baudrillard: I read the posts made in response to you wanting to delete your account. As was pointed out, you can't just have your played games removed without disrupting the contents of the games, tournaments, charts, and tables of all your opponents that you played in or with. I don't want you messing with my account, so I'm not giving you permission to leave in a manner like that. I notice that you are still using your account and the original handle. Why haven't you edited your account and changed your handle as a few people suggested in their replies? Doing that would make it so there'd be no connection with you and this site, wouldn't it? Since only you would be able to access the account, that should be all you need to do. If you also want to make it so you can't come back to your account, I bet Fencer could change the password and not tell you what it is and then you'd cease to have access to it.

In regards to this consent that you speak of, nothing stops you from deleting everything that you have written here unless you are banned from a discussion board that you have posted on. Just go to each board and scroll to every post you've made, and delete them. I'm against you doing this because it really messes up the discussion on occasion, but there's nothing to stop you from doing it. I know if I was the site owner, I'd just laugh at you, because I wouldn't do it for every single person that wanted off the site. It'd be a whole different scenario if you couldn't edit your own writing like on a lot of other sites. Then you would have to exercize this law you've quoted, but here you're free to do it yourself. Just changing your handle automatically changes it everywhere that it appears on the site. In your games, in the discussion boards, and in your sent and received messages. That alone should be enough. Then edit your profile page by deleting everything on it except the new handle. If for some reason you are banned from a discussion board, have Fencer delete your posts or remove the ban so you can delete them yourself.

Bye

TC: I'd like a tournament to accept more members to the sign list than the maximum. This way if someone bails or doesn't have enough space on their account the next person to sign up would take their place and then tournament could carry on. Lots of tournaments with a maximum of four players get filled. Then a fifth person can't sign up because it's full of players. What happens to the tournamemt if it starts and one of the current sighers isn't elgible to play?

I'd like to have the opponent's membership symbol (Pawn, Rook, Knight) displayed next to their handle in our current games on my home page.

gekrompen hoofd: You're arguing both sides now. First you complain about the lack of visibility of moderator actions and then you say you don't like leveling the playing field by letting us other members have access to something they routinely get?

As for this veil you refer to, that's a marketing strategy. This is a capitalist enterprise, isn't it? Why not add incentives to try and coax someone the shell out a buck or two and get so more money coming in? Fencer has freely acknowledged using this very strategy on occasion.

fungame: The parent is the parental lock. You've lost me here. What do you mean by children? If you're talking about a fourteen year old, there's nothing on this site that they haven't seen on television or in the movies. If you're talking about a six year old, you have one smart child if he can play Dark Chess and run a computer. Surely the small chance that they might be exposed to something on this site that a parent finds objectionable is worth taking. As I would have the feature, you'd have to purposely toggle it. Why couldn't a parent leave it off and let it stay as is? Or maybe the feature could be disabled on request when paying for the membership? Certainly it would be a minor inconvience to those few that are that worried about anything they think their children might come across on this site. I imagine they don't have television or rent videos that aren't rated G either. Hard to imagine such people even using a computer to access the internet. Are there such people?

gekrompen hoofd: Er, how is being a paying member making me an elite? Shouldn't I get more things if I pay for it? This is a game site, you can just play games and not even bother with these discussion boards. Since you're here posting, I assume you have an enterest in other things. There is an elite on this site, but it's not because of someone being a paying member of it. It is the well connected and powerful to whom you should address your concerns. If you were or eventually become a paying member, you'd see what I'm talking about. In the meantime, I think you'd do best not to categorize me and others just by the fact that we've joined the site as paying members and might expect something above what non-paying members receive here. There's other members here that give extra money beyond their membership fees to the site just for no reason except to support it. As far as I know they get the same benefits I do and no extra or bonus features. Don't you find that amazing? These people are being charitable to help a cause they believe in. Some internet game site in Czech Republic. I find that hard to see happening, considering all the spam I get from people that want my money out there in the aether. Obviously something about this site works. The fact that we can argue about it is a good thing and I'm sure contributes to its popularity.

