Walter Montego: I think you have some interesting ideas about how to fix the moderator imbalance, I look forward to watching what happens.
(btw, I see im banned from generl chat, why?)
Glad to see there are other people who notice the overly strict operations of this place, WTG guyz!!! ;-)

Walter Montego:

Gammon = A finished game, where the player who lost has not borne off any checkers. The winner receives 2 times the value of the doubling cube.......

Backgammon = A finished game, where the player who lost has not borne off any checkers AND still has one or more checkers on the bar or in the home board of the winner. The winner receives 3 times the value of the doubling cube........

Doubling cube = A hypothetical cube is used with values 1, 2, 4, 8, 16,....,2^n (Many times maximum is for n=6 that is 64 but Yahoo had 512).
At the start of the game both players own the cube that has a starting value=1.
At any point of the game***, except the starting move, and exactly before one player's turn (before the player rolls the dice to start his turn) a doubling offer can be made by one player to his opponent to continue playing at twice of the current game value.
-The opponent may refuse the double, in which case he resigns the game and loses the current game's value.
-Otherwise the opponent accepts the double, in which case the game continues at twice of the game's value(because cube's value has been doubled), with the opponent having the ownership of the doubling cube, that now has the double value of what had before.
After a double, only the player that most recently accepted a double (the player who owns the cube) may redouble.

Game value =
1)If we don't have a Gammon or a Backgammon then the game value = value of the doubling cube.
2)If we have a Gammon situation then the game value = 2· value of the doubling cube.
3)If we have a Backgammon situation then the game value = 3· value of the doubling cube.

[Edit]
***And except some other situations that i will describe here. These situations are the Crawford rule. I don't know if Crawford rule will be applied here at Brainking but i hope so, because it's the best way to deal with some positions..........
So the situations where a player CAN'T double when it is his turn, is when we have a Crawford game.
A Crawford game is a game in which the leading player has FOR THE FIRST TIME a match score, one point behind of gaining the victory. For example in a 11 point match, the player A wins 9-4 and has won a 1-point game so he now leads 10-4. The game that would follow will be a Crawford game and neither player can double. After the Crawford game AND if of course the leading player hasn't won, there would not be any other Crawford game and doubling cube can be used........
[/Edit]

[Edit]
As for the rules flaw, the rule is simple: You should use the maximum number of the dice possible!
If you have a 52 for example and you can use both you should do it.
If you can use/play "5 but not 2" OR "2 but not 5", then you should use/play the "5 but not 2" as then you would use/play 5 pips and not only 2 as in the other case........
Brainking will let you play in a similar situation (incorrectly of course) the "2 but not 5" instead of only letting you play the "5 but not 2".......
[/Edit]

Walter Montego: I want to add a doubling cube but I don't want to make it as a standalone game because if I do it [as "Pro Backgammon"], people would call for Pro Nackgammon, Pro Backgammon Race and all other variants (which will grow in the future anyway).
Instead, I want to extend the current Backgammon games with an option to play for a selected number of points with a cube.
Let's continue with this discussion on the Backgammon board.

Fencer: What about Crawford rule? Will you apply it here.......?

I would like to make a suggestion that the cloak option be given to everyone at the gamesite. Would this be possible? Cause its a privacy option, isn't it? I really like this site and tell my friends about it, but privacy is an important thing to have these days....

Chessmaster1000: Of course.

Mongoloid: It has nothing to do with a privacy because no private or sensitive information is released in this way.

Fencer: Online privacy is important too, I don't like having people see me when I can't see them, it's eerie and it makes me uncomfortable while playing. As an alternative suggestion, perhaps this option could be dropped? Don't mean to stepp on anybody's toes, of course. Just speaking my mind :-)

Mongoloid: So do I :-) I don't say this feature can't be improved but I have no time for it at the moment.

Fencer: Ok, I understand. The way I see it, the more people tell you what is wrong around the site, the better you can go about correcting it, right?

Mongoloid: The final decision is always mine but I consider all comments or suggestions.

Fencer: That's always a good way to approach it. Keep on that path and there will only be smilies :-)

Thanks for listening!

