Ban Option

I think Scenarios and Games need a ban option from game , only starting from the game host and peoples can vote "yes" or "no" if yes votes much the player will be banned from the game or scenario and the poll time 10 or 15 seconds! Surely the voting before game starts..

No

I support this idea.

This might get abused easily - so NO, sorry

Yes. Scenarios need ban option. I'm supporting too.

Napisao Safari, 12.06.2013 at 08:33

This might get abused easily - so NO, sorry

But the ban is with a democratic votingg.

Napisao Deo Volente, 12.06.2013 at 08:35

Napisao Safari, 12.06.2013 at 08:33

This might get abused easily - so NO, sorry

But the ban is with a democratic votingg.

but for how long would be this ban?

Napisao Safari, 12.06.2013 at 08:38

Napisao Deo Volente, 12.06.2013 at 08:35

Napisao Safari, 12.06.2013 at 08:33

This might get abused easily - so NO, sorry

But the ban is with a democratic votingg.

but for how long would be this ban?

this ban will be happened before game starts , who annoying the game.

Support

Napisao Deo Volente, 12.06.2013 at 08:38

Napisao Safari, 12.06.2013 at 08:38

Napisao Deo Volente, 12.06.2013 at 08:35

Napisao Safari, 12.06.2013 at 08:33

This might get abused easily - so NO, sorry

But the ban is with a democratic votingg.

but for how long would be this ban?

this ban will be happened before game starts , who annoying the game.

i prefer the idea that people who are in the enemylist of the host cant join the game (not even spectate)

Napisao Safari, 12.06.2013 at 08:43

Napisao Deo Volente, 12.06.2013 at 08:38

Napisao Safari, 12.06.2013 at 08:38

Napisao Deo Volente, 12.06.2013 at 08:35

Napisao Safari, 12.06.2013 at 08:33

This might get abused easily - so NO, sorry

But the ban is with a democratic votingg.

but for how long would be this ban?

this ban will be happened before game starts , who annoying the game.

i prefer the idea that people who are in the enemylist of the host cant join the game (not even spectate)

yes thats good idea too , but mine is more democratic

If the ban would last only for that one game they want to play, then yes. Otherwise no, because this would be abused.

Host of a game should have the option to ban a player from his/her game. Besides the "kicking option" that already exists, there should be an option to ban a player (so he cannot join after the first turn started; when kicking isn't possible anymore).
The proposal of Safari is interesting, but players will need to review the criteria they are using to put a player on the enemys' list. In my case, for instance, I have players on the enemy list cause I dislike them for their behaviour but I'm very much willing to play them (and kick their asses, at least to try my best!!! huehuehue!)... it would be new to say "players on the enemy list cannot join games hosted by a specific player"... it would change some ligics; which does not mean it is a bad idea, just has to be discussed.
Cheers,
CD

Napisao Safari, 12.06.2013 at 08:43

Napisao Deo Volente, 12.06.2013 at 08:38

Napisao Safari, 12.06.2013 at 08:38

Napisao Deo Volente, 12.06.2013 at 08:35

Napisao Safari, 12.06.2013 at 08:33

This might get abused easily - so NO, sorry

But the ban is with a democratic votingg.

but for how long would be this ban?

this ban will be happened before game starts , who annoying the game.

i prefer the idea that people who are in the enemylist of the host cant join the game (not even spectate)

Then all the mods can't view my games because they are on my enemy list.

Napisao Meester, 12.06.2013 at 09:02

Napisao Safari, 12.06.2013 at 08:43

Napisao Deo Volente, 12.06.2013 at 08:38

Napisao Safari, 12.06.2013 at 08:38

Napisao Deo Volente, 12.06.2013 at 08:35

Napisao Safari, 12.06.2013 at 08:33

This might get abused easily - so NO, sorry

But the ban is with a democratic votingg.

but for how long would be this ban?

this ban will be happened before game starts , who annoying the game.

i prefer the idea that people who are in the enemylist of the host cant join the game (not even spectate)

Then all the mods can't view my games because they are on my enemy list.

-.-

I support it!
But players only should be able 'banned' before they actually play, to avoid abuse. Banning during a game is not a option i think.

Napisao Hugosch, 12.06.2013 at 12:33

I support it!
But players only should be able 'banned' before they actually play, to avoid abuse. Banning during a game is not a option i think.

This! I have found intelligence in this post! And I support it.

Napisao Guest, 12.06.2013 at 13:04

Napisao Hugosch, 12.06.2013 at 12:33

I support it!
But players only should be able 'banned' before they actually play, to avoid abuse. Banning during a game is not a option i think.

This! I have found intelligence in this post! And I support it.

Yeah , hugo explained it better than me This is what i meaning

Napisao Deo Volente, 12.06.2013 at 13:13

Napisao Guest, 12.06.2013 at 13:04

Napisao Hugosch, 12.06.2013 at 12:33

I support it!
But players only should be able 'banned' before they actually play, to avoid abuse. Banning during a game is not a option i think.

This! I have found intelligence in this post! And I support it.

Yeah , hugo explained it better than me This is what i meaning

Nice idea mate!

I think this will be abused really fast.First person to get a ban will be unleashed offcourse.But being an awfull humanoid, isnt reason enough to ban him from a game.

Let me get this right.... You support the option to ban players from a scenario, but you disagree with kicking spectators? Fucking AtWar logic.

If i ever get kicked from my own scenario i will hide it.

The ban option is for trolls in the game , in scenarios i see a rank 3 rank 4 picking Germany or USSR in WWII scenario , I kick them and they'll rejoin and keep doing it..It's annoying, so after you warn the player if he doing it again start a ban poll before game starts and player get ban before game starts other players will understand you dont ban a people for your own desires so they will vote "yes" otherwise they will vote "no"..

All I see happening is high or low ranks getting 'banned' from games for being too good or not good enough.

'' in scenarios I see a rank 3 rank 4 picking Germany or USSR in WWII scenario '' - this is not a reason to ban someone from a game its also not a way to encourage new players to enjoy the game.

The solution for scenarios is to have either a rank limit for certain countries eg: Russia must be rank 6 or something that can be selected by scenario maker (has been mentioned before somewhere) or to make private games to stop undesirables joining. Anyway's sorry I don't support.

Im sorry but I dont think I support this idea I have the same reason like ~Safari

Summing up:

• Game host has the capacity to kick players in country selecting phase and, according to some opinions (inlcuding mine), should have the capability to ban players in this same country selecting phase; not in the playing phase (as pointed out by Hugosh). Why this "banning capability"? Just to avoid that the kicked players can rejoin when game has already started and to give a game host the option to choose with whom to play.
  
• Another position is to have voting if a player is going to be kicked or not. There should NEVER be an option to kick a player from an ongoing game, only if he has been AFK for 3+ turns (like it is now). Just to avoid abuse!
  
• Voting to kick player during country selecting phase: the host has the absolute power to kick whoever he feels worth of being kicked. NO vote needed... why to pretend to be democratic if one player can push the trigger! o.O
  
• Referring to the proposal that enemy-listed players cannot participate (as player or spectator) in a specific game: I think that this leads to a new conceptualization of "what players do we enemy-list". Are our enemy-listed fellow players the ones we don't want to play or are they "just" the a-holes in our opinion???

Btw, whatever!

I want to be fidel Castro