Walter Montego: Mmmm, I think you're asking a little too much there, Walter. The whole idea for hiding the posts is to make it so only MODERATORS of that particular board can see them, and nobody else. Not to mention if your request was granted, it will be a feature available for the elite and therefore unfair to the rest of us.

I fully agree with chessmec, the 'ghost number' is a bug that should be corrected.

And an Automatic Notifier through PM to those who are Banned or Hidden, with a reason attached, should be added. See post: "ON Topic"

chessmec: I fail to see your problem. If you don't like the fact that someone else has been hidden by a moderator, what exactly can you do about it? At least if the person is ever unbanned, you'll know to go back and check the postings to see if they posted anything of interest to you.

My request in the previous post would certainly eliminate that problem if you could choose to view moderator hidden postings on your own. It'd be a nice feature to have, plus you could toggle it back to match the board as is or just put on hide the particular person if you happen to think the moderator is right and this person has nothing of interest for yourself.


I would like a list of banned and hidden people to appear at the top of the discussion board, along with who put them on hide or banned them. This is what the moderators get to see, but us regular posters have no say or control over anything. Just knowing they were under scrutiny might help guarantee that such actions will be taken with deliberation or cause instead of the way it can go now at the whim of whomever is moderating at the moment. I like gekrompen hoofd's idea about sending the person that has been banned or hidden notice that it happened.

Walter Montego: let us see it vice versa; instead of the censor^Wmod here the reader can ban (hide) posters themselves. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_organization

gekrompen hoofd: Who are these elite that you speak of? I meant my feature request to apply to all users, but I could see a good argument for only letting paying members have the ability. That way multi-nicks and children would have no access to the feature and wouldn't cause trouble. Especially if the hidden posts have vulgar, profane, or racial stuff in them.

because apparently the feature "general ban" is used: what about a "general hide" feature for the individual posters?

chessmec: Yes, but why not have it both ways if it'll work? That way there's a front line of defense against trouble makers (The moderator) and then a member on their own volition can choose to view objectionable or off topic posts by the unsocial miscreant and fully deal with it on their own. This is a good argument to have it for paying members only. You paid for, you can see it if you want to. Most moderator's don't willy-nilly hide someone, but there are on occasions where you still might want to view a particular person post even if it shouldn't have been placed for public discussion. Don't forget, moderators can also delete posts too. Usually for profane posts a moderator will put someone on hide and ask the person that posted the post to fix it up. Another reason to put someone on hide is to stop a disruptive person from wreaking havoc with the board and just cluttering up space from more legitimate or on topic posts. That requires the blanket hide or outright banning of the person in the moderator's view. One size fits all, doesn't work as well. Having it flexible can keep more people happy.

Walter Montego:
Q: Who are these elite that you speak of?

A: I could see a good argument for only letting paying members have the ability

You answered your own question

This part of your post:

I meant my feature request to apply to all users

Sounds much more fair. It would be nice if that was possible, but seeing as this site is run in an autocratic fashion, the feaure will most likely go to the elite, who also, btw, are capable of causing trouble just like the kiddies.

I DO, however, support your other idea about having a list of Banned and Hidden Users, and which Mod responsible at the top of every board. That seems like a logical addition. It would be a good way to solve alot of the corruption going on among certain Moderator circles as well. :)

Walter Montego: What about some parental lock added, with children being unable to unhide posts hidden by moderator, for those who want to take care of education of their children. Pawns and users with parental lock activated wouldn't see those. As it's probably usually the parent who pays for the child, (s)he could decide about it when paying.

gekrompen hoofd: Er, how is being a paying member making me an elite? Shouldn't I get more things if I pay for it? This is a game site, you can just play games and not even bother with these discussion boards. Since you're here posting, I assume you have an enterest in other things. There is an elite on this site, but it's not because of someone being a paying member of it. It is the well connected and powerful to whom you should address your concerns. If you were or eventually become a paying member, you'd see what I'm talking about. In the meantime, I think you'd do best not to categorize me and others just by the fact that we've joined the site as paying members and might expect something above what non-paying members receive here. There's other members here that give extra money beyond their membership fees to the site just for no reason except to support it. As far as I know they get the same benefits I do and no extra or bonus features. Don't you find that amazing? These people are being charitable to help a cause they believe in. Some internet game site in Czech Republic. I find that hard to see happening, considering all the spam I get from people that want my money out there in the aether. Obviously something about this site works. The fact that we can argue about it is a good thing and I'm sure contributes to its popularity.

