nobleheart: Been there .. done that.. it is called the Flame Pit.. and it is a fellowship.. so only paying members can join..

They wouldn't consider an open board for this due to the children. They prefer to keep the main boards clean and looking as though we are in Happyville.. where there is no dysfunction what's so ever..

I have an idea.it is either a good idea/or a dumb one,I am undecided.
I think all would agree it is unfair to most players to wade past msgs that are baiting,argumentive or off topic.
--
but it seems there is a need for some to vent off on some issues.
---
so how abourt a board just for those who want to indulge in this.
---
possible names for the board:
the whinery
what bugs me

oh, NOW I see what you were doing!

do I hear an echo??? ROFL!

Moderating Complaints

Well, for those who do have grievances, there is always...

http://brainking.com/game/ShowFellowship?fid=371

Czuch Chuckers: There are several forums that paying members can discuss issues, just not one for non-paying mambers (apologies to the pawns). Moderating issues are discussed by the moderators, global moderators (at length, trust me!) with Fencer keeping abreast of all developments.

Personally, I don't see a reason to air it all on a public board. But that is simply my opinion.

And JamesHird is so correct! The whole purpose of this site is to play games!

Czuch Chuckers: woudln't it be a lot more fun if the moderators intentionally made life tough for whoever they choose and generally spread chaos and hatred amongst fellow gamers?

Seriously though, you can complain all you like about the moderation but not one bit of those complaints effects your games which ultimately is why most people are here. To play games.

rod03801: Thats correct, but Fencer has been known to change his mind before, and he is known for listening to his membership for advise. There does need to be some sort of public forum to discuss moderating issues and other ways to make this site better...

I also believe that when the user agreement says that moderating issues should be handled in private, it is talking about "specific" issues with a "specific" moderating desicion. It is not intended that general issues about moderating not be discussed at all on any public boards.

Daniel Snyder: Firstly, send the Head Moderator amessage expressing an interest to be added as a Moderator. So on this board, you would PM Harley.

tHa oNEz tHAt tHEy'LL yANk fROm uGh.

sLaMdAnCe: I was just curious... I am on site daily 4-5 times... Just wondering if any board needed a moderator...

Daniel Snyder: wAs tHAt rHeToRiCaL oR yOu WaNNa Mod?

How can one be a moderator on a board like this or one other?

Pogonophora.

Not my problem.

~ModsQuAd~

This is a private website.. not a Democracy.
Fencer has a user agreement that says moderation issues should be taken private, and not aired on the public board.
No vote necessary.

harley: it is none of my business.I havent even followed the "fights" in detail.but I find myself unable to understand why some have this uncontrolable compulsion to bait & argue.its such a waste of time,we could spend our energies in many positive ways that might actual amount to something.I dont know,maybe it too much testosterone poisoning.

Czuch Chuckers, nothing can be resolved when there is one incident and a hundred or so opinions about it. This is not a debate board.
If this was discussed privately, Walter Montego could receive the answers he seems to be seeking, and be offered a sympathetic ear on a one-to-one basis, without the interruptions of any other posts & opinions.
That is not blue shield, just common sense.

Purple: I have to agree with your comments 100%!!!!

BBW.... your comment "I mean what is another user who reads this going to do to help the situation? Nothing." doesnt make sense to me.

You think taking things private is not a form of censorship.... But other people seeing and undersatnding your comments may just "help" your cause! Its democracy in action.... If enough people read and see that myu comments make sense they may jump on the band wagon and help make proper changes, if enough people read it and disagree then I will have to adjust my point of view on the subject. It only makes sense to allow public discussions of how to run a 'PUBLIC' board! Any issue taken for discussion and resolution in a private "blue shield" society is going to be interprited with skepticism, keep it public and open, you guys are giving yourselves a needless bad rap!

