Atkins wrote:

I have got to say that I am a little confused by a lot of the chat going on here...No one, for example, is suggesting getting rid of private messaging in team games, or getting rid of them in any specific singles games for that matter...All that is being asked is to have the option to bar them in certain gamea at thw creation stage - so noone has to join them if they want to play a game where private messagung is allowed.

 

Maybe I don't understand the function of forums...this one is called general diacussion after all... but if the aim is to get to a resolution...!

The forums are for a discussion. And all that is happening here is a discussion on the feature you proposed. Both the positive and the negative aspects of it.

Just to put my 2 cents in, I've never received an alliance proposal from a board message or through the site messenger.  I think a "no in game messages" setting could work, because those joining such a game would likely be in agreement with the spirit. Also, someone looking to propose an alliance by other means would likely get a "what the hell" response from the other player. 

Abishai wrote:

Just to put my 2 cents in, I've never received an alliance proposal from a board message or through the site messenger.  I think a "no in game messages" setting could work, because those joining such a game would likely be in agreement with the spirit. Also, someone looking to propose an alliance by other means would likely get a "what the hell" response from the other player. 

You can see in a lot of profiles, though, alliance proposals were given a few years ago - written on the walls. From before game PMs, no doubt. 

But of course that was regular games with no spirit of abstaining from communicating.

Abishai wrote:

Just to put my 2 cents in, I've never received an alliance proposal from a board message or through the site messenger.  I think a "no in game messages" setting could work, because those joining such a game would likely be in agreement with the spirit. Also, someone looking to propose an alliance by other means would likely get a "what the hell" response from the other player. 

So every time I want to join a game, I'll need to check to see if the in-game message feature is enabled or disabled, based on my personal preference?  And if the majority of people who play a particular board want the PMing disabled, it will be harder and harder for me to find and/or populate games w/PMing on that board.

This actually brings to mind yet another point of discussion related to requests for extra features.  The more choices people have, the more diluted the pool of willing participants becomes for those games. More choices are great, but the more choices you have the more players you better have in order to fill all the different types of games.

This is just my opinion, but I believe it's hard enough to fill games as it is.

Litotes wrote:

Abishai wrote:

Just to put my 2 cents in, I've never received an alliance proposal from a board message or through the site messenger.  I think a "no in game messages" setting could work, because those joining such a game would likely be in agreement with the spirit. Also, someone looking to propose an alliance by other means would likely get a "what the hell" response from the other player. 

You can see in a lot of profiles, though, alliance proposals were given a few years ago - written on the walls. From before game PMs, no doubt. 

But of course that was regular games with no spirit of abstaining from communicating.

No Litotes, the PM system was around from the start, but for awhile, PMs were only allowed for Premium members. At some point, that evolved to allow PM to team members, regardless of membership. I'm not sure what is allowed currently for Basic members, since I've always been Premium. My guess is, for Basic members, the walls were the way around not being able to send PMs in-game, so the spirit of what you were saying was correct.

Thingol wrote:

No Litotes, the PM system was around from the start, but for awhile, PMs were only allowed for Premium members. At some point, that evolved to allow PM to team members, regardless of membership. I'm not sure what is allowed currently for Basic members, since I've always been Premium. My guess is, for Basic members, the walls were the way around not being able to send PMs in-game, so the spirit of what you were saying was correct.

Ah, I see.

Abishai can clear up what regular members see as he's currently not got premium. 

Given it is almost impossible to enforce, it puts in a dangerous new way to "cheat". Forum messages/profile comments/googling someones screenname and finding them elsewhere etc.

Personally.. I ALWAYS talk. Almost every single game I play I will be trying to push influence. Either to gain allies, gather the weak against the clear leader etc. For me diplomacy is far far more engaging and interesting than rolling dice! I would NEVER be interested in a game with discussion banned, and think it takes a lot away from the game.

Aiken Drumn wrote:

Given it is almost impossible to enforce, it puts in a dangerous new way to "cheat". Forum messages/profile comments/googling someones screenname and finding them elsewhere etc.

 

Personally.. I ALWAYS talk. Almost every single game I play I will be trying to push influence. Either to gain allies, gather the weak against the clear leader etc. For me diplomacy is far far more engaging and interesting than rolling dice! I would NEVER be interested in a game with discussion banned, and think it takes a lot away from the game.

It's almost always possible to cheat if you put your mind to it, yes. Still, it would be nice to have the option to have such games. People who prefer talking games, like you do, would then simply not join them, preferring other ones. If you create games specifically designed not to have communication then I'd say more often than not that's what you'd get. 

Well its not currently on our website other than double accounts right?

Any non-communication fix within the forum is clearly very easily abusable. That's all im saying. 

Litotes wrote:

 People who prefer talking games, like you do, would then simply not join them, preferring other ones. If you create games specifically designed not to have communication then I'd say more often than not that's what you'd get. 

I'll reiterate what I mentioned before about dilution. Let's say 50% the people want disabled games, and the other half prefer them.  Whichever preference you have, this means you won't want to join 1/2 of all games created on the site, which will make it twice as hard to find (or fill) games, especially on less popular boards, let alone tournaments, which are hard enough to fill as it is.  And if it's anything other than a 50-50 split, folks who find themselves on the wrong side of the balance are more likely to get frustrated with the site and just leave.

