Well, perhaps more like calling a giraffe a biped.

alanback: Ah, sorry to have misunderstood you. Perhaps you're right about the offtopicness of this thread; discussion of the "Sphere" Froglet name really belongs in the bug tracker rather than the feature requests board.

We understate our case, though, if we say it's only "for the sake of mathematical purity". It's as if we called a butterfly a giraffe and claimed that it didn't matter because the distinction was only zoological.

KotDB: "Why should it matter whether it's mathematical, topological, topographical, geographical, geological, biological, anthropological, etymological, or entomological?"



That's graphic in its logic even if only slightly matic.

KotDB: You misunderstand me. I am as mathematically pedantic as anyone, and I have the BS in math to prove it. I believe strongly in using the right term, especially when the wrong term is misleading. As you have already pointed out, some players might be misled into thinking that the north and south poles are adjacent to each other!

The only thing that disturbed me in the string of messages was that Luke made it clear he did not care at all about the name of the game as a feature of BrainKing, discussion of which is the sole purpose of this message board. He only wanted us to call a torus a torus for the sake of mathematical purity. While mathematical purity matters much to him (and to you and me), it has nothing to do with the purpose of this board!

WhiteTower: Yes, the Earth is spherical in the relevant sense. But the point is that the playing area of the game called "Sphere" Froglet is not equivalent to a sphere. Look at a map of the Earth. Yes, the east and west edges should be joined together, but not the north and south edges. Or are you really suggesting that Greenland is adjacent to Antarctica?

Or look at it another way. Start with a rectangular piece of paper, and think of it as representing the board in the standard Froglet game. Now the rules for "Sphere" Froglet tell us that the left and right edges should be joined, and the top and bottom edges should be joined. So take the paper and first join the left and right edges. We now have a cylindrical tube. Then if we join the top and bottom edges (this may require the paper to be a bit stretchy) we have something in the shape of a doughnut, which is called a torus. The name is not what's important here, and in my view Doughnut Froglet would be as good a name as Torus Froglet. The point is that it is in no way equivalent to a sphere, and hence "Sphere" Froglet is a misnomer.

alanback: You and others have used the phrase "mathematical correctness" (or "mathematically correct") as if the word "mathematical" somehow means that correctness is of no importance. It seems to me that when we have a choice between correctness and incorrectness, we should choose correctness. Why should it matter whether it's mathematical, topological, topographical, geographical, geological, biological, anthropological, etymological, or entomological?

grenv:

playBunny:
Rule 1: Pedantic mathematicians have to make a saving throw each turn to avoid being sucked into a vortex.

Rule 2: When there are no pedantic mathematicians left alive the game ends and we go to the pub for a drink.

playBunny: Easiest game in the world, you don't have to know anything to play

grenv: How do you play Torus Shmorus? It sounds like an interesting game. Do you have any more details?

alanback: I know. I answered White Tower's post which started: "Sorry to be off-topic"

P.S. This will be my last post on this topic

Luke Skywalker: If you're only concerned with mathematical correctness, then you're off topic :-)

Torus Shmorus. Does any of this actually matter?

alanback: I'm not arguing user interface details (BTW I was the first to suggest doughnut) but simply stating mathematical truth (a torus is NOT equivalent to a sphere).

Luke Skywalker: Maybe the problem is with the word "torus", which is certainly unfamiliar outside geometrical circles (no pun intended). How about "doughnut" or "inner tube"

WhiteTower: you might be correct with the non-mathematicians, but for mathematicians it's clear that sphere is wrong. torus is not "also valid" but it's the only valid thing

Sorry to be off-topic, but ...

KotDB: The Earth is almost spherical and its Cartesian map is equivalent to a Froglet playing area - Q.E.D. Even if it is also valid to say Torus instead of Sphere, the spherical aspect is more easily understood by lay people, i.e. non-mathematicians :)

plaintiger: Again, that would be Torus Anti-Froglet.

i've got a suggestion, if it hasn't been made already: Sphere Anti-Froglet.

pitchman2: Try looking at Settings -> Chess. There is an option to set colours of the borad. Not sure if it affects checkers boards though...

I find it difficult to see the black pieces against the squares. Is there any chance in the future of making it easier to deal with this problem as I believe I am not alone in having this particular problem.
The other idea I suggest is using proper checkers men, say in Red and White, instead of chess pawns and chess kings.
I hope this idea is worth considering for the future :)

Fencer: Oops, I had even translated it in Greek - egg on my face!

