This is exciting, haven't read them yet though, have you highlighted where you have made the changes?

So you can't vote pause in gunboat anymore. Not even when you want pause. Why not just remove the pause button then?

Good point, Fairfax. I just finished the rules and that is the one that jumped out at me. Eliminating the pause button completely in gunboat games seems to be the fix, eventually of course. Since the mods have to get involved anyway, just have them pause it and, at the specified time, unpause it.

But everything else seems to look great. I seem to remember something about abusing the PM system that used to be there. If that is the case, why was it removed?

I wish to exercise my right for the mods to check the logs of every action taken between 06 March 2008 and 01April 2013. I also demand that the mods remain relaxed whilst doing so :).

Just given it a quick once over, but it looks rather useful and a with a bit of common should be a big step forward.

I do think having to respect all the other players is asking a lot though... I mean, look at them!

You can't eliminate the pause button because you can't assume that every pause vote in a gunboat game is being used as a diplomatic tactic.

Read the rules, 2WL. You are not allowed to hit the pause button now. You have to contact the mods first.

What do we do in a live gunboat if players don't show up at the start? Are we still allowed to cancel? I don't understand.

You NEED the cancel vote in gunboat games when somebody doesn't show up. Can we not keep cancel votes up past a certain year now? If somebody doesn't show up for a live game, I keep my cancel vote up for several years, sometimes the whole game. It's not a diplomatic tool in that I'm signaling anything to other players, but it is a tool in that I'm signaling that I want to cancel, and if any other players have the cancel vote up, it's usually a sign to gang up on the player who hasn't voted cancel. Is there now a point where my initial cancel vote becomes a diplomatic tactic? Do I now have to play out a gunboat regardless of how many players show up?

There have been instances where I have had my cancel vote up the entire game, which lets me say "Hey, even though I won or I was the biggest power in the draw, I wanted to cancel in the beginning, so it's your fault you were eliminated." If I vote cancel, I mean to cancel. How are you even going to police this? You can't get rid of the cancel button, nor can you police every gunboat game and assume intentions. This doesn't even touch on those players who vote cancel whenever a player CDs, even if it's in 1908. These players legitimately want to cancel, but it often turns into a diplomatic tactic at the same time. Are these players not allowed to voice their opinions on the outcome of the game through the voting buttons allowed them?

I know it has been there a while, but this one has always bothered me.

" claiming that your orders didn't come out the way you entered them to cover up your motives, means mods/admins spend time looking for cheaters/bugs which were made up."

This should only cause mods effort if the person claiming their orders were different asks the mods to check it out. If someone else does the mods can simply reply with a pat "we can neither confrim nor deny" type answer. I have used this tactic and I will continue to use this tactic just as I ignore certain.laws on the books here in Ohio that aren't enforced and should be struck from the books.

New policy looks good. I'm particularly thrilled about the possibility to make in-game notifications to the mods, that should be helpful for newbies who keep asking how to conact the mods.

I'm less thrilled about the whole 'pause' thing. The pause functionality is really, *really* important. You can't just switch it off, or route it through the mods imho. I understand we have a problem here, but I think the solution may be more confusing than the actual problem. Hell, most people except the regulars dont even know there *is* a problem. For an average user, these rules are incomprehensible. 'Can I pause? There's a pause button, why not press it? Mail mods? Why would I need to mail the mods?'. White noise and unnecessary work for the mods waiting to happen.

Really, the solution is not to make these rules, but to adjust the code. For example, what if you could have one player press pause, and then have the game tell all the other players:

"One of your fellow players requests a pause. Do you agree to a pause? Yes/No".

Totally anonymous, limited use as diplomatic tool (as there is no author visible), and, most importantly, it still preserves pause functionality as in-site option.

I have a feeling that the mods are purposely not commenting in this thread for now. I think they want to see all of our opinions and see if we can come to some sort of understanding about what these new rules entail. Then, once we have hashed most of this out, they will drop back in. Just an opinion, mind you. So keep putting your concerns and suggestions up. I'm sure you are being listened to.

Love that, TMOW.

So, what you're saying is that it's against the rules if, let's say, I'm in a set of three gunboat games, that came about due to a thread, and that thread has links to those three games, and then I bump the thread? Only a person that is not in any of the three games is allowed to bump that thread? Barn3tt can't bump it?

Glad I read the new rules since: "I did not know that."

bump (If I'm allowed to)

I like the anonymous pause suggestion. Better than taking it away all together. Or maybe implement the extend feature that vdip has. It's a 2/3 agreement, and it can not be indefinite. So a player can't refuse to unpause unless they get their way.

@draug, I agree with on the lying about your orders, but the way I read it is that you can't go to the mods and claim they weren't correct, as a way to try to prove your case to the person you lied to. It's still fine to tell the other player that, and if he goes to the mods to verify, he should just be ignored or brushed off as you suggested. If I'm wrong, and its saying that this isn't allowed to even tell another player that, then I too, will ignore this rule, and protest like synapse if action is ever taken because of it.

I thought the voting buttons were going to be anon. Nothing is lost by making them anon, is it? If some players have voted to pause/draw/cancel and you're not one of them, then it doesn't matter who voted, it only matters that *you* haven't and until you do, the other's votes wont be actioned.

Speaker has that right. When someone votes it should just say a total number of pending votes for that option not who has voted.

I find the second clause of Rule 3 and Rule 5 to be redundant. In fact, it says the exact same thing.

3 - "If you need a pause in a gunboat game contact the moderators (see below for the contact details) and explain why."

5 - "If you need a pause in a gunboat game that was not agreed upon before the game, email the moderators before voting to pause."