I was just trying to play a league game. SO I created a room called League Game and made it public so other people could come and watch.

But a guest came to play, started abusing me and what not and left. But just before I could jump in to play again, another person came.

he refused to leave and so on so on. After a 5 minute stand off, we all eventually left.

So we made a private room and life goes on.

But I hate having to always create a private room just so I dont get the people that annoy us.

I know this has been mentioned before, but I think that the owner of the game room should be allowed to boot un wanted people.

Yes, I could just play in private rooms...but sometimes not all games are planned; so its also good if someone that you just refuse to play (becasue you dont like them) keeps stalking you.

As i said before i got thrashed in the game Make a private game anyway if you know its going to be a league game thats the point of private games so unwanted people don't interrupt

Booting people will just cause arguments i think

i will 2nd that,, there is no need for a boot button at all, will cause nothing but grief all round

I think it's safe to say it will be mis-used, more often than not aswell.

Also, you need booting to be relevant. If someone refuses to leave a room you created, and you decide to boot them, they've done not one thing that breaks the rules. They are more than entitled to stay in that room, if you like it or not. It's just such a silly idea (no offence) Trouble will double !

As has been mentioned before, you can just create a private room, or if they abuse you send a complaint, move on...
and if you are keen to avoid arguements and want to avoid trouble then you would just do so, move on and create another room and kill all possible trouble there and then, in a click of your mouse.

Edited at 01:28 Fri 2/01/09 (GMT)

aflumpire when it comes 2 guests u can always create a ranked game only cause then the guests can't get in.
if it's members at a rank u don't like then set the allowed ranking, simple as that.

The scenario aflumpire described was a league game mate but good points there for different situations!

Have the other guy ready to receive an invite. Then open his PM button, and as soon as the room is created, click his "invite to play" button and he'll jump right in.

I was there and i did see the abuse he got,no need for it though.. (I admit i was laughing and am sorry but i cant help it and everyone knows that i laugh at anything / nothing or meslef :$...i was laughing at flumpy..god he was stressed LOL)

As Topsy sed, you can make a private room and although it annoys you, 'tonly takes a min (LMAO @ 'tonly!)

I also think a boot button would get abused.


~Piggy~

Yeah you were only there because you left me to play i spy on my own :O

This is my opinion on this:

Game creators/owners are just that - OWNERS.

It means you should have the right (and technical means) to create a room where people CAN join to play or view, BUT still have the discretion of removing people who for one reason or another is a problem.

The single thing a game owner should clearly not be able to do, is to boot an active player once a game is started.

Since a boot-to-chat-room button is less than likely to ever happen tho, how about this, as an intermediate solution: A semi-private game option, where anyone can join as spectators, but active player(s) must be invited?

Edited at 17:19 Fri 2/01/09 (GMT)

It would clearly need to be disabled once a game is started, but otherwise how can it be abused at all?

Game creators already have the option of choosing between 100% control over who is allowed on the room, vs. no control at all. This would simply be something in between.

I disagree with this. We are not talking about booting people from the game here, only out of a room the game owner has ownership and management over. Therefore, it has no ties to rules at all.

The game owner should have full discretion as to who is allowed to remain in his/her own room. There is no need to justify boots from a game room, beyond the fact that the game owner does not want you there anymore.

For some reason, people seem to have a lot of angst towards allowing game owners to boot others from their room, yet at the same time seem to have no problems what so ever accepting the same control when it comes to private rooms.

Just because a game is created as a public one doesn't have to imply that anyone and everyone has a "right" to be there.

The best option in any case would probably be a third option tho, between private and public, where everyone knows that the game owner has the ability to boot. This option should be the default privacy setting, and would definitely be best suited for league games like the one af mentioned in this thread.

Edited at 17:20 Fri 2/01/09 (GMT)

Or how about, in a public game, the right of the game owner to relegate the unwanted player to the status of spectator?

Functionally though, this would be the same as janmb's idea, the intermediate option of allowing anyone to watch but only an invitee could play. Which I like.

