emmett: Good in theory but then you get family members being accused of cheating! 

I request that players using the same IP address should have a message at the bottom of their profile page, in red, that says: "Player names that are using the same IP address:" ... then a shortlist of other player names are listed.

TarantinoFan: Beats the heck out of me..But before you know it, We will need another backup system. Poor Fencer...I know its my problem..

pattypoo: You know you could ruin peoples whole lives with that suggestion!!!! What would they do without their ratings to cuddle up to at night???????

I have a request...How about a button you can push when we run across multie nics, that CHEAT... And their the same dang oNES thats been cheating all the years i been here.. Yeah i know they have double paying accounts...:( So sad...

tonyh: Thank you ! Another tough thing with feature requests as they are is that sometimes they get buried so fast that you don't even know whether Fencer is aware of them :-)

Fencer: I think if the buttons were at the top the problem wouldn't occur, now images loading can move the buttons as you click them.

Fencer: True, then wait for the page to reload, but if the button was not there, the problem would not occur

I think thats called Catch 22

Saying that, check boxes would solve many similar problems (including message deleting & canceling moves)

MadMonkey: Or think before useless replaying and click browser's back button instead.

Fencer: I don't think having the 'Move and go to' button directly above the 'Cancel this Move' button is logical at all.
Only one click on a mouse wheel and you have to replay your move.

MadMonkey: No, pauloaguia's request is logical.

pauloaguia: I have done that many times, but more than that is in a game after my move when scrolling down, to either write a message or submit a move.
While the page is still completing to load i often click away, then as the page finished loading and the page jumps, it ends up selecting, either 'switch to rich text editor' or rather than submit it clicks on 'Cancel Move' most annoying
I asked Fencer if at least the 'Switch to rich text editor' could be moved to the right hand side. He said no as it was my fault it happened, so i guess he will tell you the same

Can the "Delete" link for messages in DB's have a Confirm message of some sort? I just deleted one of my messages by accident because I clicked involuntarilly when the mouse was passing over one of those links.

I request that when we choose (in Settings) to "show a big picture on profile icons", that the big picture is always shown on our profile page without having to click on it to make it bigger. It looks much nicer bigger.

Oh - well what you posted in my 4th column (up-down)

This is my 1st column which includes the pine tree:

My 3rd row on page 7:

My 4th row on page 7 includes the tree you had also. Are you sure the pine tree is not there? It would be strange for it to show up on mine, but not others.

emmett: - those? Page 7 in the pop-up, 3rd row on the left.

nabla: I totally support everything nabla writes, especially the welcome comment on brainking's transparency!

One tough thing with feature requests is that most of the time we don't know what Fencer thinks about them and if he intends to implement them some time. And even when he says that he likes the request, it is very possible that after the request gets buried deep in the present board, everyone will forget about it.

It would be terrific if features requests could be entered, commented upon and followed in a system almost identical to the bug tracker. It would certainly be very easy to program, nothing more is needed than using the bug tracker page with a parameter, which would offer a different set of states, like Accepted and Refused by Fencer.

On the plus side :
- Knowing that they would get a feedback on their requests, users would certainly be encouraged to propose more feature requests.
- Fencer could use the system as a reminder of what he intends to do.
- Fencer could use it also to enter and track the improvements he thinks about on his own.
- People who look at the size of the feature request list would certainly be more understanding about why their own request isn't fulfilled asap.
- The transparency over feature requests would make a tremendous impression on the new users. I would be surprised if any similar site would offer anything close to that. Actually I don't even think that they are close to the current state of Brainking's transparency :-)

On the minus side :
- Knowing that they would get a feedback on their requests, users would certainly be encouraged to propose more feature requests.
- Fencer could see the system as adding pressure on him, like "hey, you accepted this feature request 6 months ago, and it is still not here". I recommend to make very clear that no deadline of any kind is implied on an accepted feature request, and that Fencer would keep any right to change his mind, rejecting a previously accepted request, or accepting a previously rejected one.

emmett: I don't think he got rid of any. I know sometimes when I look for one, I will have to search the pages a few times to find the one I'm looking for (so it is easy to over look)

But I do agree - would be nice if each user could filter out the ones they never use.

Can we please have a "back to the top" of the page link in the new skin like we do in the old one?

Also is there currently a way, or can we have one please, to have the option to hide the list of our opponents turn in games?

It would be nice to see a vast selection of smileys somewhere in the settings page, then be able to choose the ones that show up when we want to use one.

I will never use some of the smileys that we have, but I miss some of the ones I used to see and no longer have as an option.

On the "Settings" page, under "Game filter", could we have an option that has a little check-box that says: Do not show unrated games

????????????

MadMonkey: I completely agree with request.

fitzmertz: But that's a total luck game! You won't have a choice anywhere!

fitzmertz: http://www.biffleys.com/Dice/soccerdicegame.htm

Fencer, Could we have a 'Move and goto Next Pawn Game' option please.

