[chrispedersen]

Sept,

Again, even if you had ignored the countdown timer, the game hosted an hour early (or two if you count DST).

Arco sent his turn in 1 minute after (according to Gandalf) the turn hosted. Or 59 minutes before it should have been due.

I don't see how anyone can regard rerolling to let a player get his turn in is 'unfair'. There is no preknowledge. I would think everyone would want players to get turns in as a matter of sportsmanship.

And yes, Arco staled a few recently; and when it became clear it was his mistake I dropped it. But when its *not* his fault, c'mon!

Going forward, I will play with whatever rules you want to set. But I think going forward with no rollbacks is a serious mistake.
There have been a number of issues with the server. What are we going to do if the game hosts with half the players unsubmitted?
Change the policy again?

I think the standard is and ought to remain that we do rollbacks on server error or serious bug.

As a suggestion, I think that if you think you might declare a winner in the future from the graphs, I suggest you determine the formula now so there is no argument or subjectivism.

You might base it on capitols, gems, or provinces. And I'd say you'd have to list what you consider a winning margin to be. So for example, if it were based on capitols - would having one more capitol be enough? Is having 10% more gem income enough.
I'd also suggest you *not* make it on income.

So to formally answer:
Yes, go forward. I don't see how using the first turn without arco is more 'fair' than using the turn with arco.

No, I think we should continue the policy rollback upon admin discretion.

And no, I think the game is interesting, hotly contested, with fun options for most players and with the number of players available on each team I think we should continue, finding players if necessary.

And as I was ninja'd by Dr. P somewhat, I am think using accumulated VP as he suggests is perfectly fine.