[please delete this thread] FOE LIST ARMISTICE {POLE}

[wrestler1ump]

True,
Wrestler, i would be really grateful if we could keep our lyrical swords in their respective scabbards.

I think this is a very simple and fairly uncontroversial setting option. It would cure many of the problems with filling games and in particular speed games.

I do not play that many myself, however i can see that it could be of benefit.

I get sick and tired of people joining my speed games and keeping them from filling up because they have pages of people on their ignore list. People like that do not belong in multiplayer games in my opinion.

[KoE_Sirius]

True,
Wrestler, i would be really grateful if we could keep our lyrical swords in their respective scabbards.

I think this is a very simple and fairly uncontroversial setting option. It would cure many of the problems with filling games and in particular speed games.

I do not play that many myself, however i can see that it could be of benefit.

I get sick and tired of people joining my speed games and keeping them from filling up because they have pages of people on their ignore list. People like that do not belong in multiplayer games in my opinion.

I understand your pain wrestler1ump.
This is what we are trying to stop.We have a common goal here.Lets get this idea passed with as little fuss as possible.
Then its happy days

[hulmey]

but yeah i think the Foe system is fine too! This way, with an armistice, it postpones a good system instead of altering it.

i suppose it wouldn't hurt if you're the host. If you join in the 2 slot, how would you know which settings? Or am I being an idiot if this is already been covered. I haven't read most of the posts here. I like to skim and quote things of interest.

I remember you asking me to take Prankcall of my foes list once coz he couldnt get into a Battle Royale. So i think it could be improved!

[PLAYER57832]

I get sick and tired of people joining my speed games and keeping them from filling up because they have pages of people on their ignore list. People like that do not belong in multiplayer games in my opinion.

Well, you had over 50 negatives under the old system, so its just possible you have something to do with this.

You have a fresh start now, with a 4.6 rating. So, assuming you might have changed ... you might find your games filling up more quickly now. If not ... well, live with the consequences. Don't expect everyone else to want to put up with garbage. (and I did not read your negs, so I don't know what it was you did to earn those ratings)

[KoE_Sirius]

Wrestle1ump may have had lots of negatives,but he used to leave lots.Thats why I didnt like the old feedback system.
The new system is a little bit better.
Even so I have never had reason to foe Wrestle1ump and he is welcome in all my games as is anyone.

[jiminski]

well let's have a little weekend bump then!

[PLAYER57832]

I have only 5 on my list now ... and 2 were convicted multis, 1 was banned for a long time.

I think pairing this idea with the one that makes foe lists 2-way ( that is, you cannot join in a foe's game as well as keeping them from your games) will go a long way toward solving the problem of games not filling due to foes.

[jiminski]

I have only 5 on my list now ... and 2 were convicted multis, 1 was banned for a long time.

I think pairing this idea with the one that makes foe lists 2-way ( that is, you cannot join in a foe's game as well as keeping them from your games) will go a long way toward solving the problem of games not filling due to foes.

well maybe.. to be honest i just saw it as a way to leave the Foe list ostensibly as it is but to have the option for game 'starters' to effectively weed out serial foe'ers or at least not be subject to their influence.

(I do think that it would be nice to the separation between forum foes and game foes)

[KoE_Sirius]

Sadly I have had to add someone to my foe list.It goes against the grain ,but I can not abide by a player who suicided over 100 troops into me .Especially as they are foul mouthed too.Still I would like this idea allowed A.S.A.P

[FabledIntegral]

I'm sure it was a completely unprovoked, random suicide - definitely not caused by you hitting them first during the midst of a stalemate at the end of the turn, which would be completely unnecessary.

Either way this system makes sense - I have a rather large foe list where I'd like to avoid certain players if possible, but sometimes around 1 AM if I'm up for a game it's hardpressed to find people. They usually fill eventually, but after like half an hour.

[jiminski]

I'm sure it was a completely unprovoked, random suicide - definitely not caused by you hitting them first during the midst of a stalemate at the end of the turn, which would be completely unnecessary.