chessmec: Yes, but why not have it both ways if it'll work? That way there's a front line of defense against trouble makers (The moderator) and then a member on their own volition can choose to view objectionable or off topic posts by the unsocial miscreant and fully deal with it on their own. This is a good argument to have it for paying members only. You paid for, you can see it if you want to. Most moderator's don't willy-nilly hide someone, but there are on occasions where you still might want to view a particular person post even if it shouldn't have been placed for public discussion. Don't forget, moderators can also delete posts too. Usually for profane posts a moderator will put someone on hide and ask the person that posted the post to fix it up. Another reason to put someone on hide is to stop a disruptive person from wreaking havoc with the board and just cluttering up space from more legitimate or on topic posts. That requires the blanket hide or outright banning of the person in the moderator's view. One size fits all, doesn't work as well. Having it flexible can keep more people happy.

gekrompen hoofd: Who are these elite that you speak of? I meant my feature request to apply to all users, but I could see a good argument for only letting paying members have the ability. That way multi-nicks and children would have no access to the feature and wouldn't cause trouble. Especially if the hidden posts have vulgar, profane, or racial stuff in them.

chessmec: I fail to see your problem. If you don't like the fact that someone else has been hidden by a moderator, what exactly can you do about it? At least if the person is ever unbanned, you'll know to go back and check the postings to see if they posted anything of interest to you.

My request in the previous post would certainly eliminate that problem if you could choose to view moderator hidden postings on your own. It'd be a nice feature to have, plus you could toggle it back to match the board as is or just put on hide the particular person if you happen to think the moderator is right and this person has nothing of interest for yourself.


I would like a list of banned and hidden people to appear at the top of the discussion board, along with who put them on hide or banned them. This is what the moderators get to see, but us regular posters have no say or control over anything. Just knowing they were under scrutiny might help guarantee that such actions will be taken with deliberation or cause instead of the way it can go now at the whim of whomever is moderating at the moment. I like gekrompen hoofd's idea about sending the person that has been banned or hidden notice that it happened.

chessmec: I view it as a good feature, not as a bug. Until the time that there's a list of banned people, I like knowing that someone has been put on hide even if it is indirectly. It also doesn't mean that someone is on hide, the post might be deleted at the same time you click to the discussion board. When there's 47 posts in the little number, do you really count each post to see if any are missing?

A request. I would like to be able to see hidden messages from people put on hide by the moderator. The postings revealed to me in this manner would only show on my screen, but I could make up my own decision about them. The moderator could carry on with their job of keeping the board safe and on topic. Only those people that actually wanted to view the posts would have access to them.

Fencer: What do you think of the speed rating and the abilty to set games being played and rate of playing them as parameters in a tournament or game? There's a few ideas further down.

Hrqls: We could have the speed rating for all our games and one for each individual game. Just like the BKR is done.

playBunny: You got the ball rolling on it.

grenv: I consider myself a fairly fast player on this site, but I play a smaller amount of games than a lot of people. I'm thinking this formula would have a person that moves 50 times in with 25 games going is going to show as the same as the person that moves 1400 times in 700 games. Is that how it would work?

grenv: I suppose that formula would let someone that moves fast in a lot games enter a tournament the a person with a lot of games that moves slowly in wouldn't make the cut depending on the value set by the creator of the tournament. Works for me too. It'd take me awhile to get a feel for the relation of the number to how fast I perceive a player to move. Just having it set as a maximum number of games currently being played is lots easier to grasp in one's mind. For example this formula wouldn't tell you how many hours that a particular person took to make their moves on a given day.

