@Tomahaha:
We can make a player GMing a game and give him quite a lot of admin-power for that single game, but as this feature is not really completed it does not get used (I don't think it was used ever).
I would like to make it much more easy to implement some personal GMing, but my computer-time is very limited at the moment and I need to improve the mod-tools and the clickable-map first. But this is surely on my radar and one of the next big things once I have much more time...

You can have great faith in the community as a whole yet have little to no faith in a few people here and there. All it takes is one of those few to take advantage of a situation. As Kaner said, "gee, I'm gone for a long weekend, instead of telling my allies about it and having to send in orders before I really want to, I will just ask for an emergency pause" In a standard 7 player game this could / would happen on occasion but in variants that have large numbers, it can happen every week.

My suggestion is more intimate, have a game master who controls these things. He gets a request for delay, he looks into it, He sees an NMR, he looks into it, He hears rumors of this or that, he looks into it. Having someone running the game in this way allows for such intimacy. You could certainly have a player in the game take on this role, but having someone NOT in the game is even better. This adds more of a human touch. I frankly am not a huge fan of so much automation as you have here. It's AWESOME as far as adjudication and being able to handle a large load and many other things, but the human touch is lost and that's a shame. Why not add that missing element? If you don't think it's the case and think we need no such human element, then you have not played a human moderated game and likely know not of what you speak!?

Thank you oil for your words. The only thing i have to say is that one very recent example forced a 6 day pause on a game when the player made zero effort to ask for a pause/extend and presumably no effort to find a sitter given that other games were asked to be paused as well. This doesn't seem to jive with the check that the mods do to see if the player made a serious effort.

Damn autocorrect...oli, not oil...

I cross posted with Oli,
we seem to be on the same page!?
I look forward to that next step, adding a human element to each game is likely more important than you might think.

I just had an idea regarding this situation. There are obviously players who would prefer to play games with no pauses or extends, just as there are players who prefer not have a game marred by NMRs & CDs. A possible solution could be to have a game set-up option (opt-in) whereby a game creator can select not to have the pause & extend buttons available for that particular game.

Not sure how much coding this would create though, or if the button functions can be turned off/on per game...

but nobody (I hope) starts a game EXPECTING an emergency. If I started a game and opted for this no delay idea and my wife wound up in the hospital or worse, a family member passed away....then the game is hit with a stupid and unavoidable NMR/CD.

as it is, if one of these things happened, I would likely NMR. But after things settled at least a BIT, I could then alert others to my plight and the delay would be in order.

Kaner -

I believe you're mistaken. The issue isn't with pauses/extends. Its with pauses/extends FORCED upon us by the Mods when people pm then mods. Like I said earlier, its things like "I'm visiting my gf for 2 days, need pause" hat would probably get rejected in game, but might get granted by the Mods. Jon-emergdncies that are really just things for "convenience" that, with extends forced upon us, could totally kill a games momentum.

It probably wasn't emphasised enough - but the game in question was an SRG - making the whole process especially difficult for someone to find a sitter in this particular situation.

Not just talking about that game kaner. While that game was the impetus for this thread, you can't write it off that easy. Let's pretend that game doesn't exist. The issue still stands.

Also, the player could have st least *tried*. Could have posted in the forums st least. You can't give them a 'pass' just because it was a SRG when theybdidnt even try.

Besides, there's like 3 other "king is dead" games going on. Are you really implying it would be SO difficult to see is one person from another game could take over forms few days? At least TRY!?

Plus, there's a 2 day retreat phase that got delayed due to the force pause. that means the player (or mods) had 2 extra days to try to find a sitter. What was the rush to pause?

@Mapu and dran0: sorry, but my family is often travelling abroad. I almost always ask for a pause two weeks before and search for sitters. But I am always a bit reluctant to give games away to others because everyone has a different playing style.

Also (maybe I'm just naive), I don't think that a player would use pauses strategically?

GOD - getting sitters is the polite thing to do if the trip is fairly long. Its only fair to the others that they don't have to have the games momentum slowed. Now, if they're all good with it, by all means, pause.

As an FYI, there have been occurrences of people not granting pauses as a strategic weapon and also occurrences of people using pauses to draw out games and bore people. Both are condemned by the rules, and I believe were reasons the extend button was put in...so that you only need 2/3 of people.

pausing for family trips seems a bad reason to delay a game. But then again, I'm used to human moderated games. As game GM I have hosted dozens upon dozens of games, on occasion this sort of thing of course comes up. Players in these situations will sometimes find a sitter, ask me to find a sitter, or often he will simply send conditional orders ("if this, then that" sort of orders)
But with things so heavily automated here, I don't know if this is possible?

...yet another reason to add that human touch and have an actual GM for each game!

as far as the 2/3 rule
I'm confused a bit...
we can put this to a vote by the players of a game but if they say no, then this person simply runs to a moderator who automatically grants the delay? Anyone else see the stoopidity of this?

