AVOID LIST

First come first get is not fair because of the different time zones. In some cases one player will always get to join the fun games nikeboix69 creates before a player on their avoid list because they live in the same time zone while the other player is asleep.

But in live games I can see that first come first get would be more fair.

So this is what I propose:

In live games a player on your avoid list cannot join if you have already joined.

In long term games if you did not create the game and are not premium then you will be removed from the game if a player on your avoid list joins. But if you did create the game or are premium then they will not be able to join.

Non premium players will also be limited on the size of their avoid list. Probably only 5 players. Premium players will be limited as well, probably to 15 players because we want you to choose carefully who you won't play with and if too many players are on these lists then there won't be enough games being played.


@tramadol, doesn't post #2 answer your last question?

Yes I read this, but my question could have been better worded, I meant is this just a proposal to have for Players to use or is it action pending as in, is it being programmed for us?
Is it going to stay as a staff only tool?
After reading it a few more times it appears that it is intended for use by the players themselves, but not yet. Sorry for my confusing question.
@Vexer's last Post, nice compromise, very fair!
At present, I can only think of 2 players that might go on there and that would only be because I don't want to be sworn at when I say "hi".

I talked to Fendi and she wants this to be a premium only feature as arguably all new features should be. That would certainly simplify things on the programming end because I would only have to program it to work one way.

I really like the premium have the ability to block. I get the point of not excluding players from a game you did not create, which sounds amazing in theory.

But now imagine the type of players that will be "avoided". Just based on the premise, these will be players with trolling tendencies. Suicide, vulgar language, bad play, but not in small doses... someone that has repeated such actions to the point of never wanting to play them again. That same type of player would also probably be inclined, once aware of their avoided status, join games just to kick the other player that has them avoided. So say Tram avoids JohnDoe1 for heckling and bad play and then being pretty vocal about his dislike for tram. The proposed system would then allow JohnDoe1 (made up name obviously) to stalk tram and join every game he joins kicking him out, just as a form of trolling. I will call this "troll kicking" for reference.

Obviously in this case, JohnDoe1 should be warned or banned. But again, that's more complaints, more admins stepping in, more situations of conflict and resolution and workload for d12 staff where the intent of this is obviously to avoid that between players that have and always will butt heads.

My third option: (hopefully i can be helpful and not just critical)
A. Two non premium members. Player1 avoids player2 - this should work exactly like Vexer's proposal. Add just a bit of code that counts the times the avoiding player is kicked by the avoided player, so it flags potential troll kicking automatically, and the avoided player can be warned.

B. Player 1 is premium, avoids Player 2 non premium. Player 1 is given the option to leave a game he did not create when player 2 joins by prompt. If he or she is a good sport, they can leave and allow the game to exclude players from a game they did not create. Player 2 cannot join games player 1 creates.

C. Both players premium. Creator of the game is given the option of which player stays, with third random option which picks with pseudo random number generator as to not cause creator any conflict of interest or retaliation from two conflicted players.

Seems intricate - but it's not too crazy. Just would like to avoid "troll kicking"

I second this!!

@cbt711, this has been partially amended by the following:-
Therefore, only the bold italic part of Post #16 applies!

Not necessarily Tram, he was just spit balling the idea in post 16. All I get from post 18 is that this entire feature will be restricted to Premium. How it is implemented doesn't seem to be set in stone by any means.

I say if you start the game, avoided player can't join. If another player started game, then first in to the game gets to stay by default with the creator of the game having the option to pick between the two.

Yes I agree, all these are proposals and amended proposals, however, it was previously proposed:
So it was already suggested that it would be this way, before the amended suggestions, which were all adaptations of this.
I see them as building blocks and follow the progress that way, so even though I know it's not set in stone, this is why I said that only the bold italic in Post #16 (quote) above applies.

