This is just a fundamentally flawed line of thinking Dave, no offense, but when it comes to killer (which again is what this is all about for me), the mechanics are very different than the games that were available when the policies and mechanisms for ignoring users were first created.

Like I've explained to others before, the range of ways in which a player can disrupt your experiences isn't limited to what they write anymore. In killer, the way you play, LEGAL ways to play, can greatly affect the life cycle of a given game as well as the result.

Now don't get me wrong - I'll be the very first to defend the fact that any playing that game is free to decide how they wish to play and what route they believe will best serve their own chances of winning, but it also means there are more people and/or constellations of people you need to keep an eye open for.

Or if this still isn't clear, a small example:

4 players of equal skill playing killer without social relations = 25% win rate each.

The same 4 players where 3 are friends and 1 is not, and you have a very different result average.

And there's nothing wrong with that, just something you need to take into account when choosing your games.

Also an important aspect that have never been understood or at least never been taken sufficiently into account on this site:

Having good tools to let users deal with their problems don't create more conflicts.

Just like lack of such tools don't stop conflicts from arising.

Weapons never make war, nor will ever lack of weapons every stop one.

That's just a load of nonsense - do you mean 'doesn't' where you've written 'don't'? And is 'every' meant to say ever?

Seems you made perfect sense of it despite a few typos. Well done!

Now feel free to derail the topic here.

Or is that only a problem when I am the one doing it?

Can we have these retarded off topic messages removed please, including this one...

Can we please stick to the topic at hand? If you have a problem with a member, use the Contact Us option. Thank you.

I can understand where you're coming from, Jan, when it comes to Killer, but I don't think it would be functional for any other reason. And as for killer, could you not do what I've seen others do? Go into the chat rooms and ask if anyone would like to play? And if a few say yes, you have the option of looking up their stats. Otherwise, it would just make sense to make your game private and invite only those whom you'd like to play against. That's why the option of "public" and "private" is there.

Private games is one step toward what I'm looking for, but still far less practical than it may sound. Rounding up 10 people in that manner, tossing out invites east and west and have that many accept within reasonable time is so hard it's near impossible.

Also I suggest we stop talking about the term ignore, since people have quite clear ideas about what that is and what it isn't, and it is not what I'm looking for (ref. Dave's idea about clearing the list every day - which I like)

What I'm talking about here is really something else and independent of ignoring users - lets call it blocked players or similar. "Those I do not play". Which again, for normal games could easily be handled by leaving, or as you say, use private games. Just so far less practical for larger multi-player games.

How about thinking in terms of something in between public and private games - a semi-public game open to everyone except those you keep on a blacklist (dedicated to the purpose, not related to ignored users at all)?

Sounds fair to me.

There's always the conflict concern flumpy brought up earlier about some users may having issues with why a certain friend of theirs can't join etc, but that would largely be addressed by having a semi-public game type in the first place - making it blatantly apparent to everyone that the game they are joining may be subject to limitations on who are allowed in and not.

Brilliant idea - not always practical but would be in a majority situations.

How about relating this to video games? In certain games, you can set certain perimeters for the game you play - ex. In Resident Evil 5, when you're playing the story mode, you can set the game to things like "Invite Only" (in which only the people you invite can join), or "Open" (in which anyone that is online can join your game). (They use different terms, I think, but I can't remember them.) What about, in addition to that, add something like "Allow All Except Blocked Members" (in which everyone that is online can join except those you have added to your blocked list), or even "Allow Friends Only"?

When creating a game, Nick could add these features as a drop down menu or something like that.

I don't have a problem with that idea at all.

Then again, when a user gets sufficiently annoyed with another user to bother putting them on ignore in the first place, it's hardly likely that they are going to stop consider the ignored user a problem as soon as 24 hours later anyway so not really a point either.

And Katie wins the Spot On Award of 2010 Thanks!

(no irony or anything intended at all, it's a truly pleasant relief when someone gets it, it's a rare commodity these days)

That's precisely what I tried to describe a couple posts further up the page and exactly how such a feature would have to be implemented.

We already have a toggle for private vs. open, changing that into a pull-down and an enum is 5 minutes worth of work. Implementing the game mode itself, adding the list you would need to support this (unless using either of the existing lists), and adding the check when people try to enter the game is all stuff an experienced programmer like Nick does within an hour or two at most.

Adding a friends only option makes perfect sense and has been suggested quite often, but I cannot agree on the "block list" idea.

The current ignore feature takes care of any possible abusive element, whilst still letting the players partake in the game.

That only leaves one possible reason for blocking someone - because you don't like how they choose to play. Like it or not, everybody is entitled to enjoy the games in whatever way they want.

Of course, if anyone can point out another reason, go ahead

Not really a matter of likes and dislikes, but completely necessities in some games types if you want to be competitive.



Not only do I like it, I am among the first to defend any player's right to play how they please within the rules.

A very common example from killer are players who believe all players are required to play as good safeties as they can on the next player at all times - a completely retarded point of view, since playing an easy shot on the next player can often be a sound strategy toward the ultimate goal of winning the game yourself.

The "friends only" game would go a long way toward what I need, but I am a bit curious as to how you see such difference between that on one hand, and a blacklist version on the other. Two sides to the same coin in my book - would only mean I would need to keep a very large white list instead.

i im logged on so i try go into a game and it thinks im allready logged into it can anyone help me