Ignore lists off for tournaments

[stahrgazer]

Concise description:

Return the old settings where someone who has a foelist can be sure that they will be ASKED to unfoe rather than unknowingly end up in a tourney or royale game with someone they have foed.

Specifics:

A recent change makes foelist invalid for tournament games.
Each player should have a right to determine who he/she will or will not play with.
If the player is unwilling to unfoe someone, then that person should be given notification in advance and allowed to leave a tournament rather than be forced automatically/blindly into a game with someone he/she does not wish to play with.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Personal choice.
Keeps an individual's foelist intact.

[hecter]

If you don't want to play with them, resign from the tournament.

[The Neon Peon]

There are tons of people on the site that foe anyone that beats them.
There are several people on the site that have the top 10 pages of the scoreboard foed.

If either of these join, odds are that battle royals will never fill and if they do, no captains or above will be able to join. Personally, I enjoy battle royales and would like to be able to join them.

As for tournaments, you either take them off foe, or resign the tournament. 99% of people never pick the later, and all this does is delay tournaments. I don't see why we should encumber the majority to have to deal with sending PMs back and forth and taking people off foe lists and putting them back on for the minority to not have to check the profiles of a couple of members to see if they have them foed.

[AAFitz]

Concise description:

Return the old settings where someone who has a foelist can be sure that they will be ASKED to unfoe rather than unknowingly end up in a tourney or royale game with someone they have foed.

Specifics:

A recent change makes foelist invalid for tournament games.
Each player should have a right to determine who he/she will or will not play with.
If the player is unwilling to unfoe someone, then that person should be given notification in advance and allowed to leave a tournament rather than be forced automatically/blindly into a game with someone he/she does not wish to play with.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Personal choice.
Keeps an individual's foelist intact.

You still have a choice, you can not join tourney's with people on foe, and can resign if one joins tourney with you, if you really want.

It is possible that some may try to take advantage of other players, by joining every tourney they join, but im sure they will get warned for that when if it happens too often.

The reason why it was changed, is it gave a player too much power over someone they foed. They could block them from tourneys, and block them from battle royales, and theres nothing to say they deserved to be foed in the first place. Now however, you have a choice of who to play still. Further, in a tourney, the rules are typically more strict, so there is no real chance that someone is going to hassle you too much, without being thrown out anyways, and suiciding into you is already against the rules, so really, this is the lesser of the two evils, and more fair than the old system generally speaking.

[Woodruff]

Concise description:

Return the old settings where someone who has a foelist can be sure that they will be ASKED to unfoe rather than unknowingly end up in a tourney or royale game with someone they have foed.

Specifics:

A recent change makes foelist invalid for tournament games.
Each player should have a right to determine who he/she will or will not play with.
If the player is unwilling to unfoe someone, then that person should be given notification in advance and allowed to leave a tournament rather than be forced automatically/blindly into a game with someone he/she does not wish to play with.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Personal choice.
Keeps an individual's foelist intact.

But the "tournament foe fix" didn't change your ability in this fashion. If you were in a tournament with someone you had foed, you would be asked to "un-foe them or resign from the tournament"...and you still have the option to resign from the tournament. So honestly, this fix doesn't impact your personal choice in any way, but it DOES speed things up in that it avoids the tournament organizer from having to PM you to ask you your choice and then having you tell them to remove you from the tournament.

[Namor]

I have nobody on my foe list, but I still disagree with this idea. It is yet another case of the site being lenient with the abuser and hitting the victim.

There have been members in the past (some juvenile) that have been badly abused, then after the abuser has been only warned, the victim has been told that his/her only option is to foe the abuser.

Fair enough, this has been widely excepted as a good solution to that problem in the past. However, that now means that the victim is also being told to avoid playing tournaments, thus robbing them of an element of the site that they have paid good money for.

The only members to benefit from this idea are those that have 100's on their foe list. Often due to the fact that they had lost a few games to those players and are to cowardly to risk a few more points against them.

If this is going to be allowed to remain, then there should be a clear warning to EVERYONE that is being removed from a list, that if they cause any upset during those tournament games, they will be barred from future tournaments.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[stahrgazer]

Concise description:

Return the old settings where someone who has a foelist can be sure that they will be ASKED to unfoe rather than unknowingly end up in a tourney or royale game with someone they have foed.