Parental lock? Don't make me laugh!
Kids don't even care! They already know about bad words and politics. Hell, probably more than the parents do

This isn't the 50's ya know :P

Can moderator hide certain posts or only certain users with all his/her posts? Because some might be ocassionally rude but ocassionally they have useful ideas too. For example danoschek, he is usually babbling or repeating the same over and over, but when he expresses certain opinions or suggestions they might be useful and acceptable, f.e. three checks chess rules - I do even agree with him, or some computer or chess related hints.

fungame: The parent is the parental lock. You've lost me here. What do you mean by children? If you're talking about a fourteen year old, there's nothing on this site that they haven't seen on television or in the movies. If you're talking about a six year old, you have one smart child if he can play Dark Chess and run a computer. Surely the small chance that they might be exposed to something on this site that a parent finds objectionable is worth taking. As I would have the feature, you'd have to purposely toggle it. Why couldn't a parent leave it off and let it stay as is? Or maybe the feature could be disabled on request when paying for the membership? Certainly it would be a minor inconvience to those few that are that worried about anything they think their children might come across on this site. I imagine they don't have television or rent videos that aren't rated G either. Hard to imagine such people even using a computer to access the internet. Are there such people?

gekrompen hoofd: OK, I understand but I was referring to people who still might use or believe in these approaches to educational process .

Walter Montego: Goodness, such verbosity! I cannot help but be touched :)

You know, you're about halfway correct. The elite are power-abusers. But also, such a feature regarding hidden posts, IMHO, should only be visible to the Moderators. There is no reason why a Non-Moderator should see them. How does this better anything? Looks like a frivolous excuse to drag more people in so they can 'Pay to see what's behind the mysterious veil!' -- It's none of anybody's business, unless you're a Moderator.

2 cents and a quarter
for you and your gallant crew

fungame: Every feature implemented at BK concerns all members of this site, not just those with certain out-dated beliefs. Therefore, when deciding new features, everyone should be considered, regardless of nationality, race, religion, etc.

gekrompen hoofd: Of course when a feature is useful for a minor group, the major group doesnt have to use it but thats not a reason to not have the feature. I personally have no interest in parental lock, it was just an idea.

gekrompen hoofd: You're arguing both sides now. First you complain about the lack of visibility of moderator actions and then you say you don't like leveling the playing field by letting us other members have access to something they routinely get?

As for this veil you refer to, that's a marketing strategy. This is a capitalist enterprise, isn't it? Why not add incentives to try and coax someone the shell out a buck or two and get so more money coming in? Fencer has freely acknowledged using this very strategy on occasion.

fungame: Understood. I still wonder why the Jokes board states to keep it 'family friendly' when I see many vulgar posts that go conveniently un-noticed by the Mods. While other regular posts are deleted willy nilly because the Mods don't agree, or have a personal vendetta against the poster(s).

Or perhaps breaking board rules is an unlisted feature for paying members?

Walter Montego: I support these two feature requests:

1) An Automatic Notification message sent via PM to posters who are Hidden/Banned, with a reason given.

2) A list of Banned/Hidden users, and Mods responsible, at the top of every board.

  Nothing more, nothing less :)

You can state your ideas on this board and argue until your nose turns blue. But unless Fencer finds them personally acceptable, they will not be implemented. Period.

Walter: One time I would consider the reporting of hidden messages as a bug is when I go to the board and there's nothing to see. I wouldn't mind if there were fewer messages than reported but I'd be annoyed by none. But even so, it strikes me as untidy.

gekrompen hoofd: Having moderator-banned and hidden users reported at the top of a board is a major no-no for me. I'm not really interested and it would just be more clutter. I think it should have a place as a sub-section/page of Blocked Users.

I also think that member-hidden posters should be displayed there as well, rather than at the top of the board as is done at present. Having hidden someone I don't want to be reminded of them each time I come to a board.

Sometimes I overlook single black checkers on the purple fields. Would it be possible to have a few options for the field colours, as we have in chess?

I'd like to have the opponent's membership symbol (Pawn, Rook, Knight) displayed next to their handle in our current games on my home page.

nobleheart: very interesting topic and I have no objections to it per se, but take it to another board please

gekrompen hoofd: Most are notified via pm of being hidden and why, but when they have put all the moderators on hide, it is impossible to do so.

I've been trying to delete my account but there does not appear to be a way to do so. It is a legal requirement of a database operator to provide removal on request. A delete button feature should be added to this site immediately.

baudrillard: Fencer said here some weeks ago that a deletion is not possible. I can understand that - but maybe there should be a status active / inactive.

baudrillard: when you send your request to the database operator (fencer), i guess he will be able to delete your account

Hrqls: Fencer cannot delete accounts. What has happened on BK is in it's history.

The best thing to do is remove or alter all your personal information from your profile and change your ID to something meaningless - like a row of numbers.

bumble: hmm .. i see it .. it would make a mess of all the data the account would have been in (tournaments/games/etc.)

too bad :)

frolind: I second that request!!

Hrqls: too bad indeed! alot would quit.....then pay again to rejoin

baudrillard: What you could do is just rename your account to something like "gone123". Then send Fencer a note asking him to change your password. Then *poof* - you will no longer be able to log in.

One of the features of BK is that it keeps all the game history and such - so to remove an account completly may mess up the database and such. So in my opinion, a quick rename and a quick note to Fencer asking him to change your password so you can never log in again would probable work best.

Would be nice to be able to create any game type fellowship tournament inside a fellowship without having to add a "team" to the fellowship.

Is there really a reason a fellowship needs to have a certain team before it can have a tournament for that game type?