Could we move on from this subject please? The people with grievances have had their say and I think it should end here before it evolves into an argument. There are clearly lots of different views about the events of the gothic chess baord, and if everyone posted theirs it would lead to a lot of disagreement, and a sore finger for me and floosie having to delete it all!
There are other venues it can be discussed. If you want to vent, there are suitable fellowships. If you want serious discussion, contact a moderator via PM. Thanks

I actually don't understand why was my post removed. Trice deserved much worse name to be called for the post that preceded the mine.

And Trice, when are you gonna shoot? With all that ammunition you needed you said I had given you?

EdTrice: I have read the recent posts here. After reading Ed's along with the other's comments since my second long post, I will take up my defense about the "Jerk" incident by sending it to these Global Moderators. I was going to delete that post of Pedro's, Ed until you copied it twice in one posting while complaining about it. I figured if you didn't mind calling yourself a jerk in public, why should I? You have as is your want and habit, removed said posting and Pedro's has been edited. I'll look through my saved messages and send yours to them along with my message. I'm sure you'll get your day in court. Besides, I've already said that I don't want the moderator's job of that board back, my fellow ex-moderator of the Gothic Chess discussion board, GothicInventor/Quesqusno/EdTrice. By the way, my handle here is Walter Montego, is it that hard for you to type, or do you enjoy making it hard for people to know who it is that you're talking about?

The former moderator is the one who penned "The Manifesto". I just summarized.

EdTrice: "and they tend to elaborate & argue at length repeatedly on obscure issues"

Let's try to be constructive.....

Pedro Martinez posted "Trice you are such a jerk" to the Gothic Chess board.

This was unprovoked. I said nothing to him, about him, made no comment in any way, and that was his response, for whatever reason.

I petitioned the former moderator to remove the post.

No response in 12, 24, 36, 48 hours...

I petitioned the former co-moderator.

He said "no" (basically) and the former moderator replied to the DB, so he left the comment up there as well.

I petitioned the Global Mods, and the rest is known.

If Pedro's comment would have been deleted, I would have taken no such actions.

And Pedro's reward? He was made co-mod.

I don't understand the logic of that.

If I call him a jerk now, will I be made a co-mod too?

nobleheart: Very true.

it must be hard to be a moderator.
just an obsevation on human nature.
I would like to think most descent,stable people are careful what they say.and have some tact at expressing an opinion on a delicate subject.
what must make the job tough to be a mod is the fact that the few people who perhaps may not be descent,stable.do not take care in what they say.
and they tend to elaborate & argue at length repeatedly on obscure issues.

You have to remember that the Global Moderator idea is still pretty new here, and things may not always be smooth - but we are working on that. We have recently created a fellowship which includes Fencer, where we are talking & discussing any Global Moderators issues. And at any time, if any user feels they have an issue which needs help or discussed by the GM’s (Global Moderators), then please send one of us a message asking that it be copied to the fellowship and we will be happy to discuss it. We are also trying to find easier ways to do this – again, we are still new at this so give us some time to start working smoothly.

We ask that moderating issues and such be taking up in private – this is not to try to “silence” anyone, but to try to manage a situation in private without bringing a lot of issues, emotions, and other people into the problem – compounding it to a point where nothing we do is correct. Having someone go to multiply boards to complain about something is in no way going to help the situation, but make it worse. I mean what is another user who reads this going to do to help the situation? Nothing.

Outline on what should be done:
1) First look and see if you deserved to be moderated – Did your post have foul language? Could it have offended someone? Could it have been taken as an insult?
2) If you feel you were moderated for an unfair reason, then you should contact that moderator and discuss it with them in private.
3) If that does not take you anywhere and still feel you need to talk to someone, contact a GM. (English = BIG BAD WOLF, harley, bumble, NOT a floosie, Bry, and Eriisa. Londo I believe handles Czech issues on the Czech boards.) – We can bring the issue up on the GM Fellowship board, which Fencer is also a member, and discuss the issue as a group as needed.

