[chrispedersen]

The question is a question of game balance.

Three people staled. Letting 9 people redo their turns based on game knowledge unbalances the game far more than letting 3 people redo their staled turns.

We attacked vanheim by surprise on turn 20. Allow vanheim to redo his turn, and I am sure my remote attack spells will encounter PD and fail. Its a HUGE difference.

Likewises, Dr. P's team is doing huge amounts of manual site searching. Thats 5 blanks you can redo.

The point of the rollback is to make the game *more* fair, not less. Allowing 9 people to redo their turn is *almost* as bad for the 3 people that were disenfranchised as the original stale, since those 9 players will optimize their turns.

Yes, I agree that those three people now have a small advantage. But three people with a small advantage is less disruptive than 12.

However, sept, wheneve there's a rollback I do think you have to allow a full measure of time for the fallout to settle. And finally, I don't think you should have made the decision. You should have left it with Gandalf, as you originally proposed.

On our team, Pangeae was taken over by shard (Thanks shard!) - and due to the time being pushed up - we were not able to advise him how to play the nation. We had critical things we wanted to do - send magic items to our team.

So we advised Gandalf and SS and SS was going to leave the decision to Gandalf. Now I think that our team was probably more damaged than anyone, but even so I think we all need to accept that #!@! happens and move on.

Dr. P; admins have to adjudicate what happens in a game. You can disagree with a ruling without calling it cheating.