Props to ChrisCMU for coming up for this idea in another thread, but I feel like it needs its own.
An open seat pre-req for number of people who have a player blacklisted.
If someone's a troll, it's likely that they've been blacklisted by a lot of people. As any host will know, it's sometimes too late to save a game after a troll has joined. This can help hosts save games before the trolls join.

No.

Very easy to exploit. I can just get a bunch of alts and blacklist someone indefinetely.

Trolls are often good people, just misunderstood.

Yes, there are some trolls underway. And they can be diligent! At least I (intended to ) play a multiday, and after some time I realized, that the "player" we are waiting for has a boot-rate of over 100% of about 2,500 games. So it would be really easy to exploit, i agree with Zephyrum. But let us not stop thinking about looking for solutions. Those trolls are really annoying! Maybe it could be a possibility that only the blacklistings of high-level-players are counted. Trolls are not high-leveled. - But maybe other proposals.

No.

Very easy to exploit. I can just get a bunch of alts and blacklist someone indefinetely.

Then make it the number of people over a certain level that have blacklisted the player.

Still seems kinda meh.

Hypothetically I piss off leader of darklords, on clan forum he asks every member to blacklist me. I'm now blacklisted from tons of games that are made by top players.

Too easy to get around.

I mean if you add that on and then have a open seat requirement of like level 20.

So its less likely

Is there an option to allow only those on your friend list to join?(like a whitelist)

That should solve the problem.

password games ftw!

Single game tournament, no foward invites, and just invite your friends list?

That's how I do it and it works pretty well, especially for smaller games :)

lol.. nice hack

Can't do random teams like that though. Nice solution though.

the thing is most trolls suck at warlight. If your prerequisites are good then they won't beable to join anyways. Also I blacklist people depending on my mood. If Im playing a game and some level 50 noob pisses me off by picking weirdly or stupidly I blacklist them without mentioning it to them and I know many other players who do the same. This idea is great in theory but in practise I don't see it working out.

Secondly some clans have clanwide blacklists such as CORP. If you piss one member off then there is 130 people who now have you blacklisted, not because you a troll but simply because you annoyed a well loved member in the clan.

I dont like this idea at all...

I think you overestimate the usage on tournaments. Most good players are not making open tournaments anyway, so they would not use a filter at all. They operate off invites.

I also think it should only count blacklists of active players (points in last 30 days). That would help prevent someone from spamming blacklisting with alts.

Would being able to remove a joined player in an open game a good idea?

I think the best solution to having games where only people you invite join is the idea of "private games".

A private game is just like an open game, but doesn't appear on the Open Games list, so only people with the link can join it. Then you can circulate the link however you like.

(We know the code for this exists already, since it's what happens to Open Games which aren't filled in time.)

I'm with Poireau and Sephiroth here. Generally, circulating a link or password is considerably harder to exploit. Sara C's option also is pretty good - exploitable, but not really bad; if someone just keeps kicking people out, the game won't fill, so not as much of a problem.

I also think it should only count blacklists of active players (points in last 30 days). That would help prevent someone from spamming blacklisting with alts.

That doesn't solve the problem of clanwide blacklists. Let's say that ~25 people follow CORP's blacklist, and someone, in a bad day, ended up doing something that annoyed a member, that's +25 blacklists, and you're probably gonna be ousted from many, MANY games.

Also, points in the last 30 days is not an inactive nor alt check. Someone can have his alts play a 2 teams game twice, and cycle the winners around for 40 blacklists in less than 20 minutes, most of that time being dedicated towards logging in and cycling through these accounts.

Unless you add a minimum point count, which then pretty much kicks away the OP's idea: Andrew's a diplomacy player and host, his point count sits as 6,618 right now. In fact, the same range should be expected from most of the diplomacy players, so effectively his blacklist would be useless and such a feature would end up being completely pointless for him.

This is specially bad because diplomacy (along with large team games) is probably the type of game that needs these features the most. If you 1v1 someone, you can just ignore the chat and proceed to play. On FFAs, bad apples can only really curse you.

Single game tournament, no foward invites, and just invite your friends list?

That's how I do it and it works pretty well, especially for smaller games :)

FLEECE, YOU ARE A GENIUS! Duuude how did I never think of that? ._.

What about the filter being based off of the number of friends that you have that have the player on a blacklist... that way, you can control the input to the troll determination.