BAG (Started!)

[The_Monkey_King]

I appreciate the fair and impartial moderators current response, as it is more honest:

***edited to remove violation of PM rules.

[The_Monkey_King]

You have no control over the demands you make? So consumed and totally controlled by your emotions and petty grudges that you HAVE to act in a certain way? Yes, yes that's exactly who I thought you were. And by the way, I don't really hate you, but I would never trust you with a nickel.

***edited to remove privacy violations.

[Digress]

Whilst I don't really want to weigh in to this at all it is worth pointing out what an admin/moderator can do on the llamaserver.

As I understand it llamabeast is the only one who can go in and roll a turn back - it may well be an easy thing to do but the llamaserver is hosting 30-odd games at present, and doing so smoothly. The llamaserver doing a wonderful job when compared to those games I have played by PBEM or by TCP/IP in the past (the hosts of whom I thank for taking on the job).

I would understand if he (llamabeast) is loathe to regularly roll turns back especially when there is no consensus amongst the players playing the game. It would certainly set a precedent that may cause problems, for llamabeast, in the future.

I have no problem with the turn being rolled back and imagine that other players here may well share my opinion, it might well be worth asking.

edited to correct spelling

[The_Monkey_King]

And I'm aware of the stealth preachers you put in my land. So many that I had to put a temple up and four preachers in every area just to maintain my own dominion in the mountains.

[In an attempt to maintain that ever elusive 'balance' New Ulm has recruitable everywhere, stealth, inquisitor Holy-1 Preachers]

[llamabeast]

Oh man, I hate these ruckusses.

Okay, firstly, about rollbacks: my policy on rollbacks is that I am extremely loathe to do them. I have done a few, and on almost every occasion regretted it. In a situation of such uncertainty, I am especially loathe to do it.

Secondly, here is the LlamaServer message:

"The LlamaServer seems to be having difficulty reaching its mail server at the moment. Fear not. Games won't host until it is fixed, and hosting times will be delayed to allow plenty of time for e-mails to come through once the mail server can be reached again."

Now, this doesn't say what The_Monkey_King says it said.

I'll explain how it actually works. If the LlamaServer can't reach the mail server, it decides it had better not host - after all, if it can't check its e-mail, it might be missing out on some 2h files people sent at the last minute, which wouldn't be fair. So it waits until it can reach the mail server again. Further, it waits a bit more than that - for every 5 minutes it can't reach the mail server, it waits 5 minutes even _after_ it finally is able to reach the mail server. So if it is out of touch for 6 hours, it waits 6 hours for hosting even after the problem is fixed. This is to allow time for e-mails which were previously unable to reach the mail server to filter through the system and arrive.

Right, so the correct thing to do on seeing that message on the LlamaServer is to send in your turn immediately anyway, since the LlamaServer will get it sooner or later when it's fixed.

I am open to suggestions as to how I could make the message clearer. I think it is reasonably clear, but perhaps not amazingly so - so suggestions are welcome (I actually found writing all the LlamaServer messages surprisingly tricky).

In any case, The_Monkey_King's interpretation was a risky one at best - his idea that the turn would be delayed for a significant amount of time was in fact a misunderstanding. I can see how it happened, but nonetheless it was a misunderstanding. I can't go doing rollbacks every time there is a misunderstanding. This message has been there lots of times before, with no problems.

So anyway, to summarise, I am disinclined to do a rollback. I hope the fact I've written all this shows I've taken some effort to think about it. This is despite me getting no fewer than 7 PMs asking me to do stuff this evening, and despite the fact I am meant to be packing for my early morning return to university tomorrow. This has been a reasonably nightmarish evening to be honest.

As I say, I'd welcome suggestions as to how to improve the message. And I'm sorry you ended up staling The_Monkey_King, that's highly regrettable.

Finally, The_Monkey_King, I'd like to ask a favour: could you please remove my e-mail address, which is quoted in one of your messages above? I really, _really_ don't want to get spam on that address, which I will do very quickly if that is left there.

[llamabeast]

Also, enough on this issue. I don't like to see threads get full of the kind of unpleasantness we've had in the last few posts. If you have further concerns, The_Monkey_King, please PM me and I'll do everything I can to address them. But no more from either of you here please, or I will abuse my power and kick you (I have decided (unilaterally) that a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government for such situations).

On with the game!

[vfb]

llamabeast said:
Oh man, I hate these ruckusses.
...
Finally, The_Monkey_King, I'd like to ask a favour: could you please remove my e-mail address, which is quoted in one of your messages above? I really, _really_ don't want to get spam on that address, which I will do very quickly if that is left there.

Worse, it's in a quote from a PM, which are supposed to be private. Board Rules: "Private Messages received on these forums are to be considered private and are not to be posted publicly or forwarded to other users unless the sender of the private message agrees."

The_Monkey_King should just delete all those PMs he posted.

[llamabeast]

Good point, that is pretty naughty.

[The_Monkey_King]

Deleted, because I'm not allowed to respond to public posts without being kicked from the game. This rule was just created.

[llamabeast]

Yep. Feel free to PM me, The_Monkey_King. I don't want you to feel your views aren't being heard. But thanks from refraining from continuing the discussion here.