BAG (Started!) - Page 42

BigandScary · #**411** March 11th, 2008, 10:44 PM

I am sending the turn, but I was wondering if we could then postpone this game until saturday(sunday, 4am english time) as I will be unable to play my turns.

Jazzepi · #**412** March 11th, 2008, 11:16 PM

Sure.

Jazzepi

The_Monkey_King · #**413** April 1st, 2008, 01:09 PM

Last night I sent in my turn and then looked at LLamaserver to see if it had been accepted. A message in the BAG screen said Llamaserver was having e-mail problems, and that I would have to wait to send in my turn. The message said I would have plenty of time to send in my turn. Since this game has often, very often, been delayed for a week or more without any explanation, I thought "plenty of time" meant more than six hours after it was supposed to host. It turns out I was wrong.

The game has hosted, and my turn file hasn't run! This is Turn 68 and it takes more than an hour to do a turn! My current opponent turn DID run! So his armies did move, and my DIDN'T!

Nobody has played their turn for the "new" Turn 69 yet, no doubt because they thought it would be a while before the turn ran. I would like the turn to be rolled back right now, and a 12 hour wait for everyone to get their turns it, like the message said! I re-sent my turn right now.

Jazzepi · #**414** April 1st, 2008, 04:32 PM

I responded to the PM. Check your e-mail for further instructions.

Jazzepi

The_Monkey_King · #**415** April 1st, 2008, 04:45 PM

Come on, Jazzepi, say it in public. You have nothing to hide!

I'm glad Jazzepi doesn't know who I am, even though my posting name is the name of my god in the game. He played the game for over four months as R'yleh, so it's quite remarkable that he doesn't know who I am. Quite remarkable. Of course an ordinary person would have trouble figuring out which of these nations was led by The Monkey King:
Midgard
Caleum
Ermor
Patala
Utgard
New Ulm
Pythium
Pangeae

I wonder what nation of monkies is in that list?

And fortunate, because if he did know who I was, I would suspect him of getting back at me for the fights we had with his declaration "I need verification that you aren't a cheater, even though you had nothing to do with what happened".

Of course, he also says he can't do anything. Dumps it all on llamabeast... but still feels the need to make a bunch of demands to HIM, so that I can't get my turn unstaled. Good way to "stay out of it" while not staying out of it at all.

I feel that he is being impartial, because he claims to not know who I am, even though it is almost impossible for him not to, and refuses to help. Also, he adds restrictions to make it difficult for others to fix the problem.

This has all the hallmarks of a fair and impartial moderator. A real straight shooter.

Oh, and I can criticize him without worry, because he has already declared that he will do nothing to fix the problem.
If you had trouble seeing that, just re-read his post.

****Edited to remove violation of PM rules.

The_Monkey_King · #**416** April 1st, 2008, 04:47 PM

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

***edited to remove violation of PM rules.

The_Monkey_King · #**417** April 1st, 2008, 05:09 PM

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 · #**418** April 2nd, 2008, 07:35 AM

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 · #**419** April 2nd, 2008, 12:02 PM

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 · #**420** April 2nd, 2008, 07:39 PM

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.