Delays are far more damaging and confusing to a game than NMRs are. NMRs are a part of the game. If you really want to avoid them, the best way is compete amongst reliable players, and to asses harsh sactions for NMRs, particularly to perpetual offenders, and those that abandon games because they are suddenly doing poorly. By sticking a lasting label/stigma on the players fouling up the game for the rest us we can discourage this behavior, and more easily recognize players to be excluded form serious games.

Getting into complex systems of delays and replacments is overeaching at the real issue, and kills game dynamic and generates apathy. Basic accountability is the answer to policing and preventing NMRs.

@ Leif. Yeah, your "bidding" idea was fantastic. Pity it isn't doable.

@ Ruffhaus. Preventing NMRs is what the RR is for. RR is the tool that asses sanctions to any "offender". From time to time, Oli releases a new, more effective, updated RR version and/or asks the community for new ideas, by opening a thread fot that purpose.
NMRs, and hence CDs, have been significantly reduced by the RR but, unluckily, they still exist.
So, how to make CD replacements easier and quicker, without delays, is exactly what we're discussing about, here, from 10 days ago on. Many causes have been found and several solutions have been proposed. Why don't you read them and tell us your opinion? C'mon! :)

@RUFFHAUS: That's why the default is 1/1. Means during the first turn you get one extend. Because these early NMRs usually get the other players to cancel the game. People can enter what other turns/extends they want, so everyone can experiment a bit with the different settings. In a few month we can discuss what combinations work and what not and change this in a dropdown-menue.

If you want people to take on these CD positions, you have to address the steep cost of the bet to get into the games. Most of these abandonened positions are bleak enough on their own, but with some effort and care they can can be a lot of fun to play. However, when you have a points based system that virtually assures a player of losing points for taking on CD positions, why would anyone do it? I'm not sure if this has been suggested or not, but in my view if the buy in cost were cut in half, I would certainly be much more tempted to take up mercy replacement positions for the sheer challenge of survival. It's a great way to learn the game and practice your skills operating under duress and long odds. I once played for over a year taking on only abandoned positions. It's not great for your won/loss ratio if you are paying attention to that, but it makes you a better player, and it's an investment in the community that yields better games.

Yeah, I get the 1/1 extend feature, and in some cases it's okay. But the reality of online Diplomacy is that NMRs happen. The best way to manage them is to separate the occurences where a player simply misses a deadline from those who quit games after something goes wrong. I like the concept of the RR, and over time that should help to weed out the quitters.

Yes, Ruffhaus, "half-bet" was one of the first solutions that has been suggested, for the reasons you said. About the reasons (causes) of people not Taking Over CD-positions, in my Sat 28 Apr post there's a small recap of all has been said about it. After finding enough causes and put them in 5 Groups, we started find solution for Group 1 (CDed position are not worth the buy-in.) and the obvious generic solution is "Making the TO-price smaller". The question now is...HOW?
Several solutions have been proposed. The best (a bidding auction) has been discarded because Oli said it's not doable. "Half bet" has been turned into "Half bet with threshold" to solve some issues with the lowest worth positions. So, at the moment, there are 3 solutions still "alive":

1. All TO-prices are 0 ;
2. "Half-bet with threshold"
3. "Comparison with original bet"

And this is a very small recap of what has been said about them (you'd better read previous posts):
1. Very simple and quite effective: most of CD-positions would be TOed in a while. But giving away a Country for free has some drawbacks, IE having one player in the game who has "nothing to lose" could encourage weird behaviours. Basically: if a position is not worthless, it shouldn't be totally costless. There's a reason why you pay points to play.
2. Simple and very effective in majority of cases. But it has faults as the pot of game raises, because a fixed thresold can be good for some group of games and bad for another. Basically: if you fix a low threshold it would be ineffective for high-stakes games and viceversa. Also, there are wide price- "steps" that create paradoxes.
3. You could call it also "60%-bet with a floating and progressive threshold". The threshold floats depending on how high was the original bet, so there can't be screwed positions that are expensive or good positions costless. Also, since it's progressive, there are no "steps" and no paradoxes. All TO-prices are always good and as much appealing as possible. So it's very effective in almost any case but.... it's rather complicated to explain how it works.

I decided to play a new game. Spring turn goes well. then in fall one player failed to submit orders. Build face; still nmr. He is out. Year two: Someone takes over. He communicates with me. Spring turn..that someone fails to submit orders! retreats: few hours left but no order submitted!!

I wonder if we can have a feature where a game is automatically canceled if someone nmrs in the first two years.

Sometimes I had your same feeling, cypeg, but this kind of solution might be the cause of even more discussion than the current solution: let the game going on and hope someone takes over.

What are the odds of a player nmring and his replacement to nmr too? :)

I can't quantify that, but I remember it has happened in my games at least twice

Cypeg must be in a game with me.

"a game is automatically canceled if someone nmrs in the first two years."

Say a player made a bad first turn or a bad first year (too little allies, too many players gangin up on him, misorders or mistakes etc..). What are the odds he will purposely NMR to have the game canceled? I bet all the Anons and all the WTAs. It's better have a game canceled than a "defeat" in your stats. Why continue playing a game you did poor the first turns? You even got your points back! :-)

They go CD now that they have a 'left' in stats and lose their points. Imagine what they could do if they can NMR without consequences. We should not encourage NMRs.

My 2 cents worth,
Ruffhaus and Cypeg hit it on the head. I have looked over many games to pick up and the intro cost is just too expensive, you can't gain much and yet you are really doing a favor to keep the game going normally.It should be made in such a fashion that you have players begging to grab a pick up game, no matter what if you have a one sc country, nobody wants to pick it up, make it free, chances of a pick up will rise.
I have gained from NMR's I have lost due to NMR's, it can be a game changer, I hate them, make it easy for players to pick up CD countries.
Oli if you can do anything...............................