I'm still reading too... :-)
A no pause/no extend setting during game-creation would be really easy.
I would remove these votes in the game and mods would not be able to do this on request.

Oli -

That's one possibility, but I don't think that's what most people would want. I know I at least would prefer the extend/pause votes to stay...but to stay in the hands of the players unless there's an emergency. Its the players game, and unless there's an emergency, the mods shouldn't intervene (IMO at least). So at least from my point of view, all that is needed is a policy change instead of coding changes.

So what's an emergency?
"I'm so busy this week and my laptop is broken!"
"My wife is having surgery and I want her to have support"
"My electricity went out from a storm"
"My internet has been spotty and I'm afraid it will go out when it's time to make a move"
"I've got exams and I threw my back out" (this one is for Dr. Recommended lol)
"I got super drunk last night and I don't want the game to suffer"

etc

I don't see how the mods can differentiate without doing what they are doing now, so I understand why they just grant it.

I guess where we differ in opinion drano, is that you think people will not lie about emergencies. I'm more cynical and I figure if someone is going to be rude enough to not bother to find a sitter or let people know in advance about a vacation, that they are also rude enough to lie about an emergency. Once that starts then you're back with the same problem you have now!

If you really want a change then ask for something that doesn't rely on mods playing lie detector. A few examples I can come up with or have been suggested here:

Ask that pauses/extends are not granted unless a player has tried to find a sitter, or has made an effort to try and find a less disruptive method to the game.

Ask that pauses for more then a week are not granted without the stipulation that the player gives the moderator team permission to unpause if they can find that player a sitter in the meantime.

Ask that pauses are not granted when extends will work, and that

Ask for games that cannot be extended and/or paused as an option in game creation

Ask that the moderator team not grant extends/pauses if they have not been quickly requested on the game global press (gunboat excluded). If there is opposition then have the mods talk to the players and figure out why people are so adamantly opposed to a pause/extend.

I don't think both sides will ever agree completely because there is a decent sized group of players, like myself, who feel nmr's hurt games more then a delay. But there is certainly room for you all to meet somewhere in the middle by asking for options like the ones mentioned above. Just my thoughts, but hopefully they help a bit.

Lol. Mapu, that's not an emergency. It's business as usual! Also, I'm not sure I have ever requested an extend or pause.

If anything can be drawn from this discussion, I think it should be that pause/extend requests should first and foremost by handled inside the game. Players who know that they will need an accommodation can and should provide advance notice. If it is an adequate reason, then they should be able to acquire 2/3 the votes. I think asking a moderator should be last resort, either in case of a legitimate emergency, or when more than 1 person feels that some players are refusing a legitimate request, or if a player is banned and a replacement is needed. In other words, let's try to use the rules as they are set: a pause requires unaminous consent, an extend requiring 2/3. Beyond that, only special circumstances warrant a request from the mods.

*correction

"either in case of a legitmate emergency":
Never mind- If it's a real emergency then who cares about a game. Like Mapu said, everyone has different definitions of emergency. When I say "emergency" I mean it's like a loved one was in some sort of accident so again, who cares about a game? If you're having computer problems, then naturally it would follow that you would have computer game problems, so fix it or find another hoppy. In other words, I think the rules are fine regarding pause/extends. It shouldn't be the duty of the mods to protect the game flow or the integrity of the game- it should be the players. If a player's absence is truly hurting the game, then either the other players will grant a request, or there will be a consensus requiring approval from the mod team.

Usually not only the people that might NMR will be affected, their allies will be affected too. Most of the time the mods force a extend players use the vote-buttons as a diplomatic tool. Players taking advantage of NMR will not vote, all the others vote. Setting a fixed rule to this will only make people try to game the system. So I prefer that the mod-team use common-sense to handle this.
On the other hand I totally get the opinions of the more serious crowd that a forced NMR does change the flow of the game too. But to keep this in perspective it's only a very small part of the community that does voice it's concerns here.
We have 350 active players at the moment but only about 6 raising (a valid) concern.

So I think a no pause/extend-setting that mods can't force would help the more serious crowd too.
What would be needed for this. A complete removal of these buttons during the game or more a no-mod interventions wanted at all costs or both? It would be possible to prevent all mod actions (force extend/pause/CD) based on a game-creation setting.

drano.. I promised a reply.. it is still coming, FYI.

Oli -

Thanks again fkr weighing in.

In regards tk your last question: i dont think theres many (if any) of us who are pushing for a no extend/pause button option. Most of usbseem to be pushing for the no mod intervention option.

