tinksbell: You have to go to "My profile", then click on "tournaments". If you choose your "open tournaments", you will see the ones you have signed up for but have not started yet.

I just sent an email supporting pauloaguia, then I looked at "Le" Club fellowship and deleted my last message. Great job, Fencer! Team rankings!

Wow.

To the right of the name of the fellowships, under "Games we play", there is a list of all the games that each fellowship plays. Many fellowships list all the games (and they end in "...").
That list takes up a lot of space.

I suggest that we simply have "All Games" as an option for what the fellowships say that they play. It would help condense the fellowship pages, maybe even by over two pages.

Maybe we could have it set up so that each fellowship could have the option of choosing "All games", and then every time a new game is added it automatically becomes one of the fellowship's games played.

I think that that sort of sort would work quite well. I can imagine some reclusive egotist with himself as the only member of his fellowship returning to it again and again for hours trying to boost its visibility up the list. Another good reason why I should never start a fellowship :)

mctrivia: By views, do you mean the number of times someone views a link?

mctrivia: I think I understand why you suggest a multiplier. It doesn't take into account those who visit a fellowship without posting any messages, though.

In the end, I am hoping for any kind of organization for the fellowship page. This all points in the direction of improving the fellowship experience in general. What I would really like to see is a list of team rankings that include wins and participation for team matches and tournaments for each type of game, and any other statistics that can be mustered. I love the idea of team play, and I think it can be improved on this site.

Jason: Unless the newest ones were displayed first...

I like Rose's idea about sorting by traffic, but I don't know how to measure that... by the previous day?....

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...

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.

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.

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.

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: 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.

TKR101010: I hope the request for Chu shogi is not overlooked. It is a great game and few offer it.

How about always having random color selections when creating a new game?

We are about to begin a new wave of fellowship team tournaments, and I think the choices of games was very interesting. I am now playing lots of different types of games that I had never tried before...
I would like to see a list of fellowship team win rankings, so I can see (in one list) how the fellowship that I am playing for compares to others. Having a position on a list of rankings gives one something to fight for.

On the Statistics page, can we have a link for Fellowship Wins?
On that page, we already have BKR/Finished Games/Running Games/Top Players/Action Points... we could fit Fellowship Wins in there somewhere...

I guess I would like to see a clearly visible way of telling how all of the fellowships have done in tournaments against each other. I think it is more comprehensible on one page (anywhere). For each tournament on the Finished Team Tournaments (at the bottom) on the Team Tournaments page, you have to click on each game link to see who won. I would like the winning teams to be more visible at a glance. I just think it would be more rewarding and competetive for fellowship teams to easily see an overall view of the finished games.
Besides, the change I am requesting is probably of more interest than knowing the days per move of a tournament that is already finished.

I request that, on the team tournaments page, there be made a column listing the fellowships that won each finished tournament. I looked under finished tournaments, and it only really has the name of the tournament, the number of teams that participated, and the type of game. The value of having a column naming the fellowship that won is that it gives us more incentive for playing in these tournaments, and it helps us to glance at the list of finished tournaments and see how all the fellowships are doing in this regard.
Maybe we could replace the "days per move" column on the Finished Tournaments list with a column entitled "Fellowship That Won"...

Vikings: And how about a thorough statistics page for fellowship team tournaments...?

pgt: Ha! I asked that question once too. The date and time of the first move is at the top of the move list, to the right of the game board.

On the Waiting Games board, under the "Event" column, unrated games are listed as "Normal game". I request that it be listed in that column as "unrated game".

Can we have a team statistics board?

A lot of players type in GL at the beginning of each game. I play fairly quickly and start many games each day... so I don't always type in a greeting, although I feel bad if I don't. Yet greetings like GL seem so perfunctory... are these people really wishing me luck? (I should win more if the luck was effectual)
Anyway, I request that, in our settings, we can type in a default greeting. That greeting can be automatically shown on the first move of any new game.

ScarletRose: I see what you mean. Those fellowships should at least be alphabetized or something.
Also, there are a lot of fellowships that list many games, but no one is actually on any of the teams. I wish the fellowships only listed games where there are people listed as having joined the teams involved.

RagingSeas: Shogi is great! I was talking about Hasami Shogi...but you are right about Maharajah Chess...

Joshi tm: thank you for the glimmer of hope concerning the possible changing of Hasami Shogi rules. However, after reading every entry on the Hasami Shogi discussion board it seems like this won't happen anytime soon.

Hasami Shogi is a game I regret even being rated for, as it is utterly biased towards the person who moves first. I would like to wipe off all records of a rated game type, with the caveat that I can never play it again on this site. Hasami shogi would be the one I would wipe off, as it is unfair.

