I have followed this game since it started, mainly out of my personal interest of wanting to see how LA Ermor faired (as I started a game as LA Ermor at the exact same time this game kicked off). But I must say there are several things about the recent problem that confuse me. Especially the opinions that some of the current players have regarding it.....
A) Some players gained nothing by Ermor staling.
Urrhh, come again? How can that sort of statement possibly be true. If the game leader stales for three turns (and by the concession talk, I assume Ermor was the leader pre-stales) then every single nation gains from it. No exceptions. Everyone has gained because the game leader has become weaker. A nation always becomes weaker when they stale. It is certain that some nations gained more than others, but to say that some nations gained nothing is an absolutely ridiculous idea. I see some experienced and talented players voicing this opinion, so please come on, be real about this. You all know that every single nation has gained from Ermor staling, so anyone saying otherwise is only doing themselves an injustice as a player.
B) Nobody is at fault.
Again, What?!? Firstly the admin is directly to blame for not doing what was necessary to ensure the sub for Ermor was installed correctly. If the thread comments are correct, then Zeldor informed the admin who his sub would be if the game continued (as there was talk of it ending). And again if the thread comments are correct, then this was also confirmed by the admin. I've admined several games now, and I can't see what more Zeldor could have done to ensure a sub got setup for him. Apart from of course choosing to vacation somewhere with internet access (but that last comment is just my attempt at humour)
When I admin a game, if a player informs me of the required info to sort out their sub, and I fail to do it, then it's directly my fault. Not the players. And if this scenario did happen to me, then I'd put my hand up and say I messed up big time, and make a firm decision on what to do about it. Just because an admin has been knocked out of a game is not any excuse for an admin to abandon his admin duties to that game. An admin has a responsibility to ensure the game runs smoothly, is getting played fairly (in an out-of-game sense), and that all necessary admin jobs are getting done. And this responsibity does not end until the game ends, or a replacement admin is found.
Also, I always think the players in the game are at fault if they do not point out that a nation is staling. The first stale is of course almost impossible to spot coming, but once a nation has staled, the fact that they have staled should always be pointed out to the admin. And I accept maybe the first stale is not always spotted on the staling logs, although from having played LA Ermor, there is no way I can believe it would not be blindingly obvious in-game to anyone fighting them that they were staling.
So while an obvious reason can be found to not have prevented the first stale. And even plausible reasons to not have prevented the second stale. It really is becoming abuse to allow a nation to stale three consecutive turns without the players in the game having attempted to prevent it. Especially the game leading nation. If the admin was notified about the staling and chose to ignore it, then I most certainly apologise. But I only see one reference to it on the thread itself, and I believe that was after Ermor had already staled three times. It also has to be taken into account that before the stales, Ermor had a perfect track record for turn submission. So it can not be claimed that Ermor was a regular staler in any way, and that these recent stales were ignored due to Ermor staling being 'a regular thing'.
I'd like to believe that all players are here for a fair fight. And if that is true, then all players have a constant responsibility to ensure that a fair fight is taking place at all times. And by fair I mean fair as in out-of-game, as fair in-game is a completely different matter. And beating up a staler is certainly not fair by a long way. I accept that it is not a players fault if their opponent is staling, but it is their fault if they do not notify the admin about a staling opponent. Beating up a staling nation, and keeping silent about it, is just about the lowest possible form of Dominions gaming in my books (and I'm sure in the books of many other players as well).
C) NAP's, events from other games, and regular stales
The first two have absolutely no bearing at all on the current issue. I really don't see why they keep getting brought up. Problems should try to be sovled, but all I see being brought up is how similar problem have happened in other games, and inadequate solutions were found to them. So these same inadequate solutions should be used here as well. How is that even logical for one moment?
With the third, I certainly agree that stales happen, and that most of the time it is the player themselves who is at fault. But I don't see how that is the case here. Zeldor was away when all this happened, with no access to a computer (not that I'd personally want to fuss about with something like Dominion anyway if I was on vacation, regardless of computer access). And in that situation he correctly lined up a sub for himself for the duration of his absence, and had confirmation from the admin that notification about the sub had been received. So I don't see any reason why Zeldor should have to suffer in-game for the out-of-game issue that caused Ermor to stale three times. Or have any real blame laid upon him (apart from maybe being blamed for trusting an admin who was defeated, to actually do their admin job properly).
As far as it's possible to avoid, out-of-game issues should not have any dramatic effects on in-game events. Zeldor going away, and his sub not being correctly arranged by the admin, are both out-of-game issues. So I think any suggestion that this event should just be ignored, and the game continued as is with zero, or maybe just minimum compensation for Ermor, is extremely unfair. As it has basically had the effect of turning the entire game on it's head. And whether or not Ermor are still the most powerful nation is again irrelevant. They are not as powerful as they were before the stales, and the stales were entirely caused by an out-of-game issue.
