@emoose:
I honestly believe you haven't even read what I wrote?
Let me quote that for you:
*Actually I don't really care if this was implemented as a completely new boot option or as an alteration of the existing direct boot, I just cannot see the disadvantage that would result from it?*

Here's another summary for you:
Booting damages a game.
Being able to selectively boot only encourages people to pull the trigger earlier. If instead all bootable players were booted simultaneously when a boot command was issued, people would think twice before booting their teammates along with the other team's player(s). Booting would be discouraged.
-> Less damage to the game.
Why is that a bad thing?
Why do you so desperately *need* to boot selectively?

I was hoping someone else would reply if I delayed long enough, and you did! Hooray!

Diabolicus, I'm not opposed to the new setting because I think the current system is *superior*. I'm opposed because I think the two systems are functionally equivalent and there are better things to take up Fizzer's time with. The problems you and others have identified with direct booting can be solved by simply not using direct booting. I don't think the new setting would add any significant value.

That is to say, based purely on the functionality, I'm indifferent between the two systems. Throw in aspects like Fizzer's time, or the added complexity on the Settings screen, and it's just barely enough to tip me from indifference to opposition. If you can convince me that the new setting *would* add significant value by accomplishing a goal that current settings cannot, then I would change my mind.

I'm certainly not opposed to it because I don't want to play games like that. After all, if that was my position, I'd just take my own advice and not use the new setting!

Now to reply to your theses...

Thesis 1: Every imbalanced team game I have been in, I have voted to end. I haven't always successfully convinced others to vote to end, but I'm not going to hold grudges against them because of it.

Thesis 2: Your intuition about the "intended" use of the booting system seems to contradict Fizzer's stated policy. (See my response to Duke above.)

Theses 3&4: You say booting should only be possible if the turn actually advances after the boot. Consider this scenario: Players A and B don't submit orders by the boot time. A gets on chat and has a valid excuse, say a family emergency that will consume their time for a week. B never says a word, and their profile says they've gone inactive for several days. Should player C be able to boot B before A's return so that when A does return the game can advance? I don't see anything wrong with that, but obviously we disagree.

Emoose, if I can try to sway you, your response to Diabolicus' 3rd & 4th theses is, I think, a good argument for why "game mechanics" and "boot mechanics" are on the same level. You say, "It would be extremely unfair if people who don't make effective use of the methods for avoiding getting booted are allowed to benefit from a single player who using those methods as intended." You imply that players who more effectively use available boot mechanics are better players than those who don't. Doesn't that make boot mechanics part of the game?

@ reddleman

To quote my original comment on the matter: "Game mechanics and Boot mechanics are two different things. The only relation I can find between the two is that they're both factors in the outcome of a game."

You misunderstand what I was saying slightly. Both mechanics are part of the game. The distinction I'm talking about is that army mechanics are mainly about skill, whereas boot mechanics are about understanding your own time limits and playing within them.

The only time booting is not an important mechanic in a game is when you remove that mechanic from a specific game.

I think Diabolicus has this right.

Let's be clear on what is at issue. First,

***Is selective booting cheating***?
I don't believe anyone would assert this. It's an available setting, everyone knows about it, everyone agrees to it when they sign up for a game, etc. It's clearly not cheating. The question that Diabolicus and others are asking is

***Should selective booting be allowed***?
This is not a question of legality under the current system, but a question of the quality of the game. I can invent a game of "Heads I Win Tails You Lose", with clearly stated and agreed-upon rules, but it would be utterly lame. Lame rules make for lame games. Just because a rule is part of a game doesn't mean that the game wouldn't benefit from changing it.

We'd have to hear from Fizzer as to precisely why the booting rules were created, but my intuition is that it has nothing to do with the strategy of balancing luck, cards, bonuses, and borders in order to conquer a map. I believe it's only there to move a game along. Once it's in there, it can obviously be used strategically, but I don't find selective booting to be a strategy that is in the spirit of the game. That is why I believe it should be changed (or provided with an alternative). So that brings us to:

***Is there an alternative right now***?
I don't think so, but correct me if I'm wrong. The qualities that Diabolicus seeks are 1) one person can decide that the wait is too long, 2) the game is guaranteed to advance and 3) the boot time is flexible.