I agree that pauses/extends should be harbored through the game, either by getting a unanimous or 2/3 vote per the rules. If someone knows that they are leaving for vacation or something, advance notice should be given and they should find a sitter, especially in large games. I don't think a game with more than 8 players should ever be paused/extended at the request of 1 player. However, the community should reciprocate by granting extends when a reasonable request is given. If a player is banned however, and if more than 1 person agrees, I think it's appropriate to extend in order to find a replacement. For big games, pauses are simply out of the question because first they probably won't pass, then they take forever to restart, destroying interest in the game as drano said. I think the key here is in-game communication, after all, we're supposed to be diplomats so I think the in-game community should come to a general consensus regarding the circumstances for the game. If the majority of active players agree that a pause/extend should be given for a specific period of time to accommodate a particular circumstance, then it can be asked of the mods. I'm in a game right now that got paused with absolutely no request or explanation from the player, or the mods, which I do not think is appropriate. In cases of legitimate emergencies, whatever happened in RL obviously trumps online diplomacy, so the player must either find a replacement, ask for an extend and explain the situation, or unfortunately live with the consequences. It sucks, but RL moves on. In such a case, if the remaining active players think that the game will suffer because of the player's absence, then it is up to them to get the game paused/extended.

I (as a player) think it's much better with the pause being allowed to be forced through than have some stubborn people who don't want the 'game flow' to be interrupted forcing someone into CD. I've seen it happen a couple of times on FacebookDip and on WebDip - nothing is done there because policy is against it, and quite a few games are ruined because of it.

As for people who say that pausing a game for a week ruins the game flow - that's rubbish. If you're committed to a game it'll take more than a week's pause to put you off it. What tends to happen is the people who are losing, or those who just hate other people having pauses, start complaining on global and continue doing so until everyone's fed up with having to listen to it, and so also lose interest. The reason pauses kill games sometimes is because of the people who are looking for a way to kill the game, or because of those people who just have a grudge against pauses - almost never because of the pause itself.

There's the (very) occasional game where you get a couple of months long pause and so everyone does lose interest, but that doesn't happen very often and a moderator will never force this.

Captain -

Youre incredibly naive if you don't think pauses ruin game flow. Its jot the good players that you need to worry about. Its the mediocre ones. Game gets forced paused, and they move on to another one. Game unpauses, and they either miss turns, or simply don't talk as much as before. Its the ruined diplomacy that really affects the game post pause. People simply don't pick right back up where they left off. THAT is probably the worst part a bout forcing pauses/extends. And if you don't think that's a problem, what game are you playing?

As an aside, convenient that your player opinion matches Mod policy? TBH, from an outside perspective, it certainly seems the mod team is too homogenous. A dissenting opinion feels greatly needed on the team, if only to force people to reevaluate their opinions and provoke further thought.

Evidently I'm just playing in better quality games than you are :)

Seriously though, if people just leave the game or stop communicating because of a week's pause I would call them uncommitted rather than mediocre, and I don't think they're the kind of people we should be aiming at pleasing. After all, as RUFFHAUS (and, IIRC, yourself) have said in the past, the uncommitted part of the playerbase is what ruins sites like this.

Or you just have a lower threshold as to what constitutes "good" diplomacy. easy mistake to make, all amateurs do it :p

Unfortunately captain, people like that are a quite large percentage of the population here. Despite what many think, there aren't as many quality diplomats here as we would like to think.

I agree the good captain is incredibly naive!
I have hosted nearly 100 human run / adjudicated games. I have sat on a few tourney organizing committees, I know what I am speaking of here...

Delays absolutely ruin many games!
That is not to say we can never have a delay, but as a general rule, YES delays can and DO harm games in ways not always immediately seen or realized.

Try running a game where all orders are sent to you, the games GM. This is what I have done over and over, I SEE what a delay does! From orders that are prompt to sudden late orders, suddenly you see more NMR's from those who were at least "active enough" (true, those doing well are less likely to NMR) the game takes a nose dive after a delay. No doubt about it, they stink and need to be avoided if possible!

But delays are sometimes required, that's where you need to be smart about things and have that human touch, someone who has his finger on that games pulse. Is the delay REQUIRED? Can we work around this delay? How can we minimize the delay? Nothing is set in stone, nothing can ever work well if set in stone. But one thing for damned certain ...delays ABSOLUTELY kill games! Saying otherwise is not just naive, it's frankly ignorant and foolish to say!

we are forced to play with a few "lesser" players. And human nature also plays a part in how we ALL play! If you are doing poorly, I don't care how good a player you are or how dedicated you are, you frankly are not all that interested in that game any longer!

This happens to the best of players but when you start lumping average and below average types into the mix, the effect of the delay is simply going to CRUSH the game!
Claiming "good players are not affected" is yet another foolish statement! Even if these better players continue to submit moves, the delay most certainly affected negotiations and halted that same level of play that USED to exist. And for even the poor player who is on his way out, if he is active, he can (and should) play a large part in the games outcome!

