gogul: I don't see Czech Republic in your list, but Fencer takes euros. :)

25 countries? They've been doing some expansion lately, eh? What's with the other 13? Don't like the euro for some reason, or is it a case of national sovereignty and money? Do they other 13 have to accept euros?

Antje: Your profle say you're in Germany and married to AndersP. I thought he lived in Pennsylvania? If you're in Germany, it might be real easy seeing how that's right next to Czech Republic. If you're in Pennsylvania, you should be able to do as I can here in California. Each state has different laws. Believe it or not, most countries of the world tightly control access to money, especially money leaving the country and they place all sorts of controls and fees on doing it. Also, the governments run the banks in most countries. The United States doesn't do that and private businesses can sell money orders and wire transfers. They charge what the market bares and in some cases it's free. You own bank, if you're in Pennsylvania, might have the money orders for free with your account as part of the service. They might have the wire transfers too, but it sounds like you've checked into that and found it to expensive.

tonyh: I just realized that you're in England. Perhaps it works differently there or in other countries other than the United States.

Edit: Wait a minute. England? Doesn't England use the euro? Why bother with an exchange? Just get a euro money order and send it in. 30 euros in England is 30 euros in Czech Republic, right? Just like a buck in California is a buck in Nevada.

tonyh: What exchange rate? I buy the money order in U.S. dollars. I send it to Filip in the Czech Republic. If it's an international money order, they don't charge him anything to cash it. Least ways that's what he told me. If you send him a personal check or a domestic money order that's something else and the Czech Repbulic has very high rates for those transactions.

Example:
Today a one year Rook membership costs 30 euros. The exchange link says that today 30 euros is the same as 37.7058 dollars

30.00 EUR = 37.7058 USD http://www.xe.com/

I go to the liquor store and buy the international money order for $37.71. There's no exchanging involved for me or anyone. That cuts out the middle man for Filip too. There's the cost of the money order and the postage, plus you have to wait a few days for it to get to him, but that's it.

Antje: Do what I do. Check today's exchange rate.
http://www.xe.com/ With this knowledge you go down to the liquor store or Post Office and buy a money order. It costs between 35¢ and 95¢ depending on where you go. Make sure they sell international money orders, otherwise go somewhere else. There's no extra charge for international money orders and that's what you need when Filip goes to cash it in at his bank or they'll charge him for it. Buy the money order and then mail it to Filip in the Czech Republic. Postage was 80¢ the last time I did this. I just checked, it appears rates have gone up. It is now 84¢
Airmail Letter Post 4 - 7 Days $0.84
http://ircalc.usps.gov/intl_speed.asp?CID=10086&MailType=envelope&Pounds=0&Ounces=1 There's a link on the rates page about what can be sent to the Czech Replubic.
Ask Filip for the mailing address. When you mail the money order include your account number and handle with it. And put some neat stamps on it for Filip. :)

I haven't tried the customer service route in the United States. Seems like Eriisa has been doing it for awhile, it works well, and the postage is less for domestic mail.
http://brainking.info/service.html Customer Service link

gambler104: I'll probably stick with one year at a time. I have trouble believing the internet will be much as it is today or that my interests won't change in six years. If I get the money and don't mind being wrong, I'd certainly get the lifetime membership. It seems like a good deal to me. This site is still best that I've seen so far in a lot of ways. Plus the owner is a hands on guy that actually exists and talks to us. As Fencer points out, he can make capital investments now which might make him more money than he'll lose years later from the few people that buy the lifetime memberships.

pauloaguia: OK :)

pauloaguia: You'd better think about what you just said about clockwise and how it looks to each player. That's like saying we have a clock laying face up between us with you at the 6 and me at the 12 and the second hand appears to move in opposite directions! My clockwise movements will look the same no matter where the observer is placed if he's looking down upon the game. How can we be moving them in the same direction? That's not Backgammon as I know it.

whopper: I agree with this skepticism. When playing on a real board in person with someone one player goes clockwise and the other player goes counterclockwise. It is only with the computer do both people think they're going the same direction. Kind of like having the declaring hand in Bridge always played from the south seat in the newspaper, but that's not how it is in real games. I don't see any reason for not allowing the player pick the direction of travel for his pieces, but I also don't see why it would matter in the first place. It doesn't change the game, does it? Is there not a standardized direction of travel for the checkers? As in a book on Backgammon? Why not adopt that and have them go in that direction? Since the current way of notating the games is 1 to 24 instead by the table they're in, I would imagine that having the 6 to 1 inner table in the same place for both players would take care of it. If me, it's on the lower right and my pieces would go counterclockwise. If my opponent, it'd be on the upper left of my screen and my pieces would go clockwise toward the 19 to 24 inner table which would be on my side of the board in the lower left of the screen.

