harley: What is this swamped thing you fear? Is there something wrong with the scroll feature of your computer? Plus, in this case I'm sure the overwhelming majority of people are interested as no one wants to run afoul of the moderators and by reading it here one may learn what to avoid. As for the personal posts, those are what the moderators are supposed to take care, aren't they? All the rest of the posts have a legitimate place if they're on topic or are part of the general conversation. You guys moderate with too heavy of a hand at times and completely stifle things with even a small comment. No one likes taking the time to compose a post only to be rebuked by a moderator that has grown weary of the posts even when the posts in question are on topic. Posting is an almost umlimited resource here and yet you guys would limit it to as little as possible from the way you go about your business at times.

bwildman: Well, it would appear that my predicition that I made after being removed as a moderator has come true. And remember, I was removed without ever using a swear word, violating the user agreement, and without warning. Since this conversation is avoiding the particulars involved I had to look at who's moderating the boards that I don't read along with the ones that I do to try and make sense of what it is that you guys are talking about. I notice two moderators that have been replaced. One of whom is being defended here and the other no one apparently misses. I am not going to rehash my arguments that I posted about this system of moderation. As it is set up now, it is personality driven and is the perfect breeding ground for favoritism and corruption even if we have good people holding the Global moderator's positions, which is arguable in itself. It's been over two months since my time and Fencer has never said a word or asked a question of me about it. At least from what I've read here about this lastest incident seems to show that some sort of procedures have now been implemented and the people were at least warned to change their ways.

ClayNashvilleTn: I agree with bwildman and disagree with you. This is the perfect forum to air complaints about how this site is run. It's first and only statement says it quite clearly and as bwildman pointed out Fencer could at any time post something if he wants too.

"Board for everybody who is interested in BrainKing itself, its structure, features and future."

It says everybody and it says structure. What could be more clear than that? Your suggestion to join some fellowship won't work for me and bwildman states one of the numerous reasons that it won't. Hiding it in some obscure fellowship that only some members have access to is just sweeping it under the rug.

harley: I thought this site was fine without it, but that's not how it is any more. It seems more balanced having the cloaked ones not being able to follow people around as they aren't letting themselves be seen. As paranoid as I am, I think the whole concept of it is silly. I could care less where someone is as long they would just make their moves when they log on. The cloak did interfer with me playing fast with some people, but most of my fast playing opponents shunned the cloak option and stayed visible. Perhaps with this change a cloaked person might toggle it back and forth depending if they want to play faster or not?

Yes, I read the arguments of AbigailII and pgt. Both of them made valid points for me to consider. I'm glad the cloak has been modified as you say it is now, though I'dve just as soon it had never been installed in the first place.

harley: Is that how it is now? Good. I'm no fan of the cloak system, but if there's going to be one then it seems fair to have its use come with some loss for the user too. I mean, if I can't see you, then you can't see me and it is up to the user to use the cloak or not and I can be left out of it completely.

Lamby: Yes, you have.
Yo' 'n a 'ep o' trouble bo'!

Jules: I have been getting the same treatment to. I'd be willing to bet it's the same person. Perhaps we can contact Fencer and have him check the message logs and then remove said person from the site for violating the membership agreement?

malynemo: You'll have to use English for me to read that. Maybe you'll want to check out the Czech board if that's what language you're typing in.

bumble ScarletRose: I would use the hide feature, except that it hides everything that a person posts, not just those things that I find objectionable. I generally disagree or don't like a lot of things that the one that can't name me posts, but on occasion he will post something of interest to me or even have something intelligent and pertinent to the current topic of discussion. The one the can't name me is a fairly smart guy, whether or not I like his way of doing things or how he treats me and others is only part of it. I suffer though everyone's posts including his, just on the chance, no matter how small, that I might learn something from them. That is why I said nothing through all the advertising he has posted. I believe an occasional post could slide by and not be too bothersome, but to continually harp on it amounts to advertising commercially and is not fair to readers of these posts that have opted out. I'm glad that the situation was brought to a moderator's attention and action was taken to put a check on it. As I said, I kept quiet about it and thought it was just me partly blaming my hard feelings concerning the one that won't name me. I didn't realize that others on this site had a problem with it as I've never seen it posted anywhere. Perhaps they've talked about it in private messages or in a fellowship. I might be out of the loop, but I still observe the goings on in the discussion boards that I do read.

