Also in the interest of keeping this site fun, let's keep the "getting our hands dirty" to a minimum shall we?

We're all friends here. I'd hate to see this site become characterized by adversarial relationships.

@fortknox - So it's guilty until proven innocent, eh? The game has 12 hours left on unpause. I am suggesting that more time could and should have been given for the person to respond. And you can say "well he could tell me know and I would unpause it" but that would then alter the game because the players in it would know it was unpaused because the player requested it and would gang up on him in revenge. It would no longer be the siltent treatment tactic, but become an outright refusal to pause. Don't you see this?

And no, I'm not a mod here. Never have been, never will be, don't and never want to be. I respect it's a tough job requiring tough decisions. But I have modded over situations on other sites and always error on the side of caution - in this case that would be to give the player until less than a couple of hours were left in the turn to respond to me, not pause it with a full half day (1/3 the phase) left.

@bas - MadMarx made it public. Otherwise we'd all be blissfully ignorant of this particular mod policy.

+1 ^

Also in the spirit of keeping the site fun, note that no-one has claimed to have been mistreated by the mods, whereas this intervention caused at least six people to have more fun.

That's +1 to Thucy.

You are posting too frequently, please slow down.

@Thucy - I think it's been kept pretty civil. I apologized to abgemacht for suggesting MM got preferential treatment. Only Lando and maple have thrown around any real vitriole.

@bas - six people had more fun by doing nothing because the game is paused? Really? You find waiting for some putz who started a game knowing he was taking a vacation when it would be in full swing to be fun?

@fortknox - Then I applaud the decision to pause. Sorry, I had to go back a page to read that the player was about to NMR.\ because he had gone away three days. Had abge clarified that from the start, this discussion probably wouldn't have happened.

@Draugnar: I agree that the mods could have acted a bit later, let's say 3/4 hours before the end of the phase. I also agree that this discussion should not have bene public. Those points you get.

However, the real issue I have with your reasoning is this: You assume the player who refuses to pause will get ganged up on in revenge. This can and will not happen, as that violates the "pause-is-not-a-diplomatic-tool" rule.

Reality hardly follows hard and fast rules as set by man. Murder is against the law. By your reasoning, murders never happen.

Yeah but that doesn't mean we consider them legitimate.

oh and ps check your email when convenient, draug

Um...3/4 hours before the end of the phase would have been half-way through my sleep...

That's why I used the words "could have", and not "should have". You should not have to lose sleep because of your mod work on this site (and now I did use should).

In the end, the moderators did have good reason to act the way they did. It is not necessary to explain everything they do in public. Please show some more faith in our mods, Draugnar. They are a good team.

I agree they are. This was a public discussion brought about because MM made the issue pulbic to begin with. And knowing the player hadn't been on in three days, abgemacht's actions were very reasonable.

@Thucy - check yours back. You've got your answers. No reason to ban me. ;-)

And peace descended upon the valley.

Good night, John Boy.

@Mods - it's good that you guys are talking amongst yourselves to come up with a coherant policy on such things as pauses. For my own part my definition of 'fun' is enjoying a game where the rules are applied consistantly and outside influences (including those by mods) are kept to a minimum.

I'm happy for pauses to be decided by any kind of majority providing the pause is automatically unpaused so people can not delay the game unnecessarily but IMHO we should either go for a majority or everybody has to agree - everything else could prejudice certain players. If we retain the 100% required system then we should all abide by it and just suck it up when it goes against us.

I would like you to include in your discussions a converstaion about how to deal with players who continually hold up build and retreat phases. If you decide to allow players to petition the mods for a pause request, i would like to think that I could petition you to force retreats, disbands and builds where there is no other option available or where players have submitted provisional orders and refuse to confirm.

All those who appreciate the mods and this site, and can live with the imperfections of the game, the other players, the mods, and the weather, say AYE! or OY! or W/E!
(It's tough, we being perfect and all)

OY!

aye aye, tis a grand love affair

Go mods! (and please look to my request from Tuesday)

Just popped by, thought I'd comment in here:
"I love our mods...love this site...this decision, right or wrong, is a flea...but with all due respect to Ab and MM, I think if this request had come from a player with 50 , we would all have seen more clearly that this should not have been a mod intervention."
We've done this before for players with few points

"Still though maybe this would have been better left to [email protected]

no one really follows that rule tbh but... just try to remember for next time k"
Agreed

@Draug - Does it actually matter how long Abge gave it? 6 players had voted pause, leaving just one who hadn't. If they didn't want to pause they can email and the game would be unpaused straight away, or better still they could comment in game in the first place about why they didn't

Sorry about these multiple postings, been following through the pages.

"But I have modded over situations on other sites and always error on the side of caution - in this case that would be to give the player until less than a couple of hours were left in the turn to respond to me, not pause it with a full half day (1/3 the phase) left. "
Erring on the side of caution is to pause the game, then unpause it if the person disagrees, since in this case all that happens is the game is delayed a few hours rather than possibly wrecked if a phase had cycled. I really don't think your argument holds up about "this makes someone a target".
case 1: We pause the game & they disagree. So, we unpause it. Thus everyone else knows they opposed the pause [and you claim will then attack them].
case 2: We ask them why they're not pausing & they don't respond, but continue to play the game. Thus everyone knows they opposed the pause [and you claim will attack them].
case 3: We stay out of it, and so people are left to decide if the player hasn't noticed or merely chose to ignore. If they continue to play the game then it is very easy for any other player to ask why they haven't paused, at which point it will become clear that they oppose the pause [and you say everyone will attack them].
case 4: They don't respond, and don't play on. In that case they're set to NMR and pausing the game would be in their interests.
My point is, once it reaches a 6-1 position, the last person cannot disguise their view if they continue to play the game.

As I've recently mentioned, I've done this many times, and have only once been sent an email complaining about it (at which point I unpaused the game and all went on fine). So, to be honest, I really don't think this is anywhere near as much of an issue as you're trying to imply.

Also, as Abge said, whenever we do something to a game that might not be immediately clear, we explain what we're doing and why into the global tab, allowing those involved to understand.

@Figle - Forcing someone to vote against and requiring mod intervention again is wrong for two reasons: it takes away a legitimate tactic (the silent treatment) and it makes the person into a target for being the stubborn obstinate one instead of the fool who overlooked the pause request. In this particular case, Abgemacht was correct as the player had been gone so long, but as a rule, that is the incorrect approach. The mods should never interfere unless a rule has p0ssibly been broken or a CD is about to occur.

somebody hurt Figle for reviving this :)

(the silent treatment) - vote against it and don't tell people why, or better still just write 'no' in the global chat.
'it makes the person into a target for being the stubborn obstinate one' - see my reasoning above.