Marfitalu: I've noticed a typo in this posting. :)

JinkyOng: Considering some of the posts you have made or have attempted to make I find it rather disingenuous and hypocritical of you to use the user agreement like this. I did recieve your message and have forwarded it to a global moderator.

You weren't on this site a couple of months ago when there was a big problem with impersonations and such. The memory is still here. Even if you are who you say you are it doesn't mean that your suddenly nice and polite ways mean that the rudeness is forgotten just like that.

For some reason when I click the links from Embassy Chess or Janus Chess to the German discussion boards it send me to the 8 × 8 Schachvarianten board instead of the 10 × 8 board. Is this a bug?

gambler104: Why not have different ratings systems for different classes of games? playBunny posted extensively about different ratings systems for Backgammon and the length of matches. For Chess and games related to Chess, the current system should rate each game idividually regardless of the match type.

رضا: I find them distracting and rarely use them.

This one-----> :) -----is about the only one I use.

رضا: ctrl F5, eh? Not a chance of me doing that. I disabled the smileys right after they were added to this site. :)

Rose: I said how to do it in the previous link.

BIG BAD WOLF: I use AOL's browswer. I've already given up on using those firewalls and things like Proxomotron with it.

People have seen me using the computer with a bunch of windows and wonder how I keep track. I have no problem and it's easier than reloading every page. I just need to be able to access them quickly and not hit the "close window" buttons on accident. Whatever change was made today on the pages is something I didn't like and didn't see any utility for. What exactly does it do? Is there a question and answer page for the changes? Does the Java page for this site have some instructions on it or a question and answer page?

After the change I went to the change link on the new right click. It sent me to the Java page where I found I could disable it. I also checked the drop down games box. I haven't noticed any change. What does that do?

BIG BAD WOLF: I disable this new "feature". I like to be able to open links in new windows and all the other things that I had before the change.

Fencer: Judging from the posts concerning this change, I hope it shows you how important the discussion boards and posting are to this site.

Tuesday: As for creating my own fellowship, I'll have to think about it. Since Pawns can't join and some people won't for a variety of reasons, I see little use in doing so. Perhaps I could create a general discussion fellowship and let all join that wish to and have the topic change from time to time or just let any subject be discussed.

emmett: It is in most ways not worth my trouble. So I'm not going to bother with it any more until I see some changes or am actively sought out for my help or opinion.
I've said enough and it should be apparent as to where my sentiments lie.

I am talking about moderation issues, not multi nics and handles. Why this keeps getting confused is beyond me. The two can be related. The multi-nics thing is just one of many subjects that have shown to me what is wrong with the moderation system. As I can't go to where I can post about it, that's the end of it unless things change.

Tuesday: It is an idea, but what's the point? Just how am I going to get those that I want to talk to to join?

baddessi: You mean paying members, right? Perhaps you and Harley can use your pull with the Big Boss and get me in. It obviously isn't without precedent having a non-moderator as a member. Even if let in, it will only be this group and not the whole of the membership. For those of us that like to post and have issues with how the moderation system is set up on this site there's nowhere to air our thoughts on it to a general audience of all of us.

harley: I understand that fellowships can have whatever members they want. Some fellowships are organized for other reasons. What it amounts to is I have no place to post to a general audience, nor do I have access to the one group of people that might want to hear me out or sound some of their own ideas off me and others.

emmett: I disagree with you saying the posts are meaningless or irrelevant. Perhaps you have tired of the subjects or whatever. You're entitled to your opinion of what is posted, as am I.

