Minimum 8 (prefer 12) hours so those whose bedtime fell at the server downtime have time to sleep, get up, check their orders, and submit more. It was down 1.5 hours so you can't expect them to have stayed up hoping it would come back.

I agree with Draugnar. It is hard when people are going to sleep. I figure that 8 hours would work well.

Kestas, you have to think about people in other time zones. This is global and someone is going to bed every given hour of every day somewhere in the world. Seriously 8 hours is an absolute minimum, 10 is better and 12 is best.

I'll go ahead and say 12 hours again on the basis that this site had people from around the globe, and someone, somewhere, will be heading to bed soon. If their only chance to check the site was in the last hour and a half, then you'd be doing a disservice to them to add any less than 8 hours, with 12 hours giving them some time to check it if they cannot immediately upon waking.

10 minutes in and every says 8 hours minimum with the majority thinking 12 hours would be better.

*everyone

Maybe 12 hours whenever the server is down for more than 1 hour. If server down for less than 1 hour, maybe 2-4 hours?

I would say anything over 1/2 hour. If the server went down at midnight local time, I might stay up to 12:30 hoping it came back, but then I'd have to go to bed to get up at 6:30 and get ready for work. That's also the reason why I say 12 hours... Some people have to get moving in the morning and may be a few hours after they get up before they can check in.

I'll go for 8 hours this time then, but I am interested to hear any other points of view on this

Afternoon ruined must get ready for work.I think all live games should have players refunded points as I won't be able to carry on in my live games unless every one votes for a pause when they come back on line or or get pushed back minimum of 8 hours when I can continue them.

You should vote for a draw in those games podium, and you'll have your points refunded if everyone agrees to it, and if everyone agrees a mod can extend the phase time to 24 hours if that's preferable and appropriate

Again I apologize for the server going down and am trying to get some specific details and assurances from Dreamhost support that something is being done

Sent ya' a PM kestas...

I don't understand why you add time at all. If it goes down for 2 hours, just let the games
go from there. A 24 hr game, you still have that time to put in your orders.
I would have had two of games finish their phase. Now I have to wait
because of the added time:(

The debate is, IKE, that someone tries to put their orders in for a game before going to bed, and game that will run before they get back up, but the server is down for two hours. They can't wait up until it comes back up, so instead they NMR and it destroys the game. Maybe you don't care about this, but some of us want a fair game and the Leagues and GDF and Master's Tournaments are crucial to some of us. We don't take kindly to the server influencing and affecting the outcome of those games.

Reset the phase for any downtime over 15mins. Under 15, just add 15 to be safe.
This is because people should check the site at the interval they agreed for phase length.
The 15mins is a slightly arbitrary figure, but is because in that sort of timespan I think you should be able to wait for the site.

I like Figles idea in theory, but in practice it could be tricky. What if the game is 5 days into a 10 day game?

Seems like we have to consider a couple of factors. Short downtime versus long downtime and live games versus non-live games. Plus, what constitutes a short versus long downtime and live versus non-live games?

I think 30 minutes is a good cutoff for short versus long downtime.

For live games, does it currently just pause them so that the players can decide to draw, cancel, or start again the next day? That seems reasonable to me, but I don't play live games much. Should there be a difference for short versus long downtime?

For long downtime for non-live games I think 12 hours should be the minimum for non-live games. I'll check my games before going to bed, but if I can't get on, then in the morning I've got kids to get to school and have to get into work by a certain time, and depending on work it may be a couple of hours before I can get logged on.

For short downtime for non-live games, add an hour. Gives plenty of time for people to check back without appreciable affecting the time until the game progresses.

x + 1/2x

where time down = x

"I like Figles idea in theory, but in practice it could be tricky. What if the game is 5 days into a 10 day game?"

Finalise, simple as that.

Live games should be paused.

Are you trying to say extend by 150% of the downtime?

And if someone is a jerk and refuses to finalize because they are being eliminated, that is still better than an NMR messing up the game.

For clarity, my response was to Ghost's response.

I was just thinking that the reset of the phase should have a max increase of one day. So multiday games would get one day added to their deadline at most and the typical 24-36 hour game would get reset.

One option mentioned I don't care for is the "no NMR" option. I always place orders as soon as I see the '!!'. But then I go back and change them based on my negotiations. So, if at the last second I can't change the orders, the backups would still go through because I'm not technical NMR, but the end result would be the same: unintended orders went through.

Alderian, then you wait. It isn't *that* big a deal.

Draugnar's suggestion of a max of 24 hours added is a good one.

For further clarity, my response to your response was a supporting response, not a contrary response. Waiting is less a big deal than an NMR is.

