Fencer: Online privacy is important too, I don't like having people see me when I can't see them, it's eerie and it makes me uncomfortable while playing. As an alternative suggestion, perhaps this option could be dropped? Don't mean to stepp on anybody's toes, of course. Just speaking my mind :-)

Mongoloid: It has nothing to do with a privacy because no private or sensitive information is released in this way.

Chessmaster1000: Of course.

I would like to make a suggestion that the cloak option be given to everyone at the gamesite. Would this be possible? Cause its a privacy option, isn't it? I really like this site and tell my friends about it, but privacy is an important thing to have these days....

Fencer: What about Crawford rule? Will you apply it here.......?

Walter Montego: I want to add a doubling cube but I don't want to make it as a standalone game because if I do it [as "Pro Backgammon"], people would call for Pro Nackgammon, Pro Backgammon Race and all other variants (which will grow in the future anyway).
Instead, I want to extend the current Backgammon games with an option to play for a selected number of points with a cube.
Let's continue with this discussion on the Backgammon board.

Walter Montego:

Gammon = A finished game, where the player who lost has not borne off any checkers. The winner receives 2 times the value of the doubling cube.......

Backgammon = A finished game, where the player who lost has not borne off any checkers AND still has one or more checkers on the bar or in the home board of the winner. The winner receives 3 times the value of the doubling cube........

Doubling cube = A hypothetical cube is used with values 1, 2, 4, 8, 16,....,2^n (Many times maximum is for n=6 that is 64 but Yahoo had 512).
At the start of the game both players own the cube that has a starting value=1.
At any point of the game***, except the starting move, and exactly before one player's turn (before the player rolls the dice to start his turn) a doubling offer can be made by one player to his opponent to continue playing at twice of the current game value.
-The opponent may refuse the double, in which case he resigns the game and loses the current game's value.
-Otherwise the opponent accepts the double, in which case the game continues at twice of the game's value(because cube's value has been doubled), with the opponent having the ownership of the doubling cube, that now has the double value of what had before.
After a double, only the player that most recently accepted a double (the player who owns the cube) may redouble.

Game value =
1)If we don't have a Gammon or a Backgammon then the game value = value of the doubling cube.
2)If we have a Gammon situation then the game value = 2· value of the doubling cube.
3)If we have a Backgammon situation then the game value = 3· value of the doubling cube.

[Edit]
***And except some other situations that i will describe here. These situations are the Crawford rule. I don't know if Crawford rule will be applied here at Brainking but i hope so, because it's the best way to deal with some positions..........
So the situations where a player CAN'T double when it is his turn, is when we have a Crawford game.
A Crawford game is a game in which the leading player has FOR THE FIRST TIME a match score, one point behind of gaining the victory. For example in a 11 point match, the player A wins 9-4 and has won a 1-point game so he now leads 10-4. The game that would follow will be a Crawford game and neither player can double. After the Crawford game AND if of course the leading player hasn't won, there would not be any other Crawford game and doubling cube can be used........
[/Edit]

[Edit]
As for the rules flaw, the rule is simple: You should use the maximum number of the dice possible!
If you have a 52 for example and you can use both you should do it.
If you can use/play "5 but not 2" OR "2 but not 5", then you should use/play the "5 but not 2" as then you would use/play 5 pips and not only 2 as in the other case........
Brainking will let you play in a similar situation (incorrectly of course) the "2 but not 5" instead of only letting you play the "5 but not 2".......
[/Edit]

Walter Montego: I think you have some interesting ideas about how to fix the moderator imbalance, I look forward to watching what happens.
(btw, I see im banned from generl chat, why?)
Glad to see there are other people who notice the overly strict operations of this place, WTG guyz!!! ;-)

to remember to remind of requests that would make them x-people know who's not
bothering to yield special glasses, by a humble but significant hider-indicator which
could like a shiny ornament enhance even my appearance yet a tidbit more. ~*~

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.

when you're bugged that's no reason to stress the bug tracker either ... ... ~*~

And I might add, that no one expects there not to be any discussion at all. Some has always been allowed here. I don't understand the big stink. I only requested the board get back to Feature Requests. I didn't even do anything when legitimate conversation about it continued. The ONLY posts deleted were the personal ones aimed at a certain player, and the typical moderator complaint type posts that are not appropriate here.

It is never expected that this board will be 100% on topic..
Yes, when it strays way off being a feature request, we will step in and request it stop.
I'll never understand why that is a catastrophe to some..

Well, the lengthier discussions can certainly move to Members Only, or General Chat. And the earlier mentioned fellowship.

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?

grenv: oh no oh no I think my ratings should stay visible ... ~*~

Walter, I honestly understand what you are saying about this board in general. But it is Feature REQUESTS, not Feature discussions. What is the big deal about taking it to another board to further the discussion?

And PLENTY of moderators have voluntarily stepped down. I don't know where you get your information.

This discussion can go on a bit longer, but once it starts getting repetitious, or personal (as it frequently does), then I will need to ask it to stop.
Though I'm not sure it really does qualify as a Feature request, at all..