Mongoloid: If you go to a real live Backgammon Club, Bridge Club, Chess Club or whatever, you actually waive any right to privacy. People can see what you are wearing, whether you are scowling or smiling, and what game you are playing. or if you are in the lobby browsing the notice board. If you really don't like it, you don't join the club. Why should this Brainking Club be any different? Membership is not compulsory! It is completely voluntary, and I think if people believe that their "privacy" is compromised, there is a VERY simple solution. (By the way, I am wearing a red dressing gown as I write this, so for those sensitive souls out there, PLEASE don't look)

pgt: Although I see your point, please don't forget that BrainKing is an international site where people of all countries, religions and customs can meet and play and discuss. Some kinds of clashs are inevitable and I don't expect everyone to like everything I do here.
As I always say, I do what is the best for BrainKing, not for any particular user.

Chessmaster1000: That's all well and good, but I didn't for an explanation of these plays and rules. I asked when they're going to be implemented on this site. It is the top Feature in developement listed on this page. I've learned the rules to Backgammon. Fencer's posts shows that it is being worked on.

I have some Backgammon related questions that I am going to take to the Backgammon discussion board.

Fencer: Even so, privacy in it's legal and only really important sense, applies to such things as financial data and personal information such as addresses and phone numbers.

The fact that I know that some anonymous person with a brainking username of Mongoloid is browsing a discussion board is NOT a privacy issue, it is an insane paranoia issue.

grenv: Isn't Mongoloid an outdated name anyway?
I thought it was changed to Down's Syndrome?

Fencer, when you improve the cloak mode feature, would you consider making it such that if you are cloaked, you also can't view what people are doing? Seems only fair!

rod03801: Yes, it's a good idea.

How about the cloak feature becoming automatically disabled when actual games are being played?
I guess most people use the cloak feature to conceal which dbs they are viewing or which proflie they're examining.

danoschek: Whatever the reason for using cloak is, it is nothing to do with privacy. That is handled by the fact that the usernames are anonymous.
If anyone can prove me wrong by messaging me my SSN or address or some other private information go ahead.

grenv: some dare to stress their liberty of being
non-anonymous here - for whom do you speak by excluding them
from privacy ? by mixing apples and pears you get salad, but no sense. ~*~

grenv:Yes...your're right,some people never learn when they're wrong!

Bruno Jesus: I don't think you cAn convince grenv . . he's
hardened somehow in his paranoia that privacy might threaten him ... ~*~

grenv: as per my PM, this site is obviously not totally private :)

Read the "User Agreement": There is too this: "This is a family site"

Well, maybe the cloak mode seems a little bit to contrast to this ...

grenv: It's definitely NOT about privacy. But like you i wonder for what it is........? Why people use this. What do they have to hide......
Perhaps they try to diverge from what the "world-holders" try to do: to have the ability to watch everyone of us, every second.......An eye is watching us........ But that's another story.......

chessmec: question?
Why show what a user is doing anyway?
It has obviously created more problems than it is worth.
Feel free to discuss with me anytime. If you wish, I will send you my phone number. Just PM me

danoschek: Ok, i'll pay that

chessmec: thank you for reminding them ... instinct-driven paranoics
tend to erraneous insulting everything what they feel threatened by ... ~*~

I agree with a previous post & would like to see people using cloak mode are unable to anyone else.....it seems fair that if no one can see them, then they shouldnt be able to see anyone either

Lamby: that has a little gap, they could still switch to guest mode to acchieve ... ~*~

I checked the "german BK" and the translation of cloak mode. Do you have the word cloak in german?..(The swedish kloak is no nice place to be in)

Andersp: we have the swedish-like Kloake not being the perfume place either. Cloak
is 'Umhang' or fainter well 'Mantel' - annyoying Cloak Woods in german Baldur's Gate I would suggest the lyric expression "Laurin-Modus" which bases on legends, too ... ~*~

danoschek: As one of Grenv's parents I take exception to that - unless you were referring to the other one!

Chessmaster1000: You know something about the whole Cloak Mode business and feature requests? I don't ever remember anyone requesting it! Perhaps we should direct our questions toward Fencer and see what he has to say about it? Like, why did he come up with it and add it to the site? Unless it was easy to program, I would hope he would have been working on other things here. If a lot of people were clammoring for such a feature, it'd make a lot more sense to me. With him just adding it without even saying he was comtemplating it, and then being surprised by the response it doesn't sit too well with me.