EdTrice: As a paying member I am given the choice on this site if I want to have advertisements on my pages. I opted to not have them. Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do to stop you from your shameless posting about the Gothic Chess site links, sales of merchandize, bidding auctions, general self-promotion, and all the while getting in a word or two about your federation or how well business is going for you.
I thought I was the only that had a problem with it and kept quiet. Now that I see Pedro take action and he also says people have written to him to complain, I feel that perhaps I should've spoken up. I thought Fencer paid you to have Gothic Chess on the site, now you say it's you that pays him? I'll never know what's what.

As for him banning you without warning. What's new about that? Welcome to the club. You obviously got under someone in power's skin. I've posted plenty about the system of moderation and problems that it causes on this site. What have you done to help fix this type of thing? Fencer has never commented to me if he agrees with me or not, but I would assume that he's happy with how he has things set up and you're just out of luck. I was removed from being the moderator without so much as a notice. When I finally posted about it, you of all people, made fun of my posts and refused to even acknowledge that it was I that wrote them. You won't be getting much sympathy from me, buddy.

pauloaguia: Ah, my misunderstanding then. I hadn't realized that Pawns couldn't join the fellowships. Please ignore my previous posts and I apologize for the trouble and inconvience they may have caused.

This certainly helps me understand the structure of this site a bit more. What I proposed could be done for the paying members. I think that would work well.

tazman7474: What? You're missing my point. Besides, to be a Big Boss, you must be a paying member, right? So what are talking about? I would have it in the Big Bosses control. Non-paying members would be subject to how things are for them now, but the Big Boss would be able to have a wider forum for his fellowship if he thought he could serve a wider audience. If he opened it to just having non-members of his fellowship to read the posts, but not write, I don't see how this would cheapen your membership in any way. If he allowed non-members of his fellowship to write posts also, it would create a type of public discussion board that would force him and his manages to monitor it in a way similar to how the moderators of the discussions board do now. I'm sure no Big Boss would put up with too much carrying on or he'd change the setting back or ban the individuals responsible.

As this site is currently set up, aren't non-paying (Pawn) members already allowed to join fellowships and post to them?
A Pawn member isn't allowed to create a fellowship though, is he? That would still be a perk of joining the site. Pawns can only play 20 games at a time and cannot play Ponds. Being able to read a fellowship's discussion board with the Big Boss's approval doesn't seem like something that'd cheapen your membership in any way. Allowing the Big Boss to allow non-paying and non-fellowship members to read or write posts doesn't seem to have anything to do with your enjoyment of the site. You still get unlimited games and fellowship creation. My proposal doesn't change any of that, but would help add to discussion of narrow ranged subjects that are no longer or never have been served by the discussion boards.

bumble tazman: You miss the point of my question, whether or not it seems like a secret society has nothing to do with it. As you well know, a lot of fellowships have been formed just so people can have a forum to talk about things that aren't covered in the regular public discussion boards. I am wondering if there are fellowships that non-members could read the posts. I had in mind the Big Boss having the abilty to allow non-members to read the posts, but not let them post to the fellowship's discussion board. Also, allow the Big Boss to allow non-members to post to the fellowship too. It'd be the Big Boss's choice when forming the fellowship.
It'd make a semi-private type of group. You could have it in various degrees too. The most restrictive would be Big Boss only, followed by managers, then members of the fellowship, selected members of BrainKing, all paying members of BrainKing, and the most open,
all members of BrainKing. I would have it so the Big Boss could allow each type of BrainKing Member to read the posts or not and to be able to write a post or not. The least restrictive of these fellowships would be almost identical to these public discussion boards.