Regarding the rest of your message, define "diplomatic tool". Is it not our right to not vote extend/pause? How do the Mods determine whether someone is refusing because they want to take advantage of the situation (using it as diplomatic tool), or whether they honestly feel the game would be better off without it (perfectly legitimate). Because the Mods have in the past (and presumably will inbthe future) forced extebds/pauses in games for things like short vacations, something that many of us do not see as a kegitimate reason to slow thebgame down. I personally feel finding a sitter is the answer in those situations if you cant get on.

two options selectable at game start-up would be ideal:
___________
option 1:
no pause/extend buttons available for the players
option 2:
no moderator intervention for pauses and extends
_______________

Short of fixing a bug withing the mechanics of the coding, I'm not sure why the moderators would ever want to pause/extend a game. Why would this be an option to select in the first place? Providing a start up option to by pass this is really just putting lipstick on a pig.

This entire conversation is taking place because there is a sentiment within the moderator team that suggests that players who refuse to vote for extends are cheating. Yes, one of them really said this... So following with that logic (or lack thereof), when an extend/pause vote among the players fails, it gives said moderator licence to intervene and force an extend regardless of what the players want. This is a problem that goes beyond the scope of this discussion, and illustrates the potential abuse of power. I'm not sure why we should have to have an option chosen to prevent this in the first place.

This is the same concept that we're dealing with int he WTA/PPSC and CYOC debates. Basically common sense, fairness, and rational behavior have been tossed out the window, and now we're being asked to endorse that with a vote, or to be pigeon holed into "expert settings" just to play in game that don't reek of manipulation by the mod team. The answer to the problem is not to provide more choices and settings, but to butt out and let the players play. No one would ever complain about a force intervention in the case of a real emergency, but we;ve already seen that the definition of "emergency" can be construed by the moderators to mean things like band camp weekend, ski trips, exam time, and "I'm just really busy this week". I don;t think that we'd be having this discussing at all if this practice of moderator intervention had been practice responsibly in the past.

Yes, you will have to vote how you want to handle your game, because there are many different ways to play and enjoy this game and it's impossible to know what kind of play-stile you (or anyone else) prefers.
In your opinion "common sense, fairness, and rational behavior have been tossed out the window", but the same applies the other way round. Quite a lot of players think by changing the basic rules and the handling of the site "common sense, fairness, and rational behavior will be tossed out the window".
There are 2 very different mindsets that are next to none compatible in many basic questions about how to run and play diplomacy on this site. Usually this is not a problem, because a website attracts one or the other crowd. But somehow this site gets used by both and most of the lengthy discussions is these 2 fractions discussion their point of view.

That's because the one mindset is based upon flawed principles that are not found in the rules of the game in the first place. They were invented/implements for as yet unexplained reasons that cannot be explained as to how they provide common sense, fairness or rational behavior. Games belong to the players. The fact that the moderators would seek to insert themselves deeper into control of the games is extremely disturbing. Furthermore the notion that we should have to choose a setting in the first place to avoid this is ridiculous. It's more insulting that the moderators seizing control of games for their own arbitrary reasons. Once again the intent behind the "settings" approach seems to be to drown out to voices of reason.

Drano, you will now be free to choose a WTA, random assignment, no moderator involvement game. Lucky you. You're now allowed to play Diplomacy the way it was designed to be played. Unfortunately such a game will be described by the site as and advanced setting game for "experts" and so 90% of the community will shun such games fearing the "expert" settings.

The folks here objecting to this welfare Diplomacy, socialist Diplomacy, or whatever kumbaya vision of the game is being cultivated are trying to HELP players learn how to play the game correctly so that they will improve and become better players. This helps everyone in the end. Raising the skills and understanding of the the players increases the quality of the games. Branding the basic tenants of the game as expert settings, and lowering the basic expectations to moron level keeps the majority of this site at an extremely unskilled level. Clearly there are some who enjoy keeping the majority of players at an unskilled level, because that gives them easy victories.

It's not impossible to know what people prefer. People overwhelmingly objected to the way this has been handled in the past. There is no need for this option at game start up. The games already have a method of pausing and extending by a player vote. What is the point of having players vote if the moderators are going to ignore the votes? By providing this option you're seeking to backdoor the entire issue into suggesting that the players want the moderators to control all games, and that the majority asked for this. That's not the case.

Yes there are two mindsets on how to run games here. Unfortunately you are only listening to one of them, and it's the less experienced, less rational, and less ethical perspective. It's also chiefly driven by one person who has everyone else afraid to object to his way.

