I'm just curious if there is any way to find out who has marked you as a friend or enemy?  I had a player (who I actually like to play) ask me to remove him from my enemy list.  He isn't on my enemy list and never was - so I'm not sure if he is just fishing around or what the deal is.  It just got me thinking whether there are people out there who consider me a friend or enemy.

I don't think there is a way to see who has designated you as Friend/Enemy...although I wonder if he has you as an Enemy since you would show up as an Enemy when he's viewing your Profile.

Thanks.  I'll check with him.  On a different note, I am questioning if it is wise to include an "achievement" for having enemies.   As we all know, there are a number of mentally unstable crazies playing these games and they can set anyone they want as an enemy, correct - even people they don't play?   What is the point of providing an achievement for someone classifying you as an enemy?  It doesn't really seem like something any of us set out to "achieve".  On the other hand, a friend achievement is typically something that has to be earned and I like that one!

ah but it's helpful to know if they're just a douche that needs a bit of ignoring or a master douche to avoid completely 

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

Winston Churchill

weathertop wrote:

ah but it's helpful to know if they're just a douche that needs a bit of ignoring or a master douche to avoid completely 

+1 Now you've got me curious I need to go look at some profiles...

BIg Skin wrote:

Thanks.  I'll check with him.  On a different note, I am questioning if it is wise to include an "achievement" for having enemies.   As we all know, there are a number of mentally unstable crazies playing these games and they can set anyone they want as an enemy, correct - even people they don't play?   What is the point of providing an achievement for someone classifying you as an enemy?  It doesn't really seem like something any of us set out to "achieve".  On the other hand, a friend achievement is typically something that has to be earned and I like that one!

Agree it shouldn't really be rewarded, it's a shame as the Public Enemy No 1 medal is so damn cool!

Obviously, showing a list of people who think you are an enemy is perhaps overstepping a boundary, since enemy has an actual purpose in the WG world (keeps specific opponents out of others' games).  But since being marked as a friend doesn't play any real role, other than to help make it easier for me to play with the people who I enjoy playing against, there shouldn't be any problem with showing that list, yes?

Or, to say it a different way, I'm curious who has me listed as a friend, because maybe I've just never marked them the same way, and I should, so when I invite people to games, their name shows up more often.  It's breeding positive communication, if you will.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

Obviously, showing a list of people who think you are an enemy is perhaps overstepping a boundary, since enemy has an actual purpose in the WG world (keeps specific opponents out of others' games).  But since being marked as a friend doesn't play any real role, other than to help make it easier for me to play with the people who I enjoy playing against, there shouldn't be any problem with showing that list, yes?

Or, to say it a different way, I'm curious who has me listed as a friend, because maybe I've just never marked them the same way, and I should, so when I invite people to games, their name shows up more often.  It's breeding positive communication, if you will.

Seems reasonable to me - display Friend lists but not Enemies. Anyone disagree?

+1

Keep the enemies achievements, but don't display the list. 

The achievement does make it easier to determine if the player is just mad at me or is a douche, but there is no reason to know who has enemied you. No use for this information at all. 

tom wrote:

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

Obviously, showing a list of people who think you are an enemy is perhaps overstepping a boundary, since enemy has an actual purpose in the WG world (keeps specific opponents out of others' games).  But since being marked as a friend doesn't play any real role, other than to help make it easier for me to play with the people who I enjoy playing against, there shouldn't be any problem with showing that list, yes?

Or, to say it a different way, I'm curious who has me listed as a friend, because maybe I've just never marked them the same way, and I should, so when I invite people to games, their name shows up more often.  It's breeding positive communication, if you will.

Seems reasonable to me - display Friend lists but not Enemies. Anyone disagree?

I think neither should be displayed.  Displaying a friends list also displays a 'not friend' list.  This may create uncomfortable pressure to reciprocate someone who friends you even that you may not care too.  "I friended you, why didn't you friend me" type of thing.  This may be a bit too 'politically correct' type of thinking, and I would not be too upset either way, but just putting it out there for an alternate opinion.

+1 I agree with SquintGnome.

SquintGnome wrote:

tom wrote:

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

Obviously, showing a list of people who think you are an enemy is perhaps overstepping a boundary, since enemy has an actual purpose in the WG world (keeps specific opponents out of others' games).  But since being marked as a friend doesn't play any real role, other than to help make it easier for me to play with the people who I enjoy playing against, there shouldn't be any problem with showing that list, yes?

Or, to say it a different way, I'm curious who has me listed as a friend, because maybe I've just never marked them the same way, and I should, so when I invite people to games, their name shows up more often.  It's breeding positive communication, if you will.

Seems reasonable to me - display Friend lists but not Enemies. Anyone disagree?

I think neither should be displayed.  Displaying a friends list also displays a 'not friend' list.  This may create uncomfortable pressure to reciprocate someone who friends you even that you may not care too.  "I friended you, why didn't you friend me" type of thing.  This may be a bit too 'politically correct' type of thinking, and I would not be too upset either way, but just putting it out there for an alternate opinion.

I agree with SQ on this one.. Not being on someone's friends list has implications.  I think the badges for 25 or 50 or whatever are just fine.

while i'd like to know who's friended me, SQ puts up a very valid point.

