Andersp: Oh im sorry i misunderstood...so you accept a friendly invitation for backgammon?

Lol. Yes, you have misunderstood and I dare say you know it, too.

It's very clear what my position is. It's completely certain that I will reject (by ignoring) a rude invitation (defined specifically as one with no text whatsoever). And it's very unlikely, in the case of Backgammon, that I will accept even friendly invitations. "Very unlikely" is, of course, not measured as 0%. This therefore means that some percentage of friendly invitations would be accepted.

think you should add that to your profile

It's all there in one short sentence. All you have to do is not misunderstand it!

grenv: Yes, this is my way.. I resign in a lost position. I never said others had to do the same.

Nor did I say that you said that. But you have said that you do not accept their point of view. You've said that their definition of the end of the game is wrong, that their wanting to finish by removing the last piece is pointless, ridiculous, etc, and that you'd resign regardless of their wishes.

you are saying that others might be offended at my actions and request that I play out the game. Wouldn't this be a case of them asking me to do it their way, not the other way around?

If you know that they'd like to continue play and you resign in spite of that then it could be considered rude and, yes, they may well be offended.

If you say to them that it really pains you to have to play on then you are asking them to take your feelings into consideration. If they take you at your word and assume that it truly does "pain you", and they would only "quite like" to continue, then it would be inconsiderate to expect you to play (not that they can force it, of course). In that case the reasonable way forward is to accept your resignation.

It's very likely to be the case that they will let you have your way even if they believe that their preference is the stronger - because they also value being the "nice guy" about things. Probably most people are like that but I get the impression that you wouldn't be one of those.

Difficulties arise when both players feel adamant about getting their way and that's when you could call in the judge. In reality, however, the likely outcome is that the one with the power, ie. the resign button, simply exercises it, and rudeness be damned. Indeed, rudeness may well have already surfaced during the "negotiation".

It's about mutual respect. It's not about simply dismissing the other person because you think their position is ridiculous.

playBunny: LOL...yes Bunny you are right, i didnt misunderstand, i (and most players here) know the real reason why you dont accept even a friendly invitation.....but to me its still more rude than to resign a finished game  :)

Andersp: but to me its still more rude than to resign a finished game :)

But that really is irrelevant. It's not about what you'd find rude, it's about what an opponent who wishes to continue play would think.

i (and most players here) know the real reason why you dont accept even a friendly invitation

Go on then, spell it out. Make sure you properly include the terms "in protest", "rating system" and "really sucks". And you can get bonus points if you add another sentence or two incorporating "DailyGammon" plus some choice ideas from my profile.

playBunny: I happen to agree with Grenv that you do understand our point of view, and probably even agree with it, but just enjoy a good debate?

But I dont understand how you can defend someone being offended or upset over someone else playing within the boundaries of the rules?

One hundred posts ago, someone posted the best plays for normal Backgammon games. My question: Is this still the same when playing crowded Backgammon?

Czuch Czuckers: I think thats a good conclusion (and hopefully ending) of this silly discussion  LOL

joshi tm: AND, is there different etiquette for Crowded Backgammon? LOL... I'm SO just kidding!

My aplology to all peple who are offended because i tried to resign this discussion

Czuch Czuckers: Gosh, Czuch, I certainly do enjoy a good debate but please don't ever think that I agree with you about being rude to people simply because they have a different preference. It is almost as if you view other people as machines. I know you're incapable of understanding this but I seriously think that the attitude you show is self-centred and boorish!

But I dont understand how you can defend someone being offended or upset over someone else playing within the boundaries of the rules

There's an attitude which I truly and wholeheartedly despise and it's the traffic-warden mentality that "It says so in the rules therefore I don't have to think or exercise any judgement at all. I can act just like a robot and be correct according to what it says here". If you take that position in anything where human judgement could be employed you have thrown away any chance of my respect.

That's where I'm coming from.

Anders, on the other hand, is just along for the laugh.

playBunny:
There's an attitude which I truly and wholeheartedly despise and it's the traffic-warden mentality that "It says so in the rules therefore I don't have to think or exercise any judgement at all. I can act just like a robot and be correct according to what it says here". If you take that position in anything where human judgement could be employed you have thrown away any chance of my respect.

Nobody is trying to say that if asked to do so, they shouldnt comply to the request to play out their moves.

rather, that there is nothing wrong with not wanting to comply either!

Thats where I am coming from, and i am also along for the laugh

Wow, leave for a day and come back to a board full of posts.

OK - Lets stop this discussion - it looks like everyone has had their say, and the discussion has turned into an argument - which is not needed.

So lets get back to the regular backgammon discussion please. Thanks.

coan.net: o.k. then, back to my question, has anyone ever had a complete game without any doubles?

Vikings: According to grenv's calculations,
Backgammon (grenv, 2007-10-04 14:05:59)
it takes 17 rolls minimum to get all your checkers home without any doubles. If you went first, your opponent would get 16 rolls. That's 33 total. The odds of not rolling doubles on any roll are 5/6, so the maximum odds of rolling a doubles free game are,

(5/6)^33 = .002438 or 1/4 of one percent, about once every 400 games.

I suspect the typical game is close to 25 or 30 moves/side, so the odds are probably around,

(5/6)^50 = .00011 or one in 10,000.
(5/6)^60 = .000018 or one in 50,000.