Vote-to-boot satisfies (2) because no team will agree to boot only their own player. It would be either all or none. It doesn't satisfy (1), however, because everyone has to actively agree to boot (question: does VTB work when multiple players are not around to vote?). VTB also satisfies (3).

Auto-boot satisfies (1) and (2), but not (3).

The suggestion that auto-boot be given a way to provide leniency would satisfy (2) and (3), but it's not clear to me how it would satisfy (1). The leniency would, I assume, have to come from every player indicating that they would wait, which seems bizarrely onerous. I can't see that ever happening much. Then, presumably, one player could stop being lenient, and the auto-boot would occur. This seems like an unnecessarily complicated way of rephrasing Diabolicus's suggestion. Lastly,

***What should be done***?
I can't see any justification, ever, for selective booting. I think Warlight would be a better game if that were not possible. If it had never been possible, would anyone advocate for it? However, I recognize that some people are comfortable with the game as it is, so I fully support the creation of a new boot feature in which one person can decide to boot all overtime players at once, but not single players.

And this will be more controversial, but I would support making this arrangement the default for all games.

"The leniency would, I assume, have to come from every player indicating that they would wait, which seems bizarrely onerous."

How is this any different from the current Direct Boot or the proposed Boot All?

For one or more players to be given leniency with either system, *every* other player must make the decision to *not* boot the players over the boot timer. The only difference is Direct Boot or Boot All require *not* doing something for the leniency to be achieved, whereas what I mentioned about Auto Boot requires *doing* something. However, I am not advocating that Auto Boot be given that change, simply questioning why the focus is instead **solely** on Direct Boot.

As I said, I would support this as an addition to the current boot options, because the people who like Direct Boot as it is can continue to use it, and to achieve the suggested booting, people aren't forced to go *out of their way* to 'approve' leniency on an Auto Boot. I would also approve that Boot All, as an additional boot option, be made the default setting for all games.

A small note - I'm not sure I would specifically advocate it, but I would definitely support the idea of the current Direct Boot had it not already been implemented, even if the proposed Boot All was in place.

*Is there an alternative right now?
I don't think so, but correct me if I'm wrong. The qualities that Diabolicus seeks are 1) one person can decide that the wait is too long, 2) the game is guaranteed to advance and 3) the boot time is flexible.*

I think there is, that is what I've been trying to explain:
If you are uncomfortable with changing the current "Direct Boot" itself, then just make a copy of it, call it "Direct Boot All". This new boot mode works in every aspect like the current direct boot, except that in those cases where more than one player is bootable, you can only boot either all, or none. Just make it a tick box during game setup, if you wish, whether or not it should be default or not remains to be seen (I would vote yes on that, what a surprise :-) ).
It would meet all 3 criteria WinnieNicklaus listed:
1) Any one player could enforce it without consent from the others (unlike vote to boot)
2) The game would be guaranteed to advance (except in banking boot time games and when players are on vacation, see below)
3) The boot time is flexible (as long as all agree on it, a boot never happens)

I think what caused a lot confusion in this thread was that I/we got carried away by special cases like vacation mode and banking boot time, sorry for that.
I could live with a setting like the one I just described, I think it would be a great improvement over / addition to the status quo.
It is however incosequential, at least when (2) "guarantee the game to advance" is a categorical requirement (as I strongly feel it should be). To guarantee that, you would have to (for BBT games) prohibit booting as long as not all players have exceeded their time or submitted their turn, and you would also prohibit booting during vacations). Personally I felt this was a logical conclusion, so I really didn't see this as a separate issue until now when I write this down, but I can understand now why you have objections against these last two steps. So please judge them separately.

a) Should selective booting be allowed? (concerns all games)
and
b) Should booting only be allowed if the game is guaranteed to advance? (only concerns BBT games and vactions)

Complicated :-)

a) Selective booting should be allowed as an *option* since any player joining the game consents to the game's settings. If you don't like the selective aspect of the booting, don't join the game.

