Doris, heavenrose, Carnie: Thanks for the kind thoughts but it's okay. :-) I only mentioned winning the Rook as an ironic joke. I'm in one of those decades-long tourneys but BrainKing goes on "suicide watch" starting next year. It's amusing in a way (yet sad as well) that some of these ancient tourneys might outlast the site itself.

(Just as an aside, I'm not sure that Bishops are eligible for Fellowships. The Paid Membership information suggests that they are but inside a Fellowship it says "You cannot join the fellowship because this feature is available for Brain Knight or higher membership level")

playBunny: Love those hugs..}  Hopefully it won't take that long for you to become a rook again.  I just posted a Backgammon Prize Tournament in one of my fellowships.  

Doris: Thank you. It's nice to be missed, although it makes me feel a bit guilty, too. ;o) Big hug, ((((((Doris))))))

I might start being more active here when I win a membership. I'm in a prize tournament that's just started a new round so, with luck, I'll be a Rook within three to five years. ;O)

playBunny: :}  So that's where you've been....I have missed your humor here..:}

playBunny: Okay. We have something in common too lol.

playBunny: impressive :-) thanks for the info. i would love to have this blocking filter for the discussion boards of brainking. i like to argue when it's worthy as well, but sometimes for me personally it isn't and i could avoid my nerves to blow up by using such a filter, but very rarely.

thx again for sharing your experience

speachless: "did you find such a filter that you use for daily gammon also for brainking? i'm interested in it"

I do have tweaks that I've written for BrainKing (and also Pocket-Monkey). One works on the Waiting Games page and calculates my BKR changes for wining and losing so that I know whether it's worth playing. Another was an auto-pass for Ludo ... because "someone" didn't give it to us! ;o) Another that I enjoyed when I had a membership was tweaks to the rating graph page that made it easier to change the date range.

I haven't done any tweaks for the BrainKing forums. It would be fairly easy to add the poster-blocking but I'm the kind to argue rather than hide someone. More likely people would be hiding me (except that I write helpful and humorous posts as well as flaming ones, so people would be in a quandary as to whether to hide me or suffer the arguing, lol).

It all became moot when I moved my "internet home" to DailyGammon as I stopped being active on the boards here.

crosseyed: "That was very clever of you to create that system for your own use."

Thank you. I've long been tweaking sites to make them easier. My best project along those lines was putting a graphical interface of a text-based vampire game. That might have become something that people would pay for but I lost it when my computer died and I didn't have the heart to rewrite it. Since then there are loads of programmers who can do what I do, as you can see by all the apps on your phone.

"You could sell that to people who seriuosly want to block people."

There's a handful of people who would have been interested and maybe a couple of them would have bought me a drink but it would be no money-spinner.

playBunny: did you find such a filter that you use for daily gammon also for brainking? i'm interested in it

playBunny: That was very clever of you to create that system for your own use. You could sell that to people who seriously want to block people.

crosseyed: "That is interesting that you can use that system in DailyGammon."

It's wasn't part of DailyGammon itself. I added it myself as a browser extension.

"To be honest if I block someone who I really dislike I would not unblock them just to be curious."

Yes, I agree. a really dislike would a really hidden, goodbye and good riddance. But the content-only hiding allows you to take a break from people who are generally boring or annoying but might not be worth the full abracadabra.

playBunny: That is interesting that you can use that system in DailyGammon.
To be honest if I block someone who I really dislike I would not unblock them just to be curious.

crosseyed: "Besides I am sure they would be tempted to take the person they have on block, off block to read the post that may or not be about them. "

Mélusine: "Ah yes it's true. It's twisted but possible !"

It is indeed a possible temptation, and true.

I used a forum-hiding facility at DailyGammon. It had two levels. With the high setting, you can't see the person's posts and you don't know that they've posted. With the low setting, you see their name but not what they've posted. You then have the option to click each message individually to uncover the text so that you see what rubbish they're spouting that day.

In use I found that those posters who are on the high setting stayed hidden because it's too much hassle to unblock them, check the forum and then block them again. On the low level it's more about how curious or bored you are. If you click on a covered post and it's the usual rubbish then you don't need to bother with the rest.

Brian1971: I agree

This 10x8 variant published in 1998 features 2 Crowned Knights which combine the King and Knight into one piece. It is placed between the rook and knight. It is set up like Janus Chess and has shorter castling (just 3 moves). Seems like a well balanced game and a nice companion to other 10x8 games that use Rook Knight and Bishop Knight.

chessvariants.com/large.dir/contest/royalcourt.html

crosseyed: Ah yes it's true. It's twisted but possible !

Mélusine: Well put Melusine. Besides I am sure they would be tempted to take the person they have on block, off block to read the post that may or not be about them.

My opinion (and only my opinion) : I'm ok to block someone for a private game with me, or for a private message to me. I don't agree to block or to be blocked on discussion boards. I want to be able to defend myself if someone says something wrong about me. Anyway, if the discussion was wrong about me and if I couldn't see it, I'm sure that my friends told me or made a copy for me about what it said. So, I'm sure that the idea to block on a public board isn't efficient. Furthermore, it would be also very complicated for the boards of team games or boards of ponds where everyone can say something. Also : I am always respectful with people on public boards so I have no problem. I think that the real problem is the respect for others.

