id be suprised if this hasnt been suggested before but, i want to have a boot player button for use by the game owner only and only when a game isnt in progress. (booted to lobby only not from site) come on lets face it, there will always be the losers that wont leave or even worse stay and keep firing insults.

example, earlier i left a room 4 times cause another user wouldnt only for them to keep joining my new game. sorry to babble on but this is a very annoying issue.

sorry but i dont agree with this, we have a moderating and admin team for things like this, if there is none of us on-line then chat to that player to ty to get a chat log then send complaint to admin for them to deal with it

sometimes though, people dont curse, just say chicken and generally bore other users, i just believe this is a better alternative to the thread about creating rank limited rooms. cause lets face it, people will always have limits to how low there apponents rank can be to accept a game.

im going to have to disagree with adidas here. We are talking only in game rooms and I think that it is fair that if someone comes in at a rank which is too low or too high, then they should be able to boot them....and even boot them if they are annoying.

I dont think that people would abuse the system. I think that most people will indeed use it fairly.

It works on Yahoo Pool fine. People boot people but you can just go straight back in. I think that if (and hopefully when) that if your booted from a room, you cant play that user for say 15 minutes.

But we would have to have some form of policing. Maybe we should have a system so admins can see who has booted the most people or that you can only boot say 3 times everyday and be booted 5 times a day.

I can only see this doing good....some bad but overall it would be good.

This has been mentioned a million times before but I gotta agree with yorkie here!

Took the words right outta my mouth :)

yeah i would like it to a certain point.

as pointed out where they dont leave your room even though you say no newbies etc and a newbie comes in and stays. then do another room when they dont leave only for them to join that room!

thats when i would like to use it and like aflumpire said for about 15mins cos they might repeat the action!

This will never happen for one very simple reason. Booting someone from a game is exactly the same as leaving it yourself, which you can already do.

If you have preferences for what sort of opponent you want, then join rooms instead of creating them.

Simple really.

been mentioned to manytimes before no point really
you could just leave and create another room spinners point says it all really.


Function;)

sorry spinner but this is the first time I have to disagree with you as well. What if this person just keeps following you around? What if this person keeps pestering you all day long and where ever you go, you just can't get rid of them?? And there was no one else to play as everyone else is in the tournament?

what else could you do?? Just sit in the room and practice or leave the site?? People want to play games, not wanting to wait for a different person to play while some other guy is pestering them. With the boot feture, they are out of your face for 15 minutes and you put them on ignore.

it works in more ways then one. That are some weak points that I have made but people want the function. Shouldnt the members come first on FP??

Edited at 05:39 Tue 19/02/08 (GMT)

I think you misread what he is asking for.

I'm completely supporting the OPs idea here. The game owner is just that - the OWNER of the game. If an opponent refuses to leave when asked to, a button to toss him/her out would be good.

The reason why the game owner would want to get rid of the opponent isn't really a part of the topic at all as far as I'm concerned - the game owner should have that option available at his/her own discretion without any further cause to justify using it.

If you only added a "Boot the sucker" button, which does nothing more than move that user back to a free chat room, then yes they are the same.

However, such a mechanism would have added bonuses if you combine it with a simple timer, preventing a kicked player from re-joining a game with the same name for a small period of time - for example 1 minute.

This would competely rule out the cases where some jerk chooses to harass another player by hanging around in his games and rejoining whenever you leave and make a new one.

Never ever seen this problem myself so it can hardly be a big deal, but when it happens I can very well imagine how frustrating it must be.

By setting up your own game room, you are running the risk of ANYONE joining to play, whether they are your rank or not. You can always put the rank number as the room title, but again, if it's a public game, anyone can join. If it's a simple thing as the player not leaving, then leave and join another game, or set your game to private and invite someone to play. That way, you can play the player of your choice, and you can always create a new one when you are finished.

Katie, good points, but a few counters to this:

The common thing for all these work-arounds is that they require the "innocent" player to jump through hoops to avoid a problem created by people who choose to act like retards. Basically placing the responsbility and inconvenience where it doesn't belong.

Joining games instead of creating is often not a realistic option either. If you are looking for say a 800+ game (or whatever else), the game you are looking for often doesn't exist and has to be created. And even if such games do exist, they are most of the time filled.

And most importantly, allowing game *owners* to dictate which opponents get to stay and who don't is perfectly logical. Especially as long as the ability to filter who may join and not doesn't exist. (private games being a poor substitute to this since it limits the games to people you know.

The only possible downside to adding that feature is having to implement it.

This is a good time to mention the various options that have been suggested to let people choose who they want to play.

Making the rank of a room owner visible in the game list, with an optional filter menu to only show rooms of certain rank.

An option to list the users online, not currently playing, within a certain rank-range, with an invite to play button.

Both are excellent ideas.

Add to that list the old, rotten, stinking dead horse of allowing those who create games to define a lower rank threshold for their game, as well as the one made in this thread - and you have a pretty complete recepy for a nice x-mas gift I think

Only pity it's such a long time till christmas ;)


Most of this should be fairly light weight programming too really, without much GUI to worry about. Especially those you listed Spinner, should be very straight forward stuff.

Edited at 19:44 Tue 19/02/08 (GMT)

I like spinners 2nd idea. it has been mentioned and I have been a supporter for that as well as long that all online users are on that list.

then you could have the option to see the list: Alphabetically, who's not playing at top of the list, who is playing at the top of the list, highest rank first, lowest rank first, rank range or alphabetically reversed.

I like the idea of that list and make it so that you can not block requests unless you are ignoring that person.

The latter is out of the question tbh. People who want to be undisturbed should have that choice - like they do now. The one trying to make contact should obviously get clear feedback tho

na i dont agree with this idea as adidas said the do have a moderating and admin team

but ok, why should someone have to leave their own game room that they created because some...sucker wont leave themselves.

we create the rooms to host people play, so for that, we should have at least some control over who can come in or out of our rooms. Even if your room does say "850 plus", you may still get 700's going in there and refusing to leave becasue there isnt any other game/tournament to play in.

I think that you would have to boot and select a reason from a list. from 'Not starting game', 'Will not comply with owner of rooms terms' and 'Harassment/Swearing'.

If one were to choose Harassment/Swearing, if there were a moderator online, s/he could be notified that there is a problem and at the same time, the chat log is sent to the admin team like a 'send complaint' but I think that moderators could handle those situations.

And people wont abuse the system it if you warn them. Say that anyone who boots exsessivley will be investigated....works on Yahoo.

Which basically has nothing to do with the topic or the proposal - imo.

It's not about administrating people who misbehave. THAT we have admins/mods for.

It's about game owners being given the means to manage their games on a daily basis, the discretion to choose which opponents they wanna allow, as well as the means to enforce it when the opponents choose not to respect the game owner's desires.

Edited at 21:36 Thu 21/02/08 (GMT)