Board Game Arena

Hi - the FAQ states that, basing this decision on the reputation system, it is up to the players to decide whether they wish to start a game with other BGA users. So far, so good.

But I can't find a way to stop specific players joining my games. Sure I can set filters so that players that fall outside those threshold can't join, but I can't review the participants before the game starts, it is just assumed that 'all participants have agreed to start the game'.

But, that isn't true, I merely put out an invitation and random people have joined, all having made a pro-active decision to be part, but I myself am forced to take part (or lose reputation), whether or not I wish to play with those people. Is that correct?

I don't think it's unreasonable to at the very least be able to review the participants history, if I have a concern, before starting the games I created, and if I deem it the best course of action, ask that player to leave (or expel them if they refuse). Or, at the very least cancel the game without consequences for anyone (other than the odd jerk not liking that and retaliating).

Anyhow, maybe I missed it, but I can't find a way to stop those occurrences. I don't believe you can even keep a personal blacklist to restrict access to players you do not wish to ever cross path with. Am I missing something?

No, you aren't missing something.

This is a consequence of the site's history. When originally developed, all games were played in real-time. All players joined the table, everyone looked around the table for a moment, and then decided if they wanted to play with the people there. When the option to play turn-based was added, the "agree to play" step was inserted before the "all players are at the table" step. I believe this was done so that a situation wouldn't arise where it took several days just to start the game. Player A sets up the game, 24 hours later the last player joins, then it takes 24 hours for everyone to agree to play...

Now, when this rolled out, there were several complaints about it. The primary being that if a player gave a red thumb to someone else, and therefore never wanted to play with them again, there was no way to prevent them from joining one of their tables. As far as I know, this was never addressed by the site administration. [Giving a red thumb, by the way, is a way to keep a personal blacklist. One can also write a personal note about the player if they had a method of play one didn't like, but wasn't severe enough for a red thumb. Again, though, these have no effect if the player joins the table later.]

The only way to prevent this situation that I know of is to play only real-time games.

hum, OK... that is odd. I don't really want to start marking players my red thumbs, but based on what you say that wouldn't stop them joining. Makes no sense whatsoever, but I suppose that is the way it is....

RogueM wrote: I don't really want to start marking players my red thumbs

You can always use the "write a personal note about this player" option instead of using a red thumb. It still won't do anything for preventing them joining your turn-based games, but you will see the note when you look at a table that they have already joined.

I'd welcome an option to start turn-based games myself instead of automatically, too. ("let me start" vs. "start when enough people have joined" shouldn't be too hard to implement.) A blacklist to prevent users from joining would be great, too.

I am also in favor of blocking specific players from joining turn-based games that I create.

yzemaze wrote:I'd welcome an option to start turn-based games myself instead of automatically, too. ("let me start" vs. "start when enough people have joined" shouldn't be too hard to implement.) A blacklist to prevent users from joining would be great, too.

I am also in favor of blocking certain users from joining. Or at least being able to not have an automatic start.

I wonder why BGA does not take action.

I believe it would be a positive and necessary fix to give the table admin the right to prevent certain players from joining. I am thinking about those the table admin has given a red thumb 'cause they are trash-talker, quitters or have no fairplay manners. In short, those few players you really had to give a red thumb at one point. I find it mindboggling that they can still join your own game without anything you can do about it except expelling them.

BGA is all about fairplay and having a good time, thank you for inserting this much-needed blacklist option.

I played a player about 2 years ago and I'm pretty sure he gave me a red thumb. But it's vague enough that you can never be sure if you play several games at a time and I get so few red thumbs that I don't worry about it. Well, I happened to get into a game with that same player about two weeks ago and noticed later that I had one less red thumb

The current system is based on the percentage of red thumbs that you get. This implies that just because you don't like to play with a player doesn't mean he's a bad player. If he really is a bad player he will gain a reputation and you can block him. I don't like the idea of arbitrarily blocking a player who doesn't have a bad reputation just because you don't like to play with them.

If the player can't be blocked by reputation then you should just remove the player from your game before starting. You don't need to explain, just do it. I have been kicked out of many games and it doesn't bother me. Sometimes it's because they were looking for a friend to join but didn't make a friend exclusive game or sometimes they didn't want to play me because either my elo was really high or really low compared to theirs (usually because too low .

The current system is working very well. It provides enough reason for players to 'play nice' and gives you enough tools to play the way you want to play.