Also, as with any decision from Fencer or a GM – not everyone is going to be happy. We try to look at the complete site – a “Family” site. What is OK by one person may not be OK by another. This is a private gaming site owned by Fencer, and even though some will try to keep talking about “freedom of speech” and such – that does not change the fact that this is a private game site owned by Fencer, and is a game site which he would like to be family friendly - and will do what is needed to keep it this way. (With the regular Moderators and Global moderators here to help.)

Moderation by any regular moderator, or GM, or Fencer is not intended to silence opinions, but rather to maintain an environment in which everyone can have fun.

You've asked for other people's opinions. Here is mine. The global moderators have been asked to give alot. They are criticized for what they do and are also criticized for what they don't do. No matter what they do, they are going to fall under scrutiny. It is an impossible task to have everyone happy with everything you do. I think that each of them gives careful thought and consideration to everything they do and say on here. I imagine they spend hours debating amongst themselves what is the best thing to do. Can you imagine the amount of time that requires?Everything they do or say is held up for all to debate and criticize. I've seen words taken out of context and twisted to be used for or against someone's arguements. I've yet to see one act in a way that can be construed as a 'power trip' or out of a personal crusade. I believe they are acting on what they feel is best for this site.

Fencer chose these moderators, I'm guessing, based upon their longetivity and familiarity with the site and its users, and because they have proven themselves over a period of time to be good moderators. I'm sure it was not as easy task.

I know of many moderators who have had a board or a few boards and thrown in the towel because of the frustruation being a moderator can cause. Anyone who has tried to moderate knows how thankless this task can be. Can you imagine having to moderate every single board on here and all that is posted on a daily basis? I couldn't do it. How can they even have time to have a friendly game or conversation with a friend with all they have to deal with?
If they are tougher on some individuals that post, couldn't that be because over a long period of time, some of these people have shown that they seem to enjoy causing a stir and creating havoc? I have read people bragging about being banned, holding it up like a trophy, intentionally pushing buttons to see how much they get away with. Time after time again.
I'm not saying there should be no debate about how things are done. Of course there should be, and if someone feels they are truly treated unfairly they should try their best to do something about it. That's part of what makes this site so great.

But, I think someone should speak up for the global mods too! They are peacekeepers, and if people kept the peace as they know they should, then we wouldn't have such a great need for moderation. The mods should be allowed to have a life too, to enjoy coming on here and enjoying games like the rest of us, their fellowships, their friends. I imagine they log on everyday and dread what they have to deal with. I, for one, am very glad every mod- global or otherwise, on here comes back every day. They don't have to, they are volunteering their time.

NOT a floosie: I find it rather hypocritical that you would tell me to do something that none of you did before I was removed.

Telling me to send you a private message!

And what you recommend in the post is something I can't do since I do not know which Global Moderator it was that removed me. You and Eriisa are the only ones of the whole group of you that even wrote me, and it was long after the fact of my removal. I now assume that you each individually have veto power and no concensus is needed for any of you to act in the removal of a moderator. We know the trouble this type of organizing causes in the Security Consul of the United Nations, so I'm understanding of how things went down here. At least there, the countries have to announce how they vote.

There's only two groups I or anyone else can go to when something like this happens. Fencer and everyone else. You've seen it in the past when a moderator has started acting poorly by banning people he doesn't like with little or no provocation. The offended parties take their complaints and grievances to another board and air their concerns. They usually try the board that is closest to the topic on hand, but sometimes that is the very board and they have to take it elsewhere. Now that I know about the Global Moderators and this structure, I might've done things differently. I never used my power as moderator to ban people I didn't like just for that reason. In fact I'm ready to bet I'm the first moderator ever removed for anything close to doing whatever it is I did. That board was fun and lively, though quite often off topic. During the two months that Ed kept to his boycott of the board, it rarely strayed off topic. Check it out sometime. I know I've spent enough of my time scrolling through the days on that board. Why am I wasting my time? I care. Now the problem for me is to figure out why I care. This is some obscure place in the aether that no one should give this much of a thought about. And yet, all this grief that has befallen me. It is time for me to move on.

