We can invite players to private games and to tournaments... Why not regular public games?  It could help draw attention to some games to get them going just as we do for the other kinds of games already.

I believe the point of not allowing invites to PGs is to avoid the appearance of exclusivity and gerrymandering. Nevertheless, it can be done using message boards or PM's, though I'm not aware of anyone that does this.  I receive no such invites.

Since it would still be open and displayed publicly for anyone to enter, I don't understand how invitations would create exclusivity and/or gerrymandering.  I realize that you're probably just passing on your suspicions of why this is and it might not even be your own viewpoint, M57, but it seems like a false premise to me. 

Meanwhile, I just wanted to get a 1v1 lightening going and wanted to send an invite to everyone and anyone who came online just to let them know about my game in the event that it might be something they'd be interested in joining if it was brought to their attention.  I think invites are preferable to chat as many have their chat down and won't even see those messages.  I did consider it however.  I guess PMing might work since it blinks...

Still, I see no reason why true invites should not be an option?

berickf wrote:

Since it would still be open and displayed publicly for anyone to enter, I don't understand how invitations would create exclusivity and/or gerrymandering.  I realize that you're probably just passing on your suspicions of why this is and it might not even be your own viewpoint, M57, but it seems like a false premise to me. 

Agree, the logic is a bit flawed, but the concern is real.  I did use the word "appearance."  As far as my opinion of the matter is concerned, I'm on the fence, but push come to shove, I would err on the side of caution and leave things as they are.  It makes much more sense to me to have Unrated Public Games (which ostensibly would allow invites).

M57 wrote:

berickf wrote:

Since it would still be open and displayed publicly for anyone to enter, I don't understand how invitations would create exclusivity and/or gerrymandering.  I realize that you're probably just passing on your suspicions of why this is and it might not even be your own viewpoint, M57, but it seems like a false premise to me. 

Agree, the logic is a bit flawed, but the concern is real.  I did use the word "appearance."  As far as my opinion of the matter is concerned, I'm on the fence, but push come to shove, I would err on the side of caution and leave things as they are.  It makes much more sense to me to have Unrated Public Games (which ostensibly would allow invites).

I would err on the side of getting more game play in and having fun... because really, the other side is just a fictional fear.  I can't even get these lightening games to launch in good time, and I only need one player to join!  How about invites for just lightening games then since getting them going is a bit more time sensitive?  Or, for 1v1's?

berickf wrote:

We can invite players to private games and to tournaments... Why not regular public games?  It could help draw attention to some games to get them going just as we do for the other kinds of games already.

+1

If we can invite players games would likely fill much faster. I understand M57's point that it could create an appearance of exclusivity, but that's easily fixed by making invited players hidden from public view.

AfroDaby wrote:

berickf wrote:

We can invite players to private games and to tournaments... Why not regular public games?  It could help draw attention to some games to get them going just as we do for the other kinds of games already.

+1

If we can invite players games would likely fill much faster. I understand M57's point that it could create an appearance of exclusivity, but that's easily fixed by making invited players hidden from public view.

-1 (that's a minus)

The point of having public games be available to all in an egalitarian fashion is precisely to avoid the idea that you can pick your opponents. (if you agree with the anti-exclusivity 'prime directive' paradigm - which I do). 

The ability to invite specific players to ranked games is possibly even more exclusive than limiting games to a range of players vis-a-vis +/- %, etc.  Hiding those invitations would be even worse - inviting even more 'abuse' of the 'prime directive.' Personally, I would have a  problem if I joined a game you started only to find out that you had chosen who my opponents were by privately inviting them.

As it is there is a simple workaround.  Start a public game and send private messages to the players you wish to join.  Personally, I think that is skirting the spirit of the issue.  Public games should be equally available to all - there should be no - holding seats - or 'heads-up' advantages given when it comes to games that are ranked.

If you really want to play with specific people, invite them to a private game. The problem with this, as I have been pointing out, is that you'll have to guess who the people are that might be interested, possibly have to campaign in the forums for takers, etc. Optimally, having unranked games is the best solution.  You would be able to invite ALL (The game will be public so it would be easier to fill) - and because it is unranked, the make-up of the players can be whatever you like.  However, even there I would have a problem with 'hidden' invitations.  Unhidden - regular invites would be fine, though I wouldn't see as much of a need for them.  Open games are found easily enough.

M57 wrote:

AfroDaby wrote:

berickf wrote:

We can invite players to private games and to tournaments... Why not regular public games?  It could help draw attention to some games to get them going just as we do for the other kinds of games already.

