Aborting Everything Instead of Matchmaking Settings??

[Archisian]

Then let's get rid if the whole karma system/red thumbing. Because if a person joins a table in the last space available and the host finds their reputation to be unacceptable, following this logic, we should say too bad. The table is full, deal with it. Play with the people who joined. This can be used both ways, you know.

Well, yeah. If the host doesn’t put any karma restrictions on the table, then yeah, they should have to deal with it. That’s not going both ways; that’s agreeing with me.

It’s not an argument for getting rid of karma or red thumbs (and I have no idea why you’re mentioning red thumbs).

Ah okay, thank you for making that more clear. As for red thumbs, I thought they reduced (or could reduce) your karma?

[FrankJones]

Then let's get rid if the whole karma system/red thumbing. Because if a person joins a table in the last space available and the host finds their reputation to be unacceptable, following this logic, we should say too bad. The table is full, deal with it. Play with the people who joined. This can be used both ways, you know.

Well, yeah. If the host doesn’t put any karma restrictions on the table, then yeah, they should have to deal with it. That’s not going both ways; that’s agreeing with me.

It’s not an argument for getting rid of karma or red thumbs (and I have no idea why you’re mentioning red thumbs).

Ah okay, thank you for making that more clear. As for red thumbs, I thought they reduced (or could reduce) your karma?

In the past that might have been the case (I'm not sure), but it definitely is the not the case currently.

I may have seen something in BGA's moderation policies that a large number of red thumbs could be taken into account when deciding on moderation penalties - but only the red thumbs for which a person selects "everyone should avoid this player" and not the ones marked "this is just my personal opinion".

And when selecting "everyone should avoid this person", a reason must be given. (And I presume the significance of one of these "everyone should avoid" red thumbs is disregarded if the reason is inane or clearly just being used as a personal attack.)

I recently gave a red thumb to a very friendly opponent only so we stop getting matched against one another. Three games in a row for a relatively popular game, we were matched up in the turn-based queue. (3 in a row, and 4 times out of 5.) Which reminds me, I'm going to change that person's red thumb back to a green.

[Archisian]

Well, yeah. If the host doesn’t put any karma restrictions on the table, then yeah, they should have to deal with it. That’s not going both ways; that’s agreeing with me.

It’s not an argument for getting rid of karma or red thumbs (and I have no idea why you’re mentioning red thumbs).

Ah okay, thank you for making that more clear. As for red thumbs, I thought they reduced (or could reduce) your karma?

In the past that might have been the case (I'm not sure), but it definitely is the not the case currently.

I may have seen something in BGA's moderation policies that a large number of red thumbs could be taken into account when deciding on moderation penalties - but only the red thumbs for which a person selects "everyone should avoid this player" and not the ones marked "this is just my personal opinion".

And when selecting "everyone should avoid this person", a reason must be given. (And I presume the significance of one of these "everyone should avoid" red thumbs is disregarded if the reason is inane or clearly just being used as a personal attack.)

I recently gave a red thumb to a very friendly opponent only so we stop getting matched against one another. Three games in a row for a relatively popular game, we were matched up in the turn-based queue. (3 in a row, and 4 times out of 5.) Which reminds me, I'm going to change that person's red thumb back to a green.

Okay, I understand that now. It's confusing because BGA hasn't updated the wording for this system, so people could get the wrong impression.