What's with all this favorite board stuff? Anyone can still access a board whether or not you have the link on your main page. The ones I choose to have on my main page are ones I commonly read or post to. Who cares if you remove a board from your main page. Is this supposed to enlighten us in some way?

harley: No, I meant the Mod Squad. I have no intention of joining some fellowship about Bumble. I don't really want to join the Mod squad either, but it was you a few weeks ago that suggested I do join it to discuss ways to improve the moderation system on this site. I also posted that I thought the moderation system was something that should be discussed in a public forum so that Pawn members could have imput too. Now we're hiding behind some arbitrary rule of not letting non-moderators into the fellowship. It proves how closed the fellowships are, even to paying members such as myself. As to why they won't let me in, I question the reason of not letting me join because I'm not moderator. Bumble isn't a moderator and yet he's in that fellowship. I was planning on posting about moderation issues. Seeing how anybody can be a moderator why should it matter if someone is a moderator to join this fellowship? I can only conclude the moderators are happy with the status quo. As my link complained, they really don't care. You have seen and read my posts about moderation. I'm sure some of the other moderators have to.

harley: So that's it? I'm not a moderator? Then you agree that I'm right. It's a fellowship. I've seen changes made to the guidelines of discussion boards. Why not change that one or make an exception? I'm willing to bet that she didn't read the posts and you didn't mention it to her. Or if you both did, you decided to just stick with your guidelines rather have a debate in the fellowship. And why is Bumble in this fellowship? What board does he moderate?

Fencer: The subject might be off topic on this board, but where may it be talked about in a public forum? The General Chat discussion board seems like an ideal place, but there's different moderators there and they delete all the posts about the subject. I'd like to talk about on some discussion board, but I guess that's not happening. Can you just say the subject is to never be discussed on your site in a public forum ever again? Or could you direct those of us that want to talk about it to a place we can for everyone on the site and the moderators are told not to take sides and only censor swear words and racial epitats?

harley: What has being a moderator got to do with joining a fellowship? If that's the problem and an exception can't be made in my case, then I certainly want no part of that fellowship.

I've been to that yahoo group and do check it on occasion. It's activity level has slowed considerably in the last few weeks. Some people have posted about changing their opinion of Bumble and a few are still waiting for something definitive, but it's more or less what was deleted from this site in the early going of the whole contraversy.

As for yours and other moderator's resistance to the affair and the posting of it on this site, I have yet to see what it is that is the problem. I'm not going to waste my time posting about it on this site until I have guarantees that my posts won't be deleted. Time does heal wounds and the sweeping it under the carpet is working. Those that critized me for doubting haven't apologized or brought up any proof of anything. Czuch is hitting his head on the wall, regardless of the merits of his questions.

And where's Fencer in all of this? Why have so many of the moderators taken the view that it should not be talked about? I find it hard to believe that there's unanimity amongst such a supposedly diverse group of individuals.
Why don't you make yourself a moderator of the General Chat board. You have my support.

harley: Here, I'll hold this end of the carpet up and you bring the broom over. And whatever happened to this link, Harley? I've given up waiting for a reply, but I'm still curious. http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=1&ngi=501495


Czuch: General Chat, sure Czuch. It won't last long there. Good luck. Let me tomorrow if there's anything left of it.

Czuch Chuckers: Sounds like the makings of a good debate. We'll have to pick it up somewhere else. How 'bout in the lounge at the Club?

Czuch Chuckers: When you were president I enjoyed our eight years of peace, the balancing of the federal budget, and paying down of the national debt. Your replacement hasn't made me too happy, though.

I'm assuming you mean for becoming a global moderator. If you're talking about something else, then I couldn't say. Rose being one of the new global moderator leads me to believe that is what you're talking about. There's a group that decides who the next one will be. I had thought it was Fencer's decision, but he lets this group do it. I do not know the make up of this group, but I would think it is the existing global moderators. Perhaps one of them will let us in on how it is decided or alternatively who the group is. I'm guessing, but they problably choose amongst the people that asked to become a global moderator. I asked to become one, but I asked Fencer not this group. He said he'd refer my name to the group. A few days later Rose and Rod became global moderators. I apparently didn't get enough votes. :)

Universal Eyes: There was a vote.

