@orathaic: well the keyword is: "you" don't play. But others do, for the very same reason as MM, because we don't want to be discriminated inside the game, just because we are who we are. So while you personally don't like the idea (which I respect, and fully understand, since you don't play anon games) the fact is there are other people on this site, to whom this solution might help.

So until this solution doesn't hurt you (and surely it wouldn't) I can't see why to oppose it. It's okay it doesn't help you at all, but do you think it doesn't help others as well? I assume you don't expect everyone to play non-anon games...

No, i don't dislike the idea, i find it a needless addition to a functioning site.

I understand that adding layers of complexity tends to make things more likely to break, and that the solution to this is a social one rather than a programming one.

I don't oppose it. If you wish to do the coding then go right ahead. And as i've said, you can still know WHO you are playing in an anon-game if it is organised on the forum and passworded.

Fairly simple community based solution.

but sometimes we just want to play with some random people, but don't want a certain person in

@Fortress door, then no matter what, you will risk having multis. You can't prevent yourself from randomly meeting a multi in an anon-game where you've no idea if there are 5 newly created accounts all controlled by one person on their 6th 'main' account.

Is that not the impetus, or are you actually just trying to come up with new excuses or needs because you like the idea?

Actually, semi-anon games, where you know the players, just not which country they are, are pretty easily deductable. In high pot games (7000) we usually organize games as you wrote here, but also, by the end of the first year most of us know who is who, even though it's anon. For this reason I know some guy around who NEVER joins organized games, just purely anon ones.

Why I disagree with you is, I think my solution doesn't hurt any players while expecting them to password, or semi-anon a game does. (I know examples)

I have started MANY games, with 10day pre-game period to let players fill it up, and reamin fully anon. For these guys non of your solution is a solution.

About coding, I can do that.

About complecity tends to make things more likely to break, I have to agree. That's usually true. In this case I think this feature is "optional" meaning, for you for example, wouldn't cause any difference in the way you use this site. You don't have to build up a banlist, you don't have to leave games if someone joins, etc. So for anyone, who likes the thngs they are now, this solution wouldn't bring any change, any more complexity.

@orathiac

but if there are known people, it can cut down numbers.

For example I have never muted anyone, I had to look for the button today after I mentioned it. And I don't feel muting has made this site more complex, because I don't use the feature. Banlist would be a similar useless feature to you, as muting is for me. But I'm sure muting is useful for some people here and I don't think it was a waste of programming.

The only other site i use is stabbeurfou, and it has many many more functions than here.

Unfortunately this means that it is rather hard to find such.

I admit that playing 'semi-anon' is a different experience but so is face-to-face; i'm not familiar with any face-to-face tournaments which allow the players to mask their face and thus remain anonymous.

Personally i think this is actually a better experience, and fully anon is boring. You may earn a lot of points by playing random anonymous players but i prefer to learn my opponent's styles and build up my own reputation - the way the leagues offered me when i was climbing up the ranks there season by season...

This may make things harder for high point players, but they have lots of points because they're supposed to be good. So i've got very little problem forcing the high point players to prove their skills in non-anon games. (i didn't automatically gang up on madmarx in our last non-anon game, because i knew everyone else would, so i tried to use that to my advantage by allying with him...)
-----
The simplicity of this site (even offering drop-down menus for the orders) is one of it's strengths - even so far as the forum is concerned. Stream-lined and simple.

If you're willing to do the coding the go ahead, maybe create a thread on the dev forum and link to this conversation. I'm not one to stand in your way, i'm just voicing my opinion.

That's why I started the thread, to hear voices first and I appreciate each of them pro- or contra-. Once more people comment on this thread and hopefully we can get to a consensus how most of us would like to see it working, I will post it to the dev forum, but first, I'd like to reach some agreement how people would like this to work.

For example Draug's proposal of the one way banning is something I didn't want but if others prefer it that way, I gladly accomodate. To reach such agreements we need these kind of discussions first.

About all the rest you wrote, I can't really comment on that one. I think plaing in anon games builds up the same reputation since you see who was who after the game is finished. Of course you can't use past games information in those if you don't know who's your opponent. But that's another issue, who likes what.

I think maybe a slight delay in game start while the banner has an opportunity to agree or quit would be good.

Draug: that's why I suggested 1 phase delay. In live games it's different, but at non-live if it fills up, it would start, resulting everyone have to enter orders in 1 phase time. So I assume if there's a bannee 1 phase time must be enough. At live games it's different, they don't start immidiately, so there's more time to leave anyway.

Yeah, the one phase delay to give the person time to leave would work.

Rokas idea seems awesome. Though I don't know how hard it is to implement...

It seems to me that if A put B on their ban list, B would have to know about it. This seems to me to be the best way to discourage people from putting others on their ban list for the wrong reasons. But I worry this would cause unnecessary flame wars like there was last night with thatonekid.

