baddessi: enjoy your holiday you lucky thing :) and maybe by the time you get back there will be a new owner of BK and that could be one of the things that could be fixed ;)

ThunderGr: no apologies needed. you sent me to the right place, unless you know of a place to set days off.
Thank you for you help!

baddessi: I confused the vacation days with the days off setting, obviously. Sorry.

Bernice: The only option I saw was to click on auto-vacation. I have 35 days left so it should be fine.
I remember in the past you could set actual days, but auto will be fine.
Thanks everyone for all the help! I will be gone the 4th thru the 20th if I time out, then sorry!

baddessi: you cant set any more...if you dont make a move on time it comes off an hour at a time I think....

baddessi: Actually, I don't think you can anymore, it's auto-vacation for everyone after the last change. But I could be wrong.

baddessi: It is under Settings -> Calendar

I haven't set vacation days for a very long time. Looked under settings and can't find where to designate vacation days. Any help greatly appreciated!

beach: Thanks, I've always wondered about that.

ketchuplover:  they were probably a knight or a rook and their membership expired so now they are a pawn

a brain pawn member have 791 started games? tyia

BGBedlam: Indeed

aaru: There seems to be a common thread running through all these examples you keep giving us aaru!

game 6667785
Last move of my opponent: 26 May 2014, 12:50:55. Dead time -> 26 May 2014, 23:09:00. So 10:18:05 hours after move of my opponent (FC with 18 hours bonus)
http://brainking.com/pl/PhotoAlbum?alid=2160&phid=16459
Tryktrak (AlterMann vs. aaru)

winterangels:

Hope it was angelic...and that you savored your angel's food cake...or was it devil's food cake?

winterangels: Happy Birthday. It is mine on the 29th.

Its mine today

Roberto Silva: LOL......I only have a couple as I have better things to do these days LOL...but someone is being a smart ----. But life goes on :)

Pedro Martínez: If a few of my games diappeared, I probably wouldn't notice...

Carpe Diem: I do confirm that one of my games has mysteriously disappeared indeed... Not that I care much... we can start a new one...

Bernice: Some kind of glitch, or error on the part of a player, seems much, much, much, much more likely then someone maliciously choosing two of your games to delete.

coan.net: NO...half way through games and they dissapear....someone deleted them. One was with Dolittle, and the other with Pedro Martinez....

Bernice: Looking at your games, I see 2 games that you are playing which are non-tournament games.

Since you have 12 games total, could it be that possible you only choose to see 10 games on your main page, and these other 2 games were on page 2 of the game list maybe?

Bernice: I guess Fencer could go into your accoutn and change things (without the password), but I doubt he would be interested to do that.
Could it be your opponent resigned? Or deleted his/her ID, and all games went with it?

Isn't it strange....I was only playing 2 games with friends and these games were not in tourneys and they both seemed to disappear from my gamesheet. Is it possible that someone can access our personal data and remove games? All the tourneys were there just these 2 were missing...
or is someone going into peoples account and they shouldn't be? HMMMMMM

who has access to passwords?

Next one
Last move of my opponent: 17 May 2014, 20:49:39. Dead time -> 17 May 2014, 23:50:03. So 3hours after move of my opponent (FC with 18 hours bonus)
http://brainking.com/pl/PhotoAlbum?alid=2160&phid=16449
Crowded Backgammon (AlterMann vs. aaru)

Marshmud: shhh, they're learning to read

The Col: Your lucky there are more chickens on the planet then humans..

Marshmud:

BGBedlam: That selection is meant to give players different boards, for example the game knight fight. You don't want all players to have the same board,. Another example would be the game Pah Tum.

rod03801:

I like it too. In future random tournaments I will make the selection 'random position for each opponent' in the hope this is what caused it.

Aganju: I think it's a "bug".. but it's a bug i personally like.

Marshmud: I am surprised that any code was changed. Many people complain for years about Fencer not changing/adding/correcting anything at all - so is this what he would do first?
Could be, but I am surprised.

rod03801: Yes I agree Rod. First I ever noticed where both games were different. Actually its a good idea. I doubt if its a newly added feature.

Marshmud: Maybe it's different for team tournaments. I'm not a programmer, by any stretch of the imagination. But I have noticed it only recently, in another regular random tournament I'm in. Not Team. And I'm POSITIVE, it wasn't that way before

Aganju: No not at all. Just check any random tournament. For a easy example, check the team tournament random tournament. You will see that every players 2 game match are the same random game.

Marshmud: I think it is something that recently changed. Because I don't ever remember playing 2 different games with the same player in a random tournament, and I think it is tied to "random position for each game" as Aganju says.

I love the random tournaments and have played a lot. This "phenomenon" is something I have only recently noticed.

Marshmud: it could be that the setting 'a random position for each game' applies to that too, and results in 'a random game for each game'?

BGBedlam: I can't remember ever playing a 2 game match in random format where you receive 2 different games in one match "per" player.

BGBedlam: I think this is what happens when you select the "random game" type of tournament. Now you know for next time.

I don't know if I've not been keeping my ear to the ground, but I created this tournament and it's on of those round robins where you play each opponent in two seperate games/matches. I appear to be playing each opponent with different games.

2020 Octogammon 12/May/14

I thought you played two games of the same type with each opponent. Has something changed? Have I imagined the whole thing?

ThunderGr: The ladders on IYT work the way you describe it. They don't use levels, though. It's just a numerical ranking. Not only can the top person be constantly challenged, but they can lose their place just by virtue of the #2 winning their own game. The ones on GT are similar to BK, but they're more diligent about contracting them regularly to close out the gaps (but you can only play those on the same level).

ThunderGr: **if only someone would take the little time it needs to be done...
**
those are the operative words :)

ketchuplover: This defeats the purpose of the stair, IMHO. You should only lose steps when you lose a game. If we are to talk about a fairer stairs system, you should only gain steps when you defeat someone on the same or higher steps. You should only be able to challenge someone on the same step or higher than yours. You should not be able to challenge the same person more often than once every 2 weeks. No restriction on how high is the person you want to challenge on the stair. The restriction on the number of games at the same time for the stair is good, IMO. So, this would sort everything nicely. No gaps between steps, since you do not advance steps if you win against someone at the lower steps. The top players are not invulnerable to challenge and the whole thing can be easily implemented with the current mechanics, if only someone would take the little time it needs to be done...

of a match involving the stairs leader should be sent to the bottom of the ladder...oh and I would have everyone on their own level....the top would be player and level one.

furbster: i have no real solution .. but i started a game again, and will try to climb up to (and above) your level :)

furbster: According to the help about stairs, the site is supposed to cleanup this situation once per month. A cleaner solution would be to make it so that, when you are at the top step, you no longer advance steps by winning but only maintain your position(and your opponent drops a step).

ThunderGr: Not sure if you'll be able to see this as it's in a fellowship but i'm stuck on step 14 and can't challenge as the person below is 3 down! ◙ The Gammon Cube ◙ - 3 day Stairs (no cube)

I am fairly certain that this must have been discussed at some point in the past, however I was not around at that time. So, isn't it somewhat breaking the point of a stair if you cannot challenge someone at a higher step than you? Instead the -3 rule, it should had been something like +2, -3, in my opinion. The way it is, people at higher steps have no motive to challenge those below, and they cannot be touched by those below, either.

aaru:

http://brainking.com/pl/PhotoAlbum?alid=2160