I forced to a draw? Why other players are not forced to cancel?

The situation is not meaninglessly and stubbornly locking the game but forcing others to cancel as opposed to draw... There is a big difference in what I asked.

Because the rules say that if the game is stale and the same moves are being repeated, the game is a draw, not a cancel.

I'm also guessing you can't refuse to unpause to force a cancel in the same way as you can't do that for draw either right?

@Nebu:

For example in a live game, if stalemate lines are built up, but someone still refuses to draw, even though he has zero chance to gain any new territories, just wants the opponent get tired and go to sleep, so you can progress then mods will step in.

You can't force others (in live game) to stay awake just because you don't want to draw.
This was just an example, but it is an example.

It also happens in 1 day+ phase games, you will get an email from the mods, what is your plan to finish the game? And if you can't give a decent answer how you will progress, they will draw it.

Also forcing cancel is legal, but certainly not a kind way of finishing the game. Generally speaking you can't force anyone within the rules to cancel. Until no rules are broken the game will and should continue, and if no progress can be made it will be drawn one way or the other.

In the example above 2 vs 2 in Ancient you should draw, you can't force cancel. There are no rules for that, as Geofram stated, but if the game is stuck, mods will interfere.

It's like step repetition in chess. It's an automatic draw otherwise players would sit there forever.

I have just realised the logical error I make :D I, for a moment, forgot that when you draw, every remaining player shares the pot equally and thought that everyone gets the points for the SCs they have.

For this reason, actually, there is no big difference between cancel and draw. Especially if no one has defeated in the game. Even if someone is defeated there is no REASONABLE point in asking for a cancel instead of a draw as it is always true that if you cancel, you get less points then you can if you draw.

My question would be valid, if there were two different types of draws and player blocs asking for different kind of draws.

(think about the situations where locked players have approximately equal SCs as opposed to having an unbalanced number of SCs (like 16-7-9-2-0)

Anyway it is all clear now for me :D

There is a big difference between a cancel and a draw. When you cancel you are saying the game was invalid, that it never happened. When the game draws you have played the game (hopefully a hard-fought satisfying battle) and the outcome was a draw. You didn't win, but you didn't lose either.

Thanks captain obvious. That may seem big for you but it is little for me :D

Besides we were talking about the way points are distributed (if you read the context)...

Moreover, in both conditions you do not win or lose :D Nothing can change the fact that you did play it... :3

I think the big difference is that a cancelled game is stricken from the record and doesn't affect your stats.

Yeah, i'd interpret a cancel as having played but it not being a 'proper' game. (for some definition of proper)

Like '01 NMRs (actually this can still be a proper game, you just need to adjust your strategy and accept that sometimes people can't or don't enter moves...

Cheating is usually considered grounds for cancelling.

Waiting for a player to NMR is *not* a valid tactic. If the game has gone for about 5 years without progressing, the mods will intervene.

abgemacht
webDip Admin

Also, there is an enormous difference between drawing and canceling.

A draw is (according to many top diplomacy players) the only legitimate way to end a game. Stalemate lines are an artifact of the game and when no more progress can be made, you draw. Those are the rules.

Cancel is an artifact of the site, not of the game, reserved for when games have been damaged beyond repair and player agree (outside of the game, so to speak) that the game is not worth playing any more.

A stalemate line is not a broken game to be canceled. It is a game played out to one possible ending and should be drawn.

"Thanks captain obvious. That may seem big for you but it is little for me :D"

It be can't that obvious to you since you don't even agree. :-)

@spyman (specificially) and also all those sent replies between my messages :

"... we were talking about the way points are distributed (if you read the context)..."

I say again -please- spend a few minutes on what was being talked instead of reading the last few messages superficially...

Dear Spyman you are also changing the topic (and perhaps trollings a little bit :P ) by sending a message after I said I got what I had got wrong...

"When you cancel, you are saying the game was invalid, that it never happened." This sentence makes you a captain obvious sir because everyone who talked on the topic had already known it. (if you read the messages you may find inferences perhaps :D )

"You didn't win, but you didn't lose either." if that is how you differentiate cancel and draw then you are right, I was wrong to say you are captain obvious because I have always thought that this is what is same for both draw and cancel...

Now let me drop this sarcasm, and try to put you (and any others) in my shoes. I say there is a little difference between cancel and draw. That is because the statistics are non of my concern. I care about the fun I have in playing.