Just their average number of moves per game per month? Why not devise it to work on a daily basis seeing how anyone concerned about such things for their tournament is probably more worried about people moving daily than monthly. OH, your formula takes that into consideration now that I think about it. You're dividing the moves a player makes per day for a whole month by the number of games being played currently? It would lower the number as a player added more games. Yes, a very workable formula. Using past preformance for the current situation. It would also show a person that was near the borderline that wanted into a particular tournament to finish a few games without starting new ones in order to raise this ratio number so that the could enter a tournament that they would like to play in.

playBunny: I like this idea. It seems that the few opponents that I have with hundreds of games going are the slowest opponents to move. It could be set as a ceiling similar to how the BKR is used to set up who may enter a tournament. Yes, the people with hundreds of games going play their games fast, unfortunately this just means they're playing fast. My games with such a player get their move and back they go to the end of the line again. Certainly these people are playing within the game parameters or they'd be timing out, but it would still be nice to be able to set up a tournament with players using the site in similar ways and seeing if it would be a better paced tournament for the people that enter it.

grenv: It wasn't meant as a problem, but as a fun way to play. :) Speed Chess on a turn based site with multiple games going. Now that's got to be entertaining. If such a thing comes about on this site, I would hope that both players could agree to pause the game if they wanted to. One player can always go the vacation route in any case.

grenv: It could get crazy if a person got themselves in a few of these games at the same time.

I was thinking that so many moves per hour would be workable. I don't see anything wrong with 3 minutes per move per se, but I'd rather have it as 20 moves per hour. This way you could move fast a few turns and then use the restroom or look at a different game. 5 moves per hour would be a pretty good pace if you had four or five games of similar timing going at once. It'd make for a fast tournament too.

Summertop: I keep this non-volatile storage device next to my computer for helping me with my spelling. It works really good, though certain words can give me trouble still. I'd be willing to bet you have one already.

It's called a dictionary. :)

And believe me, if you don't know how to spell rendezvous, you won't find it easily in the dictionary.

BIG BAD WOLF: It'd be nice to be able to edit the subject line for a message that you're going to save, wouldn't it? Or, if not edit it at least be able to add a line to it so that you might be able to describe it.
How's about some folders in the message box with one of them tree type links so that I could put them in my own categories and not even have to worry about it? And also be able to order them as I please?

Before long we could have a regular e-mail service here and Fencer's game site could compete with AOL and Yahoo! :)

Still, I like the idea of improving the message box area for saving the messages.

playBunny: We've had this same thing pointed out in the wording of whether or not you will have invitations sent out or rated games in a tournament that you're creating. Since you have Pawn membership and can't create tournament, I'll tell you now so you won't be confused when you become a paying member and are able to create tournaments. You may view tournament pages and are allowed to join one tournament, right? Go to a waiting tournament page. you'll see the column with the various parameters that the creator can choose from. The two that have the convoluted speach I'll paste here:

Unrated games (no BKR will be affected by this tournament): no
Private tournament (you will send personal invitations): no

I bet you'd word these sentences differently being the English speaker that you are, wouldn't you?

chessmec: It'd appear that you missed my posts against draws in Chess on the Chess discussion board. I agree though, that it is wrong to offer draws in this manner. As I proposed, once you offer a draw you should no longer be able to win the game if your opponent declines the draw offer. Just implementing that would curtail draw offers immmensely. Plus, it'd make just one draw offer a game possible, since you could no longer win the game if you asked for a draw, the moment your opponent asks for a draw later in a game that you offered one in, neither of you would be able to win. Nice simple solution to the whole draw offer business. Not just for Chess, but for all games. Plus games that a draw is not a possible outcome should not have a draw as a possible outcome.

rod03801: This WebTV won't let you scroll the whole page? I think I'd take it up with WebTV and maybe consider getting a different service if they can't or are unwilling to help you out here. Considering all the pages that I need to scroll to read, I'd not like that at all.

