hi guise. So I thought, as we have ablock list, can we have a loozers list? basicly, a list of players witch for what ever reason play badly to efect us, if they are in your team, or such. So if the you chooz to have someone on your loozers list, they want be in your team. Of corse there will be a problem if like 2 of 4 players have a given player on a loozers list, then no teams can be made. of corse you may think, why don't we add them to the block list? Well, we may like want to have them at the table, they are good company in any other reason then trying looz to effect us, or if table master hasn't blocked them they can still joyn and cause trubble. Kind regards
Quite interesting but bad idea
well if you are a great player then you can help a person improve their statistics so they lose even less! A question for you though if 4 people play lets say Scopa how is it possible for theree of those players not to lose as only one person can win at any one time. All four of those can be really good Scopa players. On the other hand four very bad Scopa players can play a game and one of them will win so their statistics will make them look like an even better player. You would need the statistics to rank the quality of players people are up against and that is too much to expect so I conclude this is a bad idea!
I don't think the list was meant to be based on objective criteria, but each person would have their own personal losers list. Either way, I think it would create far too much drama for it to be remotely worthwhile.
sorry, but including this would, it seems to me, only end up in trouble and drama, and it wouldnt exactly be nice to include anyone on such list.
no offence but this is a pretty silly suggestion.
I think I will have to agree with every suggestion that comes even if it is silly. I know that the playroom is also for mature people, but if we keep refusing suggestions the playroom will persist alive for the sake of free tables and general discussions.
So you think suggestions should be implemented even if they are detrimental to the playroom as a whole? That's a mentality I can't agree with. And sadly I do think this suggestion will be detrimental. In conclusion: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
No but I also know that there are tons of refused suggestions which were not taken into count, so the playroom support towards development is weak.
Sound nice this suggestion so.
Completely idiot. Sory but I can't say anything else.
And if this topic was only created to feed our statistics of refused suggestions, it's just idiot a second time.
It's true that we receive a lot of suggestions and that we refuse a lot of them, but we don't refuse all of them, and when we refuse, it's not always for the same reasons. Sometimes it's just stupid, as here, but fortunately most of the time suggestions are relevant and we have to refuse or postpone because of priorities. Most of the time we explain why we refuse something. Remember that I'm alone in development!