Conquer Club

Concise description:

• Put certain restrictions on foeing.

Specifics:
To foe someone you must:

• Have played at least one game with him/her.
• Have a real reason for it (I don't know how to do this one. Maybe a form like the old feedback one where if you don't have a good reason it gets auto rejected. And someone who gets foed can challenge the foeing in a subforum of cheating and abuse reports.
• Can anyone think of any others?

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• People can't get a high score by only playing deadbeat newbs.
• People can't foe someone just because that person beat them.

It is only a game. Let democracy rule. Let people play with whom they want and not play with whomever they want. Go start a game of your own.

Hrm. I've put a couple of people on without having played them because they were complete tools in the forum.

While there are people that abuse the foe list, I do think it is a good. and useful thing. This is leisure time and there are people that are downright unpleasant. Shouldn't I have the right not to have to play them, see their chat/posts ?

There are thousands of users on here. What percentage of people are restricted from joining games they want because of foe lists ? I'd wager it's small. In tourney games, you have to allow access. Private games are, well, private.

All that's left is public games. I don't know if there's any way to track the number of blocked game joins (I suspect it'd be something only Lack could ever do...and he's probably too busy).

But I'd think standing as it is works for the majority.

Yeah, maybe you're right zero. But if someone was a tool to me on the forum, I'd want to join a game with them to try to beat them. I guess we're different there. How about just making a subforum of cheating and abuse to appeal a foeing.

I start at least two games a day in the public area and have no problem filling them up. About 80% of the people I play each day are new to me. I also have an extensive foe list that blocks out people that I consider unpleasant. I block one guy from Sweden because he is way too good for the games I am in and I need more experience before I can play him. What would be the basis for an appeal to get off a foe list?

Simon Viavant wrote:Yeah, maybe you're right zero. But if someone was a tool to me on the forum, I'd want to join a game with them to try to beat them. I guess we're different there. How about just making a subforum of cheating and abuse to appeal a foeing.

Simon, I think your problem would instantly go away if KLOBBER got perma banned, right?

No, I bet now that it's out, a bunch of other losers will pick up on it.

well, you're right, there should be a good reason why someone foed you...

dividedbyzero wrote:Hrm. I've put a couple of people on without having played them because they were complete tools in the forum.

While there are people that abuse the foe list, I do think it is a good. and useful thing. This is leisure time and there are people that are downright unpleasant. Shouldn't I have the right not to have to play them, see their chat/posts ?

There are thousands of users on here. What percentage of people are restricted from joining games they want because of foe lists ? I'd wager it's small. In tourney games, you have to allow access. Private games are, well, private.

All that's left is public games. I don't know if there's any way to track the number of blocked game joins (I suspect it'd be something only Lack could ever do...and he's probably too busy).

But I'd think standing as it is works for the majority.

so how about separating the foe list into game foeing and forum foeing, where in game foeing you have to have played with the foe in at least one game (but ppl busted for secret alliances can be auto-foed), and in forum foeing... well you can expand on that Simon

The gmae and forum foeing sounds like a good idea. You should be able to forum foe someone for no reason, I don't have a problem with that, it's just that the Klobber strategy is really lame.

Why does anyone care what Klobber does. Why isn't there an orientation for new recruits that explains some of the pitfalls that await them and suggests strategies for gaining experience. They could avoid games with one high ranking person and all newbies below. Klobber is not the problem, the inexperience of recruits is the problem.

I knew this would happen. You people are NOT turning this into a f***ing Klobber thread! It's just annoying that these kind of people can't accept any kind of challenge and they feel good about themselves and nourish their egos by having a high score from playing only newbs who mostly deadbeat, on the map and settings that are most unlike traditional risk. And I don't think Klobber's the only one. He just became well known because of the the whole wicked drama. And he can't even argue against this cause he can't see my posts.

OK, so you can try and create a perfect set of rules to prevent all bad behavior, or you can educate the new comers so they can handle the turds in the water. The former leads to fascism, the later to democracy.

It is a choice.

And I don't even care about score. I just want to play Klobber to see if he's any good, or if all the accusations are right. And educating newbs wouldn't work cause these people plays lots of deadbeats. And some are gonna join their games no matter what. And the only way to educate them would be to say, "don't play him", and word's gotten out about Klobber, but their are others who do the same thing, and I, for one, am not gonna spend hours searching the games of everyone who has a high rank to see who follows the Klobber strategy. And about the analogy, this site is definetly a dictatorship.

It is only a dictatorship if we make it one by trying to eliminate all bad conduct with a perfect set of rules. You have to allow for some common sense and, more particularly, freedom to make mistakes.