I meant you'd get ppl booting others just for the sake of it, minor reasons if ya like:
"Oh i dnt like him/her!! He/she called me blah blah the other day,owner, can you boot them? im more ur mate than they are"..that type of thing

(If that makes sense)

The option best suited to league games is just to make a private room, invite, play. What is so difficult?
You know exactly who you're playing, you don't want to play anyone else, so just create a prviate room and get the show on the road.

Paula is right. People will just use it for the wrong reason.
There seems to be some obession with 'booting players' on online games. You will have people creating rooms, waiting for someone to come in or invite them to come in, then boot. Him/her will probably make a game out of it with their mate!

Think of the trouble it will cause, invited to play, you go, then someone boots you because that's what they set out to do anyway. The abuse that will fly around in PM's, the threads about it being mis-used, it will just cause more trouble than solve, especially when the option to create a private room is there.

I see no problem with that. Game owners shouldn't have to justify why they don't want a particular player in their room at all.

A game room, imo, differs from public chat rooms in the sense that the game room, and the right to be there, belongs to the game owner and should be completely at his/her discretion.

Edited at 22:32 Sat 3/01/09 (GMT)

The starter of this thread specified precisely why a completely private game was not desirable - and I completely agree with him.

I really have yet to see anyone give any proper reason for being opposed to a semi-private game room alternative. People accept private and public rooms without giving it a second thought - so why is it so hard to relate to having a middle way?



Since no reason should be required, no reason would be a wrong one either.




Then choose to stay away from semi-private games.... Just like you would stay away from any existing game type you don't prefer for whatever reason... No problem here at all.




Easily solved by a simple flooding filter, limiting the number of times any one player can remove people from his/her game room every day. Besides, players who make games with the single purpose of disrupting would be easily singled out, both by staff and the community in general, just like any other sort of abuse is.


The bottom line for me is that a game room belongs to the creator of that game, as should the privilege of deciding who gets to be there or not - without having to make it completely private.

Creating a public game with the intention of allowing spectators etc, just to see it getting disrupted by an abusive player is quite a common issue. Private games is a poor solution to that, since it hurts all the would-be decent spectators for that game.

"Creating a public game with the intention of allowing spectators etc, just to see it getting disrupted by an abusive player is quite a common issue. Private games is a poor solution to that, since it hurts all the would-be decent spectators for that game."

You have a very valid point. But It's naive to think that people will just stay away from these semi-private rooms and not use them to cause extra trouble.
You're right, they will get caught out, but only via the complaint feature, which means the damage is already done, so really it's causing as much trouble as it's solving. (Not sure if that makes sense, ermm - whilst you can get rid of the abusive people coming to your game, people will be using it just for little games and the boot function alone, think that makes it clearer)

I'm just of the opinion that it's pointless, it'll cause as much trouble as it solves.

The point that was brought was directed towards league matches, if you're playing a league match you invite the people who want to watch, you invite the player, and your sorted. People who are not involved pop in for a quick look and stay for no more than 1 minute(usually because they're there by mistake) bar the very odd occasion of course. So I can't see how the private room fucntion "hurts all the would-be decent spectators for that game."

I really don't follow you on how it could cause problems of any kind at all.

Only the game owner would obviously be granted the power to remove players and spectators from his/her room, and equally obviously - only when a game is currently not on-going.

A removed player would be given a quarantine of N minutes before being able to join a game with the same game owner again, preventing removed players from re-entering the room to yell about it.


The only possible problem I see with this concept is that some players can get (unjustified) grumpy from getting remove from a game room - but that's a problem with how people perceive a game room - it's not a public arena, it belongs to the game owner.

I'm talking about non-invited players who often pop in to watch for a while, when the game is public.

In a private game, that is limited to those getting invites - which is also a hassle the players/game creator shouldn't have to deal with when preparing to play an important match.

This will be an even more relevant issue if/when we get the ability to start watching tables from on-going frames, since that undoubtedly will make viewing games more interesting and more available.