>>Clear the player from the game, freeing the spot for a new player to come and control his lands.
And thus freeing a spot for wolfpacking, multis and other players that might want to cheat. from this suggestion there isn't much protecting the player in which plans on coming back into the game. So this feature will probably never going to be implemented.
This you can do anyway. So using it as a counter-argument is naive.
nay it is not naive. if you know when someone will go inactive/gets booted from the round players that are invited usually take place seldom is it rare to see a random player join. having manual removal lessens the chances of replacement cheaters. it is known that the devs placed a join limit to games to prevent late game joiners on the grounds to give a player a unfair advantage. Also players didn't like the fact that their former ally being booted and replaced by a random player and attacks them from within due to the right of way.
the game admin does not moderate the game. the reward/punish system is not a good idea as even the host can try to cheat too. the rep idea isn't great as it isn't much of a reward and just being active doesn't mean that the lad will remove the inactive players. remember when the admin goes AI (5-2 day inactivity period) a new host is auto selected.
When the host goes inactive the function of game admin is moved on to the highest ranking active player left.
Also don't forget the limit on when you can join the game. After a certain date games get locked and you can't rejoin. However my main argument for the manual protocol is that it allows for people to go on a bit longer holiday. All they need to do is tell the game admin they are gone. ALthought in most regular games leaving for more then 5 days is suicide.
i really like the idea and was going to post it myself! It makes sense, and if wolfpacking is a thing then maybe it just needs to be dealt with with random nations (which i dont mind, but the leavers where will they go)