@ Captainmeme :

Of course, Extends or Pauses RUIN the game ! And for MANY different reasons ! Yes, players could lose motivation for a delayed game ; yes, they may start other games and find themselves with too many games ; yes, many other things.

But like has just written drano019 : the worst part is probably that players - ALL OF THEM, even if they don't know it ; and most players seem to not know it ! - will pick up their delayed game differently than if the game had continued normally. I will just give you one simple example (but there are many more which people educated in communication know) : if someone is asked to make a decision 12 hours or 4 days and an half before a deadline, he will possibly make two very different decisions !
There is a fantastic fluidity in a Diplomacy game. Whenever an "Extend" or a "Pause" happens, that fluidity is destroyed !

So, in my opinion, delaying a game can cause MUCH MORE damages to it rather than a NMR or even a CD.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with drano 019 and with RUFFHAUS 8 and with many other players : an "Extend" (or worse a "Pause") should only be granted by the players of a game if they agree and should never be forced by a moderator.

I HATE Extends. However, I have agreed several times to offer an Extend to a player who was asking it : you could see that as a gentleman's gesture. On the contrary, I HATE when it is forced by a moderator.
I shall say exactly as RUFFHAUS 8 : "It's just plain rude and completely disrespectful of the time that players put into these games."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ Tomahaha :

You obviously love human GMed games. Good for you ! However, what would be the point to have a human GM to deal with forced Extends and Pauses ? I prefer by far that such a bad decision is taken by the moderators team (which I trust and whose work I appreciate) rather than by one single player would be given some moderator power for that game. And by the way, who would be that GM player ? How would he be chosen ? Of course, he could not be a player playing the game. But who could he be ? What if it is a player that doesn't like (or isn't liked by) some player(s) playing the game ?

Tom, you are pointing out a good idea, which has already been suggested here before : it should be possible to ask for an "Extend" of a precise duration. Sometimes, 1 or 2 or x days would be enough.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ kaner406 :

I like very much your idea of having the option to create games without possiblity of "Extend" nor "Pause". I would certainly play such a game !

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On another note, each player has his point of view about "Extends" and "Pauses".
I would like to point out that MANY players play too many games : I have even read here several times the word "Diploholic". So, when these players see a request for an "Extend", some of them are just too happy to have one game less to take care of.
On the contrary, I don't play many games at the same time. As a matter of fact, at the moment, I absolutely can't play more than one game at the time. So, if my only current game is delayed, that is most unpleasant for me !

I know that incidents happen in real life. If avoiding a NMR is not your priority because of YOUR real life (which I could of course understand) and if the players of your game have not agreed to offer you an Extend, then so be it : you will simply have to face the consequences of what happens in your life. I don't see why YOUR problems would have the power to possibly ruin the game of many other players. And please note that, most of the time, I agree to vote "Extend" when it is asked.
But I estimate that I have the right to NOT vote "Extend" for whatever reasons that I want. I also have the right to vote "Extend" if I want to. But what is the point of voting if an "Extend" will be forced by the moderators if one single player simply asks for it ?

Hold in here, does everyone realize what's happening??

Ruffhaus, Retillion, AND Tom are all agreeing on something!!! Does this not tell us something??

However, Retillion, I disagree with you on one point. I believe forced pauses during real emergencies is totally acceptable. That said, you're spot on with the rest. We have a right to refuse extend/pause requests, otherwise, why would it even be a vote? But if we don't vote for it, the person can go to the mods and get one unilaterally. It undermines the entire voting system.

@dran0: why should anyone want disputed mod team?
Also, the mods, as i understand them, are supposed to help Oli, and I think that Oli stated his opinion quite clearly.

A "disputed" mod team simply means that the mods aren't ALWAYS in agreement with each other. That is a GOOD thing because it helps them look at both sides of the issue.

Think of it this way, how well would a debate team do in politics if it was all Republican? All Democrat? Wouldn't it do FAR better if it was a mix so that they could help each other see the other side of the argument? Same goes for the Mods. It would do good if there's dissenting opinions every now and then.

Disclaimer: It just *seems* like there aren't dissenting opinions to us outsiders who aren't privileged to hear the actual behind the scenes discussions.


My understanding of the Mods job is that they took over running the site for Oli while he raises his little one. Oli has "semi" retired to coding IIRC. Therefore, the Mods essentially ARE the new "Olis".

Besides GOD, just because Oli stated his opinion doesn't mean I can't disagree. Sometimes the best improvements are brought about because people disagree with the stated policy. If no one ever argued against the policy, how would we ever get change? I know that Oli and the Mod team are all mature enough to know that disagreement is sometimes a healthy thing.

does anyone really read dissenting opinions and ideas here?
Once someone sees something they don't think they agree with they put up walls and stop reading...that is all too obvious! I have see a few issues come up here, ideas to improve things, every time they are shot down and the reasoning is impossible to understand. Status quo is the only thing most people want to see. Good lord if you have an idea!