gekrompen hoofd: Um... like you have been told over and over again, this is not a government - this is a private game site.

it should be in the hands of the owner

about the inflation of moderators counts even more for globs.
we have there everything, sincer ones, lazy ones, miss ellies and perpetrators ...
a bit too fully featured in my humble and modest and worldfamous opinion ... ~*~

this is a bussiness, I can't go to MacDonalds and tell them that I don't like they way they make their hamburgers and expect them to change, however I can complain about an employee to the management, and then he would take care of it as he sees fit, most likely in private, hmmm. just like here

gekrompen hoofd: The Global Moderators will look at everyones issues, pawns included. We are in a private board with Fencer to discus any issue that needs talked about - pawns, knights, or rooks.

The Global Mods address EVERYONE's greivances! What am I missing here?

lol, Rex! good answer!

gekrompen hoofd: "...for God so loved the world that he sendeth not a Council."

Lemme try this again -- We need Democracy around here. An Official Moderators' Council would be able to address EVERYONE'S grievances, not just Members. I'm talking about people who post.

it is just like it, no one is allowed except moderators, not even paying members

But a Pawn would not be a moderator.

A fellowship is great if you're a paying member. But it tends to single-out the Pawns :(

What we need is an Official Moderators' Council for EVERYONE

they sort of have that already, a fellowship for moderators that fencer sits in on, if someone has a problem with a moderator,they should contact another moderator with their grievence ant they would take it up on that board

gekrompen hoofd: The number of mods on that board is to ensure that the board is covered at all hours when needed. With this being a global community, its difficult to cover all time zones.

The moderators tend to be united in the decisions as well.

OptimistMB, I agree! That's exactly how the process works.

Hmmm, a 'Moderators' Council' -- Now that's an idea everyone could live with!
Sounds like Democracy ;)

JamesHird: ummm.... no

OptimistMB: PS

You certainly changed my Point of View
Thanks

OptimistMB: you make a lot of sense.
You have my vote for lead moderator and I think many should really pay close attention to what you say, even if it means changing their minds a little.
After all, discussions are pointless if all you are doing is trying to change someone elses ideas and are not open to your own point of view changing also.

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.

OptimistMB: Ok -- How do you propose we fix the problem then ?

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.

gekrompen hoofd: hmhm - yehes less mods less fiddling sums it down
quite well thusfar - an inflation brings too many perpetrators in a postion
where they cAn enjoy themselves swelling to judges ... latenite comedy ... ~*~ .

Let's face it, there is no quick fix to 'problem-causers' in high places. BUT, Moderator Reduction is a good start, because it would greatly decrease the possibility for contradicting opinions among Mods, which does affect how a Moderator will act on any given situation. It would also ensure a better chance that many 'problem-causers' will be blocked out.

not punishment as life directive please - this is the 3rd millennium ... ~*~

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

OptimistMB: ur so right but we can't get rid of the
problem causers since they are moderators creating rules which
may not ge rid of the problem causers ... - wannan aspirin or pacifyer ? ~*~

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.

would be a good feature. ~*~ .

Aherm, yeh, Ladies and Gentlemen I shall like to bring up discussion on something which would help this site tremendously. It is called 'Moderator Reduction'.

Take the General Chat board for example, there are currently six (6) people Moderating that board. Now what would be so bad about taking that number down to just 3 (three) Moderators (including the Head-Mod) ?

And another suggestion (you don't have to implement it if you're in doubt) would be to put a limit on how many Co-Moderators can be appointed by the Head-Moderator. Perhaps only two extra Co-Mods could be allowed (just a shot in the dark)
This way we won't have so much Moderator-related clashing and things can get done more smoothly on the discussion boards!

What do ya think ?

no. . but about features: wasn't there

the sound of silence as well as
the unhappy glowworm frozen in hell ? ... ... .. ~*~

kewl

Test ease, test ease, 1 9 9, can you see the real me?

support as well as overdue adjustment of game deletion too ... ~*~ _

pauloaguia:

jahaja: timeout in matches is just for one set ...

and don't forget to support the extra button for battleboats ... ~*~

Fencer does plan to implement something along those lines, at some point.

OptimistMB: Excellent idea. It would be great to get rid of some of the dead wood from the top of the tables

OptimistMB: A simple solution and a great idea. Once placed there, they'd have to play a certain number of games to get back on the established list again? 25 ought to do it.

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

OptimistMB: Sixty-seven.

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 )

rod03801: One section. Ties wouldn't be that common in 16 player group, but if so: Co-champion.

grenv: When you say 1 round only, you must also mean only 1 section, also? Correct?
I think ties would still be relatively common, though..
I do think, however, that some sort of "official" championship tournament would be fun..

wayney: I know that. I even have that page always open on a separate tabon my browser. And that's the smile list I was refering to.
But if you look closely, you won't see this one there yet...

pauloaguia: you can see what all the smileys are here
http://brainking.com/en/Help?ht=11
You dont need to be a member to see this

pauloaguia: Hence one round only, top of table wins.

1 day per move with vacation might work. One tournament start per 6 months, top 16 established ratings that have played a move in last month qualify.

How's that?

grenv: Some games, even with one day per move option can last for more than a year (AntiBG come to mind, for instance, and some Espionage games might qualify as well). The no vacation seems a bit harsh in these cases, and what's the fun in knowing the 2004 WORLD CHAMPION in mid 2005?

Chessmaster1000 & 657: becoming more than a pawn is not an option for me right now. Maybe in a year or so...

Fencer: Thanks

ClayNashvilleTn: I disagree that top BKR = champion (and I am/have been top in some). Main reason is people leaving site with large BKR etc etc.

Instead I think BK should sponsor one tournament in every game, inviting top 16. This could be done once a quarter or so.

However, I think in order to complete, we need to have one round only (like a swiss competition) and 1-2 days per move with no vacation.

there ratings come up on the apropreate boards, ie. chess ratings on the chess board

hmmmmmmmmm I just bothered to look under ratings and there they all are!

I still think it would be good if everyone knew that, each time you saw them post wheather it was in a game or message board or fellowship.