"b" is a bit more complicated. BBT and Vacations should not be allowed in any game with Boot All or Auto Boot as the sole booting method(s). If the goal of Boot All and Auto Boot is to eliminate selective booting, BBT and Vacations with the rule that players can only be booted once all players have reached their boot limit can be used to throw off the intended balance of those booting systems. If players pass their boot timers at different times, they can be individually booted as they come off timers, with the exception that only the first remaining player to pass their boot timer can be booted individually. If all players gain the benefit of the longest boot timer, the person holding the longest boot timer gains the advantage of controlling the boot fate of those past their own boot timers.

In terms of VTB and Direct Boot, having the rule that you can only boot if it's guaranteed to advance the game completely negates the selective booting aspect of the boot options, which is a large part of the reason people choose those boot options.

Verdict: Booting only when doing so guarantees the advancement of the game largely reverses the original intent behind choosing a specific booting option, in which case one would simply choose another booting option. The rule would accomplish nothing.

I actually agree with emoose on that point. Vacation and BBT are special cases that already take away the ability to boot all, as we are discussing. Since they are designed to do that, I can see the point in having them.

I have been in games where two people are late, but only one is on vacation. It did suck when the non-vacation person got booted, but they never came back and were quite late, so it did speed the game up overall. I can at least see the logic and understand that people would want to seperate that.

I still think that Boot All should be an option for all games, and I even think it makes a good default mode. I understand why it would not be everyone's go to option, but I think that hinges on whether booting is considered an early option or a close-to-never option. That's a matter of opinion, so I don't think we are going to come to a conclusion on that one.

If you don't mind me joining the conversation/debate, I'd like to say this:
I see some pros to adding a "Direct Boot All" option to the game; I think it would speed up games. The only important thing, for me, is to make it clear whether a game is a DB all or plain DB. As long as it is visibly different in the settings, I don't have a problem with the option. (And it probably would make a good default setting.)
Cons:
-Another option that clutters the game settings screen.
-Something else to consider when joining/creating a game.
Neither of these are huge impediments though, so I wouldn't consider them decisive in deciding the effectiveness of the concept.

However, for those of you who think that booting *should* be a strategy, I have a suggestion for another fun option ;)

How about this: (my inspiration is Farragut's comment about Coup d'état on page 1 of this thread)
-When someone direct boots someone else, they gain a percentage of that person's territories randomly (like 20 or 30% default, could be a slider to change it). This would make for some very interesting strategies, huh?
-I'm not sure how that would work with VTB, maybe everyone gets an equal share of the gained territories.
-This would also help encourage speed because whoever kicks someone gets a share, and even if you boot a teammate you get some of his territories so you don't necessarily lose the game by default. You could even set it so that no matter who boots the player, his/her teammates would receive a fixed percentage, like 50%, of his territories, distributed randomly. This way even players on the same team would have a motivation to kick someone who is playing slowly, which can mean that they are playing poorly as well.
-As a counterpoint to that, though, there is the possibility that someone won't kick someone because they are on the opposing team and they are playing so poorly that even giving a portion of their territory to one of their allies would give a disadvantage. But I can't see that happening very often, unless the percentage awarded to the kicker is 90 or 100%.

What do you think of that idea?

@ Zibem

That kind of sounds fun, except if the person doing the booting gets the most territories, it just turns into who's online at the boot time and can click the button fastest. I do play games that have that kind of simple joy, but I don't think this is the right place for it. Other than that and the fact that it has nothing to do with the OP, good idea.

I'm still with Diabolicus that no boot should ever be allowed that doesn't immediately advance the game. But that's a matter of opinion.

I just hope that Diabolicus's suggestion gets implemented, so that our opinion can also be represented in the game settings. :-)