Some may be aware that I was absent from the site for several, and I attempted to get all my games paused, or get a sitter.
Both, apparently failed in all cases barring two.

Not only was there a refusal to pause, but my sitter it turns out, either had a conflict or something beter to do with thier time than what they had agreed to do.

As a result I've kind of lost faith in relying on other people on this site, but I wondered about two potential things I could do to avoid this in the future.

#1- Lets say everyone in your game agrees to pause, but one person dissents because A- They claim that 'pausing' ruins the spirit of the game and refuse to do so
B- They are aggrieved with you, claiming you previously acted unsportsmanlike(in either this or another game), and they will resultingly follow suit
C- No explanation, but they are otherwise active and subsequently attack you.
D- A player is inactive, and about to go CD themself.

My question is, could any of these rationales warrant an enforced pause? Or would that indeed ruin the voluntary spirit of the proceedings (despite some of the rationales of the players being somewhat edgy)?

My second question:

Would it be apporpriate to give sitter ability to someone with whom you share a game (or multiple ones)? Here are two scenarios:

A- all games with that person are paused, and don't need to be tended to. However, the ability does exist for that person to read correspondance, and do all sorts of multi-ing like activities.

B- One or more of your games that need to be tended are with this person, and you are allies. Therefore, no conflict of interest, but this does follow the letter of multiacccounting, no matter how explicit ones instructions may be.



Perhaps all I need to do is find a more reliable sitter. You know who you are....
But I wouldn't mind hearing opinions about these situations.