Dano gets banned for stating his opinion.. and yet everyone else can do no wrong!

my thoughts exactly ughaibu!

Rather than banning others to balance Danoschek I'd rather see Danoschek back and people being more tolerant of each other's peculiarities.

how long before we get rid of another"bad Element"...the anti moderator,who admitted created a bigger problem by provoking Danoschek,using Fencer,mis-using his position as moderator,lieing to the whole membership...and now is using BrainKing.com as a marketing tool for his latest venture?
this has been edited twice now....and I only bring it up because Danoscheks name was brought up...and it reminded me of one of the reasons he was banned.( I hope that good enough harley)

thanks, didn't look very well did i!

In the "My Profile"

Click "Edit" which is at the top next to your name

You will there find the password change area.

cLiCk oN eDIt..yOu'LL SEe.

iT's RiGht uNdEr yOUr nIc.

hey how do you change your password on here i've looked briefly on settings and profile but cant see it.

:-)

Sorry Fencer, I didnt mean use as in "USE" I meant as a perfect example to test on LOL
Didnt mean it to sound bad

Steve: I didn't use anybody. I've just wanted to see if the mentioned person reveals his remaining pawn accounts when I make this board writable for pawns for one night.

Like wishing well, or whatever Chiefs name will be today

So we are to finally and completely deDanoed ... may be a few others will get added to the list too :)

So you have used Dano as a way of testing a filter that can be used on more than just the mentioned person then??

It was final anti-Danoschek filter test.

The internet is not as anonymous as people think. To avoid the more obvious aspects of traceability, takes a skill and knowledge level well beyond the capability of the mentality required to "spam" a game site.
Perhaps a fellowship which fencer passed the offending IP's with date and time of attack might be an idea?
One thing, we have a worldwide membership so finding a local agent should not be to difficult.
Alternatively given the size of the concerned membership, electronic warfare is not beyond our capabilities.

Fencer......while we are patting each other on the back for successes...lets get rid of the ANIMAL element that we appear to be getting, and has only happened since a certain person/persons have been barred....can we not limit pawns on all boards posting until they have completed 25 or so games....it seems to me as if they wouldnt want to wait around that long to be able to post....especially the idiots...opps sorry :) the knowledgeable gentlemen/women that we have as our guests???

ROFL...BBW.....I will beat ya LOL

FINAL TEST! Did you/we/it pass? :-)

Now I'm going to have to log on more often so I can be one of the first to find out. :-)

Give me one or two days.

the final test is over??? OK...great....what are the results hehehehehe

The final test is over.

Bernice: You will see it at your Main Page.

can someone tell me please....are reminders sent to our message box when renewal of our accounts are imminent?

The BrianKing.com board is the only board that still allows pawn's to post.

Hopefully it would be used for pawns who TRUELY have a question or problem with BrainKing, and not abused by other pawns who might hurt it for all the others.

Yeah. Now the site will be even better and that will help bring in more members.

Thanks alot for your hard work, Liquid and Fencer! :-)

Way to go both of you!

way to go Liquid!

It's Liquid's work.

Well you have been doing something right Fencer - that is the first time I have seen the "Server down" message for a long while!

Keep up the good work!

Ehm, database server upgrade ;-) I've expected it to take 20 minutes but something went wrong. Everything is OK now.

Before 11Am and after 1PM I couldn't logon.. why? what happened? :-)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...rolls over looks at the topic
still... the ...same....zzz...zz....zzzzzz...zzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

This all seems like overkill. Why not just hide ratings of a given game type for inactive players until they become active again?

The point I was making is that if you have 50 games going, only one of those 50 games per month (undr the suggestion by Scooter) would have to be by someone rated below you. It sounds to me like it would not affect someone playing many games at all. It is a system in attempt to get rid of high ranked players who do not play any games at all in order to keep their name at the top of the leader board. Some people come here win a few games with the right people, get a high ranking, and leave, never to play again. I recently invited a player ranked slightly higher than me, who has only 5 games to his credit, to a game of Reversi. He declined the invitation. This type of system would force players like this to play at least one game a month, if invited, or lose some standing on the leader board. It would not effect active players like yourself at all. Sorry if you felt personally attacked by my previous post, I just didn't think your reasoning had any merit. I am sorry.

yep. that's the idea I had in mind :)

kind of like what is going on at GoldToken.com with their ladder system. As long as you are on the ladder, you will have a game going. If you win, you move up. If you lose, you move down. And then you are again matched up with someone else in the same "rung" and play again until you move up or down. (Played games counting towards the BKR)

Then if you don't want to play (or can't), all you would do is lose a rung - and would not affect the BKR. That would be good.

Right, the ladder would be to determain the "top dog" in that game. Everyone starts on the bottom and gets paired up. The winners move on to the 2 step of the ladder and get paired up and so on and so forth. your games would still count for BKR, but the ladder would have a different page so to speak, kinda like a never ending tournament.

Now if the "ladder" system was a seperate things from the rating system, then I would like to see that. If you join the ladder, and then do not accept a challenge, then you just go down a rung of the ladder, and the challenger goes up.

I think a ladder (check my post 200-300 back) would be a great idea.

actually this idea was brought up before in the form of a seperate ladder system

sorry that you think those are "lame" excusses

But to clerify myself in case you can't read, I was not whining - I was giving some example of why I personally do not think the idea would work. I love to see new and different ideas - and I would be happy to talk about any other idea (or more about this one).

So Chuc, you are saying if you are at 50 games, and if are unable to accept more games - you would be OK with losing rating points. That is fine, that is your choice. But please don't accuse me of whining for trying to point out some example of why I do not think it would work too well.

(it's called a discussion - to just say "i don't like it" without explaining why would not help anyone.) Do you understand now?

Sounds like a lot of hot air to me. All Scooter suggested was to accept one game per month from a player lower rated within 200 points of yourself. Not wanting this type of system is one thing. But some of the excuses I have seen here make no sense. Worrying about a pawn, or that you don't like to play certain people. One game a month, surely you could find one player you don't dislike... Quit all the whining.... Just say you don't like it, and leave the lame excusses at home :)

I don't like the idea of a "challenge" system since I really only play tournament games.

Plus then you get into the problem of a pawn with 20 games who can not accept the challenge because they are at their game limit, and then you come to the part where some people just don't like others - and would not want to be challenged by then (let alone play them)

so if im playing someone in a tournament ect that is around the same bkr , would i still have to accept a challenge from someone else ?

there's probably 75 people within 200 points of me, how many would I have to accept, I just accepted 2 tonight

Seems like we've had this discussion before. I've suggested something before and I still think the best answer is to incorporate some type of challenge system, whereby, a higher rated player, if challenged, has to accept to play a game with a lower rated player (say up to a 200 point difference) at least once a month. If he/she does, thats fine. If he/she does not accept the game, then he/she forfeits the game. Note that he/she would only be required to play if challenged. If there are not challenges, then he/she doesn't have to play, and can keep her/his rating indefinitely and play with whomever he/she wants, no big deal. So if no one cares, then its no big deal and he/she can keep their rating as high as they have earned it as opposed to some rating degredation mechanism, which has so many problems and issues associated with it.

Also I think this would only apply to individuals rated in the top 10 or something like that. Its kind of like something we had on my high school chess team... (although I hate playing chess now... so slow)

or is anyone else having problems with making a move on a game then it still being on your turn to move when it's actually your opponents turn?