Slighty different situation though, classical quit i believe rather than a short absence. So really that quote is out of context.
Let's see ... so a short run of Amask's Civ by Kaleb is not an issue, because it is short, while a long run of Pianoland by Munro, Elkad or Plako was unacceptable because it would have been long? A short run of two civ management by Kaleb at a critical moment can do just as much damage as a long run of double management, seems to me.
Flip side ... A long run of Pianoland as AI would be perfectly fine, but a short run of Amask's Civ as AI should be avoided because ... it is short?
I don't get it ... ( I suppose Pianoland was not long for the world in any case ... is that it? But then there would not have been a long run of Pianoland by any human ... )
Not that I am picking on my buddy Morgan personally, and not that I am going to throw any fits about what gets done about this. I am just probing the logic for defects. I have to say, I don't think that Morgan, Elkad, or Plako running Piano until its immenent demise would have been much longer a run than Kaleb's running of Amask's will be. So maybe not so different a situation after all? And if not different situations, how is this not a bit of a double standard?
I think the whole point of pitboss is to play against people, not the AI. Now, in some cases, there may be too much coordination advantage to having a particular player controlling a particular two civs. Maybe Giger, or Morgan, are better choices to sub for Amask in this case? If we do go to a 48 hour timer over Xmas, it will be perhaps 3 to 5 turns of subbing at most?
Just looking for the best compromise ...
dV