I find it annoying when you join a game, click the rack to play then the other player just idles for ages. Granted they may be taking a toilet break or getting a drink but some just take the mick. Can there be some kind of time limit applied to idling when one player has clicked the rack to start the game?

~Domi~

Good point but how long??

I would say 1 minitue to respond. Thats long enough!! I only ever wait 30 secs tops

Dont know, has to be long enough to let the person get a drink or so. But if they know they will be away for a bit, for example having a cig, they shouldnt idle in the room as a player. So they could be forced back to the chat room or members bar after about 2mins.

~Domi~

Often they are just waiting for you to go, because they don't want to play you (eh, not just you personally domi )

They could just politely ask you to leave, but often that leads to an argument no matter how politely it's put.

As much as many people disagree with selective playing, it should probably be the responsibility of the person who has entered the room to get the message and leave.

Edited at 13:05 Sat 31/03/07 (BST)

I find it's mainly guests and friendly games. So the whole ranking doesnt apply. Usually if I havent got fed up and left because Im in the background doing something else then they'll eventually start the game. Giving some excuse like "I was in msn and forgot I was on here" ect.

Frustrating when you join game after game just to have people idling in them all.

I agree with this 100%

I believe after 30 seconds if someone doesn't decide, the game should just start.

After all, why would you be in a game room if you dont want to play?

Exactly. If you're afk then leave the room.

True! Maybe I do agree with you domi.

I just don't know.

I don't anything anymore

EDIT: Actually I do. I think a decline/room-boot button, combined with a room idle auto boot would be great.

Edited at 13:34 Sat 31/03/07 (BST)

Uh-oh, not the boot button again!

Seriously, as discussed (many times, and not just by me!) letting people boot from a room would inevitably be abused, especialy by the numberjunkies.

After all, its just as simple to leave the room, and you can already do that.

Yes, this happens to me alot and it is really annoying. As Martin said, it's mainly because they don't want to play you and thats fair enough, but if they don't tell you that, you get annoyed. What I tend to do is, wait 30 seconds, then put " Game?" wait an extra 10 seconds, then PM them just incase they don't have the page up in front of them. Then if they still don't answer, i just leave. In some cases, i have been asked to leave, and Martin said being asked to leave can lead to arguements, but in my view, it's poilte. I'm backing this all the way.

That's not fair when you create a room saying "750 or over" and a newbie at 675 enters and doesn't leave. In that case you have 30 seconds to get out of the room you created yourself.

Maybe it shouldnt apply to ranked games?

I find that members playing ranked games are more civil and take the game more seriously than guest or friendly games. I don't join games specified above my rank so not sure about tackling those situations.

~Domi~

Exactly, so you dont hog the room.

This particular subject has been debated many times, so no point in going over it again, but it seems fair that the minority of picky people should be the ones looking for rooms that suit them, rather than the other way round.

This would obviously be helped if the idea of displaying a room owners rank were adopted.

Hadn't realized it was discussed previously. Sorry.

discussed previously or not its still a major issue

my opinion is that the creator of the room has op power over the room he/she created (Like IRC) ... if a user joins for messing ... the room op can boot them.. BUT! if they are in a game then the same rules apply as normal, The winner (at the time gets the points)

no game start = no points gained or lost

this will save Ratbags joining my room and idling so that others cant join and play.

EOF

Edited at 00:10 Mon 2/04/07 (BST)

As wolfie said, it doesn't matter if its been discussed before, as a fresh approach is always good.

The flaw in your plan wolfie, so to speak, is that no user has more "right" to a public game than another, regardless of who created it.

Thats what the private game option is for.

Indeed this thread is about the people who create games but then just sit in them and dont play, which is just the same as someone sitting in a game and booting people till they get a player that suits them - hence my suggestion that after 30 seconds or so the game should just start.

If someone is being picky about who they play, it's just common sense that they be the one doing the searching, not the other way round.

Edit for speeliong. Its late.. or maybe early..

Edited at 01:02 Mon 2/04/07 (BST)

lmao spinner.... edit for speeliong sorry man had to have a laugh at that

Yeah, this was a point I had made earlier with "Let the members boot" thread. After consideration, I agree with spinner, auto start.

Spinner - hence my suggestion that after 30 seconds or so the game should just start.

But that's more-or-less going back to the way it was in the first place, when you'd nip into the kitchen and come back to find a game had started.

Complaints about that system were why the start game button was introduced in the first place. I appreciate a 30 sec delay would be better than the instant original, but only marginally.

It's not all about rank-picky players either. There are abusive players who people don't want to play and they should have the option to refuse the abusive player without having to move rooms.

And even if players are picky about rank, if they've gone to the trouble to create an 'over 750' room, it's surely the 670 who enters the room who's acting inconsiderately, not the room-owner.

As for the decline/room-boot button, I now think it would be a far less confrontational way to say a simple no, and won't cause the disagreements that arise now.

Edited at 10:29 Tue 3/04/07 (BST)