Do you miss something on BrainKing.com and would you like to see it here? Post your request into this board! If there is a more specific board for the request, (i.e. game rule changes etc) then it should be posted and discussed on that specific board.
My opinion (and only my opinion) : I'm ok to block someone for a private game with me, or for a private message to me. I don't agree to block or to be blocked on discussion boards. I want to be able to defend myself if someone says something wrong about me. Anyway, if the discussion was wrong about me and if I couldn't see it, I'm sure that my friends told me or made a copy for me about what it said. So, I'm sure that the idea to block on a public board isn't efficient. Furthermore, it would be also very complicated for the boards of team games or boards of ponds where everyone can say something. Also : I am always respectful with people on public boards so I have no problem. I think that the real problem is the respect for others.
Brian1971: Half of your suggestion is already there, it's called "Hidden Users" and can be set on a per-board-basis. These users still can seen your posts, but all of their posts on that specific board are hidden from you.
ThunderGr: He is only attention seeking and trying to get the sympathy vote, because like a spoilt child that cannot get their own way is playing up. It obvious that he has reduced his games and has time on his hands so to speak, so has now decided to post on the discussion boards to get noticed. Be it for the right reasons or wrong reasons. If I was so discontented with a game site I would leave.
Brian1971: Let's make some things clear here, if you will, alright?
1) People that read the public boards hardly know whether you have blocked someone or not, the reasons you have done so and, in general, are perfectly oblivious(usually) to the personal relation of you and another person. This means that
a) Each post that refers to you saying that you have done something is taken as valid, as long as no one disputes it. b) People assume that you are aware things have been said *publicly* about you(which is the same as being said *in your face*) and *not* that you are unaware of what has been told.
2) From your perspective, the other person may be "cheap" for "talking behind your back" but, in reality, this only as accurate as saying that a person broadcasting his statements about you through loud speakers to everyone in the city is "talking behind your back" because you have soundproofed your house *for the sole purpose* of avoiding to listen to him...
3) A person you have blocked is very likely that he is unaware about it. For example, you could have blocked *me* but I have no idea about it because
a)I have not invited you to a game b)I have not sent you a message c)We can still play tournament games without problems
So, your assumption that a person "knows that you have blocked him" is hardly accurate. That would only be possible if you have informed him directly or, for some reason, he attempted to invite you to a game or to send you a message.
So, if what you say is that "ignorance is bliss"...I guess it is your right to live your life this way, although the implications of such attitude seem quite unhealthy to me.
ThunderGr: I don't care what someone says behind my back on a board that I can't see. If someone wants to talk smack about someone when they know they cant see it that makes them look petty and cheap. If I have them blocked it because I do not want to hear from them or see what they have to say. That goes for anyone here. What good is it to block someone from games and personal messages if they can still poke you with a stick on the boards? That is my point is all.
crosseyed: The very point that we have discussion boards that allow different opinions, even if unpopular with management, is a credit to Fencer. "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Brian1971: So, what you, basically, say is that it would be fine with you if you where attacked on a public board, as long as you did not know about it, so you would not feel the urge to defend yourself?!?!
Unlike personal messages and game chats, public boards are visible to everyone. If someone you do not get along with posts something that you feel the urge to defend against then it is my opinion that you should be aware about it. Not being able to see the public posts of people you do not get along with seems like a horrible idea, to me.
I do have a good suggestion that would eliminate fighting on these discussion boards. First if you have an issue with another player, block them so they cannot play games with you or message you. However I have found out that blocking them doesn't stop them from reading your discussion board messages or you reading theirs. So my suggestion is if you block someone they should not be able to read your messages and vice versa on the boards. If you do not see each other in any way then there is no way to provoke each other. It is easy to suggest just ignoring it, but we are human and we can be provoked and feel compelled to defend ourselves when attacked. That would be a great feature that I feel would cut back fighting between two people who don't get along and then you are also annoyed by anything they post that you don't agree with. I am not posting this to start a fight but for the benefit of everyone here as no one enjoys seeing the fights on discussion boards which I am guilty of being in the middle of as well.
Brian1971: If I remember correctly, a while back there was such check box to limit "one match per player". I miss this feature too. As a workaround, I can create 1 game only, wait to be accepted, ban that player, create new game, etc...
