If it's a stalemate, I'd probably try it for a year or two, and if there's no change, ya, just draw. Waiting for someone to miss orders is generally considered poor sportsmanship. It is gunboat, though, so there may be chances for you to snag SCs since they can't communicate perfectly.

How can you tell if its a stalemate?

If you can't break through.

Oh, I can break through! Thanks for the responses everybody!

If you're sure to be able to break through then you should play ;)

If you can win, they should be counting on you winning, not moving to draw. There is no reason why you shouldn't win if you can.

For future reference siemaskolam, it's generally considered very bad etiquette to ask for advice about on-going games, ESPECIALLY if they're no-messaging.

It is never bad etiquette to ask a question...it is improper to answer said question at the wrong time or place...buy a thesaurus...

Or a Tyrannosaurus

Actually general loaf, asking a question such as the one in the OP IS considered bad form, since the OP is asking about a specific situation that is happening in a game tht is currently running. You are correct that asking a generalized question is acceptable, but asking tactical questions during an ongoing game (and a gunboat to boot!) is considered very poor etiquette.

At least, that is how it is treated by the webdip community, which is basically the etiquette that has trannsferred over here.

I tend to agree with drano, responses here could influence what is happening in the game so that is unfair to players involved. What happens in the game, stays in the game :)

I am interested in something different but still involved to gunboat games. When you vote for pause in this games you never get it :(

heee? that was no tactical question, that was a question about etiquette behaviour.... that was answered in a general way....

Concur. Game is not identified, number of SCs and neighbors might be off, and only people playing in that game would have any idea anyway. Not to mention it might actually be hypothetical for him; he might not be the guy about to win, but posing the question as if he is in order to garner opinions from a different perspective. It's not a tactical question.

But important thing is that advice he got over here can influence the game. Without it he might already vote draw in that game, but now under influence of other player he will go for win. Conclusion is that discussion on the forum influenced result of the game.

He is asking a question about sportsmanship, which earns him high praise in my book. Still perfectly warranted in my opinion. Regardless, people will discuss such things as they see fit I suppose. The only way to "enforce" is to never be the person giving advice if you think the discussion is inappropriate. Everyone adheres to his own standards, as we all know.

Sportsmanship is virtue I respect the most.

As i see it, the "bad sportmanship asking about on-going games" refers only to tactical advice ant the likes. His question was about ettiquete, and you could read between the lines that he was having his doubts about drawing, because he did not know the proper ettiquete that is follow here, and he wanted to make sure.
Since there's nowhere in the webpage where the ettiquete is posted, it's never unfair to ask about it in the forum.
Also, following your statement, i could not ask gobber what's the prime factorisation of the nº of post in "winning" if i'm in a game with him, which renders to the absurd.

The rule about not asking on-going games has always to be used with common sense. Taking it as an absolut is just nosense.

And, also as said before, we don't have any specific info about the game, and it could affect this on-going game as much as it could affect any following game, so following your argument even further, it should be forbidden to ever talk about strategy or anything that could influence any present or future games in any way, which again renders absurd.

First of all guys, a quote: "Oh, I can break through! Thanks for the responses everybody!"

Now, who's going to tell me that what people said did not have a direct influence on the game?

Second, I never said that the people who responded were at fault. To the people responding, his question looked like an innocent hypothetical question, which is totally fine. However, the person asking the question was clearly (based on the above quote) asking for advice about an ongoing game, something that is frowned upon at webdip and which has generally transferred over to here. Hence my first post was directed at the OP, NOT at the responders.

I think, if I understood the OP correctly, that he was already confident that he could break through and win solo, but was concerned that he would be acting boorishly to do so against a popular vote to draw. All the responses did was reassure him that there was no foul in going for it. So - no there doesn't seem to be a direct impact ont he game, since without the input he would have gone ahead to win anyway (maybe - anything can happen). If the responders had gone the other way and felt that etiquette dictated he bow to the majority, there is still no substantive change, except that his record would show a draw instead of a win.

Where in the rule book does it prohibit discussing tactics or anything else with other people? I see nothing wrong with his question. He didn't even ask about tactics, just if he should be compelled to draw simply because everyone else has voted draw.

Well nevermind then. I guess that the 'dont discuss ongoing games' way didn't transfer over from webdip like I thought it did. its a self regulated 'rule' there so that games don't get affected. Sure, not all discussions afect the game, but if you allow some discussions, eventually the envelope gets pushed by some people. By having a don't tlak about it strategy, you avoid all that.

Now maybe I read the OP from the wrong angle, and if so I apologize. However, I still think that asking about ongoing games (for whatever reason barring something like a person refusing to unpause) should be avoided and id be interested to see what other people have to say about the 'dont talk abotu ongoing games' "rule" from webdip.

drano 1 question: what is the difference of asking about tactics in the forums or googling them? even in ongoing games... at the end its the same ;)
so I do not really care anyways...

here I ment standart tactics like opener or what is the crucial spot and so on... surely if you come down with concrete situations it's another story but then also you could ask your real life friend or whatever and that's the same thing again... ;)

...result is the same, but path to the result have some influence. If brick fall from the sky and kill you Rox, or if someone kill you with gun in the street. Result is the same, you are dead so why should that poor guy end up in the jail? Yes, he did kill you with the gun, but you could be killed with falling brick too, so....

;)

ehm and what about the guy who wrote the tactics on a website I find in google? ;)

I agree with Rox. I don't really care where my opponents get their strategy. From another site, from another player, from an article, or from their past experience. I will play based on the assumption that they will come up with a good move from whatever source they have.

I do agree with not circumventing the "no in-game message" option though. But this means no negotiations outside a game, between players in the game. This is posted as a rule on this web site.

There is the point devonian, I also always think what would be the best move for my opponent, but then often I get problems cause they do not do the best move haha :p

:) I know what you mean. I hate it when I get beat by a move only a fool would do. Thus proving the brilliance of the move in the first place.

this is the great about diplomacy you can also make fool moves and confuse your enemy
if your enemy thinks you are a fool (in case you are not)you can surprise them
or discover you are a fool in did
lol