Brian1971: Half of your suggestion is already there, it's called "Hidden Users" and can be set on a per-board-basis. These users still can seen your posts, but all of their posts on that specific board are hidden from you.

ThunderGr: He is only attention seeking and trying to get the sympathy vote, because like a spoilt child that cannot get their own way is playing up. It obvious that he has reduced his games and has time on his hands so to speak, so has now decided to post on the discussion boards to get noticed. Be it for the right reasons or wrong reasons. If I was so discontented with a game site I would leave.

Brian1971: Let's make some things clear here, if you will, alright?

1) People that read the public boards hardly know whether you have blocked someone or not, the reasons you have done so and, in general, are perfectly oblivious(usually) to the personal relation of you and another person. This means that

a) Each post that refers to you saying that you have done something is taken as valid, as long as no one disputes it.
b) People assume that you are aware things have been said *publicly* about you(which is the same as being said *in your face*) and *not* that you are unaware of what has been told.

2) From your perspective, the other person may be "cheap" for "talking behind your back" but, in reality, this only as accurate as saying that a person broadcasting his statements about you through loud speakers to everyone in the city is "talking behind your back" because you have soundproofed your house *for the sole purpose* of avoiding to listen to him...

3) A person you have blocked is very likely that he is unaware about it. For example, you could have blocked *me* but I have no idea about it because

a)I have not invited you to a game
b)I have not sent you a message
c)We can still play tournament games without problems

So, your assumption that a person "knows that you have blocked him" is hardly accurate. That would only be possible if you have informed him directly or, for some reason, he attempted to invite you to a game or to send you a message.

So, if what you say is that "ignorance is bliss"...I guess it is your right to live your life this way, although the implications of such attitude seem quite unhealthy to me.

Brian1971: LMAO.

crosseyed: Yes I do. However it doesn't do much good if I can see you on the boards.

Brian1971: So you don't have me on block then?

Brian1971: Not to mention if you block someone a feature could be added to inform the person that they have been blocked by another user.

crosseyed: Yes as you would not be able to send them a message or play a game with them.

Brian1971: But do they know you have them on block?

ThunderGr: I don't care what someone says behind my back on a board that I can't see. If someone wants to talk smack about someone when they know they cant see it that makes them look petty and cheap. If I have them blocked it because I do not want to hear from them or see what they have to say. That goes for anyone here. What good is it to block someone from games and personal messages if they can still poke you with a stick on the boards? That is my point is all.

crosseyed:

Justaminute As I have already stated it pointless to make a suggestion if you already know that nothing will be done about it.

crosseyed:
The very point that we have discussion boards that allow different opinions, even if unpopular with management, is a credit to Fencer. "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

ThunderGr:

Brian1971: It is beyond me that you have the nerve to make a suggestion about this site when you claim Fencer does nothing in this site. So why bother making any suggestion?

allows you to choose who is blocked,what is blocked(game and or message)and length of blocking (1wk or 1mo. or 1yr)

Brian1971: So, what you, basically, say is that it would be fine with you if you where attacked on a public board, as long as you did not know about it, so you would not feel the urge to defend yourself?!?!

Unlike personal messages and game chats, public boards are visible to everyone. If someone you do not get along with posts something that you feel the urge to defend against then it is my opinion that you should be aware about it. Not being able to see the public posts of people you do not get along with seems like a horrible idea, to me.

I do have a good suggestion that would eliminate fighting on these discussion boards. First if you have an issue with another player, block them so they cannot play games with you or message you. However I have found out that blocking them doesn't stop them from reading your discussion board messages or you reading theirs. So my suggestion is if you block someone they should not be able to read your messages and vice versa on the boards. If you do not see each other in any way then there is no way to provoke each other. It is easy to suggest just ignoring it, but we are human and we can be provoked and feel compelled to defend ourselves when attacked. That would be a great feature that I feel would cut back fighting between two people who don't get along and then you are also annoyed by anything they post that you don't agree with. I am not posting this to start a fight but for the benefit of everyone here as no one enjoys seeing the fights on discussion boards which I am guilty of being in the middle of as well.

Backoff: If I recall correctly, Ludo does not even have autopass...I think autopass would be first priority, in the fictional situation of the next improvement for that game.

ScreaminMime: Ludo needs that badly.

ScreaminMime: I agree.

There hasn't been a tirade for an option to submit a chain of moves when a response is forced to move in a particular sequence in awhile.

This would really speed up chess games and is a popular option on those inferior competing sites.

After XiangQi, Chess and Shogi, the last of the 'big four' in chess:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makruk

Brian1971: If I remember correctly, a while back there was such check box to limit "one match per player". I miss this feature too. As a workaround, I can create 1 game only, wait to be accepted, ban that player, create new game, etc...

we should be allowed to set rating limits on incoming and or outgoing challenges. Thank you for your consideration