Mélusine: I just tested it too, Mel. I couldn't get smilies to work there either. Might be good for the Bug Tracker.

I also notice that hovering over the number (1) doesn't preview what it is, like it does in the Message Box. Maybe he just hasn't programmed everything for it yet

I DO notice that typing in the code DOES work though. So, as a work around, if you know the code to the smiley, you can do it that way, for now.

Fencer: So, I assume this Event box is for those people who found that sort of message annoying. So, will they delete themselves after a certain amount of time? Or after the # in the box reaches a certain point?

I personally don't care, because I'm one of the weirdos who reads all those messages. (Usually because I like to click on my graph and remind my self how I'm doing, and that sort of thing). But for those who don't like the messages anyway, it seems at first glance that it's just a separate box that will get a gradually higher red number after it.
SO, I'm just curious.

alilsassy: I click your link and see the normal list

BadBoy7: Works fine for me. Have you tried clicking on one of the columns to "re-arrange" it? Or is it THAT blank, that you can't? Weird.

paully: "Access code is your unique identification string (generated by BrainKing). If you are using third party products to access BrainKing, you might be asked for this code to confirm your identity. This is NOT your BrainKing password, so there is no risk of accessing your private data if you provide this code to external programs."

Bernice: Have you tried uploading something different? Is there something different about this particular pic perhaps? I just uploaded a test pic, and it worked for me.

Sorry, I'm not much help I guess.

All I can say, is I was able to upload something, AND I can see from your settings, that you are NOT subject for approval.

Bernice: The only answer I personally can provide is, No, your albums do not require approval.

Mousetrap: Personally, I haven't had a problem in ages.

Just a reminder to check the usual article out. http://brainking.info/archives/414-About-the-complexity-part-1.html

alexlee I already said it.

Read the rules of Ponds. Where does it say it's cheating. It was even brought up at the beginning of Ponds that it would NOT be considered cheating.

Unfair? Possibly, to many people. Again, I would NOT want to play in a pond where I knew people played like that.

Gabriel Almeida: Yes, I DO agree completely. I wouldn't personally play that way.

I guess my point is that it isn't fair to publicly crucify someone for something that isn't TECHNICALLY cheating.

Gabriel Almeida: But it's NOT the rules. Where in the rules do you read that? And it has been stated in the past that there was not going to be restrictions on "team play".

Bernice: Once wasn't enough? If there is an answer, it will come. It has been brought up.

alilsassy: In a fellowship? Sure why not? It was theirs. There have been plenty of times though when Fencer has made adjustments for people in fellowships when this was the case. If someone bothered to ask, I'll bet something would be done.

Lets be realistic, there really are times, when things really aren't pressing or an emergency. They only get brought up when someone has a reason for doing it.

If you really want me to spend time going through all the boards that haven't had posts in months, deleting those mods, I'll be happy to do it. Didn't seem that important at the time. If it is a concern, it can certainly be done though. I suppose perhaps you are interested in helping to moderate those boards with pawn moderators? It can certainly be brought up, if so. We are always looking for "fresh ones" who want to help out.

alilsassy: Well yes, at the time, I thought she would come back as a paid member. But do you notice when the last posts were before tonight? It hasn't exactly been a pressing issue. I have removed her now, I hope that is satisfactory.

And any further silly BICKERING will be deleted as well, and will result in bans if necessary. If there is intelligent conversation that can be had on the topic, without fighting, then that is fine. This IS NOT going to be a free for all.

Bernice: No, enough is enough. I WILL be deleting further posts containing items that have always been considered against the rules, regardless of what Fencer posted. PERIOD.

Bernice: Too frightened? You are commenting on something you know nothing about. Globals/Mods have ZERO ability to edit or delete Fencer's posts. I would hope you have seen me enough on this site to know that I take it all VERY seriously, and have privately stated my opinion to Fencer on how I feel about his post. I can do NO more than that, whether YOU choose to believe it or not.

Also, I believe I remember at some point that Fencer may have said that "team play" in Ponds was not necessarily cheating?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm sure I remember it at least being part of a conversation. LOL

Come on. This is not a chat board.

Snoopy: I think one POTENTIAL problem with that might be that the brains are deducted from your account when you sign up. Then if you are kicked out, they have to be added back in. Maybe that option isn't there because this sort of situation isn't "set up".

I suppose one solution, until something like that IS an option, would be to set it up as invitation only, and have a note in the description to send you a PM if someone wants to participate?

Of course I haven't set up a brain tourney in a long time. Maybe there isn't the option to make it private?

Just some thoughts.

"GERRY": When you delete someone from your tournament, you also can "ban" them, so that they cannot join it again after you throw them out.

Take the "General Chat" to General Chat please.

Bernice: I'm pretty sure it's not an actual human being, per se. I think it's an account that got through. It doesn't even have a "first login". We have seen several like this recently. Most of the time they have been random letters, with odd links. They are never back again after the first time "they" post on a couple boards. I know I personally have deleted at least 12 posts over the last couple of months.

"GERRY": Not THIS board, that's for sure. There are "chat" like boards for that. Thank you.