I think these would be a good thing to have. With the merging of some of the boards that happened a few weeks ago, some members feel that the remaining discussion boards are to general for their particular game and their posts get lost or pushed aside too easily. Since an open fellowship would be just that, open to all, it could serve as another type of public discussion board. It wouldn't be advertised on the big list of public discussion boards, so a person interesting in finding a fellowship with his interest would have to search the fellowship list or hear it by word of mouth. In the list or when you visit a fellowship's home page, the type of fellowship posting and reading allowed would be stated. A completely open fellowship would allow an interested person to read the posts and see if they wanted to join the fellowship without having to ask first. If the Big Boss allowed non-members to post also, then it wouldn't matter if they joined the fellowship and the fellowship's discussion board would serve as a type of public discussion board. Though it might be wise to have it set up so that if non-members may post to one's fellowship, they would only be allowed to do so while the Big Boss was online. Or you might return to find your fellowship a mishmash of posts from outsiders. Do the managers in a fellowship have editing abilites? If so, then this wouldn't need to be a worry.

I have the feeling that the answer is no fron your replies. I'll wait for a day or so, just
in the case that the answer is yes, that the Big Boss can allow non-members to view or write posts. If it is no, I will visit the Feature Request board with a proposal.

I am wondering if there is an option for the Fellowship creator (Big Boss) to have their fellowship enabled so that non-member may read the posts, or if the posts can always only be read by members of the fellowship no matter how the Big Boss sets up his fellowship?

rabbitoid: I'm down to one game with the negative 12920 days on it. I had gotten up to about ten games that were doing it.
I too can speculate about its cause. Perhaps the Cloak Mode implementation had something to do with it?
Are we lining up side bets on this?

Fencer: I shall be patient then and await developements. It's such a strange thing to have happen. I can only imagine the grief it's caused and the difficulty in finding out what's causing it. It might something as simple as a colon where a semi-colon should be. : ;

I assume the back ups are ready. If it's going to take a real testing out before you're ready, let me and others know. I'll not make any moves for the day of the test and this will cause less problems for the games I have going if the backups have to be used. Especially darkness type games.

I'm wondering how the fix for the bug with the negative days in coming along. I'm glad it doen't time out the game being negative, but it also means that games that should legitimately time out are getting to slide by. Some of my games will say -12919 days left on them. When I or my opponent moves the time left counter will sometimes go to the proper amount like 2 days, 23 hours and other times will read the -12919 days left.

He's been banned long enough for his offense, hasn't he?

Pedro Martínez: You know, that's not a bad idea. The thing is, I really don't care if I know what others are doing. I wish this cloak mode option would have never came into being in the first place. I do like the suggested feature of someone that's using the cloak mode being unable to see what us uncloaked people are doing. I would also like to be able to shut off where people are located on the discussion boards. I like being able to see where someone is while I'm viewing a game I have with them, but I'd just a soon not see it while viewing the discussion boards and it slows the loading of my pages too.
My feature request will be to get rid of this cloak mode.

BerniceC: I'm in Southern California. Which has to be one of the printed T-shirt capitols of the world. There's lots of different brands of non-printed T-shirts to choose from too. IMported from everywhere. The port of Los Angeles and the port of Long Beach are some of the busiest in the world. No telling how many sweat shops ship their stuff through here, plus there's plenty of domestic manufacturers around here too.

BerniceC: Don't confuse the quality of your T-shirt with the quality of the screen printing and inks used for it. A lot of screen printed things don't give the proper care for washing them. Also, if there's puff ink on it, it has to be heated after made to set it. These sparkels you mention might also have had to have been glued on. Then there's you soap or detergent and if you add other things to the wash and other clothes too. IS the shirt in good shape, but the printing getting bad? Or are both getting bad? 12 washes ain't too many, but you made it sound as if you'd worn it a hundred times.

BerniceC: Seems to me all clothes wear out over time. Better made ones last longer, but they all wear out from use eventually. If you wear that T-shirt as much as you say, then it sounds like you've had some good use out of it. Working out in clothes not made for that use will wear them out real fast. Plus you have to launder them more times. I'm sure the repeated washings, soap, and detergent have taken their toll on your T-shirt.

BerniceC: Buy another one and wear them both?

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?

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.

<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

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.

BerniceC: That's 8 months ago, though. Is James right about the service, or just the lack of logging on? Seems like you could be a Service Rep and not play games here, couldn't you?

