JamesHird: ummm.... no

gekrompen hoofd: First, I should mention that I haven't noticed a problem but if there is a problem I would attempt to work within the current leadership system to fix the problem. I would start with discussing the problem with the moderators that are not causing the problem. They may be able to convince their fellow moderators to straighten up.

If that fails to work, I would bring the problem to the attentin of those who run BrainKing. Since they have a vested interest in the proper running of their web site, I would assume that if my concerns are valid they would do something about it.

If the above process didn't work, I would suggest alternatives to remove the offending parties. One possible alternative would be to create a lead moderator or a moderators' council. Complaints would be sent to this person or group to investigate. They would have the power to recomend solutions up to and including dismissal of any moderator who behaves inappropriately. The owners of BrainKing would review their recommendations and make the final decision.

gekrompen hoofd: The problem with your solution is that moderator reduction is as easy as getting rid of some moderators, it doesn't need a rule. On the other hand, if you insist on understaffing, especially with volunteers, you'll find yourself shorthanded when there really is a need for moderation.

I have moderated and administered a number of discussion boards in the past ten years. Those with lots of moderators were almost always better run than those with just a few.

Rules for the sake of rules don't solve problems. If moderators are such a large problem on this site, address why the problem causers can't be removed, don't simply remove random volunteers.

danoschek: You may not be able to but someone can. Spurious rules don't hold anyone accountable. Punish the guilty, not the innocent.

gekrompen hoofd: If moderators are causing problems, I think taking action against those causing the problems would be a better move than creating rules which may not get rid of the problem causers.

grenv: As grenv pointed out, there are apparently people who are high in the rankings who no longer play here. Perhaps after a period of time (3 months? 6 months? a year?) the system could move these players from the main list to the provisional list. In this way, their accomplishments would still be noted but the main list would be made up of those who are active BrainKing members.

Fencer: I stand corrected

Since there are sixty-five games and fifty-two weeks in a year, there could be a new "official championship" tournament for each game each week giving us a new champion in almost every game once a year. If we wanted more opportunities than that, we could double up and have new champions for every game every six months or have four championships start each week giving new champions every quarter. (Just expanding on these great ideas )

ClayNashvilleTn: Would there be provisional champions as well? I only ask because I'm currently the number one provisional champ in hyper backgammon

BIG BAD WOLF: So autovacation would be useless for folks like me who play a massive number of games (currently in 60 but could imagine myself in many more than that). The first 30 games would get a one day free pass but the rest would crash and burn and if I'm out for two days I lose them all.

Each of us has a page where we see who we've played and the outcome of each game. Looking down that list is a good reminder of games that were challenging and partners who were interesting to talk to. It would be nice if this page had the little "who's online" green dots next to the names so we could see who might be immediately available for a game or two on a slow day.

(edit: forgot a subject title)