Though I agree with the grenv, danoschek, and ChessMaster1000 that it is a feature that could just be dropped from the site and we'd all be well enough without it ever having existed, I must say, what does it matter to you guys if someone is cloaked? They either move in their games, or they don't. I do not like the cloak feature because, as pgt has pointed out, it interfers with me knowing if my opponent is checking out our game or not and if I want to stay online or call it a night. This is why I requested some changes to the Cloak Mode feature if it is going to stay on the site. If there's a vote on it, I vote to get rid of it. If it's going to stay, let's get some options added to it. It bothers a lot people as it is now, and it does not help me play my games in any way.

danoschek: true, I didnt think of that, but surely do you think they could be bothered to do that? If so they have too much time on their hands! Im just here to play games, have fun & meet new people......so I cant understand anyone who has any other agenda than that

Walter Montego: I must say, what does it matter to you guys if someone is cloaked? They either move in their games, or they don't. I do not like the cloak feature because, as pgt has pointed out, it interfers with me knowing if my opponent is checking out our game or not and if I want to stay online or call it a night.

You answered yourself.......!
I like to play some Backgammon and Hypergammon games almost live. And if the damn thing at online opponents shows "cloak mode" then how should i know to go to the game..........It is very nice to see an opponent to play and then going there to play too, and looking forward for what he replied ...etc. With cloak-thing this can't be done with all opponents.........Hopefully there are others that hate this cloak-thing........

danoschek: Umm, my only point is that cloak doesn't have anything to do with privacy. This is irrefutable. Case closed.

Lamby: when you play in firefox it's no big deal to start mozilla too
there you are in guest mode by default - no finger-somersaulting necessary.
actually I too prefer to know what my opponents (after all) are doing in a game. ~*~

Bruno Jesus: your post I doubt will last long, but it did make me laugh & all I can suggest to your problem is stick your car in a garage! :oD

grenv: hopefully your case with erraneous insults for those who have
different preferences harming no one or, a more sensible approach to
the deeper semantics of privacy, will be closed after all, once and for ever. ~*~

Bruno Jesus: I hope it does last, it was the best post I ever read. :)

Bruno Jesus: And what exactly are you requesting? LOL

Pedro Martínez: that's obvious ... together with his pertinent multinics
he requests a riot involving the highest possible amount of slippery people ... ~*~

Bruno Jesus: I think this kind of posting is the one time when a moderator is needed. It has no place here. What are you trying to do with them? Any idiot can do this. If you're a smart person, I have to question your motive for it. These posts violate the user agreement, they're off topic, and they will cause you to be banned. So far the moderator here hasn't been as overly hands on as some of the other moderators on some of the other boards that I on occasion read or post on. This type of action does make me think of a Feature Request though. And it might even be a way to level the field or get rid of having moderators completely.

It is true that I can just put you on hide, but your posts themselves are something I can read once and ignore afterwards.

My request would be to have a check box for every post. The box would be checked if the reader thought it was a post that didn't belong. If a certain percentage of current readers of the post check the box, it'd be put on hide.
I would also have it so paying members could view all posts even if so hidden. It'd be their choice and they could deal with the ones that are off topic or in poor taste. With a system like this, it would return control of what I read to the person responsible for what I read. Me! As it is now, the moderator will edit or delete something that I might find acceptable, but he doesn't. I get no say in it. Completely unfair to me. Changing it to where I get a say in what I view and read is much better, and it solves the problem completely for the moderator and Fencer. Restricting it to paying members should limit young children from accessing profane posts.

to decrease multinic humbug better ... only active players should be granted to post ... ~*~

Walter Montego: The check boxes are a good idea, but children have paid member accounts also.

If you click hid by someone's name, all their posts are hidden from your view, past present and future, until you remove them from your hidden list.

Eriisa: just on one board for the sake of accuratesse ...
on some game related-boards I hide everything beyond serious players. ~*~

Walter Montego: Walter, I think your idea is a good one, but you have to lighten up a little. in the context of the messages leading up o it, Bruno's post was quite brilliantly timed I think.