THE HIT MAN: Actually I feel free to talk about it here. Since you haven't posted to this board in over three weeks not counting a little quip about selling your brain last May 6th (Hmm, you'll need a buyer) I think you have a lot of gall to complain about us requesting a Chess notation not currently available on this site and to demand the moderator stop us from discussing it. Just what is the point of your post? Did you even read my last one? Or'd you just feel like blowing your horn? As you can tell from reading it, I had more or less dropped the subject with that post. Maybe grenv or someone else might've replied to it, but I'm sure we had said what we had to say about it and unless Fencer had some more questions about implementing it, I doubt if you'dve heard any more from us.

grenv: In your example you noted that it's B-B5 and not B-QB5. This is one of those short cuts that were always done. Algebraic does it too. There's really no reason not to put the Q there, it's just that it is rarely done. I like leaving no doubt. It makes the game a lot easier to follow in one's head. That's why I use the long algebraic form. I wish they'd put the P for Pawn too. Everyone's always trying to take shortcuts and thinks they're so smart avoiding redundancies. What's an extra letter when it completely removes all doubt about it? The short algebraic is the worst for me. They just name the square in it. Like E4 for the Pawn. I have no problem seeing P E2-E4. I've learned that the P isn't there for some reason, so I get to see E2-E4. In Dark Chess, it can sometimes be more important which square a piece moved from than where it moved to.
As much as I like the Descriptive Notation, Dark Chess is one version of Chess that I'll keep the long algebraic notation in use. I think Janus or Gothic Chess would be interesting to see the descriptive notation used in, but it's way passed its time. Judging from the people here that had never even heard of it, I doubt it'll be nothing but faded memories and something one comes across in old Chess books before much longer if not already.

Nothingness: And I thought I was the only left that liked the Descriptive Notation! :)
At least there's a few options here for the algebraic and I can use the long form of it.
P E2-E4
Though I still like P-K4. The long algebraic notation is a good one to use for Dark Chess. It helps me visualize the board better than using all them shorthand methods. I'm not much of a fan of abbreviation as it is. The descriptive notation does have certain drawbacks, especially when two pieces of the same kind can move to the same square. Longhand algebraic is the least ambiguous of the four styles that I've seen. I've never seen the numeric one on any site, it'd work fine too.

Bruno Jesus: I think this kind of posting is the one time when a moderator is needed. It has no place here. What are you trying to do with them? Any idiot can do this. If you're a smart person, I have to question your motive for it. These posts violate the user agreement, they're off topic, and they will cause you to be banned. So far the moderator here hasn't been as overly hands on as some of the other moderators on some of the other boards that I on occasion read or post on. This type of action does make me think of a Feature Request though. And it might even be a way to level the field or get rid of having moderators completely.

It is true that I can just put you on hide, but your posts themselves are something I can read once and ignore afterwards.

My request would be to have a check box for every post. The box would be checked if the reader thought it was a post that didn't belong. If a certain percentage of current readers of the post check the box, it'd be put on hide.
I would also have it so paying members could view all posts even if so hidden. It'd be their choice and they could deal with the ones that are off topic or in poor taste. With a system like this, it would return control of what I read to the person responsible for what I read. Me! As it is now, the moderator will edit or delete something that I might find acceptable, but he doesn't. I get no say in it. Completely unfair to me. Changing it to where I get a say in what I view and read is much better, and it solves the problem completely for the moderator and Fencer. Restricting it to paying members should limit young children from accessing profane posts.

Chessmaster1000: You know something about the whole Cloak Mode business and feature requests? I don't ever remember anyone requesting it! Perhaps we should direct our questions toward Fencer and see what he has to say about it? Like, why did he come up with it and add it to the site? Unless it was easy to program, I would hope he would have been working on other things here. If a lot of people were clammoring for such a feature, it'd make a lot more sense to me. With him just adding it without even saying he was comtemplating it, and then being surprised by the response it doesn't sit too well with me.

Though I agree with the grenv, danoschek, and ChessMaster1000 that it is a feature that could just be dropped from the site and we'd all be well enough without it ever having existed, I must say, what does it matter to you guys if someone is cloaked? They either move in their games, or they don't. I do not like the cloak feature because, as pgt has pointed out, it interfers with me knowing if my opponent is checking out our game or not and if I want to stay online or call it a night. This is why I requested some changes to the Cloak Mode feature if it is going to stay on the site. If there's a vote on it, I vote to get rid of it. If it's going to stay, let's get some options added to it. It bothers a lot people as it is now, and it does not help me play my games in any way.

