pgt: I agree also. The only reason I could think that someone would not want their opponent to use autopass is that they are trying to win on a time-out, and just waiting until their opponent goes off-line to make their move. (Which defeats the purpose of playing games why you try to win by no playing games - but whatever.)

I don't see why it would be a problem on Fischer Clock games - I mean if I make a move, and my opponenet's move is auto-passed back to me - I just make another move. I mean what would be the problem? (Other then if someone was trying to win by timeout which again defeats the whole purpose of "playing" games in my opinion)

As for not using autopass if their is an in-game message - I would even be for an option of "use autopass even if there is a message" - I mean I'm going to read the message the next time I visit the game - what does it matter if it is on move 40 or 52 after 12 auto-passes? I still read it at the same time. Maybe a quick note of "Opponent had not move, so autopassed back to you - so they have not read your message yet." [again, option since some may not like that]

mctrivia: With the POSSIBLE exception of Fischer Clock games, I can't see any good reason whatsoever why anybody should have any say as to whether his opponent uses autopass or not.

AbigailII: Except that you can allow your opponents to use auto-pass without being forced to use it yourself.

mctrivia: Point three is equivalent with Fencers implementation.

For a long time I have not been clear on the problem concerning autopass, the necessity, or the proposed solutions. But I THIRD McTrivia's suggestion, just to make the debate over more quickly.

mctrivia: I find your propositions excellent, maybe the best possible policy. I fully second them !

Fencer: I also don't see why both sides need to agrea to auto pass. On my server it does not let people use auto pass on fisher clock games because of the advantage it would give to the other oponent. And I have only ever found one person that had a problem with autopass keep playing and that player just wrote a message in each play.

I think it is far more useful to have the following rules:
1) Auto pass can not be used on fisher clock games unless both sides agrea to it
2) Each user can chose to enable or disable autopass on any particular game at any time for themselves(Usually near the end of ludo games i like to disable autopass)
3) Any user can decide when creating a game that autopass is not allowed.(this way those people that don't want autopass can still have there way but other wise each user can use it or not at there discresion.)
4) In the settings page every player can set there default mode for each game type.

Fencer: So I was wrong when thinking that this agreement would be a temporary solution ; but I don't understand why it could not be that in the same game one of the opponents is using autopass and the other is not.
Apart from that, autopass is a wonderful feature :-)

Fencer: It would be helpful for those that desperatly need autopass to have the option to make the invitation invalid if the opponent doesn't accept it. A "only invite if autopass is accepted" - checkbox. So autopass-wannahaves can play each other, autopass-ohnos can play each other and everybody can play against autopass-idontcares like me and be safe before sending the invitation :)

Fencer: Well...as you can see im not the only one you "cant please"..but ok..ill do as you say...at least you are pleased then.

Andersp: There is no pleasing some people. Then play only with opponents who won't decline the autopass request.

Fencer: I rather have no autopass at all than have to "ask for my opponents permission" to use it ..understand? :)

Andersp: Is it an autopass or not?

Fencer: I dont think you shall waste more time on autopass, its better to have no autopass at all than this "agreement mix"

AbigailII: Point taken. You are right, of course.
But I still don't see much of a difference between having to accept AutoPass or having to Accept AutoVacation.
(except, maybe, on Fischer clock games - there AutoPass gives you an advantge, because the clock is less time on your side).

grenv: I can't believe anyone could reasonably object to an opponent using autopass any more than they could object to their opponent moving quickly.

If doubling is an option, at least the options should be "double" and "pass" which would at least skip the step of rolling.

I agree 100% on both issues. But pauloaguia is probably right that the rule that both players must agree is only intended for the test phase, which sounds reasonable.

AbigailII: Problem is AutoVac kicks in even if the player is NOT on vacation. Meaning that they can still log in and make moves, chat etc... yet the games they don't move in still don't time out.

pauloaguia: I find AutoVac much more intrusive in a game (since my opponent won't timeout when expected and a game may go well beyond the time I intended it to in the begining)

While I agree with the points being made regarding autopass, I don't quite agree with the point quoted. Even if your opponent doesn't use auto-vacation, he can still set vacation days after the game starts (and if he doesn't use auto-vacation, and will be on vacation, he's likely to do so).

IMO, vacation plays a role in how long a game lasts, but much less so as the average amount of moves we manage to make in a day - and the latter is depending on many factors, one of which is the timezones the players are in.

pauloaguia: Good point(s), that sounds reasonable :)

I can't believe anyone could reasonably object to an opponent using autopass any more than they could object to their opponent moving quickly.

If doubling is an option, at least the options should be "double" and "pass" which would at least skip the step of rolling.

Gordon Shumway: Maybe it requires both players approval because it's still in an experimental phase and Fencer is being cautious.
I aggree when you compare it to AutoVacation. I find AutoVac much more intrusive in a game (since my opponent won't timeout when expected and a game may go well beyond the time I intended it to in the begining) and I'm not asked if I allow my opponent can use AutoVacation or not.
I hope AutoPass will be like this sooner or later, let's just wait a while...

Andersp: I don't understand that either. In my humble opinion, a red message "Your opponent is using Autopass", just as the auto vacation message would perfectly do the job. You wouldn't be surprised by an offline opponent passing back every game to you in an instance, and everybody who wants to take advantage of it could do so.