Since you Globals can ban me from every board if you choose to, my only real choice is to appeal to Fencer. As you say, and I know it to be true, he's a very busy person. I hate troubling him for stuff like this. At the same time, he has written to me on occasion. As busy as he is, he has found time to do so. There's lots you Global Moderators could learn from him. Surely your time on this site isn't more valuable than Fencer's?
As it happens, I was writing you a message right now NOT a floosie. You are the only one of the Globals that has taken time out of your schedule to address this problem and my concerns to me and publicly. The organization of BrainKing is a very much a public concern of the members and this seems to be the perfect place to discuss this issue. Eventually some other crisis of similiar import will come up. How it is handled the next time will greatly affect how people feel. I don't see why you couldn'tve allowed me to join your guy's personal discussion board to just talk about this issue if you felt it something that needed to be kept out of public view. Or create a fellowship for the specific use to discuss it and only have myself and you Global Moderators as members. And have you thought of the problem of one of the other Global Moderators completely agreeing with me and undoing the actions? Imagine the trouble that could cause. You guys would all be fighting then. As I wrote to you a few days ago, it's too late to undo what happened to me and this situation, but I and I hope you will try to help make sure something similiar doesn't happen again. This subject is closed for me now until Fencer asks for my opinion or the structure of the Global Moderators and powers alloted to us members and moderators in relation to Global Moderators is changed. I will give my advice and 2¢ to Fencer privately if asked, and publicly if a forum is created for that reason comes into being. You say I am a valued member. That's a right nice sentiment to have. I'm just one member here. There's plenty of other people here that are good members. Lots better than me in many ways. And a majority of them don't post. They may not even read our postings. They're here for the reason this site was created, to play games. Being able to espouse one's opinions as I and a lot of others like to do makes this site that much better.

It is the structure that needs tweaking or major changes. We can work with Fencer or we can hope he gets it right on his own. The way it's set up now isn't set in stone. I'm sure I'm not the only one that can think of some changes to the structure to help the boards get moderated fairly and yet keep trouble to a minimum while preserving as much freedom as is possible. I had ground rules for posting on the Gothic Chess board. Clearly stated though not clearly understood. Freedom is messy and hard to define, but it easy to know when you don't have it. This is what you should've came to me about. None of you did. You imposed your will upon the whole board. If my rules were faulty or you thought they were the cause of the problem or that people were taking advantage of loop holes in them, this is when I needed your help. Not arbitrarily deciding that some of the members were not behaving as you would have them behave in your discussion boards. I could've worked with you to change them, or I could stood my ground and appealed to Fencer, or I could've said, "I'm out" and let someone else give it a go.

Let me thank you for leaving my previous post here NOT a floosie, though I think ughaibu's is better written than mine not counting the typos. I see no reason for him to be banned for what he wrote. But that is why you guys are the Global Moderators, you get to make these decisions. In cases of censorship I believe you should let people have their say unless what they say is offensive. Just the fact of it being something you disagree with is a poor reason and sets a bad precedent for future problems and accusations of favoritism.

I had not intented to get going with yet another long winded post one right after the other, but dang it here it is. I have checked the board this post is going to as I've been writing this to see if others might've posted and if they agreed or disagreed with what I wrote previous to this. Purple's post addresses some of the concern that I have stated in this post about how one would get a fair hearing if it isn't a cut and dried matter. His and Chessmaster1000's cover the problem of which Global Moderator I should have written. Purple also talks about the posts being public or private which is something that concerns me too. Putting the dirty laundry out to air in public can be bad or good. James Hird's doesn't take sides, but he does agree that I should be able to speak my mind freely here. Andromedical's is about the very thing I wrote to you when I was first removed as moderator.

Thank you all again and I'm sure this will work out for the best. I have had enough to say on the matter and I'm not as quick as Purple is when it comes to things to poke fun at in my writing.