Chessmaster1000: That's all well and good, but I didn't for an explanation of these plays and rules. I asked when they're going to be implemented on this site. It is the top Feature in developement listed on this page. I've learned the rules to Backgammon. Fencer's posts shows that it is being worked on.

I have some Backgammon related questions that I am going to take to the Backgammon discussion board.

I've been playing a lot of Backgammon lately.Some of my opponents and myself are curious how these things are coming along: Gammons, backgammons, doubling cube, and the rules flaw concerning the use of the dice when moves are restricted?

rod03801: That is not a request, but a demand. Call it what you want, but that is what it is. That is precisely why I made my request for changing the moderators powers when it comes to being able to edit other people's post. You say you've edited some rude or obnoxious posts. I'll have to take your word on it. So far I have no reason to doubt that your actions aren't principled or honorable, but I didn't get to read them and make up my own mind about them. Perhaps the original poster agrees with you and was just pushing the envelope, or maybe they think you're wrong in this and have acted arbitrarily? As it is set up now, they're out of luck when they cross whatever line each moderator draws in the sand. You are but one moderator in one discussion board and that is what I have the problem with. It is too personality driven as it is set up now. Each of you, even in the same discussion board have different agendas. I will say that I'm glad you have stated that rule clearly and that any one posting here knows what to expect from you when they post. It seems like a sensible enough of a rule if there has to be this kind of rule. I believe people shouldn't be attacking someone's character or calling them names. Disagreeing with them is a lot different than attacking or fighting with them. Rules clearly stated usually have the merit of being easy to understand even when one finds them disagreeable. The boundaries are established and we can get back to the business of this board's subject.

rod03801: I notice a change in the moderators of this board in fact. Your handle is larger than it used to be and I believe bumble's is gone. He's still a moderator here in a one sense seeing how he is still a Global Moderator.

Just what board should a discussion about feature requests be taken to?

Andersp: Complaining about how a board is moderated is like a manager in baseball arguing about a bad call by the umpire. Lots of steam and flash, but little comes of it and then the manager is ejected. The league president or commissioner will receive a report on it. If it's a rule interpretation (Something that an experienced umpire knows quite well and rarely makes a mistake on is the rules) the game can be replayed from that point if it changed the outcome. If it's a judgment call, then the umpire's decision stands and that is how it is.

I think the way these moderators are now organized is not a good system. The censorship and control they wield is too much. As you've pointed out Andersp, it almost defies logic to have a discussion about requests and a new feature just recently added to the site to have the moderator post that we should take it somewhere else and away from the very board that it should be on! Perhaps a recently added feature (Cloak mode) could be taken to the BrainKing discussion board? Of course the moderators there will tire of it and squelch the whole thing. Now what kind of system is this?

The censorship is getting heavier and heavier. For what purpose? Let us talk. The moderators should not censor things they disagree with. Just keep an eye out for cuss words and racial epitats. As it is now I always have to worry that I'll be edited, censored, or banned. With very vague guidelines and being more or less at the mercy of each individual moderator's whim. And with no appeal either. It's not fair to me, and I'm sure it's not fair to a lot of other people. It'd be nice if about 15 of the current moderators and 15 of us non-moderators were able to switch roles and then let them see how it feels. Yeah, I have heard what a thankless job it is, but I haven't seen anyone giving it up voluntarily, have you? Andromedical excepted. Hey, one moderator out of the whole bunch, and he resigned without being asked to for something that he thought he'd made a mistake about. I suppose the rest of them are perfect or really like the job and it's not the thankless job that we've been led to believe it is?

These discussion boards are part of my fun in coming to this site and it is not as much fun for me to post to them anymore.