And I really like pgt's suggestion of a "use autopass as long as I can't move" option when you own the cube - the chances that I want to offer a double get smaller not bigger when I can't move several times in a row, I guess

AbigailII: I cant understand why both players must agree to autopass. I dont care if my opponent is a "clicklover" so why should he/she have any objections if im using autopass alone?

Fencer: The opponent could object if he doesn't want to play with autopass at all.

Yes...., but is that a reasonable objection? Say I would use an automatic system to pass for me (be it autopass or a script that I've running on my computer) would the playing experience for my opponent be any different as from me just moving quickly? If the objection is that "but with autopass, the games come right back at me", I'm happy with autopass giving my opponent to option of having a delay. (That is, players can choose that if their opponent uses autopass, the automove happens after 5 minutes).

emmett: But not likely!

Gee Fencer, you could have a year's membership!

Fencer: Take a poll!! I bet you a year's membership that 99% of BG players would not object!

pgt: The opponent could object if he doesn't want to play with autopass at all.

Fencer: Perhaps "never in this game" is a bit harsh, but maybe a "activate autopass until there is a possible move" would be a good idea.
In fact, that would solve ALL the problems, without having to agree on autopass when setting up the game: the player who cannot move could just click "do the autopass on my behalf until I can move again" if that's his wish. His opponent could not possibly object (could he?).

pgt: Right. Or do you have a better solution? Like an option "click here if you never want to offer a double in this game"?

Fencer: So autopass is never an option in a cube match when you "own" the cube?

pgt: Autopass cannot be used since you still have an option to offer a double.

Backgammon (gogul vs. pgt)

This game uses autopass, but I still get "since youcannot move, press submit" message. Autopass does not appear to be working. Any suggsetions?

joshi tm: I think that any game using a dice has that element of luck to it.
I just think it would make Cheversi a better/fairer game.

AbigailII: As it was ment as an example it really does not mater what is high or low but I prefer 5 as high myself.

BIG BAD WOLF: Yes that is a good warning I should have writen myself( The only thing the password is used for is it attempts to log on to BK once if it works it writes your name into the session info and gives full access to the site. You could change your password at any time before and after and it would not care.). I will give full source codes to any that want. I was just board and decided to try and make the idea functional instead of just requesting something. THe idea is kind of like the bug tracker with a couple big diferences.

1) Every user can make posts on every entry.
2) Every user can set there own priority for a request.
3) Fencer can report the status of any request(though I never bothered to code that ability in since I highly doubted he would log on to the site as himself).

Basically a fellowship with each request being its own board.

MadMonkey: No, only Dice Chess should have a luck factor.

joshi tm: I think it would be much more fun and a better game with a dice, just like Dice Chess, there would be no advantage as such.
Black could be left with Queen, King or knight etc as a last move, not really giving them an advantage. At least it should create closer games.

MadMonkey: Or, maybe another forced move for Black. (Say, play a Rook at turn 2)

I think Cheversi is a great game. Its quick and the rules are simple, but the advantage is still with black, though not as much as it was.
Could we have a dice version, where the dice would denote what piece a player would have to place on the board.
It would open it up a bit to both players

mctrivia: If I understand the concept correctly, it's like the bug tracker but with the ability for severall people to contribute to each feature's priority (instead of simply replacing it, like in the bug tracker) and for Fencer to provide some feedback on it's status of completion.
Is that it?

I like the concept in general. But I fear it would soon turn into another bug tracker where it's near to impossible to find anything older than a week, and people would just start posting duplicate requests...

But I'd like to have some feedback about Fencer's TODO list, eyc

mctrivia: Is priority 0 the highest, or the lowest priority?

I'm not saying mctrivia is trying to get everyones password or anything, but a general warning - BE CAREFULL when you enter things like your username & password on other sites.

Even though it can look 100% legit, and such - there are hundreds of sites across the internet that do the same thing for things like PayPal - just to get important information from you.

I know mctrivia's does a lot of different scripting and such for players on this site, and I'm sure is an honest person and does keep passwords hidden even from himself - but remember it is "user beware / Use are your own risk" - it is not BK's responisblity to keep your password & information safe on sites outside of the BK world.

Again, just so I'm clear - I'm not tring to say anything bad about what mctrivia is doing or make it seem like you can't trust him - just want to make sure users know it can be a risk to use scripts outside of the BK site which require personal information like passwords and such.

I would like to see some kind of formal feature request. Something were we can have chats under each request and vote on how important it is to us. Something like this:

http://mctrivia.com/BK/feature.php

P.S. The page is completely functional for all registered BK users. Though I did not spend much time to write it.

On the Fellowships list, I request that the column on the right, "Games We Play", either consist of:

1. A limited list of five or less games. If the list is longer than five games, then the number of games as a link to a complete list... or,

2. A list of the types of games they play, i.e. chess variants, line games, etc.

This would result in being able to see a lot more fellowships on one page, and therefore easier to browse through.

Fencer: For example anyone using autoplayer on my server just choses what game types they want played. They can turn individual games off if they like but by default it will play any auto pass or auto move games they have.

It would be nice if there were in the settings page a tab for what game types you want autoplayer to play.

mctrivia: I am afraid I don't understand.

Fencer: Would be nice if autopass could be set to play all games by default and would play already running games

Andersp: Why are you so picky? This is a test period. It works only for normal games at the moment. Be patient. I don't want why people always expect to have everything at once.

Fencer: just challenged a person in Stairs, was no autopass option there?...was this our deal?