I think this is a bad idea, though, to be clear. As far as I am concerned, the only valid reason to refuse to play with someone is if they are a cheater. And we already have a way to do that. All this would do is provide a tool for others to shut out players from games for reasons that they shouldn't. For example, a common policy might be to put anyone on one's ban list if they insist on shaving a 4 way draw down to a 3 way draw. That would be terrible for the site. Also, having a ban list shatters anonymity. Let's say I want to find out who is in a game. I am guaranteed the ability to find one of those people with the ban list idea. So I could always know, for example, whether or not I am playing with Babak. That is also bad.

Well, I have players I refuse to play with if I can avoid it. They have no honor and ruin the fun by taking advantage of critical CDs to get a win they didn't deserve. I don't believe the Cd is really part of the game because the boardgame rarely had situation where someone left mid game. The rule was only there to account for the odd circumstance in the boardgame. But late game Cds have become a mainstay here. So I don't play certain people who use those CDs to their advantage rather than just drawing the game when a quitter quits.

Fair enough, uclabb

but i would ban people with a horribly high resign record, like terry or benguy. And, if i find i am playing with one person too much (and allying because we just work well together) i would ban them

but it doesn't say who is in, just that SOMEONE is in

@achillies27: I imagine it the same as the mute button. Another button at the very same place. So creating the "ban-list" would work the very same way as the "mute-list". Then the only thing which has to be implemented is, when a player joins, the script looks up whether he's banned by some already in the game, if so, it sends a notification to the banner. (Maybe marks the game, in case he misses the notification) If a bannee already joined a game, then it's non-joinable, just like higher bet games. The latter is easy, just change the select query for non-joinable game, the previous is easy to, just sending a notification.

What has to be implemented though, is the possibility to leave the game in those cases when it fills up, and there's a bannee inside.

And the ability to make some games "non-bannable" games for lague/tournament purposes.

@uclabb: about finding out who's in the game, I thought of that. A solution could be, you can't change ban status more then once every 24 hours or so. Like facebook doesn't allow you to block a person for 48 hours after unblocking him. With this, and a potentil limit on the ban list size, you wouldn't use this for that purpose. So you wouldn't play with Babak, if you knew, because to find it out, you have to ban him, but you wouldn't be able to remove the ban for 24-48 hours, so you wouldn't be able to join his game.

I don't think if A bans B, B should know it. Just as you don't know who has muted you.

To clarify on a few things:

1. My main point that I guess I didn't make well is that there has to be a notification "Fortress Door just placed you on his ban list. One of you needs to stop being such a dick." Has to has to has to. Because you need a defensible reason to put someone on a ban list. It shouldn't be an anonymous thing. Plus, there is no feedback to the person who got banned if it is anonymous, so CDers won't actually know that they are pissing everyone off until is is too late, and it is never our goal to push people from the site without first warning them.

2. I really think if it was implemented, which I still don't, it should be reined in a lot. This is not equivalent to muting. Why? Because it affects the person you put on your ban list, not just you. Thus, we have to protect people from being put on ban lists for silly reasons. Perhaps even we should make it that the only two ways to put people on your ban list is if they just CD'ed in a game that you are in or if you are lodging a formal cheating accusation. I really think it should be that limited.

Or you could make a ban/unban take 24 hours before it is effective. Same idea, but prevents them from at least knowing who is in the game instantly for longer join time games.

Or best yet. Compare the bannee join date against their banning date. if it is less, the player is still able to join the game so it doesn't give away that someone they just now banned is in it.

banne game join date (not site) for clarification

I think roka has a very good idea here, and would love to see it implemented.

@uclabb: since Draug suggested to make this a 1-way ban, it results a bannee can ALWAYS join ANY game he wants, the banner has to leave the game. So whoever I ban, it effects ME, not the other person! He can still join whatever game he wants!

@Draug: I got the joined date suggestion, it sounds reasonable, also I like the delayed banning, it forces people not to ban/unban without thinking it over. Or, for me, it could be up to 10 days as well, so there would be no way you'd use it to figure out who's in.

@roka- Draug's system makes me have to wait another 36 hours for my game to start. That is an incredibly inelegant solution.

@uclabb: yes, that the price you pay to be able to leave when the issue comes to having your bannee in your game. And for the record, that's a) the worst case b) only if the bannee joined after, potentially last c) there's a banner/bannee pir in the game. All this result you will have to wait another 36hours probably once out of 10 games having 36 hours phases.

Or, you can use it as auto-selfkick, so if a bannee joins the banner gets kicked out of the game immidiately (without sending notification) so the bannee doesn't see who he kicked, and no other player noticies anything since the playercount doesn't change.

So, how about auto-self kick? If I banned someone I don't bother if I get out from the game automatically.

@uclab - only if both a banner and their banned are in it, and then we could program something that would allow the banner to accept the fact that the bannee is in it,