Purple: What's it matter if the game is over? A little late to get help, ain't it? It certainly isn't cheating by any definition of the word that I know of. It's the same as looking over a game you've already played. One of the things that the Chess playing machine do is used old games and data bases to look up and compare a position in the case that it's been played before. That to me is cheating, but that is allowed in tournaments where programs are permitted to play. This is one thing that makes Sumerian's type of program different from a lot of others is that it plays on the fly and just wings its moves. It's still a machine, but it is a different approach to programming.

Andersp: Er, ah, I thought it was full of engines, machines, and programs now? No?

Andersp: I'd be willing to bet there's already some on the market now. Lots of programs play lots of games. Even this Windows© machine that I use came with a few games. Somewhere around here I have two game programs ChessMaster5500 and EA Bridge. That fact that I can't beat the ChessMaster5500 is one of the reason I don't play Chess on this site. Not much use in it is there? And it's an older version. I imagine their newest version is really strong and fast compared to the one I have. The Bridge playing program is disappointing because it plays so poorly! Apparently games that require deduction, bluff, and intuition are a lot harder to program than games that have perfect information in them as Chess does. I have read in magazines that current Bridge playing programs have greatly improved their play and features since the one that I own was released. As for Backgammon, I wouldn't bother making one on your own. It won't play all that much better than a decent player even it played the game perfectly. It'd take a long time to show that it played better than you do. You ought to take up Dark Chess. As far as I know there aren't any programs in use for making the moves, plus the game cannot be watched by an outsider until the game is over. And even if your opponent gave his password to a friend to help him make a move, his friend would only see your opponent's side of the board and he'd be in the same boat as your original opponent. The game has a little luck to it and a weaker player actually has a chance against a strong player which is never the case in regular Chess.

One thing this whole argument seems to have missed is the fact that none of us are directly playing a person. We're all using machines to play the games with. Just wait until the programs can make conversation too. :(

Andersp: Even one that plays Backgammon?

Czuch Chuckers: I and it appears Caissus believe it is time to change the wording of the user agreement to reflect the reality of the world as it is and not how some wish it was. Why penalize the honest and reward the cheaters? The one thing good about this is it proves a real drawback to the internet and certain things will always be better.

Caissus: Sounds like you and I agree on the use of computers and outside help.

I hadn't addressed the losing games on purpose, just the using of outside help. Losing games on purpose seems rather stupid to me. Just how can that boost one's rating? Create accounts and have these accounts do the losing to specific players in certain games? Yes, that might work, but what's the point? In a two player game, it is the winner that advances. The rating itself doesn't mean squat. I have a 2300 rating in Dark Chess, but I lost the other week to someone with a 1500 rating. It doesn't mean much that I can see, except that he won the game. I sure didn't lose it on purpose and the loss lowered my rating, but so what? As far as I can see the ratings themselves are just a guidline for seeding tournaments or to help someone find suitable opponents to invite to play a game with. People that play just to get a high rating and not care about playing the game itself are people that need to look at why they are playing a game in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I like having the highest rating I can in every game that I play, but that is not why I play games. I dislike the rating when people hold my low rating against me and won't play me because of it. Or won't play me because my rating is a lot higher than theirs is. In some games, Chess especially, if the opponents aren't fairly close in playing strength the games usually aren't very fun games for either player. This is one thing that I do like about having ratings, but it shouldn't be a hard and fast thing applied indiscriminately in every case. That's why some tournaments are opens and others are invitationals.
In a multiplayer game, losing games on purpose can directly help other players in the game. Just as can playing poorly. There's been a lot of discussion about this in the "Run Around the Pond" discussion board. Almost every game involving more than two sides has this problem, and that's just how it goes. I suppose about the only way you can do anything about it is to not play with those people that one thinks are employing such tactics.

