12 hours isn’t enough time. This allows someone to delay a game, get it extended, make a move, and now their opponent is on a short clock.

Since I often have 12-hour blocks of time away from the game, I’m worried that this gives my opponent an incentive to stall past the 96 hour mark so that I might end up playing randomly.

I’m starting to think that we need to mandate close-to-real-time play.

I’d love that, Josh, but there is strong opposition to that in the current player base.

I don’t think we’ve seen a proposal on it; it might be worth trying to put it to a vote.

As an interim measure, let’s its flaws be a catalyst that provokes improvements

Bucky, Clucky, would you suggest 24 hours instead of 12? Because that solves… absolutely nothing about the current situation, where my first game is likely to outlast most people’s second game. There’s already a game-ending Fine in place if a player tries to stall for 48 hours. And stalling a game on the off chance you might be able to benefit from it being Extended costs you opportunities to play more, which is why I’m frustrated about this.

since this is more work for Kevan.

Workload is fine, but “you must check BlogNomic at least once every 12 hours” is a harsh door policy.

How about allowing players in 96-hour games to become Ready again, so that they can start a new concurrent game?

Okay, that’s workable, but I want to note that “there’s no point in checking Blognomic more than once every 24 hours” is a pretty harsh policy too.

cov

s/k