Czuch Chuckers: I think it's a good point though. My kids certainly haven't been permanently damaged by the odd word that others are offended by. In fact I've always found that certain adults are far more affected than kids.

By the way I'm offended by the mention of praying, could a moderator please remove all references to deities?

Andersp: Not quite my point....

Czuch Chuckers: If you want to protect your kids, hide them in a basement where they cant hear or see anything..so with this moderating system they are safe?...you surely need to pray !!

I suggest we all pray...

Andersp: That would be possible if we were all aldults. But, as you know, this is a G rated site and there are many unsupervised juveniles here who are incapeable of "moderating" themselves from you or I, therefore it is our responsibility and the responsibility of the moderators to make these discussion boards as sanitized as necessary to keep from corrupting the weakest among us.

Walter Montego: IF this gamesite shall continue to have messageboards then i think Walters post must be considered as a feature request.
Not sure tho if i agree that i am the worst "modcomplainer"..i have seen worse :)
I've said many times that we shouldnt have any moderators at all if the hide button works then we can be our own moderators and hide those we dont want to read posts from.

Some great points Walter.... unfortunatly the post is off topic and it is a banable offense to write about moderators or issues about moderating on a public board. (thats wha I have been told anyway)

Your post has been removed and you have been banned for 24 hours, then hidden for 24 more hours, then I will have my eye on you and jump an anything you post over the next 6 months.....

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.

chessmec: there is a feature that makes
you invisible. it's called guest mode ... ~*~

red dragon: oh you mean like the overdue fix of deleting (screen) chess games
or the very useful additonal 'clearboard-plus-randomsetup' button ? right. I'd also request a separate default action at submit, unlike in other games, 'stay' is normal ~*~

Perhaps you didn't see the whole conversation? It was turning into why a certain other person liked the feature so they could hide what they are doing. It was basically bashing that person about their "slow moving". That is what was deleted, that and moderating complaints that don't belong here. Nothing else was deleted.

Walter Montego: Conclusion of what our mods have told us (yup..i expected them) is:..If many people discuss a feature (= if many people think the feature is important) then we must stop so other people can post less important features...makes great sense to me

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.

red dragon: Thanks Red, I didn't know there was a Feature Discussion Fellowship. Its a good idea.

What we need is a board which groups related posts, that way threads could continue as long as we like.

That, I believe, is a feature request.

It is applied here. And was earlier.

It doesn't need to be applied at that fellowship. It was created for those discussions. It is okay for stuff to get "buried" there.

And how the whole procedure at the "Feature Discussion board" works, so the requests will not be buried.........?
And why this procedure is not applied here too........?

It is a fellowship, created for longer, on-going discussions about features could go there, so that this board could remain for the feature requests.. Many of these discussions go on for quite a while, and new requests get buried, or "hidden" ..

Chessmaster1000: It means that when people get talking about one topic, like now, genuine feature requests can get buried among the discussion posts and easily missed.

From the Feature Discussion board:
Use this board to discuss features you would like to see on Brainking.
Why this board is needed? Since we have this........

This way, features will not be "hidden" on the main Feature Request board.
What is this "hidden" means.........? Too confusing........

Walter Montego: http://brainking.com/en/ShowFellowship?fid=355

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.

Walter Montego: THis is feature requests. It was posted previously on Feature Discussions. Perhaps the discussion could move there where my posts won't be deleted quite so quickly.

Walter Montego: Is thie "embarrassed" Done!

Walter Montego: Im afraid we are creating another "bad word", remember what happens if we mention a-pass ..beware guys...mods are lurking!!

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.

Chessmaster1000: I used the word "feature" advisedly, since this forum is "feature request" - But I like "flaw" - well said!

I know Im only a pawn, so I don't feel I can really comment, but I agree with pgt, I like to know if my opponents are still playing & I will wait around for them. In my opinion the people in cloak mode I treat as though they're not here & won't bother waiting for them to play.

pgt: This is the worst feature introduced to BK...
Feature........? Hehe. That was funny.... Cloak-thing is a major flaw of how Brainking works!

I posted this on "Feature Discussions" but since the thrust is here, I'll re-post it:

I think "cloak mode" is a real cop-out. What has anybody got to hide?? If I am ready for bed and my only opponent is browsing discussion boards, I know to switch off amd come back tomorrow. If my opponent is actually playing games (isn't that why we are all here?) - and especially against me - I can stay up a few more minutes and maybe have a few more moves. Can anybody justify why we need "cloak mode"? Who on earth is ashamed of what they are doing on the site. This is the worst feature introduced to BK...

chessmec: I think JamesHird said it all - the more people appear online the better. And I do like to know about online players to play against... even if they don't

rod03801: but the quastion about a "feature complete undercover" is in my opinion on topic here - all right, cloak mode is a feature now, but what about a feature which makes invisible?

General Chat works..

Any further posts about it will be deleted, thanks.

Discussion about changes to the feature are certainly welcome. But it is moving into why such and such a person doesn't like it,.. etc. NOT appropriate. Thanks.