Buried under tons of esoteric info about a tiny little DB few people are interested in as well as some private fueds Walter still makes some excellent points. Power corrupts for one. And when you place a new gun in someone's hands there is an irrestible urge to try it out. Another lost point is that if you don't know which Global took the action how do you know if you contact the Globals you won't be "appealing" to the very one who did it to begin with? Public criticism is not allowed (probably a wise policy) but the private appeals process needs to offer some chance at a fair hearing before an unbiased abrbiter.

NOT a floosie: If you feel that you would like all of the Globals to hear your feelings, just send your message to any one of them and ask them to put it on the Globals board.

This is not very convenient. So it's better to post his thoughts here, like he has done......

But the important is: That you removed him without any warning and this contradicts to many things you said about conversation and willingness to listen............
I didn't like this behaviour of: "i believe you should leave, so i remove you, period."
I prefer something like: "i believe you should leave because........Wait for an answer and then take action.........."

NOT a floosie: I think if Walter chooses to air his feelings publicly, then that is his right and hence his post should remain.
Not all may agree with his views, but they are exactly that, his views, and he has a right to air them.

Thanks

Something I will never understand is why Walter was removed as moderator of the Gothic chess board. He never did anything wrong there.

Walter Montego: Thank you for your opinions, prospective and feelings. I appreciate you removing Ugh's post as it was discussed by moderators and put on hide.

Truthfully, I thought long and hard about removing your entire message. However, I also feel that are a valued member here, you deserve to be heard; even though this public board is probably not the best place for your message.

The Global Moderators were put in place by Fencer so that he could concentrate on working on the site. We are here to try and take care of the problems so he can. Not everyone is going to agree or be happy with things that are done here by the Moderators or Global Moderators. We all understand that, and try to do the best that we can.

Should there ever be any issues regarding things that you or anyone feels were done unfairly, they should be brought up privately and not on the public boards. If you have issues with any of the moderators, or Global Moderators, there are always others that you can go to in order to be heard. If you feel that you would like all of the Globals to hear your feelings, just send your message to any one of them and ask them to put it on the Globals board. It will be seen and will be discussed. And for the record, we don't always agree either, but we are willing to listen.

<Though I think of the Globals as landed gentry, I do like his reference to them and the devine right of kings. He has made some typos and references to a Poetry board that I know nothing about, but the Gothic Board I am quite familiar with. As you can see there are no swear words in it, but it certainly questions them and their powers. This posting concerns how this site is run and is therefor on topic and belongs on this discussion board. I think it also puts into perspective how censorship has taken over for no apparent reason except that someone disagrees with someone else and has the power and position to act in their own personal self-interest. And all the while hiding behind a facade of saying that they're doing it for the good of the site.

Though I'm not a personal friend of Fencer's (Filip), I have had cordial communication with him over the time that I've been a member of this site and also after he installed me as moderator of the Gothic Chess. Yes, that's right, some nameless Global Moderator removed an appointee of the site's owner without as so much as consulting him or myself. You'd think if someone was going to take such an action they'd at the very least wait until the owner had a chance to weigh in on it. I only made one post to the board. No swear words are in it either, though I certainly did tweak their noses saying I was going to ban one of them from the board because of her disruptive actions. I never even got around to attempting to do it and they removed me. She finally did write to me and thought I had banned her. Talk about not knowing one's job. She never even used her powers as a Global Moderator to see if I'd carried out my threat. If I was to be removed for that post, then why wasn't it just put on hide? Then they could write to me and find out if I typed correctly or what I was thinking for saying something like that. Then they could wait for Fencer to be the final judge.

As for the Gothic Chess board itself, it might be a good thing for me NOT to be moderator of it any more. After I was removed, I wrote to Fencer asking him to overturn what had been done and ask that it not be allowed to happen again. He said he would check into it. While I've been waiting for the results of his investigation, I've had time to analyze my own behavior in this matter.
Though I've not said anything towards Ed Trice since the end of last year and only took action towards some trouble he started about mysterious postings and accusations in late January, I believe that Ed's animosity towards me is bad for this site. Because of the unique circumstances surrounding Ed and his membership on this site, it is probably better for me to be out of his way.