+1

If we can invite players games would likely fill much faster. I understand M57's point that it could create an appearance of exclusivity, but that's easily fixed by making invited players hidden from public view.

-1 (that's a minus)

The point of having public games be available to all in an egalitarian fashion is precisely to avoid the idea that you can pick your opponents. (if you agree with the anti-exclusivity 'prime directive' paradigm - which I do). 

The ability to invite specific players to ranked games is possibly even more exclusive than limiting games to a range of players vis-a-vis +/- %, etc.  Hiding those invitations would be even worse - inviting even more 'abuse' of the 'prime directive.' Personally, I would have a  problem if I joined a game you started only to find out that you had chosen who my opponents were by privately inviting them.

As it is there is a simple workaround.  Start a public game and send private messages to the players you wish to join.  Personally, I think that is skirting the spirit of the issue.  Public games should be equally available to all - there should be no - holding seats - or 'heads-up' advantages given when it comes to games that are ranked.

If you really want to play with specific people, invite them to a private game. The problem with this, as I have been pointing out, is that you'll have to guess who the people are that might be interested, possibly have to campaign in the forums for takers, etc. Optimally, having unranked games is the best solution.  You would be able to invite ALL (The game will be public so it would be easier to fill) - and because it is unranked, the make-up of the players can be whatever you like.  However, even there I would have a problem with 'hidden' invitations.  Unhidden - regular invites would be fine, though I wouldn't see as much of a need for them.  Open games are found easily enough.

No, no, no... too much conspiracy theory going on in your response M57.  Invitations would not be used to pick your opponents, they'd just be used to fill the game faster!  They also wouldn't hold seats but would just advertise the game to get it going faster, first come, first serve!  private messages are too much work and don't work.  Private games are not an alternative because most people actually WANT to play ranked games!  If you want to dispel all your fears just give me one button... "Invite everyone currently online"!  No way you could say that that is cherry picking players, can you?  Since I just want to get games launched faster, especially when I create a lightening game, give me that button and I'd be more then happy!

Luckily for all of us b, there is no "Invite Everyone Online" button.   Well actually, there is ..it's called, create a public game.

M57 wrote:

Luckily for all of us b, there is no "Invite Everyone Online" button.   Well actually, there is ..it's called, create a public game.

Not the same thing - at all.  Creating a public game just puts a game on a list that people are not even necessarily looking at because maybe they just came to play their turns.  An invite everyone online, which is a golden and completely non exclusive solution, would hit all these players inbox with a message saying 'you've been invited, blah blah blah', which would direct their attention and let them say, 'is this something I might want to join?'.  So, no there isn't anything comparable to that with the create game button.

berickf wrote:

M57 wrote:

Luckily for all of us b, there is no "Invite Everyone Online" button.   Well actually, there is ..it's called, create a public game.

Not the same thing - at all.  Creating a public game just puts a game on a list that people are not even necessarily looking at because maybe they just came to play their turns.  An invite everyone online, which is a golden and completely non exclusive solution, would hit all these players inbox with a message saying 'you've been invited, blah blah blah', which would direct their attention and let them say, 'is this something I might want to join?'.  So, no there isn't anything comparable to that with the create game button.

Semantics..  People who come to take their turn and don't take the time to peruse the Join Game list certainly don't want to be included in an Invite Everyone Button.   Put another way - If there was an IE button, why wouldn't everyone use it every time for every game?

Edit: an invite everyone ONLINE (at this particular moment) button seems reasonably agnostic.. But the other part of the 'prime directive' is to keep the Create games page as simple and clean as possible.  A IEO button is one more button.  Is it that important?

M57 wrote:

berickf wrote:

M57 wrote:

Luckily for all of us b, there is no "Invite Everyone Online" button.   Well actually, there is ..it's called, create a public game.

Not the same thing - at all.  Creating a public game just puts a game on a list that people are not even necessarily looking at because maybe they just came to play their turns.  An invite everyone online, which is a golden and completely non exclusive solution, would hit all these players inbox with a message saying 'you've been invited, blah blah blah', which would direct their attention and let them say, 'is this something I might want to join?'.  So, no there isn't anything comparable to that with the create game button.

Semantics..  People who come to take their turn and don't take the time to peruse the Join Game list certainly don't want to be included in an Invite Everyone Button.   Put another way - If there was an IE button, why wouldn't everyone use it every time for every game?

