Without knowing anything about the particulars of your situation, it seems unfair to me to block another player from joining a public game because you don't want to play with them. If you want to not join a game with that player then that's fine.

It'd be an easy way to figure out who is in an anon game. If you want to not play with certain players, play non-anon games and leave if they join.

Two aspects of the feature
1) it wouldn't notify you whether you were blocked by someone or your block prevented the join, so it couldn't be used to ferret out identities. Alternatively, once blocked you can't join, even if you disable the block.
2) a lot of us really don't like non-anon for other reasons (meta creeps in, etc.) so that is a non solution. Also, it doesn't do anything to prevent players joining after you do
3) if you've been such an ass that people don't want to play with you, I don't have a lot of sympathy if you get blocked entering a public game. Join another game then or start one. If you get blocked from a lot of games, maybe stop being an ass to everyone.

Im sorry you hate me so much

Define unpleasant.

I'd go with either completely egregiously insulting or ones who don't do any press at all because they're in 47 games

But of course everyone can decide for themselves. For my part, I play diplomacy for fun. There are some players who make entire games miserable. I don't want to play with such players.

It's because none of us want to play with capt brad anymore.

Case study #1. Interestingly I us two other people from two different games in mind myself.

An interesting idea. Shouldn't be dismissed so quickly because private games don't really do the trick.

I think a cock-block feature would be great too

If you can't see it, this could explain why: http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=1467494#1467494

We really need this feature. I am sick of players who think that diplomacy is just about jumping on CDs and never once answering any press. "Players" like that wreck the game for everyone else who gets trapped in a months long process of trying to end games

Check out the assholes Ghana, Oz and Argentina in this game. I want to exclude them from any game I ever play ever again because they're really in the hall of shame

And this isn't a violation of forum rules, because they are diplomacy players and that isn't a diplomacy game


http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=194555

I'm not super keen to add features that make it harder for people to play games.

Having said that, I think there's a lot we could do to improve the incentives to play (and keep playing) in games.

That makes sense, but on the other hand it is a miserable experience to have to keep playing a game for another six weeks because one unsporting player is being a fool. My sense is that when you join a game you're making a promise to play a decent, fair game with the other participants. It isn't fun when a player drags everyone else through a long game where they mop up but you can't just walk away because of RR considerations. Quality games are important too.

I see your point if blocks proliferate due to whatever. I am guessing having mods remove players creates too much work.

Let me think some more. Maybe an auto draw feature? I think that's been proposed as well

doesn't the mute player function work kind of like this?

No. It doesn't prevent player from joining games you are in or you from joining games they are in. I can end up in games with people who are abusive regardless. Having to mute them doesn't help a lot