SpielByWeb

[hagin]

I'm reticent to start yet another thread on this issue but, frankly, the issue is bigger than karma points, ignore lists and whatever other suggestions have been proposed over the weeks, months and years.

I'm going to draw comparisons to BSW and how games form there. I expect many of you have played on BSW but, for that that haven't, it works like this:

There are rooms for each game. This is to do with the meta-game that I know little about but basically all you need to know is, if you want to play a particular game, you can. Theres no supply issue (same as here).

When you want to play a game you can either join an open room (game) or open a new room. When you open a room you set options such as what variant to play, whether or not play order is random ("drawseat"), etc. Theres an important option called "host". When you enable this, only the first player (who opened the room) can change the options and start the game (otherwise anyone can).

The point is that on BSW you never have to game with anyone you don't want to. If you start a game, you can start it in host mode and just don't start it if someone you don't want to play with joins. Likewise, if you join a game and someone you don't want to play with joins after you, you can just leave.

If you play enough you can even kick people from games.

Now if BSW were to adopt a system similar to what we have here the result would be that you open a new game and then have no control over who joins and couldn't change your mind or reject anyone. Once that game starts, you are compelled to play it to the end and if you don't you get banned.

I can tell you that if you proposed such a system there there would be an outcry and rightly so. It's ridiculous.

When proposals are made here to give people more control over who they game with, you get a lot of people who raise the specter of "discrimination" (that word was used in another thread). One notable poster described it as just another way to exclude the fat kid in gym class.

Yet in spite of all the control you have on BSW it's incredibly easy to get a game.

Interestingly, when I phrased the question regarding ignore lists in terms of "if you want this feature or simply don't care that it exists, vote yes, otherwise vote no", a number of people (who were definite "no" voters) then basically abused someone for voting yes because they dind't care if the feature was there or not.

Do I need to point out the irony of those paranoid about exclusion are so quick to jump to bullying?

Other people have simply wanted a way to get faster games. When they (rightly) suggest that fewer, faster games are better than more, slower games (for many reasons), they are again shot down on the grounds of the nebulous threat of exclusion. These people think that you can keep your mind on 100 games at once that have a turn every 2 weeks.

This brings me to two games I set up: Surf n Turf 55 and 56. Frankly I was disgusted at the disingenuous bad-sportsmanlike behaviour demonstrated by a player in another game that I asked him not to joint any of my future games. He did anyway (I think to spite me), so I am now forced to play out those games.

I have no control over this short of passwording games. In response, I have asked the admins to delete those games. I haven't taken a single move and don't plan to. If they don't then I will take a leaf out these forums from the people who say that slower games are fine.

I will take a turn in these two games, if forced, every 4 weeks.

Any other games I'm in I shall continue to play as quickly as I ever have.

This is within the acceptable play limits as defined by the policies on this site and seem to be acceptable to those arguing against faster play so let's see how it plays out to take a year to play those two games.

I feel so strongly about the issue of greater choice in who you play with that between a few bad apples amongst the vast majority of excellent gamers SBW has, I'd rather be banned or simply not play here over this issue.

I'm honestly dumbstruck that there are so many people insecure about being left out that they need to band together and force people to play with them. The fact is, if you're a decent person or a decent player and are willing to put in a turn in day or two (even skipping weekends), you'll get all the games you want. Personally I don't need to play a whole game of Reef Encounter in one night but I can certainly see how some might so why not let them have greater ability to do so?

What's particularly amusing for me is that I'm sure that many of those arguing against greater freedom for gamers are American. But I guess that the hypocrisy of "freedom as long as you live by my rules" shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone by now.

[Rebelslayer]

An interesting post. I have been one of the outspoken naysayers against the changes you and a very small subset of players have suggested for one very simple reason that still seems to escape you so I will try again:

THE ADMIN AND CODERS OF THIS SITE HAVE LITTLE TIME TO CODE ANYTHING, AND I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE A NEW GAME RATHER THAN THESE CHANGES!

I too have played on BSW (well over 1000 games). It is a realtime site with games finishing in 1 sitting for those who haven't tried it. 1/10 of the longer games like caylus, fursten, funkenslag etc DON'T end as one opponent quits. Even short games (10-15 mins) like Sant Petersburg 1/20 games will end with your opponent quitting as they are going to lose. This have become so frustrating to me that I click the host button and only accept starting a game with someone I have specifically checked will stay and play it out (and in fact I don't play that many games there now due to this issue). I won't say that overall the players there are rude, but you are far more likely to get abused on that site than here (notably once in St Petersburg for taking 9mins to complete a game when I had asked for a fast game, and my opponent felt that 7mins was fast! ... if you know St P, most games take over 10mins). The playing community here is far more likely to help a new player learn a game and support them. The interminable tournaments that are being set up to increase everyone's list of opponents they know well enough to ask for a game shows that!

You cannot compare a real time site to a play by email.

If the coders had unlimited time then I would like lots of the changes you suggest! But the real question is one of time and resources.

Unless you are an experienced coder and can support such changes then feel free to keep setting up new posts/polls etc ... but please don't expect any of your changes to come into being any time soon.

Thats all most of us are trying to say ... not being vindictive or naysayers for the sake of it!

Rebelslayer

[eigenvector]

Why passworded games don't do the trick? You set up a game and announce in the forum that whoever wants to play fast can get the password from you... what's wrong with that?

[hagin]

[hagin]

[Rebelslayer]

Is anyone paranoid about being excluded???

I'm not, and haven't seen anything by anyone to say they are!

[hagin]

[Rebelslayer]

Those quotes don't add up to paranoia ... stargate has an immense amount of games completed, and most people would happily play Linda or freduk ...

Try again!

[stargate]

I am not paranoid about being excluded

I am against a system that would allow wide open discrimination
because >>>> IT WILL BE ABUSED

question for hagin
you have only been on this site since mid August
and you say you like SBW and think it's a slick site

so ---- why are you trying so hard to change things

and enjoy you long vacation (til 12/28/2007)

[smlait]

[hagin]

[docaction]

Why don't we ask the administration what they think? It's probably the only way to end this debate.

[stargate]

[hagin]

[Bkruppa]

Why stay on this site if you are so dissatisfied?