Many of you reading this, but who have never gone to the Gothic Chess board or played the game may not be aware of Ed Trice's importance to a lot of the emotions that flow on that board. I was installed as moderator when Fencer got fed up with Ed's handling of it. I had just learned how to play Gothic Chess and with just a couple finished games found the discussion board. I just happened to be there when Fencer asked for volunteers. Next thing you know, I'm moderator. Though I didn't know much about the bad blood between some of the various users of the board up until that time, I found out about Ed's wrath very quickly when I challenged his having a patent for a game that I consider over a hundred years old. With me as moderator, Ed was no longer able to stop people from posting statements that he disagreed with or challenged other things about Gothic Chess. I'm a firm believer in free speech and only would censor swear words and racial remarks. It is a public board and unlike the fellowships certain words and phrases shouldn't be printed where the general public can view them. I believe this is one of the reasons that the Gothic board was one of the most popular on this site. Ed and his supporters versus his enemies and distractors, along with various unbiased observers that also liked the conversation of the board, plus danoschek. At first it quickly came to a head and Fencer banned Ed and danoscheck. Peace reigned briefly though Ed's supporters started a bring back Ed campaign. It was successful and Fencer's newly appointed moderators unbanned Ed. Then the dump Walter campaign started! (This is October 2004). I got caught up into the action myself and was not doing a good job of moderating. I freely admitted so and changed completely how I moderated after that. Rarely posting except maybe to answer a question about Gothic Chess or a tournament in progress, letting people talk as they wanted. Fencer came on at the same time was I posting to the board about my change and put Ed in his place about lawsuits and threats. (Ed has removed a lot of the relevant posts, so you'll just have to take my word on it though Fencer's is still there in all its glory!) This obviously didn't set well with Ed and he announced that he would no longer post to the board and started urging a complete boycott of it as long as I remained moderator. Ed also formed and joined numerous fellowships related to Gothic Chess at this time and encouraged his supporters and people that just wanted to play Gothic Chess to join them. I didn't edit any of these post either. I'm not against Gothic Chess. It is a good game.

Anyway, with both Ed and myself not posting to the board, it quickly got peaceful and quiet there for a few months. Then out of the blue rumors started to fly about Gothic Chess being removed from this site and Ed himself said he was leaving the site at the end of March 2005. Yes it's April now. When the postings started concerning ways to play Gothic Chess without infringing on the patent or playing other versions of Bird's or Capablanca Chess to get around his taking the game with him, you could tell this wasn't the response that he'd been planning on. So, suddenly he posts some letter written to him from some mysterious person in England or somewhere and starts a lot of innuendo and then accuses Stevie as being the author of said e-mail. I banned him on February 12th for starting this trouble. Towards the end of March, Fencer wrote me asking about Ed's bannishment in the Gothic board and if I might consider unbanning him. I did unban him March 24th. As I warned Fencer, I doubted if my tenure as moderator would last much longer. My prediction proved correct, but it wasn't how I thought it would go.

With me as moderator, even if I do nothing towards Ed, it causes lots of resentment all the same. With me gone as moderator of that particular board, this is removed. This should certainly help with the feelings expressed on that board and perhaps lessen the trouble caused by my presence. Though I doubt that will be the case, if the past is any guide to the future, it is a real possiblity and now we can see for sure. After posting this message, I will write to Fencer and tell him that I've reconsidered wanting to be re-instated as moderator of the Gothic Chess board. I think the person that removed me should be the moderator. Handing it off like they did is pretty wimpy in my estimation. Whoever it was should take the responsibilty of their action. If the roles were reversed, and I felt that I had to remove a moderator in my capacity as a Global Moderator, I would certainly tell the person I was removing that it was me that did it. What are they afraid of? You know it's going to get back to you eventually. They didn't even write me about that! Had they asked, they might have found that I would leave the position voluntarily and none of my bad feelings would even have happened. I haven't posted anywhere on this site publicly about my removal until now. I thought no one cared about me or what had happened. It's probably my fault in someways because I've not joined any fellowships, only read some public boards concerning games I play, and mostly just play the games that I have going. When I read this message that I'm attaching to this posting, I was heartened to find that what happened was not unobserved and some people saw a problem with it. Apparently some debate has gone on about it in fellowships where this is being discussed.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This letter is from ughaibu. I've not always agreed with him in his postings, but he hit the nail on the head with this writing.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>>>>>>