WhiteTower: Northern Ireland

emmett: If Quebec has its own flag (which, I believe, it does) then it's just another option for Fencer to add, exactly like England, Scotland and Wales for Great Britain - BTW why is there no Northern Ireland??? :)

Does anyone know how to check and see what the longest running game is?

Marfitalu: I live on the border between Quebec and Ontario. I have lived in Quebec several times in my life. Of course, as many Quebecers would like to separate their culture from the rest of Canada's, they would like some distinction as a nationality on BK. It couldn't hurt. Yet they are still Canadians. Continuing to separate countries on BK could be interesting, but more work for Fencer.

The clarification of fellowship game types via a dropdown list is a valid suggestion. For example, I play chess variants. Subsequently, I had to go through every fellowship and not only look at the game lists associated with them, but I had to go into each fellowship and look at how many players there were on each team. A lot of fellowships state that they play all sorts of games, but often there is no one actually playing those games on a fellowship team. Even though I am on several teams, we have never played another fellowship anyway. Up until now, stairs seem to be the most active way to compete... but I would like to partake in more team efforts.

As Emmett suggested, some fellowships are little more than yet another chat forum. And that's a splendid use for some of them. It would be nice if there was a Chat Only option in the Game type: dropdown list so that such fellowships could be found.

Yes! I agree so much that having the ability for 1 team to challenge another team would be a boon to the whole fellowship concept!
The current "team tournaments" aren't started very often, and when they are, are large and take a long time to complete. With Team vs. Team, they could be created whenever any 2 teams feel like it.
Also, in partnership with this, it would be cool to be able to create multiple teams within fellowships, and be able to have a Team Vs. Team between those teams..

Fencer, in case you missed them, my recent fellowship feature idea concerning increasing the roles of team captain was posted on Jan 26, 19:35:58. It was followed by a couple of more posts elucidating this idea.

Fencer: Lol. I know it's a No. (And, even so, you do much better than other sites as regards sorting; I'm just envisioning the ideal of everything sortable/everything searchable/everything optional).

I'm still curious what you have against sorted lists, though. Is it a programming issue or a big drag on the server?

emmett: I agree, it is a pain scrolling through the pages of fellowships to find one you want.

Maybe even something as simple as a key word search feature to help navigate the fellowship list?

I also agree that the fellowships have a huge untapped potential....

Fencer: The reason for the sort request is that there are now a lot of fellowships. Sometimes I have considered a fellowship, but trying to find it later has been an unnessasary hassle. I have been playing long enough to know which long-term players that I respect, so I would like to be able to look at fellowships alphabetically by Big Boss so I can more easily consider the fellowship boards... But I was only asking... it's okay if you don't want to add a sort feature, Fencer. I wish you would have responded to my earlier queries a few days ago about my inter-fellowship matches idea, which involves increasing the role of fellowship team captains. The idea of Fellowships is great, but largely underdeveloped and therefore provides little more than yet another chat forum.

playBunny: No.

Fencer: Why? What is it that you have against lists being sorted except by that most human of values - the BrainKing database Id?

All lists everywhere should be sortable!

emmett: Why?

Can we have a way to alphabetically sort fellowships by Fellowship Name or by Big Boss?

Vikings: Yeah, that too, but I think also being able to set the BKR parameters for the ponds would be cool too!

Czuch Chuckers: now if we can make them invitational only, we'd be set

:)

Czuch Chuckers: Yes.

Will we be able to make intra (among fellowship members only) fellowship ponds soon?

Pythagoras: This variant seems as good as Gothic Chess if not better, and it is nice and quiet in the flame department.

Can we have a way to alphabetically sort fellowships by Fellowship Name or by Big Boss?

just a little!

Pythagoras: I didn't!

I don't really thing that was the case....Ed Trice Vs (Fencer and others) was the problem.....
Too bad....
Peace comes when war destroys everything! In our case peace came before war destroys anything....
But i liked those flaming days....

Wasn't there a problem with gothic chess? Copyright issue maybe?

No need to apologize at all.....You can accuse whoever you want actually. And me of course.... And while with others there will probably some fights be generated, with me things are different I'm never insulted or feel offended....!
But since you said that you weren't refering to anyone in particular things are even simplier....

And to make it ON topic i vote to bring Gothic Chess here. Seems an interesting variant!
    Ouch, ouch, ouch!

Pythagoras: My deepest apologies for the confusion. I was not referring to anyone in particular!

Well i thought you were refering to me since I proposed the variant and you said someone HERE, so with here i thought you mean in this discussion board the one that participates in the conversation....