Host overriding a red thumb via invite

[absbia777]

I recently encountered this situation and would like to urge the mods to make a change.

I was waiting at a table for "Werewolves of Miller's Hollow" when the host invited a player I had a red thumb on. This forced me to have to quit the game, as I refuse to play with this player for personal reasons. They had convinced the host to let them play because they knew they couldn't join with me there otherwise.

I find this to be a serious issue, as there are many reasons for blocking a player, including harassment/stalking. Giving a red thumb should mean ZERO contact for safety reasons.

[Jellby]

Yes, I've seen that a few times. One of the reasons I don't invite players to my tables as a rule.

[nik592]

It's tricky, because how should the system handle it? Should it tell the host that another player at the table had indicated they don't want to play with the player the host just tried to invite? Should the system name the player blocking the invited player, or not due to privacy concerns? In some cases (eg. 3-4 player tables), it might not be difficult to deduce who the blocking player is anyway, even if BGA didn't name them.

In some ways, I feel like what happened is almost a reasonable way to handle it - if you aren't wanting to play with someone, then you quit the game once they join. You don't have to indicate why you did, and people have various reasons for doing so. Perhaps if BGA just removed you from the table (ie. auto-quit) in that case? I know there would be those who argue it's unfair that you miss out on a game, while the red thumbed player gets one, but again, this kind of thing does happen anyway (you can be waiting to join a game for a while, and someone quits before it starts and you have to wait again, or if you're trying to join a manual table, you can miss it by seconds).

I'm not sure if in your situation the host knew both you and the other player personally and knew of your history with that person and invited them anyway. If the host is a friend of yours who did this knowingly, I'd personally be bothered that my friend put me in that position. But it's not entirely clear from your post if this is the case.

[FrankJones]

If a host tried to invite someone who has been red thumbed by another player already sitting at the table, it should handle it exactly the way it is handled if that red thumbed player tried to sit without being invited.

This only happened to me once. I clicked to join a game and the interface said, "One of the players at this table wishes to not play with you."

Have that exact message pop up when a red thumbed player gets invited to an incompatible table.

[Jellby]

You get such a message if you try to "suggest" (not invite) a player to join. As a player looking for tables, you can also see the tables you cannot join because a player red-thumbed you, with a message informing you of that. So privacy issues are not a concern, or at least they have too many loopholes already.

By the way, invitations bypass other restrictions too, like level and karma. If I join a table that's only for masters above 50% karma, I want to play only with masters above 50% karma, not with a 0-karma beginner that the table host invited because they're friends. In real-time tables one can always quit or not accept at table start (if one reviews the table before accepting), but in turn-based tables there's no way out once the table starts. I'm not 100% sure this invite bypass works in turn-based too, though.

[FrankJones]

Exactly. I understand the reasoning for having turn-based games start without confirmation by all players, but in my opinion it's not a good enough reason. People should be given the opportunity to bail if an undesirable player sits. And no player should be allowed to sit, invited or not, if that player's attributes are in conflict with the settings or personal preferences of any already-seated player.

[absbia777]

My biggest issue with it is the fact that it's a way for the red thumbed player to communicate with the player who put it on them. I want ZERO contact and suddenly we're both at a table where they can say something to me.

[absbia777]

It's tricky, because how should the system handle it? Should it tell the host that another player at the table had indicated they don't want to play with the player the host just tried to invite? Should the system name the player blocking the invited player, or not due to privacy concerns? In some cases (eg. 3-4 player tables), it might not be difficult to deduce who the blocking player is anyway, even if BGA didn't name them.

In some ways, I feel like what happened is almost a reasonable way to handle it - if you aren't wanting to play with someone, then you quit the game once they join. You don't have to indicate why you did, and people have various reasons for doing so. Perhaps if BGA just removed you from the table (ie. auto-quit) in that case? I know there would be those who argue it's unfair that you miss out on a game, while the red thumbed player gets one, but again, this kind of thing does happen anyway (you can be waiting to join a game for a while, and someone quits before it starts and you have to wait again, or if you're trying to join a manual table, you can miss it by seconds).

I'm not sure if in your situation the host knew both you and the other player personally and knew of your history with that person and invited them anyway. If the host is a friend of yours who did this knowingly, I'd personally be bothered that my friend put me in that position. But it's not entirely clear from your post if this is the case.

The host was a third party who had no idea of our history. The player manipulated the host into allowing them to join, knowing I was there and would be forced to either play with them or leave.

[FrankJones]

BGA has the strictest zero-tolerance policy toward bullying, harassment, insults, and even mild criticisms of other players compared to any other forum I have participated in.

And yet, the system allows a player who has been red-thumbed to join a table and annoy/harass/bother the player who gave the red thumb? This seems puzzling and inconsistent.

The OP in this thread is making a valid point and raising a legitimate concern. I hope BGA addresses this.

[Hervor]

If a host tried to invite someone who has been red thumbed by another player already sitting at the table, it should handle it exactly the way it is handled if that red thumbed player tried to sit without being invited.

This only happened to me once. I clicked to join a game and the interface said, "One of the players at this table wishes to not play with you."

Have that exact message pop up when a red thumbed player gets invited to an incompatible table.

If I'm the host and I want to play with one of my actual friends that another player has red thumbed, why should I as the host be forced to play without my friend and instead play with a stranger?