Fencer: Cool.

playBunny: The original reason was to lower the server load but it's not necessary now (because BrainKing had been refactored several times), so it can be done for all users. Later :-)

Fencer: Lol. I figured that one. The question was more about why that would be the case. It's not much of privilege to know my own activity (in fact I've never looked at it) but it's useful to know about others'. If you wanted to differentiate the service then perhaps you could record it for all accounts but simply not display it when a Pawn views a profile?

playBunny: Because this value is logged only for paying members.

alanback: As a one-off it can tell me whether someone is online but not moving much. As part of a set of observations it can give indications as to their rate of play. I'd much prefer more comprehensive rate of play information but that's a different request.

playBunny: Just what is the value of that information?

How come the moves made information isn't available when I check a Pawn's account? It's just as useful to know as with the paid accounts.

Also, once past midnight the count is reset. That's necessary, of course, but it's not useful in that it's throwing away useful information. Would it be possible to show the previous value for the first few hours after midnight?

playBunny: Icon's are good..

MEddi.. if they don't want to put a selected sex down.. I respect that.. perhaps a section on their profile page that says..

Sex:

Male

Female

Sure!

Yeah, who if I'm only a wannabe-girl?


Serious answer now. Scarlet, if you run the mouse over the Rook, Knight, pawn icon, it will tell you if they are male or female.

What if I dont like pink? Blue is fine, its a nice color and not always gender biased. Besides some people dont want to show what biological sex they are.

mctrivia: There is some utility in having links change colour when clicked but as they're dynamic pages they get "blued" again pretty soon. (Unless it's only my browser doing it). But if fencer were to change the link colours he could easily changed the :visited property as well so that the girls' links had the same indication, even if it weren't purple.

(This is not to say that I want the link colours changed, lol, I'd prefer an icon)

ScarletRose: Yes it is possible to set what color a link should be but the persons web browser can overide it. The problem with doing this is the standard color code of Blue meaning unclicked on and purple being clicked on(atleast it is in IE) would no longer be the same.

I see blue on here.. for the boyz.. that wouldn't need to change.. but, I would like to see some glitz and glammor around us girlies..

Not only for the mere reason of being the prettier of the species.. but it sure would make knowing what sex some of these id's are.. mainly for a tourney we are playing in one of my fellowships.. boys against the girls..

Any further cloak mode debate posts will be deleted after this point.

Now that you've put the fellowships list on pages, and given that they're as well sorted as they ever were , could there be a search box, please?

I'd like to look at The Cave...

plaintiger: I know I am answering an old post but I was at work.

It doesn't mater what operating system you are using as to how much information a person can gather about you. The way the internet is set up unless you are using a tone of proxy servers any person with enough know how could monitor every web site you go to and every thing you do on them. If you are truely woried about security and don't want people to see what you are doing only go to web sites starting with https:// only use dial up internet access(and dial a different number every time), and get yourself an account with a whole bunch of off shore proxy servers. Privacy is an ilusion when it comes to the internet.

Eriisa:

alanback: LOL, sometimes they just need a reminder.

I did think before to type in "removing Glob hat and returning to games" but <shrug> I had already hit send.

Eriisa: One thing we already have enough of is moderators

I think the topic has gone far enough for everyone. So lets let it drop please.

alanback: hmmm...i wonder.

plaintiger: It's too bad I'm not moderator of this board, because I won't delete your pithy and paranoid comments as I'm willing to bet the second listed is going to do.

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Calling others names might make you feel good and even get the audience to laugh a little, but it reveals plenty about your character. If you notice, I removed the nuts parts of my post a full twelve minutes before your long and well thought out reply. Thanks for the kisses by the way, big boy. I think your fears and use of the cloak are nuts and I didn't mean to post in such a way as to attack you personally. So I reconsidered what I had written and edited it myself. As you've adamantly stated, it is your opinion of the cloak that matters, not mine or anyone elses. You obviously care about this issue and yet you say you don't. Your actions prove that you do care about it. Why, I don't know. I have feelings about it too, but as I posted, the cloak as it is now and in conjunction with the other features of this site doesn't do anything. If you want to live in a fantasy land, then by all means do so.

playBunny: i trust you went to the funfair naked. in the interests of everyone seeing everything.

Andersp: Fencer: I can still not understand how you could say yes to that silly cloakfeature and NO to autopass

I can add that i still don't understand how Fencer could say yes to that silly cloakfeature and NO to autopass.

Good things have to be repeated or repetition is the mother of wisdom....

playBunny: lol...sounds like it was prety weird, too.

plaintiger: I went to the funfair the other day. There was this guy on the Big Wheel who looked like he was having a good time. I met him later and said as much. "What, are you tracking me or something?" he asked. "Er, no, I just saw you there" I replied. "I feel like I'm on a public-access radar" he said and stormed off. Just then a guy materialised out of thin air right next to me. "He should have worn his HG Wells cloak" said the man, "I always wear mine at the fun fair - I hate anyone knowing what I'm doing." And with that he wrapped it around his shoulders and disappeared again.

Wierd funfair that.