Specifics:

A recent change makes foelist invalid for tournament games.
Each player should have a right to determine who he/she will or will not play with.
If the player is unwilling to unfoe someone, then that person should be given notification in advance and allowed to leave a tournament rather than be forced automatically/blindly into a game with someone he/she does not wish to play with.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Personal choice.
Keeps an individual's foelist intact.

You still have a choice, you can not join tourney's with people on foe, and can resign if one joins tourney with you, if you really want.

It is possible that some may try to take advantage of other players, by joining every tourney they join, but im sure they will get warned for that when if it happens too often.

The reason why it was changed, is it gave a player too much power over someone they foed. They could block them from tourneys, and block them from battle royales, and theres nothing to say they deserved to be foed in the first place. Now however, you have a choice of who to play still. Further, in a tourney, the rules are typically more strict, so there is no real chance that someone is going to hassle you too much, without being thrown out anyways, and suiciding into you is already against the rules, so really, this is the lesser of the two evils, and more fair than the old system generally speaking.

Your point about, "there's nothing to say the player deserved to be foed in the first place," is nonsense while foelists are still allowed anywhere. It means a player can foelist for any reason he or she believes merits the foelist. Some reasons are a bit lame to some, but perfectly reasonable to others.

It was easy enough for the tourney leader to discount and redo games if someone refuses to unfoe. It was also much easier, because he has warning, than any player who is concerned having to scrutinize the tourney players who joined after he/she did.

It's certainly NOT the lesser of two evils to eliminate an option that enabled personal choice in favor of dictatorial automations; and it's certainly NOT more fair to give zero option when the prior system had several options even if it required the minor additional step of the director having to pm a player to unfoe or leave the tournament. Worst case scenario is the player refuses to unfoe or leave, so the tourney director has to pm those who joined the game to abandon that game; create a new game; and report the player for abuse of the game.

This new system still removes players having options, so should be restored to the old way. With the old way, instead of just dropping foelists, players had the opportunity to choose whether to unfoe or leave the tournament BEFORE a game with an undesired player began. With this new way, the player who misses that someone on his foelist joined the same tourney, is forced to play the person or deadbeat because the foelist is now auto-dropped for all tourney games.

I guess your opinion is that those players who use foelists now have the option of never joining tournaments.

I can't see how people prefer a system that removes personal choice that enabled options to satisfy everyone, and replaces it with computer dictatorship because it might take an extra day to have a pm responded to so the tourney can continue.

[stahrgazer]

I can pretty much guarantee every single tourny maker will be pleased with this

Since I've made tournaments before, and had this sort of incident occur, I can assure you you're incorrect that "every tourny maker" is pleased with this. The solution was simple enough, and caused less than 24 hour delay. In the case of that tournament, the player did not wish to unfoe, so I had to promote a reserve. It was not a big deal.

Again, the worst that would have happened is the player would neither unfoe nor unjoin the waiting game (maybe he is out of town and his stand-in isn't reading his emails). Had that happened, I could start a new game for the tournament, discount the old, send another pm to those players to unjoin the previous game. Minor nuisance, but not a big deal.

If a tourney organizer is unwilling to make a pm or two, or a game or two, to enable his/her tourney to run, then he or she should not be starting tournaments.

I dislike systems that take away choice when options exist that enable choices.

This was done because "some people" abuse foelists. What's the next step: removing foelists entirely? Silly, considering that in cases of legitimate concerns the mods say, "use the foelist."

They've now effectively undermined their own inadequate disciplinary system with that disabling of foelists for tournaments.

[colton24]

I can pretty much guarantee every single tourny maker will be pleased with this

Since I've made tournaments before, and had this sort of incident occur, I can assure you you're incorrect that "every tourny maker" is pleased with this. The solution was simple enough, and caused less than 24 hour delay. In the case of that tournament, the player did not wish to unfoe, so I had to promote a reserve. It was not a big deal.

Again, the worst that would have happened is the player would neither unfoe nor unjoin the waiting game (maybe he is out of town and his stand-in isn't reading his emails). Had that happened, I could start a new game for the tournament, discount the old, send another pm to those players to unjoin the previous game. Minor nuisance, but not a big deal.

If a tourney organizer is unwilling to make a pm or two, or a game or two, to enable his/her tourney to run, then he or she should not be starting tournaments.

I dislike systems that take away choice when options exist that enable choices.

This was done because "some people" abuse foelists. What's the next step: removing foelists entirely? Silly, considering that in cases of legitimate concerns the mods say, "use the foelist."

They've now effectively undermined their own inadequate disciplinary system with that disabling of foelists for tournaments.