reza: I think you are not being reasonable about how you define playing fair, your definition of cheating, or the reality of playing games on the internet. Just how will you police people from not using outside help and computers? The only way that I can see is to play them face to face. That is not how it works on the internet. I hope you read my last two posts before we were told to bring the discussion here. Since there's no way to stop people from using computers and outside help, I think a more realistic policy is to just allow it to be done and not restrict it. I didn't say to encourage it, just not forbid it. What good is a law if it can't be inforced? All's it does it make for disrespect of the law in general and make people more likely to cheat in other ways. Picking on the one person that freely admits using a program will just make the others keep it secret. This type of action will encourage more cheating and secretiveness. You cite Ed Trice's program. What stops him or someone else from using it in the very tournament that you're talking about? Just play your best and beat your opponents if you. If you don't want to use outside help, then don't. Complaining about it is not going to help in this instance. Least ways, I don't see how it will help. You've gotten you feelings off your chest, but there's really nothing you can do about it. Or have you come up with some ideas?

Bernice: The expression around here is "passing the buck" or "buck passing". It also has an opposite when someone sees it going on and puts a stop to it, it is said that "The buck stops here." I believe this comes from hunting years ago and has something to do with deer. The expression is very old. Our money has five units, but the one called dollar also has the name buck. As in $5 could be called five bucks instead of five dollars. I also once heard that a president in the early 1900's had a sign on his desk that read, "The buck stops here" and that is how that expression got started.

Chessmaster1000: Trip, I was telling ughaibu and redsales during our games of Dark Chess that we have going that that game looked familiar! No wonder it does. :) I guess I did miss it. Extinction Chess can end quite suddenly if you see a plan like that.

Chessmaster1000: And remember, as there are no checks in Extinction Chess, there are also no checkmates either. Hopefully you mean on the sixth move something of Black's is extinct, not that he has no way out of it and it will happen on the seventh move. Just asking for clarification.

Right nice puzzles you have here. I think I should give them a serious go if no one has claimed the prize by tomorrow. Time for bed now.

Cerebro: Where's my months? :)
Sounds like a fair way to go, but first we'll have to see what the right answers are, and if they've been posted by anyone as of yet. If the answers that I posted are the correct ones, then I was the first one to post all the correct answers. If one or more of them are wrong, then it'll depend on if anyone has posted all three of the correct answers yet. If my answers are correct and he agrees that I should get the prize, we'll work something out. I won't take any of it and let him do as fencer will allow. If I have a wrong answer or if he doesn't allow my post to count though they're correct and first, then what I want to do has less say in what actually is done.

Cerebro I think you have a typo since ughaibu answered Q3 first, not Q1

ScarletRose: I also copied ughaibu's answer and I didn't hear you complain about that.
Perhaps it's Cerebro prize to claim after all. When will ChessMaster be log on next? I'm waiting to see if anybody has it yet.

I posted all three answers first, though I only know that one of them is correct for sure. But the stipulation was correct answers, not understanding the answers.
I'll give it to redsales if his answer is to the Extinction Chess problem is correct since it's in less than six moves, otherwise to ughaibu.

1. 132
2. 40
3. 1.e5 Ng8 2.b4 Qb6 3.Be3 Bc5 4.Bxc5 Qc6 5.Bb5 and 6.Qxb5 or Bxc6 or Bxe8 or Rxd7

BerniceC: He might've posted 40 for answer 2 first, but he didn't solve the problem. I wonder why he even wasted his time if he's not goiing to try the Extinction Chess problem. You don't have to know how to play the game to work on the problem. But you would have to learn how it is played to solve it.

BerniceC: I did it as ughaibu did it. That's half the board of 80 squares. Thad says 32, but 40 greater than 32. I doubt if you can get more than 40 putting them in columns, or 32 for that matter. Putting them in islands might be worth trying, but I think just covering all the squares of one color is going to be tops, though I don't have a proof of it.

I can't think of a way to get more than that. And I don't have the Knights in any columns either. Am I missing something?
http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/georgecm9000/ba.html
Just thought I'd bring the link up a bit. It's getting kind of far down the page.

Four move King capture Black winning:
http://brainking.com/game/ArchivedGame?g=425688

Three move King Capture with Black winning:
http://brainking.com/game/ArchivedGame?g=325044

72 move King capture White winning:
http://brainking.com/game/ArchivedGame?g=250097

Actually capturing the King requires a turn to do so the two quick games listed are probably the fastest games you could play. Atomic Chess might have a faster game possible, I'll have to think about it unless someone knows already. Seems like three moves would be it in that game too.