ScarletRose: yes Lady.   :)

Walter Montego: thank you! i think you're nuts too. *kiss kiss*

it boils down to a matter of personal preference. whether my reasons for wanting to use cloak mode meet with the approval of Your Loftiness is of no consequence to anyone. cloak mode wasn't my idea. i didn't think it up; i didn't lobby for it. but now that it's here (because some other people thought it up and lobbied for it), i'll use it. and i don't give a damn whether you understand my reasons or whether you like it or not. that doesn't matter in the least, to me or anyone else. sorry.

plaintiger: Artistry.. we two share.. :)

plaintiger: You have not considerd it thoroughly. Who am I, if you're so omnipotent in the ways of the internet? Is that really a picture of yourself in your icon? Now that borders on the extreme risky from my point of view and yet you brazenly display it and not care who sees it and knows what you look like and yet can talk about this cloak feature as being something that protects you? The best cloak is keeping your mouth shut and not giving away details about yourself if you're that paranoid. In fact, I would recommend against using this site or any other. You might as well be as cautious and safe as possible, right? Any user of this site can be completely anonymous. I still don't see a need for the cloak feature since my identity from the start is indeed cloaked. You don't know who I am nor I you, so what are you cloaking yourself from and advocating this for?

Of all the arguments that I've heard for the need and use of the cloak feature, the one argument about someone being harrassed by another member made some sense to me at first. Then I got to thinking about it. Being cloaked doesn't do squat for stopping it. Blocking the problem member does and that feature works quite well. I don't care what page my opponents or fellow members are on or what discussion board they're posting to. If I did, it still doesn't amount to anything. What's the information worth and what can I do with it? I either send them a message or I don't. Cloaked or not, it don't matter.

plaintiger: Do you have black curtains on the windows? What makes you think anybody actually cares a whit which pages you are currently viewing? What if they do? What mischief could I get up to just by knowing which game you're playing.

aarg. Privacy? Give me a break.

plaintiger: And I thought I was paranoid. :)
Andersp : Ain't that the truth? :)

Fencer: still. it allows one to be watched by persons unknown, and some of us aren't comfortable with that.

further, there are only a million other ways to detect your activities when you connect to the 'net with a Windows machine. there are far fewer ways if you use Macs, which is one of the (many) reasons some of us do.

Fencer: I can still not understand how you could say yes to that silly cloakfeature and NO to autopass

plaintiger: I wouldn't call it "an invasion of privacy". Nobody knows what you are doing, they can only observe which pages you are clicking on - and when you connect to the internet, there are million other ways how to detect your activities. Actually, nothing like a privacy exists. And it's not BrainKing's fault.

Fencer: there are some truly malicious people on this site, in case you've had the good fortune not to notice. but even if there weren't, the feature of this site that tells others what a person is up to at any given moment can be seen as an invasion of privacy. if i want people to know where i am and what i'm doing, i'll choose whom i want to tell and tell them; it's none of anybody else's business. that tattletale feature is the brainking equivalent of injecting a subdermal tracking chip into each member. it puts everybody on a publicly visible radar screen, whether they want to be there or not. some of us just aren't comfortable with being on public-access radar, malicious members or no. it's the principle of the thing.

grenv: ah, i see. and as to your question, ScarletRose knows whereof She speaks. :)

grenv: and, by the way, when did * become the universal symbol for emphasis?

Since before <b> became available. It's also used by some wikis to denote embolding, as /foo/ is used to denote italcs and _bar_ for underscoring.

grenv: when did * become the universal symbol for emphasis?
It actually didn't.. it is just a creative way to do so.. ;)

plaintiger: Fencer got it, I was just trying to feed the paranoia that leads to people choosing cloak mode.

and, by the way, when did * become the universal symbol for emphasis?

plaintiger: And I thought it's the cloaked people who were afraid of something. Or is there any other reason to get cloaked?

grenv: oh come on! it's not like cloak mode allows the cloaked person to *do* anything to anyone! why do so many people fear this entirely harmless feature??

or maybe there is some evil application for it and i'm just not evil enough to have figured it out?

grenv:

grenv: how about "Spy Mode" :-)

I'd like a "stealth" mode, where I can see other people's bank account numbers but they can't tell until the money starts coming out.
Or maybe I could see exactly where people are physically so I can stalk them.

an option that allows you to disable cloak mode for other players?

Kevin: what about making it optional... you can choose if you want auto pass or not. for experimented players, games will be faster....

Please, let's not re-start a debate on cloak mode!
Let's keep to requesting features. Thanks! :-D

alanback: your opinions on cloaking are just that: opinions. they are your own subjective view, which is obviously not shared by everyone or there would not *be* a cloaking feature.

my own opinion about the "if i can't see you you shouldn't be able to see me" issue matches yours but going the other direction: i don't understand the "if i can't see you you shouldn't be able to see me" sentiment at all. it strikes me as silly and childish: "i can't see you? well then you can't see me either! neener neener!!!" - i see no logic behind it. i think that if you don't want to be seen, you should cloak yourself, if you want to be seen, you shouldn't, and i don't see why it should matter to anyone whether a person who can see them is cloaked or not. i don't understand how my being cloaked affects *your* privacy in any way. but maybe it does in some way i'm overlooking.

does it?

* * * edited for clarity and some other stuff. * * *

BIG BAD WOLF: aha! i see! you're quite right, of course, about the "- disabled when you are cloaked -" when the opponent is online and there being nothing there when they're not. thank you very much for pointing that out. i'm happy. *purr*

and to Fencer i'd like to say: hey! "remove" links next to the notes in my notes fields! waaaaaaay too cool. thank you!!

and lest there be any confusion on the matter, "waaaaaay too cool" is a figure of speech - it doesn't mean you should remove the feature. (kidding. i know you wouldn't think that. )