Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Requesting (another) replacement for Once More, Into the Breach
| Requesting (another) replacement for Once More, Into the Breach |
Thu, 03 September 2020 00:45  |
|
 magic9mushroom |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
The player Braindead has quit Once More, Into the Breach. I am looking for a replacement.
Race is doing approximately middle-of-the-road, currently has two close allies and half a dozen or so enemies. Player did not quit because of his race's position, and this is not either of the races for which replacements were previously sought.
Contact me (via PM, or same username @ gmail) if you're interested. Obviously, players already in the game should not apply.
[Updated on: Thu, 03 September 2020 00:45] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Requesting (another) replacement for Once More, Into the Breach |
Thu, 03 September 2020 12:53  |
|
| Braindead |
 | Officer Cadet 2nd Year |
Messages: 237
Registered: April 2005
Location: Ohio | |
|
A few clarifications for those considering joining.
magic9mushroom wroteRace is doing approximately middle-of-the-road, currently has two close allies and half a dozen or so enemies.
The race is doing good. The game is messed up - there is an 11-player alliance in a 15-player game.
magic9mushroom wrotePlayer did not quit because of his race's position.
That is correct. The reason I left the game was because the host is extremely biased and very unreasonable. Two more players have already left the game and in both cases it was because of the decisions made by the host (at least, that's my understanding). And there are several others who are on the verge of quitting (again, not because of their performance as far as I know).
[Updated on: Thu, 03 September 2020 13:13] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Requesting (another) replacement for Once More, Into the Breach |
Fri, 04 September 2020 03:22 |
|
| XAPBob |
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012 | |
|
There isn't an 11 player alliance...
The host gave >45 hours notice of a gen after a hold, and you chimed in with twelve hours to go complaining that you wanted two days notice.
The main reason anyone else is considering leaving is due to you leaving and massively unbalancing the game (even in the favour of those people).
As one of the replacement players I think I'm far enough into the game to say that I strongly suspect the M9M refused a regen due to player error... not biased or unreasonable.
[Updated on: Fri, 04 September 2020 04:30] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Requesting (another) replacement for Once More, Into the Breach |
Fri, 04 September 2020 05:20 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
The two players to have dropped before this are Vaaqens and dlrichert.
I don't know for sure why Vaaqens left, as he simply stopped submitting turns without saying anything to me or replying to my emails checking on him. However, his drop did immediately follow a serious micro error on his part, so my guess is that it had to do with that.
dlrichert left because he thought his starting environment put him in an unwinnable diplomatic position. I suppose that that could be considered my doing, from a certain point of view, as I decided to let the dice fall where they would and use the first universe Stars spat out rather than doing extensive checking and regenning. But I don't think that could be considered bias, and he certainly never accused me of such.
Now, as to Braindead's allegations of bias. I know of three incidents in which Braindead has vocally demanded something I didn't give him, so without disclosing too much (both for reasons of privacy and neutrality), I shall describe each.
1) When the game was set up, I decided to allow Exploding Minefield Dodge. The rule I set was that SD player numbers were in first-come-first-served order, and that anybody who submitted an SD after there was already one in the game would get told as much (and thus have the option of either accepting the potential of Exploding Minefield Dodge, or changing race to a non-SD). When all races were in, Braindead said he "expected" to be told whether there were 2+ SDs in the game, claiming that anybody who'd had to make that choice had an advantage over him. I refused, as I felt that advantage was more than balanced by the disadvantage of either being vulnerable to Exploding Minefield Dodge or having to give up playing SD and make a new race. Braindead didn't reply and I considered the matter closed.
2) A player (let's call him Player X) asked me for a hold because he would be away from Monday to Friday of a week (the gen schedule was at the time Monday/Wednesday/Friday). Player X said he could get the Monday turn in, but asked for the Wednesday gen to be held and the Friday gen to be pushed back to Saturday. He did this with over a week's notice. I decided as host to grant the Wednesday hold, and asked for players' consent to the Saturday gen (as it was not part of the ordinary schedule).
Most of the players, including Braindead, said they were okay with the Saturday gen. One player (let's call him Player Y) objected, saying he was against both the hold and the gen move. I asked Player Y whether he would have difficulty getting a Saturday gen in, and he said that he wanted as many gens as possible to deny his opponents time to coordinate and micro. With 11 "yes"es, one "no" not based on difficulty with the Saturday gen, three players not having responded and the time ticking closer, I decided to grant the gen move.
Braindead then wrote me a rather rude email accusing me of, among other things, deliberately-biased hosting to swing the game, and saying that Player X's circumstances (about which Braindead knew no more than he did when he consented) didn't warrant a hold.
In the midst of this, one of the players who'd not so far responded (let's call him Player Z) finally got back to me, saying he'd have trouble getting a Saturday gen in. As this created an irreconcilable conflict (outside of holding two gens in a row), I reversed my decision and made the gens for that week Monday/Friday, apologising to Player X (the Wednesday hold was still granted).
3) Recently, there was a request from two or three of the players to slow down permanently to 2/week, and they said they would have to drop if the game didn't slow down. As this was not advertised in the game thread, and several players had been against a slowdown, I required unanimous consent before agreeing to this. I held the Monday 24/8 gen of the game while we hammered it out, which we eventually did, and with unanimous consent on Tuesday the game was slowed to Monday/Thursday. This meant that that turn (2458) had lasted for a total
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Apr 20 10:11:19 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