You have me curious what the average length of games is. Backgammon is a fairly constant 18 to 30 moves. Dark Chess has quite an extreme range, but I'd guess the average for games played until the King is actually captured to be about 25 moves. I suppose I could just add up my wins and losses moves per game and figure an average that way. The number on the profile isn't always the right number though and you'd have to look for games that end in resignations. Or maybe not, since resigning is part of the game it could be part of a complete average.

Perhaps one can remain on the chart if he has been playing it or has finished a game, instead of just basing it on finishing a game. Require a certain amount of movement or finshed games per quarter. But even taking the scenario of a game that takes 4 months to finish with the players moving everyday, I think three months is more than adequate. You should have more that just one game going to retain a spot on the chart. Just ekeing out the bare minimum might be enough by the rules, but it sure isn't by the spirit of it. The rankings should be for active players, not people that play one game every six months. I'd go with delisting them until they played regularly. As an option there could be a link that would list all members ratings in an inactive chart of some sort, where a column on that chart could also list the player's last move in the game so rated. In fact, such a dated last move would be a welcome addition to the charts that we have now. How about it fencer, could you put the last time a person moved in the type of game in question on the game ranking page? Just having it public would show who desrves their top ratings. Anybody that sees a top rated player that hasn't moved in the game type of interest in over a year would know at a glance where not to look for a game to play. If you do make it so inactive players are delisted until they play again, it would also alert someone that they might want to get some games going before that happens.

Fencer:
I believe we had a discussion of removing inactive players from the charts before. This is a good idea. That way I wouldn't have look at a game I no longer play on my main page, would I? It'd certainly get those players that won four games, took the top position be virtue of having defeated four players and have never played another game of it, but continue to use this site. If you're going to keep your ranking, then you should have to continue to play to hold it. Besides, you say they keep their rating it just won't show on the ranking list until they start playing and finish some games, right? Though I consider the established rating the important one, it's nice to have a high ranking with an established rating on the provisional chart too. I think I'd cut the time to three months instead of six. A month for a seems kind of short. Though that's an incentive to become a paying member and yet get to see how the site works too.

As for not having Pawn members listed in the rating charts at all. I think this is a bad idea. As long as one is active by the criteria set forth, you should have a rating listed. We're all members of this site, paying or not. For some people 20 games or less is plenty for them. I can see not joining as a paying member if that's all they use it. Why penalize them? Also, as others have argued, I sometimes look through the list for prospective opponents and I am not interested in whether they're paying members or not, but if the game we might play will be a fun or chalenging game to play. The ratings and rankings help in finding opponents.

Need any help with that? And are you sure you want to do that? It might make sense with Pente and Keryo Pente, but would you do it with Janus Chess and Gothic Chess? Or am I understanding your plan correctly?

I'd be willing to bet that most lost mail is from people's carelessness when addressing it. I always try to write it neat and in block capital letters. If you don't make it easy for them, they'll make it hard for you!

I remember a short science fiction story that had a guy make first contact with the intragalatic society by him addressing mail to them. The closer the mail is sent the longer it would take. He addressed it to some far away star and it got there instantly. The aliens concluded we were space faring and made contact. Kind of a spoof, but it sure sounds like your experience. :)

Right here in Orange County, California. The Czech Republic is a long ways away from here, too. I imagine the Unites States Postal Service has a big hub up in Los Angeles, which I'm sure the terminal annex here in Santa Ana gets to them that day, after the sorting and whatever else it takes to get mail on its way is done. Little bar codes and such. L.A. is 34 miles from Santa Ana. LAX is about 40 miles from Santa Ana. I think there terminal annex was moved to South Central L.A. just north of Watts a few years back. The one in downtown L.A. is by Union Station. I think it's closed, but I haven't been there in years and it was still open the last time I was there.
I usually mail things like letters right at the post office. That can save a day sometimes if the truck hasn't made the pick up yet. Paying bills and stuff gets put in the mail box or handed to the letter carrier.