Imagine not being addicted to this game, couldn't be me.

it's not about not the frequency of visiting the site. it's about making a conscious choice to start choosing "save" rather than "ready" when you're on the site and you start losing.

I believe it's generally one of three reasons:
1. They don't want the game to go faster because they don't check often enough. This would be obvious from the beginning so I do not think it is the case in your scenario of "when the game isn't going their way"
2. They are petty and essentially throwing a hissy fit with little regard for the other players of the game.
3. They are hoping to draw things out enough that others will accept a draw rather than play in a very extended game.

None of the three above are good in my opinion. When I play in a game where someone is a chronic "saver" instead of readyer I am way more likely to choose them to attack as eliminating them from the game will speed it up for everyone.

I think these suggestions are a little disingenuous. From my perspective, it's legitimate to use all permitted time to solve tactical puzzles.

If you're talking about me, I'm spending all of my possible time to discuss strategy and stalemate lines with Cupjake. It's not exactly easy to find a way out of my current situation, so I'm trying to use all of the resources at my disposal to think up of a way out to stalemate the 4 of you attacking us.

I think JGLikesStratGames makes a valid point that's been missed so far. When things are going smoothly there may be less to discuss. Once things start going badly I am more likely to Save because I'm trying harder to turn relationships around and coordinate more nations against a single opponent. Often that needs all the time we can get, especially when different time zones are involved.

I agree with Cupjake to an extent. If there's literally only 1 move left, or if their turn leads to their destruction either way, then there's no reason to prolong the inevitable.

But of course, it's not easy to click on that "Ready" button once a game that was once going your way suddenly turned sharp south. Hissy fit, rethinking of strategies, or whatnot, I think it's not hard to forgive someone for trying to delay the pain.

Or better yet, once things do go south, like as the posts above me mentioned, it's when someone would put much more thought into it. Personally, if a 1v1 is close, or if I'm losing, it's hard to commit when you know that 1 wrong move could mean the inevitable defeat. Once you're in the driver's seat, it's easy to pump out moves knowing you have a wide margin of error

Yeah, Coffee expanded my idea. When a situation is difficult and requires the absolute best moves, I imagine that I'm being a good competitor rather than a bad competitor by taking all my time to actually put out the best moves I can. It surprises me if people are more concerned with progressing quickly than playing a high-quality game, but if that is the case it's good to know.

I'm an amateur chess player, and in chess it's considered best practice to use as much of your time as you can to make the right move. I think I may have gotten the instinct from there.

Also, when you are loosing, you need to disturb the current patterns in a game. If you are winning, then you want the game to continue in the same manner.

Playing fast typically means staying in the same patterns.

Forcing you opponents to take more time to think about their position each turn, increases the likelihood that they'll start thinking about turns further ahead. And while I have no supporting evidence, my gut feeling is that users thinking further ahead increases chances of stabs, and chances for missteps to defend against possible future stabs.

In my experience there are plenty of players who don't ready their moves so that the game adjudication stays consistent

Also, please don't discuss ongoing games on the forum

You clearly didn’t read the post if you think it’s about consistency since I posted about people suddenly changing their patterns. And there is nothing in the post that indicates this about a current game. It is framed extremely generally.

I was commenting on readying in general. I play mostly anon so it is never clear who is "holding things up."

JGLikesStratGames is the one who I was talking about referring to ongoing games.

Ok, got it. Thanks for clarifying.

By default, there should be no issue with taking as much time as you have to resolve your turn; that was the turn length that everyone agreed to when the game began. But if the players come to an agreement among themselves that the real turn time should be shorter and the system turn length is just in case of emergencies or something, you should respect that adjustment and let other people know if you're not going to meet it.