I have a new idea about as try become team tournaments more competitive and interesting, and would like to share it with all you.

Unfortunately, some people prefer choose strong teams to play and, this way, there’s a big disparity between teams. Many times, before team tournaments started, seeing all teams already signed, I and probably many people know who will be the winner, and this is very sad for competition.

To try changing this situation, my idea is that each team captain could choose the position of their players in tournaments. Example:

Now
Team A                                                                  Team B
- Player 1 - 2200 points                                          - Player 2 - 2100 points
- Player 2 - 2155 points                                          - Player 2 - 2050 points
- Player 3 - 2000 points                                          - Player 3 - 1900 points
- Player 4 - 1800 points                                          - Player 4 - 1600 points
- Player 5 - 1750 points                                          - Player 5 - 1500 points

Probably, team A would win 5-0.

My idea
Team A                                                                 Team B
- Player 1 - 2200 points                                         - Player 1 - 1600 points
- Player 2 - 2155 points                                         - Player 2 - 1500 points
- Player 3 - 2000 points                                         - Player 3 - 2100 points
- Player 4 - 1800 points                                         - Player 4 - 2050 points
- Player 5 - 1750 points                                         - Player 5 - 1900 points

Team A preferred keep the order of their players and team B decided change it, so probably Team B would win 3-2. Besides, in a team tournament, there're some teams playing and each team captain will have a different idea to order his team, so will can there be many surprises.

This is my main idea. But there's a question...when a team captain signed his team, the real order of players cannot appear visible for everybody. So, the information of players will must appear for pontuation like now (and will change when the tournament start), or is hidden by ???????? like in "run around the pond".

What do you think about that?

It would be helpful especially in cases where the Big Bosses are not online much, if Little Bosses were able to edit moderators please.

MadMonkey: Oh yes, I agree, I like very much this idea.

I know this has been asked for in the past (as it is on my list lol) but can we have another column on the main page (under opponents turn) for red dot games to let us know the time we will have to move ONCE our opponent has moved. When i went to bed last night it was 2 days before i had to make any moves, but of course red dot games (as in this set up - Time: 3 days, Bonus: 8 hours, Limit: 15 days, no days off ) do not fall into that ONCE your opponent has moved, hence Time-outs. At least we would have some idea if we had something to go by

talen314: If you want tournaments with fast players, you can create one with no holidays and one move/day, for example.
I think everyone is free to play or not and is free to choose his speed for playing. So I think that players who join a tournament must not be removed from it, the creator has to choose the right adjustments.

Sometimes tournaments take a very long time to fill or to activate and during the intervening time players that signed up have been inactive at the site for a very long time.  This results in unnecessary forfeits.  Perhaps players should be removed from tournaments if they have not logged onto the site after a certain length of time or perhaps an option can be made that allows the creator of the tournament to select whether inactive players will be kept in the tournament.  Some players naturally move slowly but probably make more than one move over a three or four month period. Most players probably enjoy a tournament more if the players are active players; forfeits after 1 move provide little entertainment value for anyone.

Talen314

Artful Dodger:

Pedro Martínez: we have a bug tracker?

Artful Dodger: That tells a lot about how you read the BugTracker… I reported it back in January 2005!
http://brainking.com/cz/ReadBug?bgi=242

Pedro Martínez: hmmmm, that I didn't know. Another flaw in the blocked system exposed!

If I had known that sooner I could h ave used that to snoop.

Artful Dodger: You know what's funny? In a game with a person on your blocked list, you can't see their current activity, while they can see yours…

Tuesday: Yeah, and I'm being serious. They have that on FaceBook and I love it.

I'd also like it that if someone is blocked, they can't even access any info on your account. As it is now, you can have a person on your friend's list even if they have you on their blocked list. lol ;)

I'd like to see Black Rooks get the ability to go "invisible mode." ;)

Tuesday: Hard to be viable if the site is dead. A google search seems to show it is the case.

But anyway, this isn't really a "Feature Request".

isn't frappr dead?

MadMonkey:I would rather have Tournaments start now than as to 2 years from now,when i'm not intrested in playing them and have them use up all my vacation time.

MadMonkey:Yes that was a bit naff

Mousetrap: The odd thing is if you remember, MEMBERS never used to be able to edit the Tournaments they created WITHOUT administrator approval, BUT after many years that seems to have been put to sleep.

That seemed crazy to a lot of us

Undertaker.: I agree. We should all be able to edit and delete. It could be a simple spelling mistake as I make often so why should not pawns be allowed to correct. We dont all have English as a first languge. English is not my language either.

MadMonkey: Yep! I second that!

Tuesday: I dont like the events box either. And would also like to see where the boats I missed were.

coan.net: Same here, i could not care a less either, BUT that is not all that goes in there (like your reply message etc...). I just do not see any reason for ANOTHER line on the page. If we had filters in the message box (that was requested ages ago) then we could decide ourselves what messages go where. i.e. divert messages about a game finished to the Trash

After a while you would have a message box where you only got to see what you wanted

MadMonkey: I actually love the event box.... since I actually could care LESS about what happens in a game (I know what happened - I JUST PLAYED IT) - so to have them all in one place, it makes it easier to delete all.... without missing a non-system message that sometimes gets slipped in there.

Tuesday: I agree with you : I'd like to see where the boats are.

MadMonkey: you can say that again!! lol

Thom27: saying that, am i the only person who has yet to see the reason for this Events box. Now we just have another place to look at to make sure we have not missed anything.

I think a filter in the main message box would have been better and given us the options of what messages and alerts we want to see, and even keep (as in filter to certain folders).

Thom27: saying that, am i the only person who has yet to see the reason for this Events box. Now we just have another place to look at to make sure we have not missed anything.

I think a filter in the main message box would have been better and given us the options of what messages and alerts we want to see, and even keep (as in filter to certain folders).

grenv:

nice bug anyway if it is a bug...

tonyh: and without "you resigned the game" events as well.

Could we do without 'doubles refused' in Gammon games appearing in 'Events'. The message tells us nothing; all I have to do is delete the messages.

grenv: more than likely someone has paid for your membership, it has happened often to people here, and after 8 years, you probably have someone who enjoys your company enough to upgrade you

Vikings: I didn't upgrade... i think this is a bug.

Vikings: 23 benefits for upgrading to a bishop
http://brainking.com/en/PaidMembership?p=1

grenv: Feb 10th

Vikings: lol... when did that happen? I didn't pay for it.

grenv: Bishops can edit and delete

grenv: You are a Bishop.

rod03801: I deleted. I am a pawn. Therefore pawns can delete. QED :)

and therefore not allowing editing achieves zero benefit, and I guess really zero problems since pawns can delete and rewrite in lieu of editing, so we can all go back to our lives now.

There's no reason not to allow anyone to edit a post up until the point where someone else has replied to it. Then the post should not be edited (unless by a mod to fix some profanity, etc.).

It's simple.

I can do it in a comment in a game, why not on a discussion board?

Some of the rules here don't make sense.

Justaminute: Well no, it's because Fencer says so. And you were told the reasons. You're being a bit dramatic about the whole thing.
Frankly, it's a good rule. Some of us saw the problems it caused before it was the case.