@FD - I wouldn't put it by some of the people here.

If the banliost were implemented just as a one way (you couldn't join a game with your banlist players in it, but they could join after you and it would boot you from the game) then I could handle it. But having it two way makes people unable to play for choices they didn't make and for some "suspicion" of banning. Ban lists should only prevent joining or boot the banner from the game with the bannee in it.

I don't hate this idea as much as other, I would make a limit on the number of people you can ban though, maybe 20 to encourage people to keep reporting people they think are cheating to the mods and to keep people from using their limited number on forum issues.

FD - I dislike this idea as well, because many people ARE immature. Got beat one too many times by SD in a gunboat? Banlist him. If enough people do that to a person simply because they're good or have an abrasive personality, you'll begin to restrict the number of games they can play, which is unfair.

Well then you probably won't join their games anyways. I think the pros outweigh the cons here. And, generally, forum and gave behavior is related. Krellin and Putin are much as jerks on the forum as on the games. And besides, if they hated you that much already, they would join your games and meta against you there

Oh and it would need an override at the game setup level so that banning/booting situations wouldn't come into play in leagues and tournaments.

@Draug: I could live with that, with the condition if the bannee joins after the banner, the banner gets a notification (without specifying the bannee's name if the game is Anon), so the banner can decide whether to stay or leave the game before it starts.

What no thoughts on the prevent the banner from joining or boot the banner if the banne joins so that the bannee isn't unduly punished under a suspicion (innocent until proven guilty, right fucktards?)

And as far as in game versus here. I think I am much more abrasive here. If I were as b ad in game as here, I wouldn't have the GR and win/draw percent I have.

@roka - It needs to boot the banner. Otherwise if the banne is the last to join, the game kicks off and the banner is forced into playing them.

@goldfinger: Draug's proposal would solve that, so SD would be able to join games still, despite he would be on many's banlist.

And I was tyoping my "What no comment"... message as you were typing yours. :-)

if the mods have a backlog, and they can't to the multi's fast enough. You should be able to be able to ban them for your games. There is no problem with it on vdip

@Draug: yes, but that's only 14% of the cases, which is already better, then the current situation, though still not 100%. But just because it's not perfect, just substantially better it would improve the handling of multis/metas I assume. And any improvement should be welcomed.

Other possibility is, that the banner can leave the game even after all the players joined. He can do that for 1 phase length, or at live games until start.

vdip has the occasional crash, etc, because it is in effect a testing site. its a smaller group of people and I thinkths helps mitigate the issues. If they implemented these things here, at least the new stuff, it may just cause the site to shut down or whatever.

That being said, much of the vdip stuff has been there for a while and it probably at the stage where it could be rolled in here.

I am not sure.

Either way, vdip has some sick features and if it had the player base this site did there would be no reason to ever play here at webdip.

I like the one-way idea draug.

Might just be me, but I honestly don't care if multis are banned or not as long as they aren't impacting any games. This idea, up front, sounds as if it would do just that. If a multi is becoming an issue, investigate and ban them, of course. Not disputing that at all.

@roka - please back up your 14% stat.

14% is just 1/7. not exactly scientific but a good guess!

@Draug: assuming a bannee joins your game as last player, and that there are no other bannes in there (otherwise you would have left already) it has 1/7 chance that the banne joined for last out of the 7 player. Of course the number as witch the banner joined also counts, he can't be 7th (because he wouldn't join a game having a banne)

So all-in all, the banner can join as 1st-6th into a game which is bannee free until he joins, and the banne have to join as last in each case which has 100% chance if the banner joined 6th (100% because we count only those games where there's a bannee)
6th 100%
5th 50% the banne joins as last if the banner joined as 5th.
4th 33%
3rd 25%
2nd 20%
1st 16%

Assuming the banner joins equally as 1st to 6th this results a (1/6 * (100+50+33+25+20+16))=40% So my 14% was wrong, I see, but the conclusion is, the bannee has the chance to join as last is up to 40% (among the games where a bannee joined after the banner)

It's pretty high.

@Draug: please answer to my reaction about letting the banner leave the game after it's filled.

Gotcha. It couldn't really eb computed though as even if the game's creator were the banner, then the odds are 1 in 6, not 1 in 7, that the banne would signup in the last spot. But then if the banner signed up in slot 6, then 100% of thos occurances would involve the bannee signing up in slot 7.

Yes, I figured the 1 out of 6 right after I posted that comment. But as you can see that woudn't be accurate either.

i don't like this idea, i feel perfectly capable of not playing with whoever i like by a process of my own memory. At present extra coding to add nothing to my experience seems like a waste of effort which could be put to better use.

imho.

Technically, probabilities like these should be computed ab initio--the number of people players who have joined the game have been relative to the number of people that can join the game. It could be 0% if no one in the game has banned anyone.

@orathaic: how can you manage not to play with certain players in an anonymous game???

*have banned

@Stack: what we were counting is he probability of the banner is forced to play with the bannee in case a bannee joins the game. Of course the probaility of a bannee joining could be as low as 10% for eg, resulting a 4% chance forcing the banner to play with the banne, but what we were looking at here was the fact the banner might night be able to "escape" from the game, which is not good, because the whole idea is to protect the banner from playing with the bannee.

sorry about my typo, I'm tired a bit :)

Ohhh I didn't realize you were talking about the conditional probability. Yeah, okay, this makes sense.

@Draug: so what about letting the banner leave the game after the game is filled (for 1 phase length or until start in live games) and there's a bannee, who joined after the banner?