Yes, this is the crux of the matter, as you rightly say, Pantherboy: There is no way to know. Of the four parties involved in any incident (the reloading player, his/her opponent, the wider community and Slitherine) only the reloading player knows. Everyone else has to guess. But on what basis do we make that guess? We can take a cynical view and assume everyone's cheating when they reload, or an extremely tolerant view and assume everyone's suffered an unfortunate accident when they reload. The truth lies somewhere inbetween, but it is very hard to establish were.pantherboy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:12 pm I see your point Mike but not sure if your analogy exactly fits as in said case both players are observers of the actual event so neither would be penalized and I am sure they could amicably come to a decision if reasonably minded.
As I said there is no assumption of guilt but under the current conditions there is no way to verify what happened. Only the player that may have legitimately reloaded due to something out of their control will know the true reason for it. If the reload is for nefarious reasons then more than likely the player was dissatisfied with the turns outcome due to instances of leader loss, double cohesion drops etc. so they decided to reload hoping for a better outcome. Since the player is reloading due to a turn of perceived bad RNG results then probability would dictate that the second attempt would be less likely to have the same or worse outcomes. Also redoing a turn would give a clearer picture of what could happen maybe allowing for more nuanced moves with anticipation of potentially bad outcomes or good that they didn't foresee on the first run through.
As far as penalizing someone for something beyond their control I completely agree that it is not fair. Unfortunately in such a case you are penalizing the opponent who did not reload their turn as much as you would be the player who had a legitimate reason. With 100% certainty we know the opponent did nothing irregular (unless they could remotely hack their opponents game and crash it as they were doing their turn) but we do not have an equal degree of certainty for the person reloading. Since the opponent has the option of not claiming the game it will come down to trust and consideration of the events in game by the only players baring witness to them rather than from any external source. I can only speak for myself but I would never claim a game if it occurred once while playing a battle. When you get to multiple attempts (maybe due to atmospheric conditions hampering connection) then I would think logically that player should stop playing and wait to another day when the signal is better to upload their turn. Now as colorful as your blackboard example is I don't really see how it pertains to this situation though I do understand the intent and agree with the underlying principle.
All in all I believe there is no right answer and Slitherine should be accorded the respect to come up with a strategy that matches their needs and resources. Slitherine simply wants to put quality games on the market that cover both niche and broad appeal. As a business they have to take into regard the current economic downturn and the threat posed by the current pandemic as well as juggle player satisfaction versus reasonably costed solutions. Such factors remove the clarity on this issue that we may feel we have. Unless made privy to factors such as marketing, manpower, budget, programming, sales, active player numbers etc. then none of us can do anymore than make proposals which may prove valuable to Slitherine's analysis. So from this point of view a robust debate devoid of accusations or insults serves Slitherine's and our needs best while fostering a stronger bond within the community. That last reference is not directed at Mike but at the overall tone of this thread with no particular individuals in mind.
I can't help thinking that if a player is cheating there will be a pattern of cheating behaviour. So perhaps looking at individual incidents isn't very informative, perhaps we need to be looking at patterns of incidents. I can't be any more helpful than that, unfortunately. I don't know what such a pattern would loook like, but perhaps Slitherine can work on identifying that.
I think Slitherine's task, like Pete's, and like the rest of us in the community, is a very difficult one. Whatever system we adopt, it seems to me to be inevitable that some cheats will go unnoticed and some innocent people will be accused of cheating. So where do we draw that line between the two? Wherever we draw it there will be a section of the community uncomfortbale with it.
I am not unhapppy with the idea of players reporting reloads and having a discussion with their opponent to decide whether the game should be forfeit, except for one flaw: The nice guys are not going to demand a forfeit. The not-nice guys will demand a forfeit. And so the not-nice guys will prosper over the nice guys. We already suffer from this to a small extent with request to restart on the basis of terrain.
For my part, in all the time I have been playing FoG 2 I have never had to relaod a turn. But when I was playing FoG 1 some years ago, I did so many times because my computer kept crashing. Once I had bought a new computer the problem never recurred.
Whatever the outcome of this, we're going to have to work with whatever solution Slitherine/Pete/the Community finally come up with, and then move on. That will inevitably mean many of us being willing to compromise and willing to trust each other. Since Voltaire's been quoted recently, to paraphrase Dr Pangloss, we won't achieve perfection, but perhaps we can achieve the best of all possible worlds.
I have not lost trust in any player since this problem occurred and nor will I do so without concrete evidence to the contrary.
Best Wishes
Mike
(Perhaps I hit the wrong button? Or I am cheating therefore I must be expelled! 
)
I think I must have pressed "Edit" instead of "Quote" because I have deleted some text of devoncop that I wasn't replying to. I have sent him a PM and I wait to see if he accepts my apology. 
There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. No, I am not free to deal with players as I wish in the FOG2DL. I try and run the tournament by consensus, unless my (very few) "red lines" are threatened. Player expulsion is a decision for the adjudication panel, not just me. Just as well really.