It is currently inadequate
  • 24 posts
  • Page 1 of 2
vikingo1337 wrote:
Adding players to your Avoid List should not only block those players from joining games you create. It should also:

- block them from joining games you are in that are still waiting for players
- block them from sending you private messages
- block them from writing in the game chat of any of your games
- block them from seeing your posts in the forum
- block them from inviting you to games (is this already in effect?)
- block them from checking out your profile – or display a limited version of it
- block them from seeing when you're online.

Why? Because clearly these are players you want to avoid – not interact with. In games and elsewhere on this site.
"The brave man well shall fight and win, though dull his blade may be."
~Fafnismal 28
JCUK wrote:
I fully support this, the avoid function is what keeps me coming back to this site over others.
JCUK is online.
Matty wrote:
"block them from joining games you are in that are still waiting for players"
This is one that I very strongly disagree with. Just because you don't want to play with them, doesn't mean then shouldn't be able to join a game they want to play.

"block them from seeing your posts in the forum"
I quite strongly disagree with this one as well. Not being able to read a forum post can make a thread read really weird. Apart from that even non-logged in players can read the forum (barring the premium forum), so in most cases this isn't even possible. (and no, I'm not going to make the d12 forums private).

"block them from checking out your profile – or display a limited version of it"
I wonder a bit why you would want this? Also, most of this information is public information, so they can check it out anyways.

"block them from seeing when you're online."
This one also has the 'but guests can see it' problem, but I actually agree with this one. And that also means that guests should no longer be able to see this. Opinions?

- "block them from sending you private messages"
- "block them from writing in the game chat of any of your games"
- "block them from inviting you to games (is this already in effect?)"

Agreed
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
sfclimbers wrote:
"block them from joining games you are in that are still waiting for players"
This is one that I very strongly disagree with. Just because you don't want to play with them, doesn't mean then shouldn't be able to join a game they want to play.


I'm with vikingo1337 on this one. If somebody got there first, why should they be the one to get kicked out when a bad actor arrives? It's clear that one of the pair needs to be prevented from playing. So, why favor the person that is being avoided. I suspect that in the majority of cases they are being avoided for a reason. Perhaps the formula should be to give preference to the one who is least avoided, thereby ensuring a higher quality game?
sfclimbers wrote:
Following up, a spiteful person being avoided could just spend the whole day joining games their victim joins, then leave, continuously preventing the victim from ever getting to play (until the victim creates their own game or manages to be the final person to join a game). Seems like preference is being given to the wrong person.
Cireon wrote:
The avoided player has no choice in being avoided. That means you can avoid a player, quickly join all games, and completely block that player from playing, and there is nothing you can do about it. Sure, the avoided player can join all your games and kick you out, but then there's a solution: stop avoiding that player. The avoid list isn't meant to be used lightly, and this is a conscious choice in the design to force you to make that trade-off.
“This is how humans are: We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question.”
- Speaker for the Dead, O.S. Card
Matty wrote:
Yes, you make choices for yourself, not for someone else. If you don't like to play with someone, that's fine, but it means you have to change something. No "I want no to play with him, so he has to change things".

If you avoid a player, it means you don't want to play games with him. So if he joins a game he wants to play and you happen to be in it, we do you a favor and make you leave the game that you now no longer want to play (before the game starts and you have to play it out or risk being impolite).

If they abuse this by joining games just to kick you, than you can report it with a moderator or admin.
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
sfclimbers wrote:
That means you can avoid a player, quickly join all games, and completely block that player from playing, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Not true. There is a limit to the number of games anyone can participate in at once. Either way, as pointed out by Matty, spiteful game joining can be reported.

Anyway, it's clear that there is an ideological difference. I don't think either of our arguments are going to convince the other. So, I'll say no more.
vikingo1337 wrote:
@Matty @Cireon @JCUK @sfclimbers

Thank you for your feedback.

"Yes, you make choices for yourself, not for someone else. If you don't like to play with someone, that's fine, but it means you have to change something. No "I want no to play with him, so he has to change things"."

I agree with the whole personal responsibility part, but it works both ways. It doesn't seem right that someone, who may already have been wronged by another player, is punished on top of that by being kicked from a game he joined first simply for trying to avoid said player... and then has to explain himself to a moderator to rectify things? It's a little upside down.

"The avoided player has no choice in being avoided. That means you can avoid a player, quickly join all games, and completely block that player from playing, and there is nothing you can do about it. Sure, the avoided player can join all your games and kick you out, but then there's a solution: stop avoiding that player."

The "locked out" argument is valid, but you cannot block more than six games at a time if you have a basic account (most in here do), whereas the avoided player can indeed, theoretically, kick you out of every pending, non-PW game you're in. (Or boot you out of a single game that has taken weeks or even months to fill up.) In addition, with a basic account you can only block ten players at the same time due to the shorter length of the avoid list, so chances are you will not be able to keep out that many players from that many games. Unless, of course, a player is on a lot of avoid lists, in which case perhaps it is he or she who should change something, and not the other way around?

"If they abuse this by joining games just to kick you, than you can report it with a moderator or admin."

As for involving a moderator, I doubt that all players who are bothered by this problem are prepared to take things further every time, seeing as: 1) The outcome is unknown. 2) Doing so may make matters worse cf. historical grievances. 3) The costs outweigh the benefits, especially seeing as you'd have to do it multiple times with multiple players and moderators. This could well be one of those problems that is a recurring issue to a lot of players yet underreported to the staff for those exact reasons. Or maybe the conflicts spill over into the live game chat, escalating things further. Moreover, involving the staff would take up time from other things they could be working on. A (better) automated solution is desirable.