If my understanding is correct from the thread messages, then the situation is that Kuritza and Ossa are the only two directly against the option of a full rollback. Kuritza, because he won a war that involved taking a lot of risks, and quite rightly, doesn't want to have to rely on the random number generator to repeat that victory. So I personally think Kuritza does have a valid claim as to why a full rollback would punish him considerably (more on this in a bit).
Ossa on the other hand seems to be against the rollback because then he wouldn't be able to cheaply kill off Ermor's main army(ies), and grab a load of forts and provinces in the process. This to me is exactly the reason why the game should be rolled back. As in the first place, I think it is a very bad show to not only beat-up a staler without mentioning that they were staling (and please don't claim you didn't know), but to then strongly object to the rollback is a serious abuse of a staling nation IMO. That is basically taking the stance of "I gained a huge unfair advantage when my opponent staled, and I have no intention of giving it back, so there". To me at least, any player taking that type of stance is immediately branding themselves as a player who has more interest in purely winning a game rather than in playing fair.
So maybe I can offer another possible solution....
"The game is rolled back the three turns to before Ermor started staling, and conditions imposed so that the war Kuritza won is winnable again, but without any of the risks that were attached to it first time around."
If that means the nation Kuritza defeated has to stale or submit suicidal orders, then so be it. That particular war has already been fought and an outcome achieved in Kuritza's favour, so it would be unfair and unreasonable to give the defeated nation another crack at surviving it. I am not sure if there are any other major wars/battles elsewhere that would need the same provisions made, but Kuritza's successful war victory seems to be the one most mentioned in the discussion, and unless I am mistaken, his main objection to the rollback (as it would be unfair on him to ask him to win a war a second time if he took risks to win it the first time).
These of course are just my observations, and the only vested interest I have in this game is that I have followed it from the start via the thread and llamascores, and would hate to see a good game get ruined by an administrative mistake. Since as a regular admin, that would also make me upset, as it would result in a game being decided purely due to a bad mistake by the admin. Maybe all this is mute now though if control of the password and with it the game has been lost (although I do hope someone has notified llamabeast about this so that he can get control back).
There are some competitive players here, but I hope also fair ones. I'd hope that it can be seen that the stales were of no fault of Zeldor's, as he arranged a sub which was confirmed by the admin. Yes the stales are most certainly Zeldor's problem, but they are certainly not his fault. So asking him to just "suck it up" and accept the stales is asking too much. Not without some form of compensation (and it's only really Zeldor who can judge how much compensation he would need to keep playing). Likewise, asking Kuritza to accept having to win his risky war again if the game is rolled-back is also asking too much IMO.
If any major nation is lost to the AI over this issue, then the game as a creditable contest more or less immediately comes to an end as I see it. So a compromise is the only solution, and one needs to be reached if the huge amount of time invested by everyone to date is to be salvaged. I don't see how the 'pain' of having to re-do turns is really an issue. Yes it is unwelcome to have the time the last three turns took wasted. But it pales into insignificance when compared to having the time the last 56 turns took wasted. Although if players are happy to play on in a game that has absolutely no credibility, then that's up to them really.
Some ideas have already been offered, and I have offered another one above. Maybe I can also offer another perspective as well from which to operate. Instead of looking ahead and trying to find a way to arrange it so that Ermor regains ground while other nations stale, why not look back and say go with the full rollback, and try to help ensure that all non-Ermor related events play out as closely as possible to how they did. (such as provisions being made so that Kuritza wins his war again).
I apologise if my comments as an outsider are unwanted. I maybe also offer some apologies to anyone I have offended with my criticisms. Although where criticism has been mentioned, I personally feel it is warranted. Problems happen in games, and usually the most effective method of solution is to work towards a compromise. There are mostly always parties to blame for causing these problems, although in this case those parties are not the ones being punished. I hope my comments have been of some help, or even if the comments haven't, then hopefully my idea and 'new perspective' have been.
I feel very sorry for SciencePro to have been handed this mess. Although I would ask him to stick with it, as there'll be no discredit to him if this games falls, but there is HoF admin status awaiting him if he does mange to somehow keep this game going
Edit:
@ Kuritza - Can I please kindly ask you one question. What would you need to see happen to accept the game being rolled back the three turns to before the Ermor stales?
Is a guarantee that you would win your war again enough? Maybe winning it cleaner, and with less casualties, could be your form of compensation? (achieved by suicidal orders from your opponent). Would you want something else as well? Or is there just no form of compensation or provision that would accept you allowing the game to be rolled back three turns?
Re: Setsumi - LA game, upload pretenders!
Linear Mode
