*Boots John for 'ering*

On threads like this (Where ppl cant agree) we shud all leave a simple yes or no

or even better still just cap it

They are winning because the whole point of their actions is to disrupt - that sole target is achieved at the very point you have to do something you dont wish to do



If the points for make sense if the game was starting afresh then they make sense now - how can they possibly not? It therefore certainly cannot be described as pointless surely??!!!



The argument is therefore can it be easily implemented to make it worthwhile. If it can be then no one has yet given a reasoned argument why it shouldnt be. If it wasnt easy then fine thats the end of it

I dont even understand that bit in bold!! But then again i am blonde!

Chris, sorry but it sounds a bit childish you saying they are winning...just cos they have disrutped a game....rise above it is what i say.

Because now you can get around it by just moving on and creating a room! Jeeez, can't you see how it's pointless? And won't they just keep coming back if you introduce this button anyway?
Like I said if you were starting form scratch, then it would not be so pointless because the boot option would be the idea to get rid of disruptive people and you would work aroudn it, e.g. bar people from that room, some kinda boot log for it to be processed, where as now you can just move on!!
It don't sound easy either

And them winning? I'm sure they feel so proud they got absolutely no rise out of you for you to get into trouble, and their day is complete because someone has made 2 ticks of their mouse and left them be.

Edited at 18:01 Mon 5/01/09 (GMT)

The bit in bold was from sporting's post paula - he said the points for a boot button made sense if the game programming was being written afresh now (at least I think thats what he meant - apologies if I misunderstood)

Well if they made sense then why should they not make sense now that the game is already established?

Can you think of another word apart from 'winning' because I couldnt. If you achieve your goal you have normally won in some form or another.


If you just move on and keep creating a new room they can keep coming back unless you made it private (the starter of the thread explained why he didnt want to do that!!)

if you boot to the chat room they would be barred from re-entering that room - job done

This is really a pointless argument as its something that relies totally on whether the game creator (nick) believed it was worth his time and effort at the end of the day

Edited at 18:04 Mon 5/01/09 (GMT)

Ahh right.

Yeah i know what you mean by 'winning' but i'd rather create another game and let them 'win' than stoop to their level and argue.

As i said, we are always going to get these type of ppl and even though you said the novelty sake would only be short term, it would still happen, you WILL get ppl 'booting' for the sake of it.



Yep, cos he hated doing it!.........oh and not all games are planned!

I get getting beat but it happens

Edited at 18:10 Mon 5/01/09 (GMT)

No argument required with a one click button

bit unfair there paula - he said he hated doing a private room just to avoid the undesirable element attending to annoy him - thats not quite the same as simply saying he hated to create a private room

I hear you Christopher

JGS opinion...No Boot Button

no, it shouldnt. But say a user boots people a hell of a lot, then they should be investigated

Oh come on at least read? I got to creating 17 different rooms before i logged off from frustration because of the idiot that kept joining and wouldn't take no for an answer... He kept joining and there was nothing at all that i could do about it.

There you have it. As before, simplest solution is to 1) allow a room where the creator can invite a player to play although anyone can spectate, or 2) allow the creator to relegate to the status of spectator. Then the idiot might just rejoin the room as a player, but at least he can be kept at arm's length.

So the player who is inconvenienced by a disruptive player should be the one having to take further inconvenience to resolve it? That's a .... well great... policy. (sorry for the sharp tongue, but needed to illustrate the point)

The ownership aspect is obviously a matter of opinion and definition, and based on the definition you just gave, there is, unfortunately, nothing more to discuss.

Frankly, Kev, how many times do we need to point out WHY leaving and creating a new game is a poor option before people hear it?

For games pertaining two players and nothing more, this isn't a big deal.

For all other games, where you either have more players and/or spectators, moving to a new game IS a big deal and a very poor solution - most of all because it makes the offending player the "winner" while putting all the good guys at inconvenience - which in turn serves as a further incentive for disruptive players to remain just that - since they actually achieve something through behaving abusively.

I find it amazing how most staff seem to content with a system that caters to the abusive party, at the expense of everyone else. (obviously making a point of this, we are hardly talking about the end of the world, but you get the idea - hopefully)

My thoughts precisely.

People seem to be fine with the idea of private games being closed to the public and being at the discretion of the game creator.

This type of room would just be another version of that - addressing the many problems pointed out in this thread.