It's your site, Oliver. Run it the way you want. But you ask for our opinions. We give them in overwhelming numbers, and you let the other guy overrule us every time. Why do you bother asking? It's polite, but in all candor it doesn't come across as a sincere request.

For a free site that I get to play on without making any sort of investment in time or money it seems like the moderators and/or people that spend their time on this site do a pretty amazing job.

^ agreed with scuba Steve. You're all too demanding of a site that's free as it is.

What about an gamecreation-option that reflect your way of playing with some common defaults (that you can still change, but these are the default-settings).
This would be the first setting in the gamecration-page and have an in depth explanation whatto expect (not the default-options, but what mindset of player).

For example:
1. Casual = No DPoints, no VDip-ranking, no WTA/PPSC, no Anonymous, fullPress, no Rating requirements, NMR=1/1, mods will help in emergency issues.

2. Competitive = minbet: 5 DPoints, normal ranking, PPSC, no Anonymous, fullPress, no Rating requirements, NMR=2/1, mods will help in emergency issues.

3. Serious = minbet: 20 DPoints, normal ranking, WTA, no Anonymous, fullPress, Rating requirements = 80+/ minPhases=20+, NMR=5/2, no mod interventions.

You can set your preferred default in your settings-page. You can choose to hide games with a different "style". These parameters would just be the defaults, you could change them all during game-creation.

Oli -

One

Damn it....obviously that wasn't meant to happen...

Anyways, Oli, one thing I see that would be an issue is that you'd need at least 3 settings for "Mod involvement". They would be:

1) Mods intervene if needed: Basically how things stand right now. If people PM the mods, they intervene.

2) Mods intervene ONLY in emergencies: This is how most of us who are arguing for a change on this thread would want it. Basically, emergencies would constitute serious family or medical issues that come up last second.

3) No mod intervention.

The problem with how you have it written is that you write: "mods will help in emergency issues", but what it *appears* you mean is that things would stay the same as they are now. And right now, it's been proven that the Mods intervene in situations that are *not* emergencies, but rather, simple inconveniences. That's why I propose the 3rd setting, so that we differentiate between how things are now (option 1), emergencies only, and no mod intervention.

Sorry, bad English...
This proposion is unrelated to the no-mod setting.
I would propose a setting for the preferred play-style and some changed defaults based on this. We have a problem if we hide such settings to deep in some expert-settings, so a more visible general setting how the creator of the game approaches playing the game would be much better and more visible than some strange expert-setting that nobody but some experts use.
Such a setting would make the WTA a bit more accessible too.

@drano: no 2 is not possible, because everybody can come up with some emergency issue and we can't check this.

So then the options we are going to have are:

1) the mods will pause for literally ANY reason as they do now

and

2) It's impossible to get an extend or pause even in catastrophic situations?

I mean, I understand the mods can't "check" reasons, but in all honesty, how many people are going to fake real, legitimate emergencies like family being in the hospital, death, etc? And if people DO fake it, don't you think the community will ostracize them?

As long as the Mods put out a very visible explanation as to what meets "emergency" criteria, and warned people not to abuse it, I think you'd find the vast majority of the people on here would respect it. Or is the opinion of the community here so low as to assume that just because people *can* abuse it, they *will*?

On a more personal level, I dislike both options. Basically, you're telling me it will be impossible for me to create a game where a PM to the mods requesting a pause for weekend band camp will get rejected (and told they should ask in game as is proper), but a PM to the mods requesting an extension because my family member is deathly ill would get accepted. If it HAS to be all or none, it should be none, but really, you guys are basically saying we aren't trustworthy without even giving it a shot.

Honestly, I think making altered settings for mod intervention is going in the wrong way to address this issue- It only polarizes the community. Not saying that the mods are necessarily doing things wrong, but I think that if there was an attempt to standardize mod intervention, then clarifying appropriate mod intervention is where we'd have to start, not by giving license to "how much" they should intervene before a game even starts. I also think that this type of setting option would lay additional burden on the mods, because the majority would probably choose intermediate or beginner settings and perhaps some would come to expect mod intervention, which could increase the amount of requests.

As I said in earlier posts, I think it should largely be left up the players in the game, and since noone can predict events which might happen after a game starts, they shouldn't have to decide before the game starts whether or not special accommodation should be met.