Modified by mctrivia (31. December 2015, 01:55:27)
Would like the option of setting the prize to a year membership instead of just brains. Put a minimum number of players(please increase to 30+) and if more then minimum enter the cost to enter starts to drop for each member in the game.
ketchuplover: It is funny how there a couple of players who do draw requests in games where there are no way to have a draw like backgammon and ships games. My thought is they just don't want to play the game anymore and are trying to end it without losing the game. Otherwise they are dumb or being an annoyance. If it is a player that always does this, I just ban them from playing games from me. I also ban players who take like 5 of the same games out of the waiting games area so I get stuck playing the same player and not a variety of players. I clearly post in the message to take one match per player at a time but some just don't care.
ketchuplover: Although it is psychologically annoying, this site allows you to treat draw requests as non-existent, since you can ply your move without having to go through draw-denial windows. Most of the time, a request to your opponent to stop offering draws because you wish to play on will work. At least with mentally stable opponents ;).
pgt: Actually it's already round 2. Considering one of them is now a pawn and therefore (slowly) decreasing the number of played games, I would say it will be a bit faster from now on. Moreover, they are still active players and, in their section, one of them will pass to the next round. I think a feature like the one you ask would only be useful in tournaments with no control, since some of them have players that do not log in the site for years.
GoodFoods' 6th Broiling Backgammon Invitational (Backgammon) It's 9 (NINE - that's NINE) YEARS (YEARS, not weeks or days - YEARS since this tournament began, and there are still TWO players playing THE FIRST ROUND!! I'm 75 years old now, and fear that I'll die before I am eligible to play in another tournament, if I don't die before the end of the first round. Is there anything anybody can do to speed things up? Could we have a feature which would just purge the two players who have not finished, so the rest of us can get on with the tournament while we are all still alive?
ThunderGr: Sounds good, but it could lead to a contradiction - if the tournament has a minimum number of participants (most do), and the removal reduces the number below that, the tournament would not start. But if it doesn't start, those people should not be removed. But if they are not removed, it would start, and they would be removed And so on.
Of course there are simple solutions for this, I was just pointing out the issue.
Modified by ThunderGr (23. February 2015, 00:22:11)
I do not know if it has been proposed before but I think that automatic removal of players that have signed up to a tournament but are inactive for 30+ days at the start of the tournament would help avoiding the phenomenon of people simply not showing up to play in a tournament they have registered for.
ThunderGr: The problem with Fischer clock is that it negates vacation completely - and sometimes I want to make a real vacation, and I need 6 days without internet access, and then I lose all games, no matter how fast I play all year. Therefore, when I make games/tournaments, I allow a significant build-up of Fischer-clock-time.
There is no perfect way to define the game speed that pleases everyone and considers such situations. That is why I proposed to show that number below; that way you can identify and sort out the players that produce the lag.
Aganju: tournaments that use the Fischer clocks like my 20 20 tournaments are very good at chasing up the slow players without having to go to any trouble at all. Maybe tournament creaters should consider using them more often. Once somebody's starting time has run out, they've got to make 1 or even 2 moves a day. Problem solved.
What about this? For each player, show on his profile the average time games sat with him until he moved for the last 10000 moves. (that means the time passed from when his opponent moved till he moved)
This would be very helpful to see which players typically delay tournaments and which not, so others could selectively weed some slow players out (or avoid them), if they care about their tournaments taking years.
For a player that comes here once a day, this would probably show 24h; for a player that plays more often, less than that. For the typical 'lagger', it should be weeks.
I suggest another Dice Poker variant that I dreamed up.
Painted Dice Poker 6D This variant is practically identical with the Dice Poker 6D version.The differences are listed here: the dice can come in any of 6 colours at random on a roll.red,blue,green,yellow,white or grey.
these additional scores come in this variant 1 dice of each colour-80 all dice one colour-80 Painted Full House (3 dice with the same number and colour+ 2 dice with the same number and another colour, and those two numbers must be different-65 Painted Full Car (2 dice with the same number and colour+ 2 dice with the same number and colour+ 2 dice with the same number and colour, and those three numbers & colours must be different) - 55 Painted Full Hotel (3 dice with the same number and colour+ 3 dice with the same number and another colour,and those two numbers must be different) - 70
Subject: Re: a really new game idea--lines of action variations
correction: lines of action-pool shot: a lines of action variant in which a player can move a piece to a square which is occupied by an opponent's piece, it is not remove from the board.but it is moved to the edge of the board in a straight line along the the route the piece was moved.If another piece is in the way,it jumps over it and continues to the edge.If a piece exist at the edge,that piece is bumped off the board and can be re-entered to only that spot on the board in place of a turn.this can not be done if the spot is NOT occupied.