Firstly, I think that having the Creator make the decision of who to boot and keep, wouldn't be applicable if the Vexer suggestions & Fendi instructions become the way it works and if it changes and this becomes an option, I don't believe it would be fair for another player to decide; you'll either be getting cast aside on a whim or you'll get dropped by those that have favourites/preferences. Please bare in mind that these current proposals do not allow the ability for Troll Kicking.
Secondly, I see diversity as what keeps D12 interesting and would not encourage avoiding players in the first place (apart from whilst you await their ban for whatever reason (dangerous players) or for perpetual antagonists).
I see this as an 'attractive' Premium feature & something which may be very handy for some players and something that in its current proposal condition, would encourage more new premium members.

The thing I am trying to figure out now is what to do if both players are premium but neither created the game. First to join stays? But then you get the problem of the player who wakes up first takes all the good games. I'd rather not have to program it for the game creator to make the decision because that would delay the starting of the game and would not be easy to code. Choosing randomly just doesn't appeal to me though it is a valid solution.

Then you make it a token bidding war!

No because then you would have something to do with all those tokens!

I don't think it matters vexer as long as it is out out there as the rule. If you don't like the idea of missing out on some games, then don't use the avoid feature! It has its purpose but that is part of the feature. I say first in stays if both premium. It removes the possibility of troll kicking entirely. If it becomes an issue based on time zones, it could be revisited but if you state "this is how it is if you avoid someone" then I they can't complain bc they saw that and used the feature knowing that's part of it.

@lifeinpixels, LOL Again with the too many tokens thing!
If I was a programmer, I'd make a token donation page where those that have way more than they will ever need can donate to a player of their choosing that has applied for them to rank up or enter certain maps with premium friends! A good way to make allies friends too, I would imagine!

@Vexer, I have a suggestion!
Working on the current proposal of this being a Premium Option only.

Not too many premium players will or should be avoiding other premium players unless there is a really good reason and I refer back to my earlier suggestion of only allowing premium players on anyone's avoid list if they have a justified reason to avoid them, not just to be picky or choosey! This would mean that there has to have been an official report against the chosen avoided player by the avoiding player. Therefore they would have a good reason to not be in a game with that player and therefore they would get precidence over the avoided player due to them being a rule breaker.

So the rule could be; you can't avoid another premium player unless they previously broke the rules and you reported them!

This would greatly reduce the number of players being avoided & encourage players to keep their nose clean by losing their full privileges in being able to join any game at any time with certain players that they deliberately caused a problem to.
And for non-premium players, they would have to leave any game you are already in anyway so the conditions for avoiding these should be as previously proposed, i.e. you can avoid any of them (up to a maximum) and they are unable to avoid premium players, making the 'who gets to stay in the game' a lot simpler, apart from the fact that you have to code the premium players Avoid List to check for previously reported premium players and using the same system I think I read earlier, to base it on X amount of games or time so as to allow that player to be forgiven / change their ways and if reoffending or bitter, report them again and if justified, avoid them again.

Well, the token idea is doable (and funny) but too much to program.

I think tramadol has it right. If you want to avoid a premium player than you have to have reported them in their last 100 games and have had that reported duplicated by another player or moderator.

That makes it simple because then it only works one way. If you are on a player's avoid list then you cannot join a game that they are in regardless of whether or not they created the game.

Another idea we have had is to block the players on your list from even watching the game or viewing the chat. When they try to view the game all they will see is a map and a message stating that they cannot view the game because they are on a player's avoid list. I have thought about making these games not even listed in the lobby but it might be more effective for them to see the games they cannot join to remind them to play with respect, otherwise they get left out.

how would you go about taking them off the avoid list if the two parties kiss and make up?

don't worry, that will be on the same screen. You would enter their username and check the 'remove' box before hitting submit.

I've also considered having an expiration so that you have to re-add them after a period of time. I'm not sure how long would be appropriate. But at the same time if you are limited in the size of your list then you'll eventually have to remove someone.