Look for BRs some people would NEVER be able to join because of some people who foe the first 10 pages of people on the scoreboard. Anyways it saves the hassle of some people to take away foe lists for tournaments.

P.S. I wouldn't be able to join BRs cause of so many people...

[lackattack]

However, that now means that the victim is also being told to avoid playing tournaments, thus robbing them of an element of the site that they have paid good money for.

Most tournaments already had rules that participants must un-foe other participants, so the "victim" alrady had to choose between playing a foe or abandoning the tournament.

[stahrgazer]

However, that now means that the victim is also being told to avoid playing tournaments, thus robbing them of an element of the site that they have paid good money for.

Most tournaments already had rules that participants must un-foe other participants, so the "victim" alrady had to choose between playing a foe or abandoning the tournament.

Incorrect, lack.
When joining a tournament, unless one happens to be the last person to join, one cannot be assured which other persons join. Now, the only way to be sure is for those who have a foelist to refuse to participate in any tournament.

Given that in most cases of questionable tactics, mods say, "use foelist" rather than administer warnings, and given that even in cases where mods do warn, they still advise the person making the C&A to use foelist, your new change eliminates your own disciplinary system without giving the person the added option of making a conscious CHOICE to give the foed person another chance at reasonable behavior.

[lackattack]

Concise description:

Return the old settings where someone who has a foelist can be sure that they will be ASKED to unfoe rather than unknowingly end up in a tourney or royale game with someone they have foed.

Specifics:

A recent change makes foelist invalid for tournament games.
Each player should have a right to determine who he/she will or will not play with.
If the player is unwilling to unfoe someone, then that person should be given notification in advance and allowed to leave a tournament rather than be forced automatically/blindly into a game with someone he/she does not wish to play with.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Personal choice.
Keeps an individual's foelist intact.

Stahrgazer, I merged your "anti-suggestion" topic into this to keep the debate in one place.

From my point of view, this is a question of balancing the interests of tournament organizers and participants who want their tournaments to run smoothly as possible against the interests of participants who want to be able to play tournaments yet be able to drop out instead of playing against a foe.

I respect your point of view, but so far it seems more people feel otherwise...

Perhaps when I get around to updating the tournament system, the joining process could be automated and we could apply foe lists at the time of joining the tournament

[stahrgazer]

Concise description:

Return the old settings where someone who has a foelist can be sure that they will be ASKED to unfoe rather than unknowingly end up in a tourney or royale game with someone they have foed.

Specifics:

A recent change makes foelist invalid for tournament games.
Each player should have a right to determine who he/she will or will not play with.
If the player is unwilling to unfoe someone, then that person should be given notification in advance and allowed to leave a tournament rather than be forced automatically/blindly into a game with someone he/she does not wish to play with.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Personal choice.
Keeps an individual's foelist intact.

Stahrgazer, I merged your "anti-suggestion" topic into this to keep the debate in one place.

From my point of view, this is a question of balancing the interests of tournament organizers and participants who want their tournaments to run smoothly as possible against the interests of participants who want to be able to play tournaments yet be able to drop out instead of playing against a foe.

I respect your point of view, but so far it seems more people feel otherwise...

Perhaps when I get around to updating the tournament system, the joining process could be automated and we could apply foe lists at the time of joining the tournament

I disagree with merging; you don't merge other "i want the old way back" threads.

Automating searches for foelists still does not answer the problem of "what happens if someone joins later?"

This is particularly dumb of CC since in almost 100% of CC actions, Mods tell the person issuing the C&A, "use foelist" - so now you undermine your chief disciplinary action.

As others have said, again you're rewarding the abuser.

p.s. on merging thread and popularity: if you include the disagreement in a "done" thread you'll never know how many agree with me that CHOICE is more important than automation.

[lackattack]

Okay, I'll take "Done" off the subject while the debate goes on. But you posted the same arguement in both topics, splitting the debate. That's why I merged, not because of my point of view. And all those countless other topics that I didn't merge - it's because I don't have time to moderate the S&B forum but I am particularly interested in getting feedback on this matter.

[stahrgazer]

Okay, I'll take "Done" off the subject while the debate goes on. But you posted the same arguement in both topics, splitting the debate. That's why I merged, not because of my point of view. And all those countless other topics that I didn't merge - it's because I don't have time to moderate the S&B forum but I am particularly interested in getting feedback on this matter.