JinkyOng: They're smileys that paying member can allow themselves to see. I don't and just see the numbers like you. There is a table of them. Perhaps you can see the table and look them up?

harley: It's been five days harley. The Big Boss was surprised by my request. She also was surprised by my mentioning for her to check with you and also read this board so she could be familiar with why I was asking to join her fellowship. Apparently she doesn't read this board at all. I find it amazing that any moderator would not read one of the more important boards on this site let alone the Big Boss of a moderator's fellowship, but maybe we all have other priorities, eh? Just what do you guys talk about in this fellowship? I assume all the discussion boards are covered by the various members of this particular fellowship. It would seem to me that since there's too many boards for each of you to read all of them that one of you would alert the fellowship to when something is noteworthy enough to warrant attention or discussion. And if inviting someone to join the fellowship to discuss ways to change how the site is moderated isn't important enough to the Big Boss of a moderator discussion board to even think it's necessary to read the posts that brought it up or ask the global moderator what's up, then I think I've positively shown what is wrong with the private nature of the fellowship discussion boards. And also what is wrong with how moderators are choosen and stay in their positions. Awhile back in this very board, almost a year ago, I posted a lot of things about this and related subjects as did a lot of other people. I warned that things would be fine until the next problem came up and then it'd another disaster but worse. Little did I dream it would be what happened just three weeks ago. What I didn't take into consideration is how effective deleting everything is as strategy to silence questions and dissent. It really works! It's like it ever happened. I've learned from this.

I'll stick to games for now on. Perhaps the previous poster can fight the status quo in my stead.

harley: OK, I'll try it your way. I sent a request for membership to the Big Boss saying you recommended me.
I'll see you there when she gets around to letting me in.

BIG BAD WOLF: I have to leave, but I will check into this fellowship thing. Can Pawn members join them?

harley: The mess I'm refering to is the Bumble affair. I'm also was talking about Tuesday's deal. And check you out, "everyone is aware" What is it that we're aware of? You mean the people in your fellowship, right? I'm not a member, so I don't know. And that is what I mean about the public boards, we are all members of these.

BIG BAD WOLF: After three years as a member I finally joined a fellowship. I see a big problem with your idea about it. A fellowship is a closed group. The public discussion boards are just that, public. The have a broad and general audience, not the narrow one of a fellowship. Plus the Big Boss chooses who to let in. In the discussion boards, we are all members from the moment we sign up and join BrainKing.

Pythagoras: A very easy solution I like it.

One easy way to create that system is:
Keep the current system as it is with an extra option available to choose from. That is to see the posts removed. As an option. So when a moderator deletes a post, the post would not actually been deleted but only stay hidden from people that haven't enabled that option. Others that have it enabled, can see every post and these that have been "deleted/hidden".

Fencer: And no Fencer you are wrong. This is a very important subject. You might be right about people complaining, but there's no reason to believe that just because this is so that a better way to do it can't be devised and put in place. Just look at what we have now and tell me you think it's perfect. Yeah, uh-huh. Maybe it's because you think it's not important, and that's exactly how this mess happened. Sweeping it under the carpet will work for awhlie. You're a game player, not a conversationalist. Your actions lead me to believe that this discussion board stuff is just a sideline. The thing is, it has become one of the defining features of your site. You really should devote more energy to making it better for more people and getting rid of the potential for abuse and pettiness of the moderators. They are some good moderators on this site. Unfortunately they only have a few boards and can't be everywhere. And then there's trouble makers, which as alanback pointed out will always find a way to get around whatever rules are put in place. Deal with them as it comes up. The rest of us can take of ourselves.

Pythagoras' simple solution will work for me very well. Let me decide what to view. I'm an adult, I don't need some nanny telling me what to read. And give me the abilty to hide individual posts. How about numbering the posts so I can see that some have been deleted when there's a gap in the sequence? This system now just has them vanish into thin air and the moderators can get away with anything. The moderators need policing too. You can't let them set up little dictatorships and run roughshod over the rest of us.

Pythagoras: And I certainly don't want some moderator to force me as to what to post or believe. We can turn the tables and make them conform to how I believe if I was the moderator. I let eveyone post as long as it doesn't contain profanity or racial epitats. The topic isn't even that important in most of the cases, though it can be steered towards if it demands it. This is what I want to get away from, having it NOT matter who the actual moderator is. The system as is now is not working for me and a lot of others. It needs changing. It is too personality driven.