I dont mind playing Pawns (old & new), but they tend to make games 3 or 7 days, which get lost in among my games where most are 2 days. Would be nice if once every couple of hours i could play any Pawn games waiting, so they dont get bored

fitzmertz:

sounds interesting where do you find out about it

AbigailII: Ya the problem his autopass and automove have to main advantages.

Player: You do not have to play on games were you are in pass position or in the case of auto move were you have no choice in the mater really helps if you have a lot of games.

Oponent: Oponent does not need for you to come back online to make next move. With auto move this can be a real advantage in games like antichess were you can force a player into move after move of forced moves.

pauloaguia: I've yet to see anyone stating they don't want their opponent to use autopass in a Fisher game because they want to win by time-out, but suppose there's a vast silent group of players wanting to win their games this way. I have the following suggestions:

• In a Fisher game, an autopassed move doesn't add any time to the clock of the player who autopasses.
  
• Autopassed moves are queued until the autopassing player comes unline. Only then are the autopassed moves played. Heck, there could even be a big red button on the main page saying "PRESS HERE TO PLAY ALL YOUR AUTOPASSED MOVES". Disadvantage is that the opponent of the autopassing player still has to wait.
  </ul>
  
  Anyway, starting today, I will not play a pass until I've less than 24 hours left on my clock.

grenv: 100% agree with that 12 hour Fischer game suggestion, but even having them in any colour would not prevent it being done unless you monitor every fisher game and make sure you are back on before the shortest time in one. In other words, if you have a lot of them you may as well stay here 24/7. In fact i think there should be some sort of built in safe guard, just can not think of a sensible one
I have lost track of how many of those games i have timed out of BECAUSE of that.
You go to bed thinking you have no moves for at least 12 hours (for example) only to come back hours later to find your opponent in a fisher clock game moved and you timed out.
Hence i dont sign up for any now if i can help it, which is a shame as i enjoy them.

mctrivia: Well even with the fisher games the player who can move just moves several times until the opponent *can* move. Then it's back on their clock.

Which reminds me, can fisher games which add fewer than 12 hours per move be shown in some bright yellow color or something? Too easy to manipulate the game and force a timeout otherwise.

grenv: well my original sugestions do cover the Fisher clock games and the oponent not wanting you to use it.

Fisher clock games must be agread by both people if autopass is allowed.

When creating a game have the option to say auto pass is not allowed and players like me that want autopass can then refuse the game. This is different then current method as if I create a game with autopass enabled my oponent does not need to use autopass if they don't want. Also I am proposing that the default be autopass is allowed but each player can chose when they want to use it. I should be allowed to start a game with autopass on then turn it off for myself near then end of the game if I chose.

pauloaguia: I know. I was just kind of replying to "what if your opponent doesn't want you to use it?". To me that's like, "what if my opponent doesn't wnat me to use Internet Explorer?" They should be completely ambivalent.

grenv: Ssshhh...
He's either or thinking about it. At least he didn't say NO yet

Fencer: So far I've not heard anyone object to other people using Autopass. In fact, as stated, the opponent wouldn't even notice.

As long as a player is not forced to use it themselves I don't see a rational reason for not implementing it. Can you, or anyone else, provide one?

BIG BAD WOLF: I put those comments because they were the ones used when the autopass discussion came to be. But then I analyzed them under the situation where I decide not to use autopass but my opponent does use it (assuming a situation where one-side autopass would be implemented).

If one person wants autopass, let it autopass just on his turn. (The opponenet who chooses to not use autopass can still play out every move.) That's precisley what's being discusse here :)

About the messages, I can live with the game coming to me if there's a message. I can live with the message (or a reply to my messages) coming to me only a few moves after it was sent. But since this is one of Fencer's main arguments, I'm not going to start a fight over it now. First I'd like to see one-side autopass implemented

As to the Fischer clock games - these players are looking for faster games, yes, but the bonus may start packing up without you being online. For instance, with a 1 day bonus, a sequence of 10 autopasses would almost instantly add 10 days to that player's time. If he's online, fine, that time would have been added anyway (minus the minutes it took for him to actually pass on his own). Now, I think this can be seen as a sort of autovacation - force yourself into a pass situation and start building up on the bonus (mind you, on same games, passing is not a bad thing, it may even be an advantage).
My personal opinion in this case is that it doesn't matter as well and I wouldn't mind playing a Fischer clock game with my opponent using autopass. Winning on timeout is not a good thing - I think wanting to do so reveals bad sportsmanship - but it's usually a substancial part of the contract when using it, especially with the shorter time settings, where some seconds can make a difference.

pauloaguia: I have a few comments on those arguments

If I use AutoPass, when the game comes back to me it may look very different.

Well then don't use autopass. I think if a player picks to use autopass, they should already know it may not look the same.

It may disrupt the conversation

I think the system should still work even if the opponenet writes something.