I also think a 24 hour max is good. My official preference is 12 hours at a minimum and 24 hours at a maximum.

Whoops, I skim read it, and read it wrong.

I've given my view about.
re ald/Ghost - If someone won't finalize then I expect it would be reasonable to forcibly cycle the game; depending on the reasons.
However, the fact remains that when you start a game, you agree to be available at least once in each phaselength. Therefore, it seems unreasonable that if the site goes down you are suddenly forced to increase your availability or loose your position ingame.

But is it fair to hold a turn that has already been running for 9 days to another 10 days because the site was down for an hour and some ass won't finalize his last remaining disband?

Another consideration is that if someone is going to miss the deadline and the game is extended, they aren't punished for it. It's a touchy subject in my opinion. Say there are 10 minutes left and one player hasn't submitted any moves. The server goes down and then the turn is extended by 12-24 hours. The player most likely would have NMR'd, but now has extra time to submit orders. Some people might see that as good, as an NMR can break the game. Others might be frustrated if they changed their moves to take advantage of the player who left/missed the turn, only to find that the player catches a lucky break. Not sure of the best way to handle this situation, or if it should even be handled at all.

So figles, correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but your saying if someone is playing a 3 day per phase game because they can only log in every 3 days and at their appointed log in time for a particular phase they can't get on because the server is down, they'll be screwed even with an extra day being added because they won't be on again for another 3 days?

I can see that argument, but at what point do you inconvenience everyone to help a theoretical person or two. Do you add a full phase length so everyone is covered and the people that want it to cycle earlier can finalize? Or do you cut some corners to inconvenience others less at the risk of sacrificing a small minority? Not only are we talking about people that can only log on rarely, but we are talking about the one time they need to log in is at the same time as a rare server failure.

At least 10 days dude, definitely.

Lol I dunno I appreciate that there is an extension at all, 90 minutes seems fine.

12 hours seems reasonable. Better to have an extended wait rather than an NMR.

For anything over say 15 minutes that is.

"I can see that argument, but at what point do you inconvenience everyone to help a theoretical person or two. Do you add a full phase length so everyone is covered and the people that want it to cycle earlier can finalize? Or do you cut some corners to inconvenience others less at the risk of sacrificing a small minority? Not only are we talking about people that can only log on rarely, but we are talking about the one time they need to log in is at the same time as a rare server failure."


Don't you see that 10 day phase games on their 9th day with some ass not finalising is equally rare?

Sure, the downtime might delay most games by anywhere from 0-2 days, depending on the downtime. That's fine, when somebody goes on holiday in the Masters or League, they can delay the game by over a week. Sure, there could be a few games delayed by more than that, but only a few, and any other solution can have a few unavoidable NMRs.

You've got to weigh up two different infrequent events, recognising that both are infrequent, but the majority in the middle is clear- reset the phaselengths. You can argue with 3,4,5 day or longer phaselengths that we should do it differently, but given the rarity, given that people have chosen long waits already, and given the very worthwhile principle of *NEVER* allowing downtime to alone cause NMR, I don't think the case is strong enough to justify a change of attitude coming with that change in price.

To my mind it is easier to say, "We say that never will somebody who logs in once a phaselength will miss a turn" than anything else. You can question whether the stance is excessive or not, but all the while, you keep yourself arguing a principle that I think is correct, rather than a price, as you would be with +12 or +24 or +25 hours.

That's pretty long winded. btw, I don't think that just 3 mins of downtime is enough, because you wouldn't just try once and then stop. It has to long enough downtime that somebody would have to go who had been prepared to make moves etc. I'd say 15 mins or so is about right for that.

Could you use a sliding scale based on turn length?

For what it is worth, when discussing something like this, I tend to be very flexible in my position so will often argue several sides to see which ones really have merit. Avoiding NMRs seems the most important to me. And you are right, the delayed long phase length games are rare (45 out of 607 currently running games or 7.4% are 5-10 day phase lengths if I'm counting right) so that's a minority as well.

For myself, I'd be happy with 12 hours. For the overall right thing to do, I can see going with just resetting the phase lengths.

Actually scratch that make it at least 90 days.

Ok, scratch my last post, I'm with TheGhostmaker. anything longer than 15 minutes should add the phase-length to make sure there are no NMRs due to downtime.

I guess it's just more of an inconvenience with the longer wait, but if you are in a game with such long turns, it's going to be a long game anyway.

I'm good with anything over 12 hours for phase lengths > 12 hours and one phase length for shorter ones. I can also see the merit of just resetting the phase. There are so few really long phases anyhow.

re Ald: Yes I am in favour of resetting that hypothetical long game we talk of