Since the form of the boards and moderation doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon, I request that a way be made to have the moderators changed from time to time if there are other people interested in moderating a particular board. A sign up list with a schedule time for it to happen. Even if the current moderator is doing a good job or is popular, he should still be subject to being replaced and the position rotated or given up somehow. The moderator being replaced could certainly be allowed to sign up for the job again and wait his turn in line like everyone else. I also think the guidelines should be changed so that the moderators will have the confidence to allow people to talk without having the need to whip out their erasers.

>>A moderator should not be able to alter anyone's posts without the poster's permission.

It is completely unfair to the poster to have such people delete or edit what they have written. The moderator should have the power to hide a particular post or ban a particular person. The poster or person could then voluntarily edit or delete his post. If the poster believed it was legitmate post or his actions were appropriate for the board and he thought the moderator was overstepping his authority, it could be taken to the Global moderators or Fencer.

I believe the Global moderator's job should be rotated too. If we're afraid of just anyone taking the job, we could certainly have a nomination process. Yes, we have that now. Fencer picks and they're made the Global moderator. Apparently Fencer doesn't see the corruption of this, or feels it's working just fine and leaves him to pursue other things on the site. It is obviously working quite well in that respect, but there is an undercurrent of resentment being built up amongst some of us that care about this site and have invested a lot of our time and energy to it to just have someone wipe out everything without a trace because they're able to and can get away with it. Feeling powerless is one of the first signs of trouble in society, and this site is a society in a lot of ways. The site, though still Fencer's, will gradually be taken away from him as he gets further from everyone. It's inevitable as it grows that this will happen. It's amazing to me how well he has kept his hands on it and continues to be a presence. If he ever tires of it and it suddenly becomes like It's Your Turn, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Walter Montego: Ah, it's a fellowship discussion board. OK, you're all making more sense now. Seems like a waste of time to me. We already have this board. As for things getting buried, ain't that what scroll is for? Speaking of which, I shall scroll down and edit my post to pgt. My mistake, though a reference to it being a fellowship discussion board would've helped me avoid making it.

I'm confused. Where is this Feature Discussion board? I've never seen it, and after the merging of the discussion boards, I'd really like to know why there'd be two of them. IF there is such a board, then I will edit my post about pgt needing to edit his. Which he didn't do though he refers to doing it. Now my misunderstanding should be apparent to him and we'll soon see what the deal is.

Have the cloak disabled when playing a game against a particular opponent. Or have the option available at the start of the game or tournament. Or have it as an option for cloaking on the settings page. Say as a third option, instead of the current two that now exsist. Or as a fourth option, uncloaked if viewing a game between you or the previous action was a move between you.
I believe I posted on the BrainKIng discussion board about feature request to be able to turn off seeing people's last action on the discussion boards. I'd like that as an option.

grenv AbigailII reza: Yes, I'd like to play Dark Chess live. It'd be a hoot! Speed Dark Chess would be crazy. A slower paced timed game would be very challenging.

BIG BAD WOLF: I found said check box and unchecked it. No more smiley icons. Thank you for your posting.

JamesHird: True, you idea is cheaper, but having a lot of games going is not my problem as I have considerably less than most paying members now. I might even consider it next March when my paying membership expires. Though I've curtailed my use of the site of late, I still like being a paying member in case things change or if I want to use some of the options that non-paying members don't have, like creating tournaments or having 80 games going at once. In the meantime, I'd just as soon not see all these flashing icons that don't do much for helping me understand someone's post or message, but certainly annoy me while I'm checking out a game or trying to read a post. I ignore them. The numbers aren't much of a nuisance. They don't move, and they also inform me that someone has used a smiley icon.

AbigilII, pauloaguia, Hrqls: If Abigails option was available, I'd not use it because I still want to read the post itself. As for when the post needs the smiley icons to actually make sense, I'll just make do and not understand the post.

