I suggest a column in the player profile page next to bkr that shows the number of moves per day per game of that type. This could be factored, for instance, over the previous three months. When making a new game, or tournament, the creator could specify a range the same way as bkr. This would help resolve the conflict between players who have every right to move slow and those who must sit around and wait.

One other thing that does make the fellowship boards different from the public boards is that since they are private, the strict guidlines which govern the public boards are often slackened somewhat, allowing for a more colorful or creative posting and overall discussion.

Fellowships - For the most part, they are a group of people with a similar interest. Take for example my Backgammon fellowship, called The Gammon Cube. What you would find there if you joined was a group of other people that is also interested in (back)gammon games. I host montly tournaments just for the fellowship members. Also included is a discussion board that can only be accessed by members of the fellowship. Also if you wanted, you could join a team. Teams don't do much right now, but some day the teams will be able to have challenge matches with other fellowship teams.

A fellowship like the debate club, and some others are mostly there just for the discussion board only. (I think the debate club had a fun backgammon tournament you can join, but it is mostly just for the private discussion board.)

ALSO, you can leave at any time. So feel free to check some fellowships out. If you find you don't like them, you can leave at any time.

And while you might not need them, (want really) others do. Although it's more like a discussion board really. Not much in the way of real debating takes place on either board. The uncensored touches on politics too much and the debate board typically stays away from politics. And for good reason. You can try it, and if it's not for you just quit. No big deal.

Yes, the link took me there. Thank you. Apparently I have an open invitation to join it. I'm not sure if I want to join the fellowships. I don't see much need for them, nor do I understand their purpose. The regular discussion boards work well enough. True, the things discussed or debated are limited to the Discussion Board's topic, but that also makes them easy to find and they're usually on subject. Do the fellowship discussion boards work like this board, or is there a difference besides only members of the fellowship being able to read them?

It is a fellowship walter, run by linda j

Debate club is a fellowship - can be found here where you can request a membership: HERE

Plus there is also a fellowship called Unvensored Debate, which can be found: H E R E

Where is the Debate Board. I am wanting to read the posts in a debate forum and can't find it. Is it a fellowship, or am I looking in the wrong place?

sneaking up on subject of 'auto pass' and giveing it a good whack....whack whack....wack

He has asked for it to be taken to another board. Maybe he would agree to join us and go over the objections and put it to rest for those of us who felt left out of the original discussions.

BBW has correctly pointed out that Fencer has said no before and changed his mind.... So it is not the end of the story...

And debating it over there is fine. All I'm saying is get it off of here. Fencer said NO. End of story :P

This dicussion has been on the Debate Board since yesterday as it can be discussed there, even if it serves no purpose in the end, it shows how many people have opinions on it.

Look does it really matter??? Fencer already said NO and that's that. Just freak'n drop the subject. I'm sick of seeing the same crap every 2 months about the same subject. It's like that dang battery bunny, it just keeps going & going & going. Isn't it time to stop???

WQ... why can't it be both????
It can stay the same for you, and auto pass for others. What rational person could object?
You would never even have to know it exists... Thats what people do not understand...

I was thinking more of the collective noun usage ... a group or gathering of convokers LOL WQ:)

Convocation: The act of convoking.

Just in case anyone was wondering. :)

Just so that it can never be stated again that no-one objected to autopass I would like to state that I prefer the current arrangement and hope that it remains the way it is ... and, while I would hope to be considered a "friend of Fencer", I hope that I am not considered to be an integral part of the prior-postings alluded-to convocation.

WQ :)

I went there AD. It looks like a lot of this has been discussed before.
The two things you list as arguments against an auto-pass feature (I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with them, you're just pointing them out for me. Thank you). Chatting between moves and confusion over the board position. If those are the main reasons for not having an auto-pass feature, I say those are very weak reasons. A few people have said eloquently enough why those aren't problems at all. I agree with them.

1) Chatting, especially on this site, isn't a problem at all. All previous chat messages are displayed, and one can read them back and put the current message in context.
Let's say I send a blot to the bar and have all of the homebase's points covered. With auto-pass and the way I play the next few moves, I'm able to keep my opponent from moving for six turns. Then I leave a point open and my opponent now gets a turn. Who missed a chat chance? I don't see it. To my opponent, it would appear that I'd made my regular move and now he can send a chat message if so inclined. I suppose I could send a message for each of the six turns, but why would I talk to myself? If either of us really needed to chat to the other, I for one, wouldn't use a game's messaging for it anyway. I'd send a message through the message box. "grenv" made a valid point about the turn itself that I agree with. My time to make my move should continue to run until my opponent has a chance to move. That way I can't take over the game and purposely delay it for as long as I can.

