What is a moderated game?

The moderator can:
Draw a game
Cancel a game
Toggle-pause a game
Make public a private game
Make a public game private
Force a user into CD
Reset process time
Process the game now
Change phase length
Alter game messaging

I will add some more options (extend) soon.

that sounds like a great thing

Is this only for Private games? And is there a notification on the new games menu that says if this is in use for the game?

There is a big notification about the moderator in the game-description with information about the game-mod and if he is playing in the game. At the moment this is not limited to private games, but as always this feature will develop over time with user-input.

very very well!!

Fantastic feature -- thanks again for all your hard work.

This should make it much more easier to run custom tournaments and is the first stage to add a complete tournament infrastructure to the site (but this will take a really long time to complete)

Oli you have done yet another great job (as always =D)

Nice option, very suitable for tournaments and private games with special rules!
But why do you need to have completed 50 games first? I understand that the option shouldn't be available for every rookie, but this condition seems a bit odd to me.

how would you be able to tell if you have met the requirement? (srry this may sound dumb)

On your profile page -> under game stats -> your Total (finished): needs to be greater than 50.

No, it's not finished (that does count the 2-player games and live games too) it's in the reliability stats. CDed X times out of Y games. Also if you do not meet the criteria you can't select this. Maybe I will add a separate stat for this or make this at least more clear in the gamecreation page. Maybe I will add a " you need to finish X more games to be able to moderate a game" on the gamecreation page.

how about a high reliability rating as well? that would encourage people to finish games

Excellent idea! I had suggested such a thing long ago in another discussion. This brings you a bit of the best of both worlds as far as online dip goes. Computerized adjudication and speed with the oversight of a live human. I am new to this site and do like many of the automated features a lot, but it was missing that human tough. I have before now ONLY played or ran such human email games myself, I really like this feature a LOT! Nice touch!!!

The only "problem" I see
playing in and moderating games are not always going to go hand in hand, Moderating games takes a special person and simply playing many games does not ensure you are qualified. It certainly does help! and you need to start somewhere, but a VERY high dedication is a better qualifier in my opinion and by VERY high, I mean higher than the 99% range...missing 1 out of 100 phases would almost certainly equal a poor moderator, you need 99.5% or higher. DEDICATION to a game is paramount to being a game moderator!

But the idea is fantastic and should be welcomed by all! I would encourage all to search for that sort of game to play if they have any options to do so!

hahahaha, I said "Human TOUGH" and while I of course meant "Human TOUCH" sometimes a moderator does need to be tough as well. Maybe the back of my mind meant it as stated at first!?

Oli -

Great addition, and a big thank you for it!

Going along with what Tom said, I have to agree that playing 50 games isn't a very good indicator of who should be allowed to create moderated games. All that does is punish people who only play 1 or 2 games at a time and focus on those few games. If you finished 2 games every month and a half, it would take over 3 years until you could create moderated games! Crazy! And yet, the person who plays 10 games at a time poorly, would be there in no time.

I see two options:

Option 1: Just give the privilege of creating moderated games to everyone. However, these games would *not* count on total stats or ratings. This allows anyone to make SRG games and tournaments, but it doesn't affect the stats or allow people to arbitrarily "cheat" to bump up their ratings.

Option 2: Perhaps a mix of games played, RR, and time on site would be a better function to use, thus allowing those who are dedicated to the site, but not moderators, to create the games people feel are necessary.

Great addition!

But I do not see a reason for the 50-games-condition. Do people really have to be 'qualified' to run such a moderated game? The only purpose for this feature, I can imagine at the moment, is in tournaments and other SRG games. Why should the ability to organize such games be restricted to old and active or particular reliable players?

In my opinion the feature should be available to everybody. I do not think people will get a random moderated game running, if they haven't got a good reason like an SRG or tournament. At least I for myself wouldn't join a moderated game if there won't be a special reason for me. So there shouldn't be a misuse of the function.
And if you are still worried about the misuse of the new feature the only effective way will be to enable the feature only for unrated games.

Let the statistics stay statistics and don't transform it to an achievement-system that will give you more and more privileges the longer you play!