I was told to remove the message by NOT a floosie. She said he was banned from this board for it's contents. I'm not sure why that would be so, but I have removed it at her request. I also sent a messsage asking why. I've been up all night reading and writing this stuff that I'll have to see what's up tomorrow. I haven't written anything until now about what happened and there's a good chance this will be last thing I ever write about it again too.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXX



XXXXXXXXXXX
Thank you for your consideration and please write to me if you have questions or comments, pro or con.
Walter Montego

I think in view of recent scandalous events it's time to review the success or otherwise of the global moderators. I assume the global moderator system was instituted as a stop-gap substitute service to provide for when none of the local moderators was online. This sounds reasonable enough but is it really necesary? Without globals a fight or a taboo word might remain unmoderated for a few hours on a public board, no great disaster as far as I can see but if such a situation can be avoided all well and good. However the problem associated with this system of prevention is that it encourages 'complete' and excessive policing. There is a tendency for humans to use/abuse the powers they are entrusted with to the limit with consequent psychological and moral deterioration. On the Gothic Chess board a few days ago there was what's usually termed a heated discussion, both the moderator, Walter Montego, and his supporting moderator, Andromedical, were online. Andromedical was active on the board at this point so there was no call for any interference from a global. (By their inherrent nature globals have less familiarity with the content and style of a board and it's frequent posters than do locals.) Nevertheless a global butted in with a trivial and patronising post as if they were a parent admonishing their kids or a teacher with a class of infants, not only is this uncalled for and irritating, it also undermines the position of the local moderators. Quite naturally Walter Montego resented this intrusion and warned the global, however, instead of apologising and backing off, this global became personally and emotionally involved. The situation quickly escalated and the globals removed Walter as moderator. For a moderator to be removed by a global because of personal reasons is completely unacceptable. After only a few months in this position the globals have developed a self-image as some kind of medievel royalty who trace their ancestors directly back to god and who cant be looked upon by mortal eyes without recompense for the insult. A day ago I asked in the Mod Squad "who removed Walter and why?", I have received no replies. This suggests that the globals think that they are above accounting for their actions and that they have an internal code of silence further isolating and "elevating" them. Recently a moderator was removed from the Poetry board. This moderator was new to the board and unfamiliar with it's content and the style of it's frequent posters, (just as globals are on boards of which they are not also the regular moderator), and this person was moderating intrusively, (just as the global did on the Gothic Chess board), if the globals stand by their decision to remove the moderator from Poetry then, to maintain consistency, the globals involved in the Gothic Chess board scandal should themselves be removed.

Luke Skywalker: Yes if the first game of the match is finished.

Luke Skywalker: Even more: what if they ALL end before 2 moves?

In a match consisting of more than one game, what if some games end before 2 moves and some are longer. Will the match count for BKR?

Can one change the priority of other people's bugs? If so, is that in itself a bug?

Fencer: I'm looking forward to it. I know some Bird's Chess openings I'd like to start games with. It's done in Checkers tournaments too.

Chessmaster1000: Thematic tournaments [with fixed openings] will be implemented too.

I see some tournaments that the players should play some specific first moves (for example at Chess to begin with 1.e4 d6).
My question is what would happen if one player doesn't play the recommended moves, because either forgets about it or deliberately doesn't......
Does the creator of the tournament has the power to delete this player or declare the game as lost for the naughty player or what..........?

Czuch Chuckers: Should have been written in portuguese in the first place

Damned foreign syntax ...

Worked 'hard' or perhaps worked 'hardily' but not worked 'hardly' or hardly worked (unless they did not work very hard, which I assume they did work hard)
;)

Forget it.