Thank you all for your suggestions. And thank you Fencer for taking the time to think about people that may not want to have the smiley icons and having this option available. I wonder if this'll make my pages of the discussion boards load faster? I have it set for 85 posts and I use a dial up modem. Are the smiley icons generated from my computer in a table that knows the icon to put in place, or do they come from the BrainKing site and have to be loaded from it for each one in the page?

While you guys on swinging the pendulum over yonder, I'd like to be able to disable the Smiley Icons so I'd not have to see them at all. Is this an easy thing for me to do that would just be specific to my computer, or would it take programming on this site for it to be done? Even if it is something that can be tailored just for my computer, I think it'd be a good option to be able to disable them while viewing this site.

OptimistMB: A simple solution and a great idea. Once placed there, they'd have to play a certain number of games to get back on the established list again? 25 ought to do it.

I'd like the option to be able to have the pieces set up by the tournament director or individual players for side games, instead of randomly as in Fischer Random Chess or forced as in regular Chess. Give everyone the same set up, but a selected one. This could be handy for having a King's Gambit tournament for example. My primary use for it would be to have different 8 X 10 variant set up and see for my own and other interested players which version they like the best or just want to try. I posted recently in the Gothic Chess discussion board about switching the Kings and Chancellors at the start of the game. I think this is a very good way to start the game, but I don't have a way to see if I'm right or not.

One objection for doing this would concern ratings, but the games could be played as unrated or just grouped together as a variant set up rating. The important thing would be the fun in trying and playing the games with alternate set ups or composed tournament starts. If one particular set up caught on, it could be spun off from the variant setup section and given its own stand alone place as Janus Chess and Gothic Chess are.

grenv: Ain't that the truth? :)
Funny things is I got the day off and stopped at a nursery on the way home. I got some yellow hot peppers and tomatillos and just planted them too!

BIG BAD WOLF: You could have a seeded single elimination type tournament as tennis is done. If the number of people at the start isn't a power of two it's no problem. The seeding could be based on the rating of each player. Say you had 13 people sign up. The top three seeds would get a bye round, 4 vs. 13, 5 vs. 12, 6 vs. 11, 7 vs. 10, and 8 vs. 9. The second round could be reseeded as hockey does, or the brackets could be kept the same as basketball and tennis do. 1 vs. winner of 8-9, 2 vs. winner of 7-10, 3 vs. winner 6-11, winner of 4-13 vs. winner of 5-12. I would think a double elimination tournament could also be set up along similiar lines.

Czuch Chuckers: I wouldn't consider Dark Chess as a chess game. It really is different in the type of thinking involved to play it even though it has the less rules changed of all the variants (Just two). Games like Janus Chess are the same thing as Chess when it comes to game types and the thinking involved. I can see lumping those kind of variants in a group for the type of rating comparision that you're talking about. Dark Chess is more like Battleship or Stratego played with a Chess set. This is why I'm able to hold my own or win in Dark Chess against some very good players of regular Chess or similar variants where the same person would clean my clock without trying too hard.
And then, what about variants like Atomic Chess? The way capturing is done it that game, and how one attacks and defends his position is nothing like regular Chess and certainly should have its own category. Perhaps you can give it some thought and come up with how to group the games if you agree with me on this? If you think all Chess variants are just playing Chess, I'll say I disagree. Does being good at Pente, make one a good Five in line Player? It would seem so. I'd put those games in one group. There's already a grouping of the games by type on this site. Perhaps it could be used for the rating that you're talking about. The Chess games could be broken into three or four groups and the rest of the games counted as a group. How'd that work for your groups?

How's 'bout Acey-Duecy?

jaha: Or marking them, or putting a sentence by the board saying something about the hit blots on the bar, or any number of things we thought up about this awhile back and it all came to naught. I think just marking them different would be a great way to do it. Or have them set off to the side to be brought into the game and leave the bar for hit blots only.