If you are asking for advise, I agree 50 games is a poor indicator and in fact, MANY of those who have BIG numbers of games played simply overreach, while those who play one or two games at a time (myself included in that group) may do so in a very dedicated fashion, now you are saying quantity is valued more than quality. I do agree quantity should count for something mind you! Someone comes along, plays a few games with no NMR's ...they may have no real idea how the game is or should be played. I would suggest either a achievable formula including numbers of games and dedication and/or current site moderator recommendations, these guys probably already know who should / should not be allowed such a "reward". I am absolutely NOT asking for this, but take me for example, I have played online dip for about 15+ years, am a moderator on another site, designed several games, played a part in several site tournaments, hosted maybe 100 games myself. I may be that exception that you would allow (though I am NOT asking for this myself!!!) I would think one of the moderators here would tell you I was qualified and deserving while I have no yet even completed my first game here. I am certain you can point to many who would be very good game moderators that fall well short of any sort of formula you come up with is all I'm trying to say.

But if you do go with a strict formula, NUMBER of games is FAR less important than dedication and 50 games is frankly insane, as stated, I think I am "worthy" but it would take me over 20 years (probably more!) until I reached 50 games played!!!! You greatly limit the number of quality candidates by setting the number so high and by ignoring the more important dedication to the game/site!

cross posting!
I have to argue this feature should in no way be available to all!!!
No, you need dedication to the game, dedication to the site, and a knowledge of the game and how it works / should work. If you allow an unqualified person to moderate the game, once they blow it, that affects the integrity of the entire site, such game moderator status reflects (or SHOULD reflect) some modicum of knowledge/integrity and should absolutely NOT be granted to any and all!

Well, but in my view the players who join a moderated game should decide themselves if the player wants to moderate that game has enough knowledge of the game to gain this special privileges. Of course a player who misuses its rights and e.g. suddenly cancels the game or change the game messaging when it was not agreed this way have an enormous influence on the game. But as posted above I would never join a moderated game if I do not think the moderator is a reliable person and has a good reason to moderate that game. It's not like everybody will start to make moderated games, the normal game mode will vanish and the feature will be misused in every second game, is it?

Numbers will never exactly reflect if a player is adequate for the moderator job but I trust in the players of this site, that they know better than a system relying on such numbers. If enough players think that a player is adequate to be an moderator and get the rights to e.g. change some parameters of the game, then he should be allowed to get this rights.
Why should a person who played 100 games should be allowed to e.g. organize a tournament with special country arrangement and a person who only played 10 phases not, if enough players trust in him?

How would any newer members know if a moderator was reliable? How would many know this? It should (in my opinion) be a given that this person is thought to be reliable. If you get an unqualified/unreliable person, then his moderator functions can be taken advantage of and/or abused and/or simply mismanaged. You should not have to figure out if the moderator is good or not, this should be a given and by assuring reliability, you give the entire site a better player satisfaction.

If you join such a moderated game you have someone who knows the games flow, he can pause if a player has trouble. If I am playing in this type of game and my wife was suddenly in the emergency room (happened just last year) I could simply get online ONE TIME, tell the Games moderator my situation and it is immediately put on a temporary hold, no need for player allowance no need for it to go through channels outside the game itself. The game moderator also knows if this player is simply abusing the system and he can deny the request based on his knowledge of the situation, while this may (I hope) be very unlikely it's only one of many similar situations where a knowledgeable moderator would be the point man that is responsible. He can also contact people who NMR and find out if the game needs to be delayed, he can find a quick replacement, he can help avoid further such NMR's. All in all, he can really help a game in many minor ways but it often requires a deft touch and judgement that you simply can not grant to any and all who request it. I look at this as a most definite improvement if given to the right people...similar to the sites moderators, this is given to those who have demonstrated understanding of the game, of the site and dedication to help make things better. Same with a games moderator only to a lesser degree of course.

Tom, the concept seems to be that moderated games would be for special rules games (SRG) and tournament, where players might wish to have a person, not necessarily on the present Mod team, performing moderator/GM like functions. It does not look like the kind of feature that would be used in a typical game.

I don't think that this feature will do anything to stop NMRs, and the suggestion that it could be used by pausing a game to avoid NMRs will only serve to cause delays, which kill games more than NMRs. I think the usefulness is suited to specific situations where the player need and want a game focused moderator. The majority of games played do not need this with an automated adjuicator.