For example (NO AUTOPASS), if my opponenet makes a move and writes something - when I log in at 5pm, I will see the message

For example (WITH AUTOPASS), if my opponenet makes a move and writes something - the game comes back to them 5 times since I had to pass 5 times. I think STILL log in at 5pm (The exact same time), and will see the message. (YES - The message is seen at the exact same time, but now the game is 5 moves further then it would have been! Plus been told this is a game site, not a chat site.)


WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE:

If one person wants autopass, let it autopass just on his turn. (The opponenet who chooses to not use autopass can still play out every move.)

Let is work on Fischer Clock Games - The majority of players who play Fischer Clock Games are looking for faster games - so why not let Autopass speed it up also?

Let Autopass still work if there is an in-game message. When an autopass is taken, just include a little note of "Your opponenet had no moves and choose to autopass until they have a move. They will make a move & see any message once they have a move to make." Like I said above, i will still see the note at the same time - just the game can be further along. If the note was about a pass move, then I can just go back and look at it - and reply if needed.

nabla: I never understood it either. But there's has been quite a fuss about it in the past, I'm sure about that part. Maybe some people think they can control what dice come out if they throw them in a particular instant in time (after all, many pseudo-random-generators are time based, maybe that's it). And I think someone reminded that situation once, when we were discussing if autopass was feasible in the past, so I added it to my list.

Anyway, even if that argument had some substance (which I don't think it has, but what the heck), I still don't think it's an argument good enough to force your opponent NOT TO have autopass.

mctrivia : 3)
pauloaguia: I can't agree more with all you said.
I just don't even understand the argument about rolling the dices. Do people really believe that they are physically rolling the dices when clicking on "Roll dice" ? We all know that it is just some random number generator kicking off.

Fencer: More of my oppinion on this: most of the objections against using AutoPass only apply to me using autopass, not my opponent. Let's see:

- If I use AutoPass, when the game comes back to me it may look very different. True. But if my opponent is suing autopass and I'm not, I'll always see the game as it was the last time I played (because my opponent passed and didn't change anything).

- It may disrupt the conversation the current system as it implemented already prevents autopass from kicking in if a message is sent with the move

- The dice must be rolled automatically before the move to know if it's a pass or not and I don't trust nobody to roll my dice but me, not even a computer. Well, my opponent's dice will be rolled if he's using autopass. If I don't want mine to be rolled I just decide not to. Is it really an issue if my opponent's dice are rolled by anyone else than him?

- I want to try and see if my opponent times out while it's his turn Well, if you play all your moves in a row your opponent won't have much more time than he/she already had. And this is a rather selfish and not sporting argument anyway. (Fischer clock settings may require a different analisys because of the impact of the bonus - but most posts I've read on this issue aggree that Fischer Clock can be taken care of at a later time).

- I don't want my opponent to use AutoPass because I want him/her to suffer, having to click the pass button all those times in a row Well, ok, this is an argument in favour of requiring autopass to be aggreed by both players, yes.


I hope I didn't forget any of them. Anybody, feel free to join more arguments to this list (for or against).

Fencer: It's not a contradiction.
It seems to me you implemented AutoPass as a game setting. The game either uses AutoPass or it doesn't.
For us that are arguing for the "without aggreement from both players", we see this setting as 2 settings for each game - white is using AutoPass / Black is using AutoPass.

I don't need to know if my opponent is using AutoPass or not - the only way I'll probably know is if I play and the game comes right back to me (and even that depends on how I sort my games). This in no way affect my play (well, actually it does - I do all my moves at once until the games reaches a state where my opponent can make a move on his/her own - making it last longer on those moments where we are really playing and not just throwing the game back at each other).

With the dual setting, I'm not forced to use AutoPass and my opponent can. Is this one setting / dual setting issue related to your problem with the "without aggreement" thing?

Luke Skywalker: "Nobody is forced to use it" and "without getting agreement from both players" is a contradiction.

Fencer: Nobody is forced to use it.

And an opponent using it is indistinguishable from a quick player, so that shouldn't matter. (with the possible exception to fisher clock games)

tonyh: And how would you explain that to users who really don't like this feature?

Sorry, fencer, I meant 'Autopass!!

mctrivia: Great idea. The "Do we need a newsletter" poll is getting kind of old...

WhiteTower: autosave or autopass? I definetly would like to se auto pass available even without both players agreaing to it. I would rather see each user can chose to use it or not and during creating a game they have to agrea if they do not want it allowed.

How about taking a poll on it.

1) I don't like auto pass and I do not want my opponent using it either.
2) I don't want auto pass but I don't care if my opponent uses it or not(excluding fisher games)
3) I like auto pass and I don't care if my opponent uses it or not.
4) I like auto pass but I only want to use it if both players agree.

I am willing to bet most people would chose either 2 or 3.

tonyh: Now we will see what a Black Rook membership is REALLY worth ;)