"Anyway, it's clear that there is an ideological difference. I don't think either of our arguments are going to convince the other. So, I'll say no more."

Disagreement may help us find a solution that factors in both the interests of the avoiding player and the avoided player. One improvement could be to allow shared avoid lists for team games, meaning that anyone who is on my partner's list is also on my list for this exact game, but not in any other games (so the partner can play the avoided player elsewhere). Just to name one example. Another solution, which is related but a little off-topic, could be to give us the opportunity to choose between permanent blocks or temporary ones (3, 6, 12 months) via a drop-down menu when adding a player to the avoid list. In effect, temporary blocks would expire after a while, whereupon the avoided player would be automatically removed from the list. Why? Because transgressions differ, and some people might forget who's on their avoid list and why, leading to unnecessary blocked games and kicked players.

"block them from checking out your profile – or display a limited version of it"
"I wonder a bit why you would want this? Also, most of this information is public information, so they can check it out anyways."

Privacy. People actually stalk each other in here, for whatever reason. Maybe it could be a user setting: "Limit profile for players on avoid list: ( X )". The same goes for the public.

"block them from seeing when you're online."
"This one also has the 'but guests can see it' problem, but I actually agree with this one. And that also means that guests should no longer be able to see this. Opinions?"

Glad to see I have your support in this regard. Yes, a solution would have to be both internal and public.

- "block them from sending you private messages"
- "block them from writing in the game chat of any of your games"
- "block them from inviting you to games (is this already in effect?)"

"Agreed"

Great. I hope it gains more traction and is implemented.
"The brave man well shall fight and win, though dull his blade may be."
~Fafnismal 28
sfclimbers wrote:
vikingo1337 touched upon something that I've wished for, but have not requested; The ability to provide a note to myself as to why I have avoided someone. As time passes, I lose track of why someone is on the list. There have been several occasions when I removed them so that I could join a game, only to have the game ruined by yet another occurrence of the bad behavior that caused them to be put on my list in the first place.

Depending on the offense I might be more willing to remove them from the avoid list, either for a single game or permanently. Examples for why I personally avoid people are:
  • Excessive swearing, juvenile/abusive use of chat
  • History of ruining games due to emotional/retaliatory play, murder suicide
  • History of missed turns
  • History of early resignation from multi-player games as soon the dice turn on them
  • Rarely, simply because their quality of game play is so poor as to throw a game due to predictably bad moves (especially in capitals)

A player that has had time to improve their play, or improve their attendance, etc. would be someone worth re-engaging with. The others clearly detract from the experience of the site. Placing consideration for the abusers above that of the victims does not make sense to me. Rather than reinforcing that bad behavior has consequences, it ensures that petty, abusive, un-sportsman like behavior is tolerated, at least up to the point that enough people decide to complain about an individual to the point of them being reprimanded/banned.

In a perfect world, the two ideas would be merged:
1. Support selecting from a predefined list of reasons for avoiding.
2. Prevent avoided players from joining a game (as opposed to kicking out the victim), providing the bad actor with the list of grievances for why they are being avoided (e.g. "You cannot join because one or more players are avoiding you due to: Foul language, Murder suidice". I think that would properly favor the people that support the level of conduct desired, while at the same time giving a clear message to the avoided players how they might want to adjust their use of the site.

I can certainly see reasons such as "they're just a really bad player" should not necessarily prevent someone from joining in favor of the "superior" player. But, the other reasons have merit, in my eyes. Providing an "Other" option in the reasons to avoid (with ability to fill in the blank for personal use only) would be useful and perhaps not be used when deciding whether to exclude someone from the game vs. kicking out the person doing the avoiding. For the more concretely justifiable reasons to avoid someone (language, habitual resignation, etc.), those make sense to favor the victim over the bad actor.

And, yeah, so much for not saying anything more! LOL.
Virtuosity98 wrote:
sfclimbers
vikingo1337 touched upon something that I've wished for, but have not requested; The ability to provide a note to myself as to why I have avoided someone.
There is currently no designated way to keep personal notes on D12, except for game notes inside the games themselves. In the thread about a suggested Notes page, it was recommended that you send yourself a PM called "NOTES", make it sticky so it stays at the top of your inbox, and add to it when you need to. Although not completely perfect for the function you describe, it would work.
It is now Day 8. Please submit your Lynch vote, as well as any Role-specific Day actions you wish to perform (countdown).
Day Actions:
• #LYNCH [player], #NO LYNCH, #ABSTAIN in forum thread.
• Role-specific actions (via PM with V98).





Investigator wrote:
Impossible to join long term games when an avoided player joins every single one

I understand non member can only join/play 5 for free. Make it 50 for premium members. More than enough

jkl3699 wrote:
Investigator
Impossible to join long term games when an avoided player joins every single one

I understand non member can only join/play 5 for free. Make it 50 for premium members. More than enough


I have seen many with more than 50 games at one time. If you're paying for the service, you should get all of the full features of the game so long as the systems can support it. If you're not getting full access, what's the point of paying?
Matty wrote:
vikingo1337
"block them from checking out your profile – or display a limited version of it"
"I wonder a bit why you would want this? Also, most of this information is public information, so they can check it out anyways."

Privacy. People actually stalk each other in here, for whatever reason. Maybe it could be a user setting: "Limit profile for players on avoid list: ( X )". The same goes for the public.
What information from your profile do you consider privacy invasive?
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria