joshi tm: I know that the fellowships are sorted by date. That doesn't help, because it is the older ones that are more likely to become inactive sooner. Like I said, 15 out of 49 fellowships on the first page are inactive. If we leave it at sorting it by date only, then we should have it from newest to oldest, with the newest ones at the top.
But I still think it is better to sort them by most popular at the top...

On the ranking charts, I'm sure some would find usefull to have the possibility to chalange a player on the spot. Same like paying members have at discussion boards: after the player's name there's an icon to send him/her a message and then another icon to challenge for a game - this is what I'm talking about.

I think it makes much more sense to have the possibility to chalenge someone whose ranking you're looking at and comparing to your own than it does having that feature at discussion boards. So if it's here, why not there? ;)

emmett: The fellowships are sorted by date.

I just spent a lot of time looking at the fellowships. It has been suggested that they get organized alphabetically. That didn't happen, and I guess I can see some reasons why that isn't helpful. So another way that we could organize the fellowships is in order of the number of members, with the most popular fellowships at the top...

-One added perk to this idea is it might instigate fellowships to try and get more members so that they move higher up the list.
-Also, it will save us from having to wade through a lot of two and three member fellowships. I noticed several inactive fellowships (where the members or Big Boss has not logged in in over 30 days).
15 out of the 49 fellowships on the first page alone are inactive.

> One thing I will say for Fencer. His site is remarkably free.

Summertop: I agree 100% -- oops: rounding error

A few things I've learned as a programmer:
1. Users ALWAYS want MORE.
2. A simple feature will always mushroom to a complex one.
3. There are no such things as bugs...only unwanted features!
4. Users HATE waiting for a new feature.
5. Users think they deserve to know the developer's Timeline/Schedule.
6. Timelines/Schedules are an "estimate" because Developement is creativity.
7. Developers make poor Users because they *think* they know how easy/quick a feature is to add.
8. The Developer knows what's best for the User


One thing I will say for Fencer. His site is remarkably free.

emmett: programmer can only push so hard before a rest period.

mctrivia: morbid thought

MadMonkey: There's already such an 'undo': it's called 'back'.

Fencer: In Logik, how about an UNDO button as well as (or instead of) the Choose another piece button, just so when we place a guess on the board, we can just take out the LAST peg placed, rather than realising we need to make a change and starting all over again.
Just make things easier & quicker

pauloaguia: There is a feature to disable the submit and goto options with the exception of the list of specific games. With firefox you can play before the list is downloaded but it would be nice to not get it at all. I have 800 games and it takes a long time on my system to get the whole list.

Could there be an option to disable the "Submit and goto game XXX" or "Submit and Goto Pond XXX" Comboboxes? I have quite a few games right now and every time I start my "playing day", Those comboboxes (especially the games one) is packed with games and, quite frankly, I never use them anyway.

I'm estimating over 20% of the page's source code has to do with those Comboboxes right now. And I only have 100 games where it's my turn. Wait till I get to 200 or even 300...
I'd just like my pages to load a little bit faster and the server to have a little less work because right now, it's building that list for nothing (in my case).


If such a feature alreay exists, could someone tell me where to find it?

Gr☺uch☺: That's better.

Fencer:  Ok, how about a new game on an irregular sporadic non-schedule? 

emmett: People would never expect less. They just have to get used that some requests will be answered with a delay and some of them will never be answered at all.

Fencer: I can see that. I guess I was trying to find a way to have people expect less. Every time there is a new improvement, there are complaints and even more requests, and even arguements, that outweigh the impact of the original improvement. It is disheartening after awhile to see so many arguements on the discussion boards. They are usually about feature requests.

emmett: A new game on a regular schedule? That would kill me. I prefer to do things sporadically.

jessica: I meant a new game quarterly. But you're right, it is a general idea. I think the point is that Fencer should do a little less in terms of quantity, but have more of a regular, public schedule, so that:
a) we have reasonable expectations based on time and published comittment
b) the pressure (which has started to show a little more) is more evenly distrubuted for Fencer.

emmett: i agree with that general idea but instead of posting everything that he has promised to do quarterly, it might be simpler to do it monthly or weekly.

It strikes me that for every improvement Fencer introduces to the site, several other requests invariably follow. It would be impossible to follow up on every suggestion for improvement, as they surface exponentially in relation to Fencer's power to make them happen.
I have noticed the effectiveness of Fencer declaring that he would introduce ten new games by a certain date. Supplying an intention and a deadline helps to quell the waves of well-intended suggestions for even more games.

I propose that Fencer create a sort of calendar, where (let's say quarterly in a year) he establishes that a new game will be created on a regular schedule. On the same calendar, he could say that (on every Monday, let's say) a new feature could be added. It can help prioritize feature requests. After all, this method would limit the amount of new features to 52 a year. Such a posted calendar can help brainking members know when to expect change, so they have a date to check in and expect news. Primarily, though, it will afford Fencer some time. I think some players' responses to Fencer's statements have incited aggressive, arguementative discussion. Possibly part of that has been a result of F. being overwhelmed by an insatiable group of regular members. In order to abate Fencer's pressure brought on by this vast, open forum, what we need is, well, order. A calendar is an orderly, limiting structure.

Fencer: Well when you see the programmer, could you ask him nicely please, it would be extremely useful

but tell him to have Sunday off, its a day of rest

MadMonkey: Yes, there is a reason. Nobody has programmed this feature yet.