How 'bout we don't? The mods have enough on their plate (at least, that's what they tell us) without having to deal with "foe list appeals". That's why the current rating system is in place. Y'know? If you're on somebody's foe list and if somebody's on yours, I'm sure there was good enough reason for that person to put you there. And who are you or the mods to say that their reason is silly or inappropriate? It's their gaming experience, they should be able to play (or not play) who ever they damn well please. Maybe they have a lisp and find s's offencive, so they block everybody with an s in their name. Maybe their white supremacists and don't want to play with anybody who goes against their ideals. Ultimately, who cares? It's not like you can't keep playing the game. If they're the only person who makes that type of game that you want to play, then make your own. It's no biggy. Just keep on playin' and try to have fun, eh?

Simon Viavant wrote:The gmae and forum foeing sounds like a good idea. You should be able to forum foe someone for no reason, I don't have a problem with that, it's just that the Klobber strategy is really lame.

It's already on the "to-do list" I believe... you can check into it yourself though, Im' not positive. Been suggested many times before.

dividedbyzero wrote:...I've put a couple of people on without having played them because they were complete tools in the forum.... well you can expand on that Simon

Well said, gentle friend!

I hope that you and Simon, as well as all the other good and intelligent members here, have a wonderful day!

Simon Viavant wrote:Concise description:

• Put certain restrictions on foeing.

Specifics:
To foe someone you must:

• Have played at least one game with him/her.
• Have a real reason for it (I don't know how to do this one. Maybe a form like the old feedback one where if you don't have a good reason it gets auto rejected. And someone who gets foed can challenge the foeing in a subforum of cheating and abuse reports.
• Can anyone think of any others?

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• People can't get a high score by only playing deadbeat newbs.
• People can't foe someone just because that person beat them.

Absolutely not!

I have a short foe list, but I excluded people because I found them to be excessively rude and crude OR because they posted complaints or comments that told me this was just not someone I want to play. I mean if you think that you have the right to rate poorly anyone who takes more than a hour to play a casual game ... forget it!

Also, until there is a separate forum and game foe list, anyone who is a jerk in one area will be foed in the other.

I understand that if one of these people with extensive foe lists join your game, it limits their ability to fill substantially, but this is not the solution.

AND it won't do anything to make higher ranked players play anyone. It will force more people into private games, which are even more excluding than foe lists.

I have a better idea. How about your foe list has a max of 50 spots, and you can only foe 50 people.

Simon Viavant wrote:I have a better idea. How about your foe list has a max of 50 spots, and you can only foe 50 people.

No - this more so negatively affects those who play with a larger pool of people.

Why have restrictions on the foe list in the first place? If you don't want to play with someone, it's simple; you shouldn't have to play with them. What's with people and trying to force them to play with other people? I dislike playing with a lot of captains and below and if they screw up in 2 games, I'll usually foe them, unless it was a huge blunder in one game (for example recently a guy, when cashes were around 75 in an escalating game, plowed over 40 of my armies in order to take Europe. I was eliminated and someone swept the round afterwards... I put him on foe for suiciding).

FabledIntegral wrote:

Simon Viavant wrote:I have a better idea. How about your foe list has a max of 50 spots, and you can only foe 50 people.

No - this more so negatively affects those who play with a larger pool of people.

Why have restrictions on the foe list in the first place? If you don't want to play with someone, it's simple; you shouldn't have to play with them. What's with people and trying to force them to play with other people? I dislike playing with a lot of captains and below and if they screw up in 2 games, I'll usually foe them, unless it was a huge blunder in one game (for example recently a guy, when cashes were around 75 in an escalating game, plowed over 40 of my armies in order to take Europe. I was eliminated and someone swept the round afterwards... I put him on foe for suiciding).

I agree with Fabled Integral. Restricting the foe list feature would only benefit stalker types and pre-pubescent snots.

I hope you all have a wonderful day!

If you foe more than 50 people because they actually make the game not fun for you instead of just doing the only play newbs strategy, you have a BIG problem. No more than 50 would stop the only play noobs strategy, and like I said before, if there's more than 50 people you really can't stand, you have a problem.

Only stalker types and pre-pubescent snots care about who is on other people's foe lists.

I hope you all have a wonderful day!

KLOBBER wrote:Only stalker types and pre-pubescent snots care about who is on other people's foe lists.

I hope you all have a wonderful day!

With all you've been doing to not flame and pretend to be nice, this comment is 'disappointing'.

Bones2484 wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:Only stalker types and pre-pubescent snots care about who is on other people's foe lists.

I hope you all have a wonderful day!

With all you've been doing to not flame and pretend to be nice, this comment is 'disappointing'.

Gentle friend,

Please forgive my error; I did not mean to offend you or anyone else in any way.

The weather is great here, by the way, with golden sunshine cascading down from the heavens, and a nice, cooling breeze wafting down the mountainside, carrying the aromas of a thousand different varieties of fragrant flowers, and cooling the bodies and minds of the kind and benevolent villagers. How is it where you are?

Enjoy life, dear friend; it is truly a precious gift!