Mousetrap: I can forgive and forget. It is hard to follow the stream of conversation on a site such as this. Even if one notices the time stamps, it doesn't mean that a reponse is out of line if it comes weeks later. The subject itself is not an easy one to solve, and using examples in some of the arguments has made a casual reader or two think the discussion should be held in various different discussion boards. Where it's at now seems to be a good place (BrainKing.com) and it appears that it's dwindling down as we've all had a say or two about it and will just have to move on without being able to do much about it except understand each other's point of view concerning it.

Mousetrap: Huh? :) Your post confuses me and we all went to a different board 11 hours ago.

MidnightMcMedic: Lost? Yeah, right.

I will follow reza to the BrainKing.com discussion board if the subject is picked up there. It would seem to be the more matching board for the subject. Aside from playing games where a computer can't help, I doubt anything can be done to resolve the problem of people using outside help to make their moves, especially on a turn based site where one can let the computer run for days before spitting out a move to make. But you never know, someone might have some ideas for it and the requests will be made.

One possible solution is to embrace it, instead of fighting and rejecting it. Allow it completely and then it is no longer a problem at all. Since you can then just assume all opponents are doing it, it won't matter to you if you choose not to use a program or get someone to help with your moves. This can be thought of as a request to change the user agreement to not say it isn't allowed. Since it can't be enforced, why not just allow it and be done with it? Tournament creators could still put in the titles that they would like or not like computers to help and we wouldn't have to hear people complain about "cheating" of this type any more.
A policy like this would also incourage tournaments made for programs to compete against each other and this would strengthen this site amoungst those that are into programs and computers. I personally don't mind playing against machines if I know in advance that my opponent will be a machine or that my opponent will have a machine help with his moves. I'm not the strongest Janus Chess player on this site, but I have defeated Sumerian's Smirf program 5 times in the 19 games that we've played. Since it is a machine, it doesn't mind playing the game out past where most people would have resigned and this has helped me learn to play the game better without tiring, boring, or insulting a human opponent.

MidnightMcMedic: Not General Chat. Perhaps the BrainKing.com board? This certainly is a subject that affects a lot of the games played here. I hadn't even thought it possible to have Backgammon included in it as I thought it was the one game that could not have computer help. Hacking is possible, but luck of the dice is just the breaks and explains a lot of things in it. Dark Chess is about the only Chess type game that computers don't play good or aren't used. All the rest of them could have computer or other people's help and there's really not much that can be done about it. Sumerian is open about it, plus his program is different. It plays like a person and makes up its moves and wings it, instead like a lot of programs that have vast data bases and tables and check the moves before thinking up a move on their own.
This board is also not a bad place to discuss, since dealing with the "problem" could lead to a feature request to solve it.

cariad: You forgot one other group that monitors the moderators- everyone else!
There are advantages to not being a moderator, also. You may have less "power" in ways, but you also have more "freedom" in other ways.
(Quotes supplied since these concepts really don't apply to this pretend world that we use here)

As paranoid as I am, I still have to agree with grenv's assessment. Who cares what I browse? What are they going to do with the information? Hopefully they'll understand why I'm not moving in one of our games if they see that I'm browsing this board right now. :) As for any enemies that I might have, too bad for them that I'm reading their profile. :)
I liken it to being seen in a crowd. So you can see me from across the room, but that doesn't mean you have to talk to me, does it? You can wait until I get closer or you can come over to where I'm at and talk. Same thing here. You can see what I'm doing, but you don't have to send me a message unless you feel like it. If there was a hide feature, I think it would lessen this site's appeal. Though I doubt if it'd matter much either. Leasts way not for how I use the site, perhaps for others it'd make a big change for them.
Yes, this site is more than a game playing site. Trip how small changes can evolve into the main thing over time. Games are why I'm here though, and that's the whole deal for this site's existence. I doubt if it'd last long if all the games were removed and just the discussion and fellowship boards remained. Whereas if all the boards were removed, this site would go on still. Having both makes it better. I desire that games stay the main focus of this site while leaving room for discussion boards and messaging too.

Kind of like how it is now! :)