When editing a Tournament Fencer we can only change certain things, which i understand.
Is there any reason we can not add an EXTRA game though ?
I can understand maybe deleting a game, as people may have signed.
It would be use though to add them, that way when a new game is released it could be added to an open Tournament, rather that creating one just for the

*morning by the way *

Hi .

I can make use of an Opening Database for CVs like Los Alamos, N-Relay, Grand, and/or Embassy Chess .. etc. It is a very useful feature and it might help to improve the quality of the games played.

grenv: I can't even CONTEMPLATE not having the opponents score available - either face-to-face or on line. Why on earth would you NOT see it?

Vikings: Personally I do have the other person's score next to mine when I play at home. And I don't shade the page either.

I'd like to investigate the possibility of establishing "double elimination" tournaments. Eight entrants may be optimal, although any of the multiples available for single elimination would suffice.

Here is a proposal. Each player would start with two game points. Following each round, points are DEDUCTED for results as follows:
WIN -- No points
DRAW -- one-half point
LOSS -- one full point

Players would be eliminated whenever their point total drops to zero. Therefore, each entrant will play in at least the first two rounds.

In the first round, players would be paired normally according to ratings. In the second round, winners play winners and losers play losers, etc. and in successive rounds players are paired against others with point totals equal or within a half-point of theirs, as closely as possible. Also, to balance the opportunity, each player should have roughly the same amount of Blacks as Whites over the course of the tournament.

It may occur that an odd number of players would start a round, which could be resolved by issuing a bye to the lowest rated player with the fewest points, except if the tournament is reduced to three players, a round-robin round should commence until two players remain, and then match play until one is the winner.

There may be other flaws that need to be ironed out, yet the system would produce interesting games and results.

Vikings: Impossible.

When you play dice poker at home, you do not have the other persons score sitting right next to yours to get confused with,it is taking the fun out of the game

Back on topic please folks.

Thanks.

Gordon Shumway: Its not a lifetime contract, the contract says "FOREVER", that is in fact much longer than ones own lifetime!(as a matter of logic!)

plaintiger: It's not an opinion but a matter of logic. A lifetime contract is always personal - otherwise it would be a as-long-as-humans-exist-contract, because you could easily give it away to your descendants before you die and so on. Lifetime is always personal!

mctrivia: is this fact, or your opinion?

i'm not interested in anyone's opinion on this matter; i'm interested only in the facts. thanks...

and you know, i think my query is for this board anyways. i'll take it to another board.

plaintiger: Still life time membership means until you die(or are incapable of taking advantage of the membership). It is tied to you and you can't give or sell it to anyone.

plaintiger: Should create a new user though, or ratings should be reset.

Czuch Czuckers: thank you, Czuch. your interpretation seems the correct one to me. the point is that there must be only one user of a given account. i don't think permanent transfer of an account from one user to another would void that stipulation in the mind of any sane person. of course, Fencer would have the last word on this. we'll see what he says.

Czuch Czuckers: thank you, Czuch. your interpretation seems the correct one to me. the point is that there must be only one user of a given account. i don't think permanent transfer of an account from one user to another would void that stipulation in the mind of any sane person. of course, Fencer would have the last word on this. we'll see what he says.

If someone is using automatic vacation, it would be useful if the time left column on the main page included the number of vacation days they have left.
For example this game between me and MJL is currently showing me that my opponent has less than an hour left to make his move, however his profile shows that he actually has 29 automatic vacation days, so he has 29 days left before he times out, not less than a day, so it should show that on the main page.

guys, this is feature requests, not debates

Czuch Czuckers: That is correct, provided the person to whom the account was sold is not using it.

Pedro Martínez: The user agreement says "use" it doesnt prohibit giving it away, or even selling it to someone, as long as only one person is using it, the user agreement hasnt been broken!

Czuch Czuckers: If you "give" me your account, it won't become mine because you're not allowed to do so in the first place.

Pedro Martínez: If I give you something, it is still mine?

Czuch Czuckers: Oh yes, it would.

Pedro Martínez: If you gave it to them, it wouldnt be "your account" anymore!

Czuch Czuckers: User Agreement: General Guidelines, Paragraph 2: "You are NOT allowed to let other people use your account."

plaintiger: Give someone your password, and they can take over your account...

Fencer: it wasn't a joke - it was an honest inquiry. regarding your bullet points:

• no need to construe it as a threat unless the thought of me leaving the site is threatening to you (and i don't know why it would be)

• i know memberships are not refundable - that's why i asked if i have the option of transferring my membership to someone else. do i?

• perhaps it's because i'm using Safari, but i see no black border nor any other highlighting of any kind around any cells on any dice poker form

• i think just shading the opponent's cells in gray would do, or implementing some other Safari-friendly highlighting system, so everyone can see the highlighting. i've tried Firefox, which is more widely compatible, but it's slow and as ugly and poorly designed as all the other Mozilla-based browsers. i'd rather not have to use a browser i don't like in order to make use of all of brainking's features. but i understand that i'm surely in a minority on this point (at least insofar as i'm a Safari user), so the "tough luck" response would be a little more understandable in this case...

Fencer: Thank you, F., for adding anything you can to the fellowship statistics. Even doing that little improvement for MadMonkey helps. These improvements help us get more involved with Fellowship teams.

pauloaguia: I second that request. I would like the see the board clickable (each empty square that is), and a tick box next to it. Tick the box for a guess, untick (the default) for a shoot. Click the board for your shot or guess. Then you can make a move with just one round-trip (and usually just one mouse action).