Pythagoras: I disagree with you. This is the system we have now. What we need is a different system. One that will let those of that don't mind what people post to have all posts show on their screens and those that are sensitive can choose to have moderators. We can all hide something we don't like, so why do I need a moderator to look out for me? I would like the ability to hide individuals posts too. That way I can still see other things that person has posted. This should at least be added to this site for the moderators now. The default set up could be the "Familiy" setting. One would have to purposely choose to have the unmoderated one and would be responsible for their account and their own children. I haven't seen anything on this site that a twelve year old would even bat an eye at unless their parents have been hiding out in the commune of puritanical beliefs somewhere.

WatfordFC: Just because someone doesn't like something does not make it offensive. Is the community standard going to be that of the most sensitive member of us? That's where this is leading. If people are that thin skinned they should get over it. I'm being denied the opportunity to read other people's posts because someone doesn't like them.
If you carry this to the extreme it will become impossible to post anyting but of the most banal nature, fluff, or inconsquential things. This would be a shame because I believe there's some very smart people on this site.
Any post can be deemed off offensive to at least one person. This system of moderation is a joke. Let's all become politically correct.

Even following a board's guideline isn't enough. Those that don't like the posts change the guidelines and still delete
the posts. I notice there's been a big drop off in the number of postings to my favorite boards. Is this a coincidence?

Fencer, please entertain ideas of finding a different way to moderate the public boards. It is too arbitrary and capricious as it is now.

tenuki: Also, I have some spots left if you'd like to get some side games going whlie waiting for the tournaments to start in April. :)

tenuki: J'yes, j'yes, a right mighty fine thing there, but just how in the hell will it be policed? Sure I've had a problem or two getting online, but I move lots more regularly than those that're holding up some tournaments I'm involved in. Yes, I know you're not complaining about me and when I make a move, but this is just an example. One thing to keep in mind about "Automatic Vacation" is the time of year. You know how people and human nature are. When there's a surplus, they figure they have plenty of days to move and don't worry about a day or two going off their list. Later in the year the games move or time out in ways the just don't happen in February. Just ask Pythagoras is you need conformation of this phenomenon. :) He's not necessarily been moving with alacrity of late, but he's not let weeks go by any more either. :)

The moderators there are deleting posts without regard to the effort going into typing and the posts do follow the discussion board's guidelines. Jason says he deleted them because we were told to not talk about a certain subject any more, but then he blanket deletes them all. I had posted a few about a completely different topic and they were deleted also.

Just what's the deal? We are told to take it to that board and then we are told to stifle once we move it there?

And let's take a look at how that General Chat board is moderated. There's six moderators! Any one of them can delete anything unilaterly. Just what kind of a system is this? Only one moderator should have that power, this rest should just have the power to hide. And not a blanket hide either, but of each individual post. Six moderators! Ludicrous! The other five had already left the posts and some had responded. Then ol' Jason wakes up, bores of the subject, justifies his action because of the aforementioned warning and deletes them all. This is not right! Why should anyone participate in a public discussion board if their writing can be summonarily deleted at the whim of any person? If there's going to be so many moderators then all of them should need to form a concensus before deleting posts.

Just because a moderator bores of a subject or doesn't want to hear about is no reason to delete. A moderator's job is to keep the discussion on topic, without profanity, or racial epitats. That board is general chat. This means all subjects are on topic. So why do we have to have so many moderators there? One is all you need. None of my posts had any rude words in it. Statements and questions, that's it. Someone doesn't like them, too bad. I didn't write anything personal except about my own feelings. Why should I have to suffer at the hands of a lazy person that can't even take a tenth of the time to send me a message about his concerns compared to the time it took me to compose what I posted? Inconsideration is what it is.

Czuch Chuckers: And that is one of the things that I think my suggestion will do. Allow people that are lower rated a chance to win some BK Brains in a tournament that has stronger players. Some games will get more players simply because a weaker player has a chance against the stronger players. Chess versus Backgammon shows this quite well. If it was more widely played Dark Chess would tend to draw as Backgammon since a newer player can actually defeat an experienced player such as myself. That never happens in regular Chess. Regular Chess at least has a lot of players. It's main drawback is the use of machines to make the moves. Again Backgammon and Dark Chess will not have the same problem as regular Chess in this regard either. Though it appears that there are very good Backgammon playing machines, it still gets down to a little luck each game and this can help the lower rated player have a chance. With the rake so high a lower rated player might figure he can't take first or second place but has a shot at third, fourth, or fifth. The lower positions don't pay as much, but they are easier to win. If there's more money to go around the creator can add more places to pay winners if his tournament gets enough players to enter.