SG is probably right.  I retract my request.

Interesting comments.  Just to add my two cents, it seems we are discussing two separate things.  Badges and lists.  

LISTS:  I personally feel that lists of people who have marked you as an enemy should not be public or available to any individual player.  There are a number of pros/cons on either side of that issue - and because of that uncertainty, I would not touch it and keep it all secret.   On the other hand, knowing those players that have friended you can be helpful and I don't see any potential downside to it.  I would not allow that list to be available to the general public.  Two friends have a distinct advantage going into a multi-player game and the secrecy of their friendship is part of the game.

BADGES:  I don't see any reason to have an achievement badge for having others mark you as an enemy - that seems unnecessary and arbitrary.   Having a badge really means nothing since any person on this site can be a douche and mark everyone as an enemy - it means nothing.  I see more importance behind offering a friend badge.  Knowing that people friend you does indicate that you are at the very least, a good sport and a team player.

I like the enemy badge - other folks have noted that it's useful to see who's a jerk, but I think it's also potentially useful to the jerk.  I'm fine having a couple enemies but if I hit the threshold of ten, I'd be posting here asking what's so objectionable about my play and/or in-game discussion. Obviously certain haters gonna hate and won't change their habits even if folks explain what they're doing that's uncool enough to make loads of enemies - but some folks may be simply unaware that they're offending others.

On that note - I'm curious, for those of you who have marked enemies (I haven't), what was the cause? 

A bad ally?  Offensive chatter?  Somebody who always suicides against you regardless of the game?  Simply a strong player you don't want to face again?

Mostly offensive or abusive language, but occasionally players who I think unfairly target other players, and not even myself.  Who's to say they won't pick on me in future games. Certainly, players who send me PMs in a game that complain about my play in a non-constructive manner.  I never enemy someone because they are strong.  Maybe it's because I'm a designer, but just the opposite is more likely to be the case.

BTdubs wrote:

I like the enemy badge - other folks have noted that it's useful to see who's a jerk, but I think it's also potentially useful to the jerk.  I'm fine having a couple enemies but if I hit the threshold of ten, I'd be posting here asking what's so objectionable about my play and/or in-game discussion. Obviously certain haters gonna hate and won't change their habits even if folks explain what they're doing that's uncool enough to make loads of enemies - but some folks may be simply unaware that they're offending others.

On that note - I'm curious, for those of you who have marked enemies (I haven't), what was the cause? 

A bad ally?  Offensive chatter?  Somebody who always suicides against you regardless of the game?  Simply a strong player you don't want to face again?

I have marked a handful of people as enemies over the years for these reasons:

1) Bullying another player(s) into getting them to do what they want.  "Do this or else I will just attack you every turn and neither of us will win."

2) Pulling stunts in real-time games like when losing, wait the full time to take a turn, or even get skipped a turn and hope I conclude I won and log off, only to come back at the last second to take their turn before getting booted.

3) The "Don't Attack Me Syndrome" where someone just loses it because someone (or I) had the audacity to attack them and they spend the rest of the game suiciding, even though they still had a decent chance at winning.

4) People who "educate me" about the game in a very condescending manner, because clearly I have no idea what I am doing :)  Usually happens after I attack them for some strange reason...

Many players feel "all's fair in love and war" and will use the above tactics to try and win (either this game or future games) - these are just the ones I happen to disagree with.

Cona Chris wrote:

BTdubs wrote:

I like the enemy badge - other folks have noted that it's useful to see who's a jerk, but I think it's also potentially useful to the jerk.  I'm fine having a couple enemies but if I hit the threshold of ten, I'd be posting here asking what's so objectionable about my play and/or in-game discussion. Obviously certain haters gonna hate and won't change their habits even if folks explain what they're doing that's uncool enough to make loads of enemies - but some folks may be simply unaware that they're offending others.

On that note - I'm curious, for those of you who have marked enemies (I haven't), what was the cause? 

A bad ally?  Offensive chatter?  Somebody who always suicides against you regardless of the game?  Simply a strong player you don't want to face again?

I have marked a handful of people as enemies over the years for these reasons:

1) Bullying another player(s) into getting them to do what they want.  "Do this or else I will just attack you every turn and neither of us will win."

2) Pulling stunts in real-time games like when losing, wait the full time to take a turn, or even get skipped a turn and hope I conclude I won and log off, only to come back at the last second to take their turn before getting booted.

3) The "Don't Attack Me Syndrome" where someone just loses it because someone (or I) had the audacity to attack them and they spend the rest of the game suiciding, even though they still had a decent chance at winning.

4) People who "educate me" about the game in a very condescending manner, because clearly I have no idea what I am doing :)  Usually happens after I attack them for some strange reason...

Many players feel "all's fair in love and war" and will use the above tactics to try and win (either this game or future games) - these are just the ones I happen to disagree with.

 

+1

I found #4 the most annoying even when I was a noob on here, because it was clear they were just trying to influence my play. 

I would also add

5) Non-accidentally breaking clearly defined truces. It's one thing to have a misunderstanding and another to say "Yeah, I broke the truce! FU!"

6) People's whose posts and game play seem mentally unstable.