Ugh, put it this way.  I make a 1v1 lightening game and it sits there for 3 hours and nobody comes in.  I make a 1v1 tournament, same board, and then vigorously invite everyone who comes online into my tournament.  They otherwise would not have looked nor joined my tournament and unadvertised it'd still be empty, just as regular games stay empty for so long.  Instead, because I can invite everyone, within an hour I have 5 people in my tournament and withing 2 hours I have 8...  Fact is, if such a button existed for regular games, it would work because I have seen the same thing working for tournaments and have let some sit before and saw NO ONE JOIN.  It DOES make a difference and such a button WOULD work.  You don't have to be a negative Nancy about it just because you don't like it personally.  It would work, it's non-exclusive.

M57 wrote:

People who come to take their turn and don't take the time to peruse the Join Game list certainly don't want to be included in an Invite Everyone Button.

Edit: an invite everyone ONLINE (at this particular moment) button seems reasonably agnostic.. But the other part of the 'prime directive' is to keep the Create games page as simple and clean as possible.  A IEO button is one more button.  Is it that important?

First part is simply not true.  I don't frequently look at the join game page, nor the new tournamnets page because I'm busy playing my turns.  That said, I don't mind invites at all and when received I just accept or ignore, no skin off my back.  I don't speak for everyone and some might hate invites, but, you shouldn't speak for everyone either.

Second part, to me it is important.  I find 1v1 lightening games (not on WGWF) nearly impossible to get going in a reasonable amount of time and this button would solve that problem, just by getting a little advertising out there.

M57 wrote:

Edit: an invite everyone ONLINE (at this particular moment) button seems reasonably agnostic.. But the other part of the 'prime directive' is to keep the Create games page as simple and clean as possible.  A IEO button is one more button.  Is it that important?

What does agnostic mean in this sentence.  I have only known it as a perspective of religious belief and its use here is not jogging with me.

berickf wrote:

M57 wrote:

People who come to take their turn and don't take the time to peruse the Join Game list certainly don't want to be included in an Invite Everyone Button.

Edit: an invite everyone ONLINE (at this particular moment) button seems reasonably agnostic.. But the other part of the 'prime directive' is to keep the Create games page as simple and clean as possible.  A IEO button is one more button.  Is it that important?

First part is simply not true.  I don't frequently look at the join game page, nor the new tournamnets page because I'm busy playing my turns.  That said, I don't mind invites at all and when received I just accept or ignore, no skin off my back.  I don't speak for everyone and some might hate invites, but, you shouldn't speak for everyone either.

Second part, to me it is important.  I find 1v1 lightening games (not on WGWF) nearly impossible to get going in a reasonable amount of time and this button would solve that problem, just by getting a little advertising out there.

Good - it is important to you.  Like I said an Online button is neutral - so I don't so much have a problem with that.  While I'm not saying I'm against it, I'm simply pointing out that it's one more button, so if you say it's worth it, then perhaps it is.  Back in the old.. umm, I mean, earlier days of the site, when I first joined, practically every new feature proposed and +10'd required a separate discussion regarding whether or not it cluttered the page too much.  Just saying.  I'm still a negative Nancy on the larger issue..  Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I'm just bringing back into light the interests, vision, and mindset of the 'old guard.' It's set up the way it is for a reason.  For instance, I pointed out in devil's advocate form what I think their argument against unranked games would have been.  (Too many 'types' of games.)  "Keep it clean, simple and don't give 'em too many choices" was the mantra back then (paraphrased), and for good reason.  Don't think for a moment that I haven't argued on both sides of those issues.

berickf wrote:

M57 wrote:

Edit: an invite everyone ONLINE (at this particular moment) button seems reasonably agnostic.. But the other part of the 'prime directive' is to keep the Create games page as simple and clean as possible.  A IEO button is one more button.  Is it that important?

What does agnostic mean in this sentence.  I have only known it as a perspective of religious belief and its use here is not jogging with me.

'agnostic' in the sense that I don't think the intention of the feature impacts the issue one way or the other.

'indifferent' may have been a better choice of words.

I kinda skimmed this whole thread, but how about if you could auto-send an invite to anyone who has the map set as a favorite, and doesn't have their "don't invite me" flag set in their profile?

Much less spammy.  You know you'd be getting people who know how to play the map.  And you'd get invites for games on boards you like.

Ozyman wrote:

I kinda skimmed this whole thread, but how about if you could auto-send an invite to anyone who has the map set as a favorite, and doesn't have their "don't invite me" flag set in their profile?

Much less spammy.  You know you'd be getting people who know how to play the map.  And you'd get invites for games on boards you like.

Or everyone who's online that doesn't have the "don't invite me" flag set in their profile.  Still not spammy but a) targets people who are actually online which is great to get lightening games going and b) doesn't limit people from discovering new boards.