New Pitboss

[Dreylin]

Its changing from how its normally handled.

General conversation would go in the general thread. For implementing here I put it for an up down vote.

Again, how is it normally handled?

Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I've been away a while, I didn't find it detailed anywhere, and the last 2 examples with PB76 & PB74 you are the only one who seemed to step up as a lurker to manage the process, which of course can't happen here.

Also I am apparently very bad at explaining that my goal here is mostly to make sure we are all on the same page about this issue which has caused disruption to both other ongoing games in the past few days. When I say "general conversation" I didn't mean for future games or even other ongoing games, but within the context of this pitboss 75, are we all happy with the reload rule as it currently is (do we all understand it the same way), or do we want to talk about other options - Scooter's Oops being one of those.

[Mjmd]

Well normally the lurkers debate for about a day or maybe two and eventually a consensus is developed. As a player I hate how long this normally takes so yes in both 74 and 76 I called for a vote in pretty fast order to hopefully get the game moving.

[Dreylin]

Yeah, but in both those cases there were lurkers suggesting it should be up to players to decide, so I hardly think it qualifies as a fixed rule.

I also don't think it should be a vote between the current grey area and Scooter's Oops (yes, I am trying to have this rule named exactly that since I think it is funny).

To be clear I'd be OK with a rule that said "give the lurkers 24hrs to discuss and issue a decision" if that was what the initiator of the game wanted, or was agreed by the players, it's the grey area I am trying to avoid.

FWIW, when I am lurking, I don't particularly want to have the responsibility of trying to build or take part in consensus; I'd prefer the appointment of a singular game admin to to make decisions.

[Mjmd]

I'm not sure where this player decide votes have been the last 3 years, but for as long as I've been playing its been the lurkers. Now sometimes sure all the players are in favor and the situation is simple enough that that does happen. But sometimes there is spoiler information they can't know. Most times the reload request reads "possible reload situation, details in thread".

I do think there is a reason why sometimes lurker opinions are slow in coming. Either people done want to or don't have an opinion, but no one wants to be arbiter. Its more thankless than map making.

[aetryn]

I'm not sure where this player decide votes have been the last 3 years, but for as long as I've been playing its been the lurkers. Now sometimes sure all the players are in favor and the situation is simple enough that that does happen. But sometimes there is spoiler information they can't know. Most times the reload request reads "possible reload situation, details in thread".

I do think there is a reason why sometimes lurker opinions are slow in coming. Either people done want to or don't have an opinion, but no one wants to be arbiter. Its more thankless than map making.

I think it makes sense for lurkers to decide on the basic shape of the facts, as the players can't/shouldn't know this. The lurkers can enforce some of the basic rules like "no combat takebacks unless something really dire happend", by asking about whether combat occurred in a way the players shouldn't. My suggestion is keeping the "lurkers decide on whether a reload is merited" step, with an outcome of "Yes, it's a technical problem/glitch, reload for free", "No, it would be impossible to fairly reload" or "Maybe. Not a technical problem - it's a case of <general explanation of the reload need without any player-specific context>, but fair to reload at this point".  Then the players could decide (or pre-decide) what to do with the maybes (either beforehand, by an 1 Oops / 200 turns rule, or using some other method). In a smaller or greens game, for instance, it could be 3 Oops / 200 turns or something since reloading is less of a burden and maybe the greens just are terrible at the not-very-intuitive-Civ-4- interface.

Conversely, if the player KNOWS it's an Oops, they can just skip the lurker step if it's clear there hasn't been any combat or any other reason to prevent a reload. That could speed things up when we run into these situations, especially in games where there aren't a lot of lurkers watching.

[ljubljana]

i'm down for any solution that works for the majority! that said, as someone who is both new to the interface and exceedingly clumsy in general, i kinda anticipate that i might have more than one oops in 200 turns....  in fact i almost had one already that was only averted on the 1 in 8 chance of mismoving the worker to the tile i wanted it to go to anyways  maybe there are enough greens in this game that we should allow a higher frequency than that if we go that route

[Mjmd]

Ya I hadn't considered the greens and the impact. Its awkward to give someone 3 and someone else 1, but I do in general give greens more leeway. I am now unsure though and kind of just want to keep it normal.

[Dreylin]

I have no issue with that provided we codify what "normal" is for the context of this game and document it so we don't have this conversation again later when someone needs a reload.

[ricketyclik]

How is this possible?

   

[Dreylin]

Timestamp of the first finished turn matches the turn roll, but pbspy doesn't usually report the end turn that triggers it. Maybe on this occasion the server registered Superdeath's completion of turn 53 separately from the turn roll but fractionally later, so assigned it t54 instead? Then the second finished turn is his actual end of t54.