Yeah, I did, because I posted here before thinking, "hmm, posting a rebuttal in a 'Done' topic is pointless" at which point I opened a SUGGESTION to reinstate.

[max is gr8]

I can pretty much guarantee every single tourny maker will be pleased with this

Since I've made tournaments before, and had this sort of incident occur, I can assure you you're incorrect that "every tourny maker" is pleased with this. The solution was simple enough, and caused less than 24 hour delay. In the case of that tournament, the player did not wish to unfoe, so I had to promote a reserve. It was not a big deal.

This is incorrect you have made a tournament. A 16 player tournament does not compare with larger tournaments that many have organised.

Often you can be running a tournament with 30+ players playing at once. You are normally running more than one tournament. Getting people to rejoin is frequently a pain and it is not as you suggest a minor thing. Freemium players get bored of waiting for the game to start so quit. Etc.

Promoting for 1 reserve in 16 on average in a 64 player tournament (for example) would result in... 4.25 replacements. Then there are the general flaking replacements etc. It's easier to just call foe lists off than have this.

[72o]

The whole purpose of a tournament is to play against a random assortment of opponents that you can't control.

If you want to be sure you only play certain people, stick to private games and leave tournaments to the people who aren't afraid to wander out of the shallow end.

This change is supported by just about everyone, except you.

If you don't like it, you still have several options:

1) Don't join any tournaments (you should recognize this one, as you seem to think it's the only one)
2) Only join tournaments last, and make sure your foes aren't in them. (yes, I admit, this may be hard to do)
3) Suck it up, cupcake, and play against your foe (oh the horror!).
4) Join tournaments as normal, and hope your foes get kicked before you have to play them. In the event you are paired with them, bitch and moan, don't join the game, hold up the tournament as long as possible, before you either do 1) or 3) (you should recognize this one too, this is more or less the old way, and the whole reason for the change).

As several other people have mentioned, when given the option, 99% of the time people choose 3. If you happen to be that one percent, perhaps it's better you take 1 or 2.

Not everything is an attack on your personal freedom or a case for the ACLU. You're not a martyr. You were overruled. Let it go.

[lackattack]

One thing I should mention - if you play a tournament game with a foe, the foe will still be filtered out of the game chat.

I'm not sure if that is a good thing or bad thing.

[colton24]

One thing I should mention - if you play a tournament game with a foe, the foe will still be filtered out of the game chat.

I'm not sure if that is a good thing or bad thing.

Good.

[72o]

One thing I should mention - if you play a tournament game with a foe, the foe will still be filtered out of the game chat.

I'm not sure if that is a good thing or bad thing.

Although this is somewhat off-topic, I wish the game chat would have some sort of indication that your foe is talking. Kinda like what happens in the forum.

IamFoed: <ignored>

or something similar, so that you know they are talking, and you can un-shun them to see if it's important.

[colton24]

One thing I should mention - if you play a tournament game with a foe, the foe will still be filtered out of the game chat.

I'm not sure if that is a good thing or bad thing.

Although this is somewhat off-topic, I wish the game chat would have some sort of indication that your foe is talking. Kinda like what happens in the forum.

IamFoed: <ignored>

or something similar, so that you know they are talking, and you can un-shun them to see if it's important.

I honestly agree.

[max is gr8]

Da-Da I've made a thread for such suggestion

[Night Strike]

I think this is a great thing for tournaments and saves the organizer a little bit of hassle (which is always good to avoid). This keeps people mindful to keep up with who is on their foe list if they absolutely cannot stand to play just 1 tournament game against them. If you can't keep up with who is on your foe list just so you don't have to play them in a tournament, then don't bother playing in the tournament.

In real life competitions, there are some teams that refuse to play other teams for various reasons (see non-conference college sports for great examples). But when it comes to a tournament situation, they go ahead and play them for the bragging rights. Think of the foe list in this situation.

Furthermore, most people who land on foe lists are due to suiciding and poor play. Most of these people aren't tournament participants. Everyone who joins a tournament does so to win the tournament, not to vindictively go after a certain player.

[stahrgazer]

Not everything is an attack on your personal freedom or a case for the ACLU. You're not a martyr. You were overruled. Let it go.

I don't see where I was "overruled".

Nor do I see where asking CC for some consistency is being a martyr.

When the administration makes "use foelist" their primary source of disciplinary action, then arbitrarily removes even the warnings that foelist enables, there's inconsistency and, as someone else said, it's rewarding the abusers rather than enabling good game experience for all.