M57 wrote:

Litotes wrote:

 People who prefer talking games, like you do, would then simply not join them, preferring other ones. If you create games specifically designed not to have communication then I'd say more often than not that's what you'd get. 

I'll reiterate what I mentioned before about dilution. Let's say 50% the people want disabled games, and the other half prefer them.  Whichever preference you have, this means you won't want to join 1/2 of all games created on the site, which will make it twice as hard to find (or fill) games, especially on less popular boards, let alone tournaments, which are hard enough to fill as it is.  And if it's anything other than a 50-50 split, folks who find themselves on the wrong side of the balance are more likely to get frustrated with the site and just leave.

Dilution is of course possible, but it's not as black and white as it can appear. I, for one, would enter both kind of games, as I like variation. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

M57 wrote:

Litotes wrote:

 People who prefer talking games, like you do, would then simply not join them, preferring other ones. If you create games specifically designed not to have communication then I'd say more often than not that's what you'd get. 

I'll reiterate what I mentioned before about dilution. Let's say 50% the people want disabled games, and the other half prefer them.  Whichever preference you have, this means you won't want to join 1/2 of all games created on the site, which will make it twice as hard to find (or fill) games, especially on less popular boards, let alone tournaments, which are hard enough to fill as it is.  And if it's anything other than a 50-50 split, folks who find themselves on the wrong side of the balance are more likely to get frustrated with the site and just leave.

+1 to this. 

Such a feature will definitely make it harder to fill games. 

And it is hard enough as it is. 

Litotes wrote:

Dilution is of course possible, but it's not as black and white as it can appear. I, for one, would enter both kind of games, as I like variation. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

Of Course, you are right, but it is just one of the arguments for keeping the create game page as simple and uncluttered as possible.  I'll bet you could go back in the forums and find at least a dozen other suggestions just as worthy that were shot down for these reasons.  The site just does not have the number of active participants to support more choice.

M57 wrote:

Litotes wrote:

Dilution is of course possible, but it's not as black and white as it can appear. I, for one, would enter both kind of games, as I like variation. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

Of Course, you are right, but it is just one of the arguments for keeping the create game page as simple and uncluttered as possible.  I'll bet you could go back in the forums and find at least a dozen other suggestions just as worthy that were shot down for these reasons.  The site just does not have the number of active participants to support more choice.

Yeah, I said from the start I didn't think it was feasible. 

Of course, nothing prevents Atkins from opening games with game title "Absolutely no PMs in this game!". Maybe that would do it.

+1 to that. And/or posting a public message immdiately after creating the game with a statement to that effect.

Aiken Drumn wrote:

Given it is almost impossible to enforce, it puts in a dangerous new way to "cheat". Forum messages/profile comments/googling someones screenname and finding them elsewhere etc.

 

Personally.. I ALWAYS talk. Almost every single game I play I will be trying to push influence. Either to gain allies, gather the weak against the clear leader etc. For me diplomacy is far far more engaging and interesting than rolling dice! I would NEVER be interested in a game with discussion banned, and think it takes a lot away from the game.

I understand your point entirely, but wouldn't it be better if that talk was not in secret, rather available for everyone to see...just like playing the board game around the table!

Litotes wrote:

Aiken Drumn wrote:

Given it is almost impossible to enforce, it puts in a dangerous new way to "cheat". Forum messages/profile comments/googling someones screenname and finding them elsewhere etc.

 

Personally.. I ALWAYS talk. Almost every single game I play I will be trying to push influence. Either to gain allies, gather the weak against the clear leader etc. For me diplomacy is far far more engaging and interesting than rolling dice! I would NEVER be interested in a game with discussion banned, and think it takes a lot away from the game.

I am not saying no to communication...I would just prefer all comms public, rather than private...I actually think it would be quite amusing a lot of the time, as people try to convey a course of action in,. "code", so that not all of the players are in on the ruse!

It's almost always possible to cheat if you put your mind to it, yes. Still, it would be nice to have the option to have such games. People who prefer talking games, like you do, would then simply not join them, preferring other ones. If you create games specifically designed not to have communication then I'd say more often than not that's what you'd get. 

Atkins wrote:

Aiken Drumn wrote:

Given it is almost impossible to enforce, it puts in a dangerous new way to "cheat". Forum messages/profile comments/googling someones screenname and finding them elsewhere etc.

 

Personally.. I ALWAYS talk. Almost every single game I play I will be trying to push influence. Either to gain allies, gather the weak against the clear leader etc. For me diplomacy is far far more engaging and interesting than rolling dice! I would NEVER be interested in a game with discussion banned, and think it takes a lot away from the game.

I understand your point entirely, but wouldn't it be better if that talk was not in secret, rather available for everyone to see...just like playing the board game around the table!

I can understand the appeal, but personally I love the power of a private message, Vs a public comment. I enjoy swaying peoples attacks, the double crossing, the "honour" amongst thieves!