(By saying that, i am not criticising anybody. Some do care about statistics as it adds-on to fun by making it more competitive for them. )

If I enjoy a game, that is because the game was tough and fair... I do not care if it is cancelled drawn, or whether i am defeated in the end...

That might be because I enjoy the diplomacy part more. I know that some people see the game as 'pure mathematics' or something like that... These people may be more into the statistics of winning as well, I do not know... But I just like interacting with people and all these communications you make during playing... You know even in non-public messages, you try to send a message to other players by your moves and all those subtle communication methods (by messages or moves) makes this game interesting.

So why should I bother if I won or lost the game if I enjoyed it? Why should I bother if the game is cancelled or drawn, whether it is recorded in my statistics...

Can you see now why there is no big difference between cancel and a draw for me now?

(I hope you like reading as much as I like writing :D )

Cancel.gives every name in the game their points back including left and not taken.over positions as well.as defeated ones. Draw only gives the points active nations, so there is a points difference unless all of the original players are still active.

Neb I have honestly no idea what you are talking about. I can't tell if you agree with me or disagree. I don't understand where the sarcasm is coming from. Not that I mind. You are welcome to believe whatever it is you believe.

If you don't care if you draw or cancel then why are you asking if you're allowed to hold a game hostage to force people to cancel? That doesn't sound fun...

I asked that because I was confused with how the points are shared when you cancel and draw. I am tired REPEATING THIS but please just read carefully what I said before. As this is turning into an inquisition, I better explain what I thought when I was asking.

Imagine that there are 2 kinds of draws:

Draw A: This draw finishes the game. Everyone gets points for the number of SCs.
Draw B: This is the normal draw. It also finishes the game but the points are shared equally among remaining players.

(As you may realise my question had nothing to do with statistics but finishing the game which is not equal with completing the game, if you can see the nuance)

(I thought Draw A is draw, and Draw b is cancel but actually there is no draw a and draw b is not cancel but 'draw' as we know it)

So if these 2 draws were available in the game, then the game would be rightfully remained locked up 'till hell freezes over'. :D

Why? because non of them are superior to other. One bloc of players demands draw a and other demands draw b.

You cannot say "Draw A is wrong, so we have to use draw b always" because it is no different than saying "draw b is wrong so we have to use draw a". (or vice versa)
(is this clear? It is important as it is the main reasoning of my argument)

So in this regard, I think it is actually fair to lock the game forever because both kinds of draws have a strategic and diplomatic value.

See my example: "(think about the situations where locked players have approximately equal SCs as opposed to having an unbalanced number of SCs (like 16-7-9-2-0)"

I think when the game is locked and SC distribution is like (16-16-1-1-1) then Draw A would be fair.

From the point of view of players: (I will call them A-B-C-D-E in that order) - Player A and B would rationally ask for draw A where as other players would ask for Draw B. As the main struggle is between A and B, it is fair that they get what they want naturally.


But if the game is locked when player SCs are like (16-7-9...) then Draw B would be more logical. Because most players are involved in the main struggle against a giant and balanced it by locking the game.

But A would ask for draw A as this would give him more points.

---

However in the end (if you read my messages) I realised that Draw A is not what happens when you "draw" the game. It does not exist at all. And Draw B is not "canceling" the game but it is actually drawing the game.

Furthermore, it is good that Draw A does not exist as it would make the game over-complicated. It would also lead to never-ending locks as players cannot agree on the draw type to finish the game. Because it is equally right to ask for any kind of draws.

But then I did realise my mistake and said IT is all clear for me now... IF you still havent read the past posts that is the post I sent jsut before spyman's first post.

The strange thing is despite that it is completely IRRELEVANT to the main topic and it was simply a personal opinion, everyone started to say "there is a HUGE difference not a SMALL difference between cancel and draw" and some people started to sound like blaming me with being one of these players who stubbornly stalls the games with no diplomatic or strategic prospect... and naturally going out of topic kind of annoyed me.

Neb you are acting like I had a go at you. I did nothing of the sort. You put the idea put there that a draw and a cancel are equivalent. I said I disagreed. You then said "... but I am talking about points". Fair enough, if that is all you said, and if that is all you meant... if you really were *only* talking about points. But then you said "it may be a big difference to you bit it is a little difference to me" - which was clearly not just about points. If it really were just about that points why not just so so and leave at that instead of insulting me with these long-winded and frankly incoherrent rants.