2) The abrupt change of position resulting from turns being passed. A very minor problem in a game of Backgammon. I haven't played Reversi on this site, but I did play it on It's Your Turn. Seems to me that site has the auto-pass feature as the only way to play. (Opposite of this site, where it is not a way to play. Yes, I'd like to have the option as the player on both sites). Anyway, I remember my opponent being able to keep me from moving. Seems to happen near the end of the game and it's not always to your disadvantage when it happens. It'd come back to my turn and all my pieces had been flipped over. Wow, that's a drag, even if I saw it coming when I made my previous move. I still don't see a problem. Believe me, a couple times when it'd happened, I'd hit the "prev" button and see just how it came down. What confusion are we talking about? If the position is that bad, this helped get the game over and we could start a new one, or hey, I didn't have to play it any more and I could try my luck against a new opponent.

So it gets down to Fencer being against it. It obviously can be programmed since IYT has it. If that's the way it is Fencer, then that's the way it is. Some costumer service, is all I can say sarcasticly. What gives, bud? You seem so accomodating in almost all other things on this site. Considering that you don't play much Backgammon, why even take a position on it and just keep the overwhelming majority of players happy and make it a feature? As we say in America, "It's my ball, and I'm going home".
To quote Fencer. "No auto-pass. Accept it." and "There is a difference between listening and making a decision.". Yes, there is. But good decisions are usually made by listening, even if you do stick to your guns and go it your own way. I think it's a bad decision not to have the auto-pass available, but that's all I have is my oppinion. As this is a minor aggrevation in the few games when it comes up, I'll just deal with it at the time and am not going to say much if anything more on the subject.
I would like to say thank you all for hearing me out on this and had I known how much was said earlier on the subject, I might not have even made my original post concerning it.

I'm just answering Walter's questions regarding the auto-pass feature. :)

And Andersp: not cause "cheating" but cause "complaints about cheating."

"It could (and likely would) also cause many many many complains / comments regarding "My opponent is cheating." "

:)

Correct MM..a few people are happy..thats important :)

The Main point is that Fencer does not want it, so it will not happen as he says.
It was mentioned back then that he can not please everyone, BUT if auto-passing was an option in each game he would.
By not having auto-pass as an option he is only keeping a few people happy, BUT it is his site and that his choice.
*edited*
As Fencer also said the it can be talked about elsewhere, but not here. So lets go and have a Debate :o)

AD..this is getting better and better..has anyone really said that auto-pass can cause cheating? LOL
Walter..nice try but you wont get a reason from Fencer..his friends wants to chat so they need to send "not touched" games :)

Ridiculous, how can someone cheat on a game site. If you don't understand the rules try another game. Chatting will still happen if you use my system of playing all the moves at once within your time limit. There will be fewer "turns" per game but you can always start another game if you want to keep chatting.

Auto Pass discussion

in a nutshell the reasons given are as follows:

1. The inability to chat between moves
2. The board can change substantially in one move (confusing to new players) 3. It "likey would" cause many many many complains / comments regarding "My opponent is cheating

I agree, it would be a lot better. In fact a "turn" in backgammon should be all the moves you can make until the opponent can roll. The time limit should be on all these moves so that people aren't waiting 6 months to make a move.

Until recently, I have only played Dark Chess, Extinction Chess, and eight games of Keryo Pente. All of these games cannot have a position with an opponent not moving or the game is over. I obviously missed on the debate about the auto-pass feature. Now that I've started to play Backgammon, and have been able to lock up my homebase while my opponent has a blot or two on the bar, I've found that this site doesn't have the feature. That was why I posted my earlier comment. I feel it would improve the play of any game, as I stated in the first post. You seem quite arbitrary in your refusal, Fencer. It will surely improve the play and enjoyment of a game that has it. That's how you play if you were playing the game face to face. For some reason, you're against it. The only problem that I can see it causing for this site, is for those people that are hung up on having their moves for the day counted and broadcast to the world. Who cares how many moves one makes? Let them tally as if they had moved. Delaying a game for no reason seems bad to me.
From reading the posts just now, it looks unanimous minus two for the feature. Why don't you want it Fencer? A reason I can understand, even if I disagree with it, will atleast let me know your thinking on it and can calm the emotions of those that feel unlistened to. As it has been said, it is your site. You can do what you please and if I don't like it, I can go elsewhere or put up with it and stay. I know if one of my opponents blocks me from moving, I'd just as soon have the option of letting him make all of his moves until I have a chance to move. Why tease me with meaningless rolls of the dice?
Couldn't it be set up in the original parameters of a game? Or have it as an option during the game? If you don't like it in your games, you never agree to the option as you can have the default with no auto-pass. The rest of us can hit the button and keep the game moving.