I think a better direction to go would be to standardize both mod activity, and the way in which requests are made by players. For instance: If a player knows they will need an accommodation, they must first bring it up in the global chat and vote "extend" or "pause", notifying the rest of the players of the delay request. Of course, you shouldn't join a game if you know you will be needing many/long delays unless you have a sitter lined up. After all, it is NOT mandatory that players agree to extend/pause requests, so no one should count on getting their request approved. As long as a request was made to the players first- if it is ignored, it is an immediate emergency (where the player would miss the next phase), or if the player feels the need to he may ask a mod for help, the mods then use discretion as to address the in-game chat and if needed to implement an emergency extend, which is the length of 1 phase. During that time the mod can investigate the request and how the other players feel about it.

As this addresses individuals' requests for delays, it doesn't account for the legitimate emergency (as it applies to online Diplomacy) of losing power in a power outage, in which case a request can't be made to the players or the mods, it would obviously result in a missed turn or cd. If other players in the game feel the game will suffer from the player's absence, then they can bring it up to the global chat and to a mod, and it will be decided whether the game should be extended to find a replacement. An emergency extend can also apply where a player is banned, to provide a minimum amount of time to find a replacement.

Lastly, I feel that any type of mod intervention should apply only to full press (or global press) games. Let's face it, in gunboats where there is no discussion, an extend or pause request cannot be negotiated. Only if the votes are aqcuired can the game be delayed (although, gunboats shoudn't ever be paused but they can be extended). There is already a customized setting for nmr's, so this ought to be used for players who utterly refuse to put up with missed turns and cd's. It shouldn't be the duty of the mods to guarantee that a game won't negatively be affected by missed turns and cd's.

I'm not suggesting this exact set of etiquette, I'm basically providing my opinion, and suggesting that this approach might help ease the issue.

Raro and Ruffhaus again bring up a point that is being somewhat swept under the rug up to this point.

Considering that pause/extend requests require unanimous/two-thirds (respectively) votes to be successful, we can logically deduce that it is *not* required of players to grant these requests. If it *was* required, then there wouldn't be a need for a vote, instead, it could simply be a button where any one person could pause/extend at need.

However, it is clear that the current policy is ignoring this fact. Forced extends and pauses by their very nature ignore the fact that people do not *have* to grant pauses/extends. Now, in certain situations, that's fine and well. But it has happened in the past, and will presumably happen again in the future, that the Mods are granting pauses/extends for things that would *not* have gotten player approval in the game. Whether it's band camp, or a "busy week", or any other request of a similar nature, forcing a pause/extend for the person who PMed the Mods because the players didn't grant their request is making a mockery of the fact that we even have the voting system. Even worse, are the pauses/extends granted when there isn't even an in-game post about it!

Moving forward, I like where Raro is headed. Standardizing the requirements for getting a forced pause/extend would at least be a step in the right direction. I think we can all fairly easily agree that someone who requests a pause/extend with 3 hours left in a 24 hour/phase game and then complains when it isn't granted is being a bit ridiculous? To me, unless a pause/extend was requested in-game AT LEAST one (I prefer more) full phase ahead of the time needed, the Mods should just ignore the request barring a legitimate emergency (I *get* that you can't differentiate between "legitimate" and people just making things up, but again, you're casting judgment on us that people *will* lie about this before even trying it. Maybe give us a shot eh?).

Even if the request *was* given with sufficient time for it to pass, it still doesn't mean that it has to be granted. I further propose that before granting any requests, the Mods should see if the person is attempting to find a sitter via the forum or PMs. If they aren't, why should they get the pause? They aren't exhausting their options.

At this point, assuming the request was made with enough time for it to pass, AND they've made every effort to find a sitter, only then should the case be taken up. At this point, Raro's idea of a "emergency extend" (one phase length) while the Mods investigate the request is a pretty good one. It preserves that phase, preventing a NMR, while also letting the Mods see why the request didn't pass. Perhaps it's for a silly reason, and the people in the game didn't think it deserved a pause/extend? In that case, should the Mods over-rule the players? If you say yes, then, again, what's the point of the voting if it can just be easily over-ruled?

Basically, my main beef with this practice is that it basically makes a mockery of the voting system (when the forced pauses/extends are implemented) and tells the players that their votes basically do not matter since any one player can get them over-ruled. In addition, it encourages an atmosphere of "me first" where players can get pauses thinking only of their own situation (busy week? Get a pause! No worries about the others who might be playing through their own busy week out of respect for the other people) instead of encouraging an atmosphere where people do everything they can to keep playing out of respect for the others' time, and only when it's absolutely unavoidable do they make these requests.

Bump since this appears to be losing steam.