Back to the topic of this thread.
I propose that reload requests go to the admins, who verify that the reload is for a significant (game-changing), and unintended event. The admins can request a pause to gather information, which does not count in any team's timeout imit; grant the reload using available information without requesting a pause; deny the reload without requesting a pause.
Partial list of significant game-changing events: (generally things that can go wrong with one click or one keypress) This is just a guideline, the admins decide whether each incident is plausibly an accident and if it is game-changing.
- Settling a city far away from its intended location
- Declaring war when there was no intent to do so
- Using a GP for other than the intended action (bulb vs academy, etc)
Seems reasonable... I might subtract the word "far" from the first event... because you might accidentally settle on top of a resource that you did not intend to settle on top of, or not settle on a hill that you intended to settle on... but I like the rule overall.
@ BCLG100 - I understand the principle of holding players responsible for their actions in MP games, but why hold a whole team responsible because the only person available to play the turn at the time was not careful/ made a mistake/ did not have his glasses on/ had some real life event that screwed up the turn?
I would rather have the team be rewarded for good planned actions, and punished for poor planned actions, as opposed to for example... my whole team being punished for me accidentally screwing up the turn. I will readily admit that I am not as skilled, experienced or careful player as Indiansmoke, or yourself... does that mean that my TEAM should automatically lose?...Why? Because Indiansmoke joined Merlot instead of my team...
If your response is... 'too bad, get another turnplayer,' then I would say that is sort of like saying... "Well, no matter how good at planning out your actions your team might be, if you happen to have a sucky, clumsy player like Sommerswerd, then you lose... You better find someone that is able to chain themselves to the computer in an airtight, double locked, soundproof panic-room to be turnplayer, or else your whole team is liable for their poor choice of turnplayer.
I realize that alot of the above is hyperbole
, but I hope you get my drift...
My point is that the MAIN legitimate issue when someone asks for a reload, should be... "Is this person/team intentionally trying to use a reload to abuse the process, or 'game' the system?" If the answer is yes, then they should be denied, but if not, their request should be granted. All the talk about 'where to draw the line' and 'dangerous precedents' the rule being 'open for abuse' etc., is based on the assumption that reloads will be abused. Since that is really the bottom line/what seems to truly worry people, maybe the rule should just focus on that, instead on a bunch of hypothetical situations.
That's why I like DaveShack's rule... it let's the admins (who can see all the forums) make the call. I would even agree with making the request anonymous, as Ash88 suggested earlier. That way there is nothing to argue about. The decision is made, and the game moves on smoothly (hopefully).