I have never said i dont accept it, we have to accept many stupid decisions in life...as i've said earlier: This issue has nothing to do with common sence, it has to do with who Fencer listens to :).....could have said stubborness but i didnt :)

I can accept it Fencer. But it should be noted that it was NEVER discussed and it's inaccurate to say some wanted it and some didn't. How many is "some?" We will never know for sure but it's more accurate to use the word "few." This site has lots of players that never offered their thoughts. No poll was taken. It was NOT a "split" decision. And I think it unfair that the excuse for no autopass is that people were split. That is not accurate. Bottom line is Fencer says no. That's the only reason. All other reasons given are misleading or untrue.

It would be a god send to have it in Reversi, especially in 10x10 and the oponent doesnt resign LOL

MM: I don't say that I don't listen :-) But there is a difference between listening and making a decision.

We have accepted it Fencer. It just shows that there are alot of people who would rather have the option (not enforcerd) avaliable here. Surely you should at least listen to the majority.
We do want the best for BrainKing.

I accept that there will not be any auto-pass - I just disagree that there are many people who don't want it... just a few - very very few as long as it was done correctly so users don't get "lost" during the auto-passing process. (my last post on the subject.) :-)

I seem to remember BBW.... It centered mostly around people not wanting to miss out on chatting between every move. But there were definitly people against the auto pass.

No auto-pass. Accept it.

I really don't remember, BBW, it was an awful long time ago. There were quite a few against it then though.. It could even have been on the backgammon board, or reversi maybe?

harley - where was it discussed at? I've searched through this whole discussion board at one time, and remember when Fencer's decision was made.... I didn't remember anyone who disagreed with it..... (as long as it was done correctly)

Andersp - Yes, I know - that is my point. This is Fencer's game site, and if he does not want an option, then it will not be here.

My point was that below, someone made it sound like there were many people against auto-passing, where in fact there are very few who are against it. (As long as it is done correctly - and still lets users see all the "passed" moves if they don't want to get "lost")

When this was first discussed, there were people wanting it both ways. Once Fencer said no auto pass, the ones who wanted this were happy and stopped posting. It was only those who disagreed that carried on. Thats why you rarely hear from people from do not want this feature, because as far as they are concerned, its decided, and not worth discussing.

BBW: I know for sure there people who would at least like the option to have some form of it. I know it bugs me when i keep coming to games i cant move in LOL - i should be used to it by now :o)

BBW..this issue had nothing to do with "common sense" anymore..a poll who should show 99% for auto pass wouldnt help :)

I always believe it is Fencer's finaly decision....

But, you keep saying people are split on the issue. Actually, I don't think I have seen 1 person who thinks auto-pass (if done correctly) would not be a good thing.

Harley..thats OK..and i think most of us knows who he listens to :)

Andersp how can you say Fencer doesn't care? Of course he does, but people are split as to which they'd prefer - so Fencer has gone with what HE prefers, which is no automatic moves. I think thats fair enough.

That sounds a good option MM.

MM..of course you are right, but can you convince the "chatters"?
dont think so LOL

I think the way Pocket-Monkey operate is a good way.
If you play such a move the game goes to your opponent, then they have to pass BUT when they do it gives them an option to carry on passing till a move is avaliable or to have the game come back every time.
That way at least the person who is blocked has the option.

Walter, we are many many who share your opinion but unfortunately Fencer doesnt care :(

In games where it's possible to block your opponent from moving, but the game continues and your opponent has to wait until he's able to move, I'd like to have the game stay at the person who can move turn. As an example, in Backgammon when I've sent a blot to the bar and have all the points covered in my home base, why have the turn go to my opponent? Why have him roll the dice? He can't move, it might as well stay my turn until a point opens up. Seems like this can happen in Reversi, too. It would certainly speed up a game letting the player keep the turn any time it happens during a game. Plus it wouldn't tease the blocked opponent who knows he can't move.

The "Bulls-eye" will be very helpfull once Battleboats PLUS is added to the site (where you have multiply shots each turn) - since it would be easy to confuse multiply boxes with outlines on it.