BIG BAD WOLF: BBW said: Maybe there should be the rule that in dark loop chess, you can only place a pieces in a space that you can see is free (not all available free spaces) - since I would think that would give up too much information.
I third that idea.

I also like the idea of dark crazy screen chess...

Is it too difficult to have a rotate board feature? In line games, go variations and chess it would be interesting to see the board from different points of view.

Well, I think that joshi tm has a go point about an arbitrator. Here is an example of a game that I am playing where the opponent kept playing after I passed. We are still playing. He moves about once a week. I request that if the number of stones taken exceeds an opponents territory then the game should be automatically decided..

joshi tm: I agree with you, joshi tm!

I love words and grammar (being a writer), but I think that we have enough to focus on already. We should hone the interface and games that we already use, I think. I've seen other game sites that try to do it all, and it is like walking into a huge mess. Here, we still have a tight community. Yes, I love words games. I think that is seperate from loving Brainking.

Marfitalu: Yes. I often check out opponents' finished games when I size them up before battle. Especially because of the Waiting games arena. I requested the sort because some people have many finished game types. Also, I am a clean, organized person. I like the elements of my profile to be sorted a little more efficiently.

pauloaguia: Exactly. I didn't want to ask for too much...

On the My profile page, can we have the finished games list sorted by BKR ratings from highest to lowest descending?

Marfitalu: Oui.

Marfitalu: I hope the compare BKRs feature request isn't overlooked. I think it is a great idea.

nightmagic: I agree. That is how I do it too. I start games with a two game time limit. Some wonderful, crazy players still can play 5000 games at the same time and manage to keep up, making daily moves with me. The only reason why I like the game limit criteria as a feature request is that when I commit myself to a one or two day per move game, I don't allow room for myself to have a few extra days when work or holidays keep me from getting to a computer. Yet when I start a game with a seven day limit, some players will take a year to complete it with me, maxing their time to the last hour on every move and consistently using their weekend days. Anyway, brainking is the best.

Flummoxed: A picture of a grinning happy face, nodding in agreement.

BIG BAD WOLF: Okay, okay!:) I guess my ratings suck enough that few would accuse me of cheating anyway! (I never mind losing, and I love to play... I have always been fair and I guess it is the fairness in me that wanted to address the potential in anyone to ever think that I would cheat...) Anyway, thank you for your responses everyone.
I remain, forever indebted to and in favor of this site, managed by our most dedicated game lover, the irreproachable Filipencer...

My girlfriend recently spent a month in Toronto and New York. We live on the West Coast, and when she left I got her to start a BK account so that we could play and chat while she was gone. (Her name on BK is ultramarine.) We made moves on a couple of games from across the country, but now that she is back I was concerned that we would both be playing from the same IP address and that one day someone at BK would think that both were the same person. After our current game of go 13X13 is finished, I decided that from now on we should only play unrated, uncounted games with each other online.
I suggest that couples and families who play on BK from the same IP address somehow register as multi-party users and then BK admin could have something set up so that all multi-users from the same IP addresses default to unrated, uncounted games. Such a preventative measure would limit the chance of cheating on this site, and that is something that has been addressed before on brainrook.com as well as on these discussion boards.

Thanks hexkid. That was very clear.

MadMonkey: Wow, MadMonkey you rock! I don't even know what your message meant but it was a great read! (I was dancing around listening to Stereolab and looking at the island from my livingroom before I read it, and now I am inspired to get on my bike. I'll reread it again, but thank you kind monkey)

Marfitalu: Is that an option for paying members only?

I didn't know where else to ask this question, but it does concern a feature. I already know the codes to render things in bold and in italics, and how to create links. But I have noticed some write in colored fonts. How can I introduce colors into my fonts?

emmett: I know that we can choose the number of games rankings shown, but I would like to be able to choose which game ratings are shown.

There is a list of our BrainKing ratings rankings on our main page. There is currently an option to have them there or not. I am wondering if it is possible to offer us the choice in Settings to choose the game rankings that are listed. I have ratings in a dozen games or so. I would like to be able to choose about half of them to be displayed. The reason for my request is so that I don't have to scroll down to see if an opponent has moved. I still like the rankings shown at the top, however.

andreas: Autovacation is alright, but I think to cut down the abuse of vac. days and autovac. days we should cut down the weekend days to one day instead of two.

On each player's game graph, it would be interesting if a percentile could be shown of the number of games where the player made the first move.

Marfitalu: I live on the border between Quebec and Ontario. I have lived in Quebec several times in my life. Of course, as many Quebecers would like to separate their culture from the rest of Canada's, they would like some distinction as a nationality on BK. It couldn't hurt. Yet they are still Canadians. Continuing to separate countries on BK could be interesting, but more work for Fencer.