BIG BAD WOLF: I do believe this impossibility of complete account removal should be noted in the BK User Agreement/Privacy Policy, because, as we all saw, a simple and legitimate request could not be honoured due to lack of proper documentation... No offence, Fencer, but if you cannot do something, like removing an account on request due to database management consequences, prospective or existing users should be made aware of it, right?

WhiteTower: Sure, it can be added to the User Agreement. But not immediately, of course, due to the number of languages it must be translated to :-)

BIG BAD WOLF: Not only that but the main team's game always appear in the tournament and you can't get rid of it. If I want a Backgammon tournament in Purple World I have to make that the main team or checkers will be the game that shows up.

BIG BAD WOLF: That's the main purpose of fellowships. To create teams of supported games [which are displayed on the list of fellowships page] and other actions related to the supported games. Fellowships are not a substitute of more and more discussion boards [although several people use them only for this purpose].
A new board system which would solve this "problem" is already planned, though.

Purple: Not the main team game but the currently selected game.

Fencer: If anyone deletes their account can I have their remaining time? ;) j/k

Hi,

In the main page of general tournaments, I saw following datas:

Name Time to deadline Time control (?) Creator
Backgammon 2100+ 30 mins 4 days zockerdotcom

When I click on this tournament, I saw following datas:

You cannot sign up for this tournament because the maximum number of players is 5.

Now, I suggest a modifications for the main page of all general tournaments:

If the player counts of any tournament full and accept no more player, users like to see the situation under the 'time to deadline' any of following words: 'No more register' or 'filled'.

This help to users effort to save from clicking on and come back again useless.

Thanks

TC: A tournament can contain up to 67 tournaments [one for each game type], some of them can be full and some of them not.

We have all flags for the country languages and when click on any flag, see the preferred language.

Now, my suggestion:

Second 'language' title and 'change' word middle of the right column is useless.

Thanks.

Fencer: This tournament which I mean has one game type and accept no more registering. What do you think?

MidnightMcMedic: The request calls for an AUTOMATIC notification to be sent via PM to the Banned/Hidden User, with a reason attached. Kind of like the AUTOMATIC message you get when you join a pond. Since Fencer's name cannot be blocked, there should be no problem :)

Keyword, AUTOMATIC, not a message from Fencer himself (just so there's no future confusion).

This would be an ideal feature so even if a Mod is banning a user arbitrarily (as they sometimes do) there will haveta be some reason given. It is good for bringing the power-abusers to BK justice, whether they be a Poster or a Mod

TC: I'd like a tournament to accept more members to the sign list than the maximum. This way if someone bails or doesn't have enough space on their account the next person to sign up would take their place and then tournament could carry on. Lots of tournaments with a maximum of four players get filled. Then a fifth person can't sign up because it's full of players. What happens to the tournamemt if it starts and one of the current sighers isn't elgible to play?

1. Would it be possible to add an example to the S-B help page; add a bit of concrete to the abstract. BBW very nicely, and painstakingly, demonstrated/explained S-B for someone on the backgammon(?) board but that's now history [and I can't find it :-(].

2. It would be handy if the S-B points were calculated and shown as a tourney progresses rather than only at the end.

:-)

playBunny: Actually it was the tournament board. It was this (In case Fencer is interested in adding it to the help):

First, I picked a tournament as an example: THIS TOURNAMENT

Now first, the points are figured. You get 1 point for each win. So:

(1)arpa - 3 wins, 3 points

(2)zockerdotcom - 3 wins, 3 points

(3)SMART ALX - 0 wins, 0 points

(4)Ladybird68 - 2 wins, 2 points

(5)Merrily Watkins - 2 wins, 2 points.

Now once all the games and points are figured, this is where the S-B is figured.

The S-B is the SUM of the points of your oppenets that you won against. So:

(1)arpa(3 points) - had win against player 3, 4, and 5. Player 3 had 0 points. Player 4 had 2 points. Player 5 had 2 points. So 0+2+2=4 [4 S-B]

(2)zockerdotcom(3 points) - wins agains 1,3,5. So 3+0+2=5 [5 S-B]

(3)SMART ALX(0 points) - [0 S-B]

(4)Ladybird68(2 points) - wins against 2,3. So 3+0=3 [3 S-B]

(5)Merrily Watkins(2 points) - wins against 3,4. So 0+2=2 [2 S-B]

So first the person with the most points win. In this example, both arpa & zockerdotcom have 3 points each. At this point we look at the S-B. zockerdotcom has 5 S-B, while arpa only has 4 S-B, so zockerdotcom gets the win for this tournament!

IMPORTANT NOTE: The winner of a tournament is the one with the most points. In some cases, the person with the highest S-B will not have the most points, so does not win. Only time S-B comes into play is if there is a tie in points.

I, too, would like to see the S-B calculated before the section is completed,

More important: Completing the section if a winner is decided prior to all the games finishing. This should be easy with a brute force method.

grenv: The only problem with that, would be which of the players would win the game. It could, however, be possible that if those games couldn't create differences in tournament's positions, the next stage would start, and those games wuold finish after that