Thad: Very good. So there must be at least one such game i would think

Autopassers, a fellowship where the players are expected to use autopass in the games.

fakar10: Good idea. I'd join if I wasn't a pawn. I hope you get lots and lots of members and that Fencer sees that (1) autopass should be a feature, not an option and (2) that he should expand the power of autopass to other situations, like endgame moves.

Why are the dice rolled and then hidden until my opponent checks the game?

It makes no sense, and only adds unnecessary mystery

Czuch:  You dont get to see your opponents dice before he does, which seems quite appropriate.

alanback: In an auto pass it is okay to see the dice first, and since they are supposedly already rolled, why not show them?

Czuch: I agree. If the dice are rolled, show them. It doesn't matter whether either player or someone else is the first to look at the board (as long as it's not private). If anyone looks at the board, BK should show the current status of the game (which includes the rolled dice). Anything else is just dumb.

Anything else is just dumb.

...waiting patiently for playBunnies response to this

It's obvious to anyone who has played at GoldToken or Dailygammon and been glad that they can leave the board knowing the dice that have been rolled that it's a Very Good Thing.

playBunny:  IMHO it's a silly thing to be concerned about, but if most people want it, it should be implemented.

Just more evidence of our inability to postpone gratification :-)

alanback:  Of course, on Dailygammon it's even better, because you get to see your opponent's moves before they are made.

alanback: Just more evidence of our inability to postpone gratification :-)

Isn't postponement of gratification best done when there's reason to; some benefit from delaying? I'm not sure what that benefit would be in this instance, nor what harm comes from knowing what the dice are when you leave the table.

playBunny:  Ah, but the desirability of seeing the dice -- and the felt need for a change in the current system -- arises only from the need for immediate gratification.  Gratification implies a need that is to be gratified.  If the need did not exist, the issue would not arise.
No question of justification was involved, merely an observation. 

alanback: There is obviously not any real need to see the dice, rather a desire to see them, except where there is a concern that the dice are less than random, and seeing is believing.

Showing the dice just takes away any concerns, whether founded or not.

alanback: Hmmm, I wasn't querying whether there was a need for gratification - it's a given. My query is about its postponement in this instance, namely the benefits of postponement versus the harms of immediate gratification.

playBunny: Dont you mean the harms of postponement vs the benefits of immediate gratification?

I believe that is more the point here?

Czuch: No, I tend to state a position and ask questions as accurately as possible and that way round is not what Alan was suggesting.

playBunny:  The need for gratification is not a given, it is a creation of the egoic mind and ceases when understood as such.

alanback: Why is this such a big deal. We are here for one thing... fun. The game would be better if the dice were shown straight away when they can be because that would be... more fun! So do it already. What more is there to say?

alanback: You're just playing word games, Alan.

IMHO it's a silly thing to be concerned about, but if most people want it, it should be implemented. ...... Just more evidence of our inability to postpone gratification :-)

You introduced the ideas of gratification and postponement of gratification. It was your given!

Thad:  I suppose the only thing to say is that there is more than one opinion as to whether the game would be "more fun".

playBunny:  Hardly a word game; the unfortunate thing is that I am trying to express in words that which is only knowable by direct experience.  Certainly the need for gratification exists in the universe we experience on an everyday level, but it does not exist in Spirit.  My point was that gratification and the need for it are experienced only because of the illusion of separation from All That Is.  Off topic, I suppose.

My original crack about postponing gratification was meant just to call people's attention to what was going on in their own heads.

alanback: So you actually think BK's current implementation is better than it would be if the dice were revealed as soon as possible?

Thad:  Neither better no worse, for me.  If most people think it would be better with the dice revealed, as a matter of customer service they should be revealed.

Thad: Only better because we would not have any wonder if the dice rolling is completely random and fair, I dont think its not, but it makes me wonder when the dice are rolled but not shown.

Czuch: Now that's just paranoia!

alanback: Maybe so, but my paranoia could be eliminated if after the dice are rolled , they are also shown!

Czuch:  Jeez, so now Fencer is responsible for your mental health too?

alanback: It just makes sense to me, that if the dice are already rolled, then they should be shown, or they should be rolled only when the player goes to the game.

Now i have made myself wonder.... if a player goes to a game and doesnt move and then i go look, are the dice shown or hidden?

Why is people arguing about this?

People have different opinions. But the one that counts on this issue is Fencer - and if anyone can get Fencer to work on this feature rather then on the site and/or games - well good luck.

Otherwise, I think it is safe to say that many would like it - some don't care, and probable a few don't want it. Is there anything else we need to say about this?

coan.net: Is there anything else we need to say about this?

Speak for yourself. Do you need to say anything? If not then be silent. As for other's needs to say anything? You either have a need to know ASAP whether they do or not - or you are telling others that you have a need for them not to say what they have to say.

playBunny: Ditto

Czuch: Only better because we would not have any wonder if the dice rolling is completely random and fair,

How does knowing what the dice are sooner than later inform you about their fairness or crookedness?

alanback: Yes, it's a word game. You made a statement about postponement of gratification, ie. that it was applicable to this dice situation, and I asked a question about why it is applicable. You've done everything except answer that question, talking instead about ego and Spirit. That strikes me as playing word games.

playBunny: In auto pass games I know that my opponent has rolled something that lets him back in from the bar, but since I am not shown what the roll is, i wonder if maybe the program has determined that he will get back in but doesnt determine which, of a combo of possible rolls that let him back in, roll to give him.

i know, you dont have to say anything, but i just wish, since the roll is already determined, that it was also displayed

Czuch: Well, all I have to say about that is insert what I don't have to say.