Either way this system makes sense - I have a rather large foe list where I'd like to avoid certain players if possible, but sometimes around 1 AM if I'm up for a game it's hardpressed to find people. They usually fill eventually, but after like half an hour.

aye.. i reckon this is a plan with no drawbacks!

[jiminski]

hello saucy

[mpjh]

Leave the foe system in place as it currently exists, please. It is essential in eliminating people who team up in public games. It is essential in getting rid of foul mouthed whiners in future games. If you have someone on your waiting game with a long foe list that is slowing down the process, put him on yours and restart the game --- end of problem.

[jiminski]

Leave the foe system in place as it currently exists, please. It is essential in eliminating people who team up in public games. It is essential in getting rid of foul mouthed whiners in future games. If you have someone on your waiting game with a long foe list that is slowing down the process, put him on yours and restart the game --- end of problem.

hey mpj.. please read the thread.

but in short; the person who sets up the game would have the option to temporarily suspend all lists (with regards joining that single game). It is then any potential joiners choice whether they join or not.

So nothing changes except for example in the case of Speed games where people can fill up games more quickly.

your solution does not solve the problem as no one knows who anyone else has on their Foe lists.. and it is slightly impractical to remake all games and then place more players on ones-own list as a solution to the problem of people overusing Foe lists. .. do you see what i mean?

[mpjh]

People do know who is on there foe list because when they try and join the game the program tells them so. Solution is simple, pm to initializer of game and that person can decide whether to start over or allow the exclusion.

[jiminski]

People do know who is on there foe list because when they try and join the game the program tells them so. Solution is simple, pm to initializer of game and that person can decide whether to start over or allow the exclusion.

that is so much more cumbersome and unlikely to work than this very simple 'option'.
If you personally would not under any circumstances play a foe (seems incredible that you have developed such a hatred after less than a month?) then you do not have to join.

But a lot of Speed-gamers (i am not much of one personally) have voiced frustration at being held to ransom by serial Foe'ers. This elegantly fixes the problem without in realty adjusting the excellent Foe system.

[mpjh]

It doesn't fix any problem, it just lets people into games where they can cause more havoc. If they don't want to be on a foe list, talk to the person about it and ask to be taken off.

[jiminski]

It doesn't fix any problem, it just lets people into games where they can cause more havoc. If they don't want to be on a foe list, talk to the person about it and ask to be taken off.

heheh.. you remind me of someone else

it solves the problem detailed in the thread...

And those people who join know that the foe list is suspended. As consenting adults it is their right to chose havoc over calm... perhaps it is the prissy and anti-social people who would be dissuaded from joining these open games... just in case they met with someone who they could not get along with or who offended their sensibilities.

anyway.. regardless of that, it gives the option for a setter-up of games and in particular Speedgames, (emphasis on speed) to not have to run around every person who joins their game in order to find out exactly who has who on whose Foe list. And then place them on their own foe list and then restart the game...

If everyone did that the game would expire before it ever got a chance to start and result in even longer, less discriminating foe lists!

All this to only to find that the person who you removed the other person for, had a longer foe list than the other one .. you then have to take the original player off your list, put the second player on your list and start a new game! .. sheese i am exhasted just at the thought... and we still haven't got a game.

hehe i honestly don't think your replacement idea helps. ^^

[mpjh]

Ok, suggestion -- get a life.

[jiminski]

Ok, suggestion -- get a life.

you are a feisty fella.

[KoE_Sirius]

Ok, suggestion -- get a life.

Fiesty little troll...Has this idea been passed yet ?

[jiminski]

Ok, suggestion -- get a life.

Fiesty little troll...Has this idea been passed yet ?

Not as far as i know, Sirius

[mpjh]

OK, so out of 10s of thousands of members, this lame Idea get 9 votes. Nuf said.

[jiminski]

OK, so out of 10s of thousands of members, this lame Idea get 9 votes. Nuf said.

hehe did you make it 10 for yes?

[mpjh]

Let us see, there are over 200,000 members, so 10 is .0002 or .02%. I don't think that is an overwhelming response. I suspect that there are more than .02% of the members using their foe lists. Has anyone got that statistic?