JinkyOng: A Glob is someone who is supposed to ban you NOW

And a glob is?

JinkyOng: Then if as you say he is doing it, take it up with Fencer or the Globs then, or just block him.

Simple.

Jules: Yeah well I am just figuring out stuff like this I usually don't use the reply button but I'm doing it now. I just think that when Pedro Martinez invited me to 135 games, some of which are still on my invite list, that he acted very very strangely.

JinkyOng: When you write crap like this...

[JinkyOng, Iceland, Brain Pawn, Male] JinkyOng (hide) 17. April 2006, 12:07:29
show this user posts | show thread | link
- viewing profile (WhisperzQ) -
Surrounded by weakies.
Reply (box)

People just arent going to like you or treat you with any respect!

JinkyOng: That one was Purple to CRY ME A RIVER.

You can tell that by the name shown in the reply. It was not to you.

harley: I didn't post names originally. Read from the bottom up. Then someone said

labeled post #1 http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=1&ngi=525449

'Sure. Who?' and I thought it was being asked of me.

I don't know who any of these people are and I've got no idea why total strangers say such rotten things in the invitations.

I'm just wondering if this is how people are treated on this site.

JinkyOng: Its fine to ask for advice on how to handle certain situations but when you start posting names and messages you'll get a reaction and it can end in an argument.
The best thing to do is put any person on block who you don't want invitations from. If they carry on botheirng you in any way then report them to a global moderator.

Leave me alone.

9

Now fwiffo is inviting me to 11 games of something.

JinkyOng: You are violating the User Agreement by posting private messages on a public board.

JinkyOng: Click on their profile, the block option is on that page.

JinkyOng: It's just a challange.

Who can tell me how to do the 'block'?

Time to move this on guys. JinkyOng, no swearing on boards please.

How can I block him? Now he is sending me unwanted messages. Will blocking Pedro Martinez also keep him from sending me messages?

Purple: LOL:) All of them We will Show them how good game players can play LOL:)

Put him on block, if he is doing this as you say.

How can I get Pedro Martinez to stop inviting me to games????

JinkyOng: Huh? Are you crazy?

This person who keeps doing it is Pedro Martinez.

CRY ME A RIVER: Sure. Who?

The person deleted them all except for 2 now. How can I stop this person from inviting me?????

Purple: Thanks. I just did.

Purple: LOL could you give your Backgammon player a little poke to move in F_S Tournament.I would like to finish game this year LOL:)

JinkyOng: This is a form of harassment which should be reported to Fencer.

Someone invited me to over 100 games how can I delete them all?

Purple: Yes I'm pretty sure they'll stay in the tournament and play.

If someone signs up for a tournament game within a fellowship, then drops out of the FS but his name remains on the tournament game sign up list will he be playing when the tournament begins?

Walter Montego: Yes, the tags were switched. It will be fixed soon.

For some reason when I click the links from Embassy Chess or Janus Chess to the German discussion boards it send me to the 8 × 8 Schachvarianten board instead of the 10 × 8 board. Is this a bug?

Fencer: thank you Sir :)...

BerniceC: Easy :-) There was a weird (but harmless) bug in the pond start script. It is fixed now. It wasn't easy to localize, though.

BerniceC: thanks for the answer

Most every day I come onto the gamesite at the same time....Today instead of having most of my ponds games ready to play there were only 3 and the rest of them are in the RED....up to 18+ hours in the RED...is there some reason for this and will the time come off the 1day 1hour which will leave me only about 4 hours in which to post my bets, or does the clock reset at the 1day 1hour period?

I hope I have explained this so that people can understand LOLOL

Well... I raised a lot of discussion with that one question... But, the answer gives me a sweet idea, and I don't care, I'll share it with all...

Match play, when played between two people, gives the advantage to the better player! Think about this, and it only makes sense! Say you have two players, one wins 80% of the time. Of course meaning the player that is not as good wins 1 out of 5, which over a period of x amount of games could mean a lose in BKR for the higher rated player.

However, during match play, a lose doesn't count, and the better player will almost always rise to the top. Think about it and it makes sense! I, from now on, will be playing much more matches, because an occasional (single game) lose to a person does a lot of damage, but an occasional lose in a match, means essentially nothing when I win the match!

The drawback, you have to play a lot more games to get a win, but in reality, the same amount of games (in a match format) CAN get you a higher BKR, because if implemented well, can mean less loses and a rise up the standings!

wooo.... look out BKR leaders! Just give me enough time to finish a bunch of matches and I'll be leading some of those standings! ...ok... not really.

richardhunt: Make a search on Feature Requests for "autopass". You'll find plenty of posts on the topic ;)

Is there a setting that makes forced moves (ie in draughts) automatically?

If not, is this a feature others think would be useful?

TerryS: between 2 good players it is

mook53lhd: Fortunately, backgammon is far more than luck of the dice!

gambler104: maybe instead of ratings .we should just have a record such as 12-2 or 45-16 . just a thought. i enjoy playing games with certain people.their ratings happen to be less than mine. if i win i pick up a few points if i lose i`m buried. especially in baggamon which is mainly the luck of the dice. mook

Walter Montego: I basically agree with you in that regard. I was just pointing out why I thought the system had some advantages for games with luck. But two different rating systems would work fine. And in games such as Chess, I agree that each match should count.

gambler104: Why not have different ratings systems for different classes of games? playBunny posted extensively about different ratings systems for Backgammon and the length of matches. For Chess and games related to Chess, the current system should rate each game idividually regardless of the match type.

one of the reasons I like matches is for games like hyper backgammon. Although this rule may not make sense in chess, matches help players protect ratings in games such as hyper backgammon that involve a lot of luck.

users shouldn`t play matches. i won 5 games & got credit for 1 .it doesn`t pay .i don`t know how it should be changed .but it should. each win should count for something. maybe the 1st win ,a 1/5 of the total gain for match. but on the other hand if you win 5-4 should your opp. get 4 wins when he or she lost the match?????? an enigma mook

kleineme: Right On:)

kleineme: Amen!

Fencer: I still have problems to see the sense behind this regulation. It may be useful in games where luck is more relevant, but for chesslike games it's at least unusual. Who would have said that Fischer beat Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian and Spassky 1:0 each, and would it have been fair to rate it this way instead of his actual 6:0, 6:0, 6,5:2,5 and 12,5:8,5?

In my eyes there are two major reasons against the current handling of matches:

1) The new rating doesn't reflect the performances of the players properly. ELO-calculation is based on the difference between the expected score (determined by the ELO-difference between the two players) and the actual score of the game(s). So if I win my match by 4:0 against a an even-rated opponent, my score is two points above my expectation, but if it's rated as one game it's only 0,5 above the expectation. If my opponents rating and my own would be 2100 each, then according to http://www.kosteniuk.com/EloCalc/uscf.php my rating would go up by 31 in case of a 4:0 and only 8 in case of a 1:0.

2) The game statistics of players who mostly play matches hardly have any significance. If a player has won two matches by 10:9, he still appears to be unbeaten, although he already has lost 18 games, and he appears to have played only two games yet, although he would have obtained an established rating if he had played 38 single games instead of two matches. Maybe this problem could be solved by a separate match statistics page?

rednaz23: It is like a one game.