As for new players accepting the reliability of the moderator, that's just part of learning the landscape of a new community. As with GMs some are, and some are not.

I must confess the 50 games played is not a very good measure if a player can run a moderated game. But it's data that's already there and I could implement this in a very timely manner (I have only a few hours a week for coding, usually 2 hours Sunday morning).
It's obvious that this has to change, but Tom is totally spot on. Only very experienced players should be able to run such moderated games and I did a quick check the usual tournament-organizers had all enough games in their stats.
If you can come-up with better ideas let me know. Now that the foundation is done it should be easy to adjust the code.
Also it's important to know what tools a game-director needs for his job to run the game. It's just a fist basic set at the moment, but I can add more features easily now.

Rather than have it be based on a set number of games why not have players desiring to "moderate" games apply for it like license? Determining who is capable to run a game could be voted upon by the VDip "star chamber" and then permissions granted if the candidate is approved. Licenses could be granted for a set duration or on an ass-needed basis for a given game.

I like Ruffhaus' idea!
and he may be very right regarding his assumptions but that is not what was stated, if allowed, a (good) moderator could most certainly tend to his game and help avoid NMR's no doubt about it! And a good moderator would know the specifics of his game and be able to balance delay vs further NMR's. a few slight delays do far less damage than do multiple NMR's. It's a special balance and only those intimate with the game can know for sure what is best for that particular game and even then it's a bit of an educated guess that would never be completely agreed upon by all players! But that is more reason you want a qualified moderator vs any who reach a certain number of games! Face it, NMR's affect the quality of a game, I know of many already who simply wish to take advantage of them to pad their stats and that is a horrendous position to take! If a moderator (or game master [GM] as we would call this position in a face to face game) were to balance the negative of delay (and it most certainly also has a negative effect on the game) with that of an NMR, all are better off having a better quality game and quality should be of utmost importance!

Oli -

I hate to say it, but just because the usual tournament organizer have enough games doesn't mean they're best suited for the job. I"m sure there's plenty of us out there who would volunteer for this duty but can't because we only play 1 or 2 games at once.

Using myself as an easy example: I joined the site almost 4 years ago now, yet I've played only 40 games. However, most anyone you ask will tell you I'm an avid communicator, a quality player, and someone who's usually around a decent amount. I think you'd be hard pressed to find people who would say I'm not qualified to moderate a game. And yet, I've never created my own tournament, and I don't have the 50 games required (and won't for probably another year based on my current loadout of games).

On the flip side, there's people on here who play *way* too many games at once, barely talk in them, and are absolutely terrible quality players, who have way more games than me. Determining who can be a moderator based on game count is implying that those people are more "worthy" than players such as myself, which, while I don't want to toot my own horn too much, seems back-assward.

I think Ruffhaus has a good idea. Why not have people apply for the privilege? The group of people who actually play in SRGs and Tournaments on here isn't that large anyways, so since this feature is geared towards that group, why not let those who want to participate ask for that privilege?

...not to mention, someone who limits the number of games played can actually pay more attention to his game duties vs that person who overloads his plate!

I was just thinking of a few real minor things a good moderator could do to help his game along and help reduce possible NMR's while avoiding nasty unwanted delays...

This past week is a good example, the automated system simply adds "x" number of days to the last deadline and spits out the new one. This can usually be just fine. But what if the deadline fell on Sunday? It did in the WW4 game I am playing! While it did not matter there, I can see games with less devoted players having a missed order or two because the deadline fell on Easter Sunday. A good GM would bump the deadline to Monday. Heck, I would have no problem with him bumping all such weekend deadlines and that is something he could discuss with the players of that particular game, if none have issues with weekends, then he leaves it alone, if however, some mention it could be a problem, then the GM helps the game along by bumping a day or two while not causing undue delays that would otherwise harm the flow of that game.

Minor stuff like this could go a long ways to a better quality game, many such small issues really do add up over the course of a game!
and yes, Drano would make an excellent moderator/GM, and having your already trusted site mods do such "judgement" of who is worthy really does make perfect sense!