MadMonkey: Yeah, I used it for a while. It didn't seem significantly faster (I never had complaints about speed, personally), and I missed the things I used FireFox for.

Chrome is keeping me perfectly happy.

Fencer: I haven't experienced any problems with Chrome here, personally. I use that now instead of FireFox, as I was sick of FIrefox using up so many "resources".

DeaD man WalkiN: Well you can now use paypal again at brainking. Or that's how I interpreted Fencer's last message in this thread http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=1&plla=1048140

Mélusine: of course, i don't believe anyone has said different. We are talking about Walls, which are viewable by anyone

Hrqls: It could probably only be handled as you suggested. Reporting it to someone who can take care of it. Currently Fencer is the only person. I haven't seen him remove anything from Walls yet, though. He is obviously too busy to be bothered with things like that. We Globs would be MORE than happy to take care of it, if we were given the ability.

Even if we couldn't remove the writings, the ability to ban someone from writing to any walls would at least be something.

AbigailII: That isn't even close to being the point. I personally am not the least bit delicate and don't care what is on the Walls. It was determined that this site was to be "family friendly". The public boards are moderated to keep them that way. The rest of the site should be consistent. If one public area doesn't matter, then none of them should matter.

Snoopy: I have been saying since Walls arrived here that there needs to be a way of stopping the foolish people who we all know don't know how to conduct themselves in public from using them. Sure, the owner of the Wall can ban people from their own walls, but there are plenty of Wall owners who also don't seem to understand (or care) what is appropriate and what isn't.

I agree that any publicly viewable place of the site should meet the same standards.

Nothingness: And to add to what Pedestrian said, YOUR clock is only running when it is YOUR turn.

Bernice: Click on the message. In the upper right corner, you will see a "restore" button.

As the main mod had requested a certain topic stop, and it didn't, all posts from that point that continued, have been deleted. If it continues any further, the offending people will be banned from posting to this board. Thank you.

Snoopy: Something similar happened to me. It had to do with a fellowship I deleted. (The Halma fellowship I had.) After I deleted it I was not able to join a 10x10 halma team. I haven't checked recently if I can join one yet.

Stingette: I don't understand why AlertPay would be a challenge. I have used it, and it works exactly like PayPal, from my experience.

Bwild: It didn't say Fellowships would be enhanced or dropped. YOU asked if fellowships were going to be dropped.

I told you my impression of what the Blog was saying, and Fencer seems to have agreed that I was correct.

So, NO fellowships are not being dropped.

Bwild: I could be wrong, but I got the impression there would still be fellowships, but there would be an additional "product" where people that just wanted to have a "club" for discussions, could do so. (Since SO many fellowships have been set up for just discussions, and they were actually intended to be used for Teams for specific game types). That's my interpretation anyway.

AbigailII: Ugh, that's frustrating. I personally didn't like Money Bookers (I don't remember why). I have been using Alert Pay, and have had zero problems with it. It is pretty similar to PayPal

Pioneer54: Your best option as well, is to put that person on your blocked user list. They will not be able to send you private messages, nor will you see their in-game messages.

R.A.D.Y.: This really isn't the board for tournament announcements. Please keep those to the Tournaments Discussion board. Thanks!

Hrqls: Right. Can't see how it would have even worked anyplace else

ScarletRose: That would be abused and not fair. What's to stop someone from putting someone who is better at a certain game on block? Never have to play them and thus never lose to them? Tournaments shouldn't be that way.

If you have them blocked you cannot see what they say, what else matters?

nodnarbo: Good idea. I just did it.

alilsassy: You need to remember, that the day starts at midnite Czech time. I'm not positive where you are, but here in the Eastern U.S. the "new day" starts at 6pm.

I believe Pedro and Imsoaddicted are correct as well. It is her last vacation day. Her vacation days remaining probably turned to zero at 6pm eastern yesterday (which would explain why you say it has been "two" days). I would imagine at 6pm eastern, she will start timing out.

Czuch: Well whatever, lol. I wasn't thinking it all the way out. Her point still was that games aren't played out all the way, if they don't need to be.

If you haven't read the whole thread, you will see where she is coming from, if you do.

I'm as American as any other American, and I have certainly resigned games that are mathematically impossible for me to win, and I feel comfortable saying that probably most others do as well. It was an inaccurate generalization on the part of tfra11.

awesome: Right, her point was that in baseball (considered the "American sport") games DO end when there is no mathematical way for the team to win. This was in response to tfra11 who is trying to say that it is "UnAmerican" to resign a game that is definitely lost.

She made an excellent point.

tfra11: I'm pretty sure a majority of Americans who play here would disagree. (Only because of the MANY times over the years this subject has been brought up) Most people who care about this issue, I believe, feel it is rude to continue a game that is a mathematical loss. Americans included. But I think many don't care (whatever nationality)

Personally, I'm pretty easy going, and it doesn't bother me whichever way someone chooses to handle it. When I know I am playing someone who prefers you resign when you know for sure you have lost, I resign at that point. If I'm playing a friend, who likes to continue a conversation, and just play it out, I play it out.

nodnarbo: I see them all fine when I click your link

Gouwe gozer: You can visit someone's profile even if they have you blocked