1. Pass 25 turns in a row in backgammon instead of using autopass.
   
2. Play at least 10 games of Cheversi, each lasting at least 10 moves.
   
3. Have a simple feature request for at least years, but "more important things" need to be done first.
   
4. Finish a game against a slow player in less than a year.
   
5. Win at least 100 games against different opponents, each game lasting at least 500 moves.
   
6. Take more than 3 months to answer interview questions.
   
7. Win at least 50 games of Maharajah Chess against different opponents, as white.
   
8. Score max possible points on all of Dice Poker, Triple Dice Poker, Dice Poker 6D and Triple Dice Poker 6D.
   
9. Have at least 10 games running against different opponents, each lasting for at least a year, without taking any vacation time.
   
10. Guess opponents Logic code on the first turn against at least 25 different opponents.
    
11. Win at least 25 Dice 10x10 games against different opponents where the only pieces captured are the three Kings.
    
12. Lose at least 25 Ludo games against different opponents, without rolling a single 6.
    
13. Report 10 bugs whose status after 3 months is still "New".
    
14. Appear on the "blocked users" list of at least 100 people.
    
15. Make up a language. Pass it off as real. Translate BK to it.
    
16. Kill the flying dragon.
    
17. Win 25 games of Dark Battleboats against different opponents on your sixth turn.
    
18. Accuse an innocent person of cheating and get him/her banned.
    
19. Invent a game that sounds good, but turns out to be boring to play, and get Fencer to implement it.
    
20. Get yourself banned from 25 boards or more.
    
21. Refuse to resign a lost game. Ever.
    
22. Have an active retirement in all the stairs, each lasting for at least a year.
    </ol>

This is unlike (ELO) chess ratings. There the rating difference between players A and B would, for instance, say that in a 10 game match, A is expected to win 7-3. If A wins the match 6-4, A would actually lose rating points (and B would win rating points).

This is why I seldomly play matches.

In fact, why ask for tournament creation restrictions? Why not ask for more filter options? Restrictions on tournament creation options is limiting someone else, while better filter options allows everyone to get what he/she wants.

You know, kind of like the difference between the autopass we have , and autopass we want.

Let's just say that "technically, it can be done (off the 'shelf' even), but then everyone's fee would have to increase a hundred or a thousand fold, and it'll take a long time to implement". (High end servers can reconfigure themselves without going down. But they are bloody expensive).

Fencer is quite right that it's impossible given the constraints (money, knowledge, labour involved) BK has.

I hope I wasn't "too" technical.

That's way too simplistic. That's like saying since it takes some people more than an hour to drive from The Hague to Amsterdam, but it takes some people less, there cannot be traffic jams - they must have slow cars. You're discounting the fact that traffic jams don't occur all the time. It's the same with the connection to Brainking. The fact that some people consider everything to be fine doesn't mean that there isn't a problem. It maybe that those people play at different times than the people complaining. It maybe that the people who consider everything to be fine have low expectations. It maybe that the people who have no problems happen to have a provider that has good peering with Brainkings provider, and the people that have problems have providers with bad peering agreements. Or maybe the Check Republic has just one lousy connection to the USA, and an excellent connection to Italy, so people from the USA will complain, and people from Italy will say it's fine. (And yes, Brainking *can* do something about that (relocate for instance), if it were the case - but 'can' is something else than 'should').

Now, I've my own ideas about whether or not there are problems, and if there are whether or not it's something BK can or should address. Fencer has made it quite clear what his viewpoint is. Expressing your disagreement in a public folder doesn't do anyone any good. Play here as long as you can tolerate it - and if it become to slow for you, vote with your feet.

But I will speak up if someone expresses himself naively.

You want to keep waving "off-topic" graphics in everyone face? Then I think you start by being clear what the board is about - not as a post interpreting your idea what the charter of the board is, but by writing it down in the charter.

Well, if your goal is to keep your current customers, and to attract more, unsatisfied customers should be your problem, whether you can do something about or not, and whether the problems are real or imaginary.

Fencer: Our power ends at the outgoing port of our firewall.

Yes...., but, where your firewall ends is something you can do about. If there's a network problem, and that problem is caused by your upstream provider, then you aren't entirely powerless. You could switch provider, or get a faster pipe. I'm not saying you should, or that it's wise business wise, just pointing out that just brushing it off with "oh well, nothing we can do" is a bit short sighted. If Disney had build Disneyworld at the end of a dirt road, and people would complain it's hard to reach, Disney wouldn't say "oh, but the lines in the park are short, and it isn't our problem there's only a dirt road to our park".

A website cannot control the speed of the Internet, but it can decide where it connects to the Internet.