Fencer: Sure, a test never hurts as this is my hope that it is being tested. We want the best for it and feel we need to speak up when something doesn't look right. I have no way of knowing how well it is working since I'm on this end of the operation. Just acquiring the BK Brains to use for the entry fee alone is a major hurdle and will keep the tournaments from having very many participants. If we all have a 100 or more BK BRains it'd make it work lots better. As I asked earlier, just how many people on the whole site even have any BK Brains? I also noted that Pawn members will not very often have any BK Brains either. If only us paying members have the BK Brains this is a very small pool out of the whole membership. It will take a fairly high percentage of members to make it work.

If you're fairly sure that you don't want to make any change to the set up as you now have it, you still need to get BK Brains into every member's hands. One way might be to give free Brains to a member upon joining the site or renewing a paid membership and having no restrictions on the tournaments entered if a fee is charged. You might keep the free tournaments and sponsored tournaments without a fee restricted as now by membership level. Just 50 BK Brains would probably be enough to get everyone started, or maybe 100 of them. Since these BK Brains are free and members could always buy more of then after using them up, a lot of the objections about the 30% cut would go away. Everyone would at least get to join one entry fee tournament for free and have a chance to win more BK Brains. If BK Brains can be transfered to other members and you do adopt this proposal, I would restrict the transfer of BK Brains to those that are purchased, earned through the referal program, or won in a tournament. I could imagine all sorts of shenanigans if free BK Brains were able to be transfered.

Even if you were to adopt some or all of the other things I and others have talked about, it isn't going to work well until most of the members have the unit of money to spend. I have 50 BK Brains. How many others have just that many? More? How many people have none at all?

My original post on this subject yesterday has the idea that the creator of the tournament get a piece of the action and you getting a cut of it instead of all it. It also has the creator being able to have more range in the percentage payback of prize awards. I think this is a better system for encouraging more prize tournaments. If the creator doesn't take any rake off the top (Sets it at 100% payback) you could charge him a few hundred BK Brains or require him to offer a prize of a paid membership. Then you'd have a sponsored tournament and those usually are well attended.

One way to understand the whole brouhaha is to compare charging your BK Brains fee up front. For your 30% cut on the entry fee, this would be like charging 71.5 BK Brains with a 100% percent payback of 50 BK Brains per entry. This example should show you why many people have objections to how it is right now. With 50 BK Brains as an entry fee, it breaks down to everyone paying 15 BK Brains to enter and leaving 35 BK Brains for the winner's payback pool. Since only three people can win any prize at the end it takes a minimum of of 10 people to enter a tournament and have third place, if paid 10%, to get their enter fee back. What Czuch Chuckers says about the payback is what happens when only a few people enter a tournament. With 20 people entered and a 40-20-10 payback on the initial 50 BK Brains entry fee you have 400-200-100. Which seems OK, but with twenty people it'd be nice to have some lower places get some prize Brains too. If the cut is lowered it would be possible to have fourth and lower places get a prize too. 5% of 20 is 1 and that would get someone their entry fee back in a 20 player tournament. Perhaps a place could be added for each ten or so entries?

If you're going to keep this present set up you should have a chart showing the payback for the tournament in BK Brains on the sign up page. A chart with the current signees and maybe a couple of example charts to illustrate how the prizes increase as more people join in. In fact I'd make such a chart for the tournament payback no matter what set up you finally adopt.

Good luck on your test.

Fencer: I think the problem is the preception of fairness. It doesn't look fair, even if the numbers don't matter. Then why not just have it at 100%? Or do as I've suggested and let the tournament creator decide and you take you cut from what he gets? If he sets it too high, he'll get no players. If anyone gives it all back, then it doesn't matter, and you can charge a couple of bucks for the privilege or have them sponsor part of the prize in addition to having all the entry fees paid out. I have freely given up money to sponsor a tournament. I get little out of it, but it makes for added interest and a well attended tournament. You should at least let the creator of a tournament that sponsors a prize of a six month membership or its equivalent in BK Brains be allowed to award a higher percentage of the BK Brains collected from the entries to be given out to the participants. I would also like have more positions than first, second, and third place, for when there's a lot of people entered into the tournament.