CardinalFlight I think keeping Ed banned because he's not coming back is wrong! What if wants to come back? He has a website to post relavent Gothic Chess things...the last time I checked this was the Gothic Chess DB not the website!
The only reason he is banned is because Walter is the Moderator and has a personal grudge against Ed! Who is kidding who here?

Yes, my behavior of late has not been well indeed. I've fallen into the trap I was trying my hardest to avoid. It's frustrating for me, but hey it happens.

I will become a quiet moderator.
No more posts from me.
No more ideas from me.
No more throwing more wood on the fire.
No more anything except if bad or foul language is used.
My last post will be the site link for Ed's lawsuit. After that, you can have your way until I hear from Fencer, Thad. As for unbanning Ed, get serious. I will moderate without posting unless directly asked to and even then I may not post to the board.

Good bye and keep it clean.

Walter,

You are as guilty as anyone is today with respect to anything that deserves banning. I have unbanned all whom you have banned today. Do not ban anyone else. You are obviously wwwwaaaaayyyyyyy over the line here. The vote is 2 to 1 in favor of you stepping down. Please do so!

Obviously I am the most sensible level headed fair person on Brainking so I should be made to moderate this board

i hope that was a sarcastic post LJ.

If I was moderator, I would cut taxes, increase welfare payments and ensure that working to survive was only an option and not a necessity

I find the idea of carrying out lawsuits to silence critics rather than uphold the law odious. As far as I know, Walter has not defied the patent in any way by manufacturing or distributing any sets under the name Gothic Chess. The lawsuit sounds like hollow intimidation and a big waste of time and money, more for Ed Trice, whom I think would better serve the chess community by promoting Gothic Chess rather than trying to silence critics. I like CardinalFlight's post, he summed it up well. It's true Walter is in a conflict of interest by criticizing the patent of a game he is moderating, but he agreed not to make any more incendiary statements so I feel he is just fine as mod. As for one mod unbanning and the other banning, that's just ..... smart.

This guy charges a dollar a year for licenses and reckons that's worth 100,000 in damages. Braindead.

I am still trying to figure out how a performance of 126 wins, 1 draw, and 0 losses derserves a lower rating than someone with 7 wins and 3 losses.

Somehow "Nellaf" is at 2417 after losing 3 games, and I am at 2410 after winning 126 without a loss.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

I can add a little insight, but not much. His seven wins all came in one tournament (and one win was against me). He advanced to the second round, but, thanks to the very slow play of one individual, the second round started months later and it looks like he wasn't even coming to Brainking any more, so all three ended without a move. I believe that those are not included in the ratings (correct?), so his rated games consist of only seven wins against no losses.

Now, does a player who is 7-0 deserve to be ranked above a player who is 126-0-1. Not in my opinion, but that's why there are established and provisional ratings. ;-)

Cerebro is now a moderator.

<>Because of being sued, I'm banning Ed.

You have no right to ban him for this reason. Think about it.....


>I will become a quiet moderator.

I agree.

>No more posts from me.

No, you are a clever person and you should say what you have to say.

>No more ideas from me.

Come on.You really don't have to do that.

>No more throwing more wood on the fire.

As you are a moderator you should avoid this.


My logical wishes:

Walter: Unban Ed.
Walter: Apologize to Ed for your anti-patent statements and your over-reacting behaviour.
Ed: Take back the sue thing.

All of you have to show some good willing, to achieve peace and your heart will feel better. With some good willing everything can happen. Remember you are not lions. You are humans! And when you have different opinions you have to make some logical conversations and not letting your emotions to drive your decisions.
I wonder when our brain will completely escape from our animal past.....

I am still waiting to be made the moderator............

maybe you should change your name to LongWait

The other personal rating is still a provisional rating, and will stay that way until 25 games are complete - During this time the ratings will not be 100% accurate, which is why they are called provisional. Once the other player starts to complete more games, you will see the rating start to move where it is suppose to.

25 games is what it takes to have an established rating here, but I believe it has been said it takes close to 200 games complete before your rating is truely extablished.

we don't lose rating points on timeout losses within the first 2 moves, I think. Ratings here are meaningless anyway!

Which is exactly my point. Why not make them meaningful?

So how do you suggest making ratings meaningful only after a few handful of games Trice?

ultimately, they'll only be meaningful after many, many games. Looking at ughaibu's stats, top in so many variants with hundreds of games in them, it's tough to dispute him as #1. I don't know if nellaf has left the site. If his rating bothers you, challenge him!

he's not. mr trice is a lovely man and a genius. he don't mind being second best at all.

remove Walter. seems like he dont know how to mod a bord at all.

Anyone who advocates what Walter advocates in respect to anothers legal patent does not deserve to be a moderator of a board about that patent.

For removal of Walter we have

tedbarber
surdus
EdTrice
Chessmaster10
00
Thad
ChessCarpenter
CardinalFlight
fari
borz2
ScarletRose
ThomasBarnes

I count 10 votes am I missing anyone?

You can discount the pawns for a start.

At present in a match;no matter what the score of a match in progress,each player's ratings are unaffected. This I believe is highly unfair to both players as it makes a match of any lenghth rated as if it is only 1 game. If you win or lose a match by a score of 6-0 you recieve the same rating as if the score was 6-5. This is highly uninformative as to ones actual playing strength;since in the case of the 6-0 match the players were nowhere near as evenly matched as in the case of the 6-5 match. Rating each game would fix this flaw and encourage more people to play matches. At present I lead some of my matches by scores of 2-0 and trail some by 0-1,and in some cases I am even. Yet in no case does my profile reflect my actual won-loss record. I have actually won 12 lost 5 more games of gothic chess than my profile shows. Yet because I won one of those matches 4-0 and won another 2-1 and lost another 0-4 and am ahead in 3 matches 2-0;my rating doesn't show it.

Relevant is only one vote : Fencer`s!

Exactly, Caissus.

I used to agree with you ted. I thought games within a match should be rated individually. But I have changed my thinking. Now, I can challenge someone that I am fairly confident I can beat to, say, a three wins match. If I stumble and make a boneheaded move, I might lose one game, but since only the entire match is rated, the loss does not appear in my ratings. Is this fair? Maybe not. But, since we all play under the same ratings rules, maybe it is. It should certainly encourage the top players who want to protect their ratings to play more, and that is a very good thing. I know of other gaming sites where that is a big problem. I'm sure that doesn't solve your problem, but maybe it softens the sting a little. ;-)

so stinky socks shows up to defend Walter out of the clear blue sky? something stinks in here. step down Walter.

It`s time to ban at last Thomas Barnes and to change the board to "Pawns must be approved"!

you are insane.

I don't think he was defending Walter - he said the same thing I would have if he did not first - You can't really count the pawns votes - since it looks like they are just on the site to only vote (fake accounts). (not all pawns, but at least 2 there I seen.)

Plus Caissus has it right, all it takes is one vote to remove a Moderator - that is Fencer's. If it was votes of users, then Trice would have been removed from this site long ago.

stinky socks looks fake you ask me. no interest in the game then he just shows up. fake. fake. fake. meanwhile the goose stepping moron from the country whose V1 rocket campaign bombed my grandparents back to the stone age jumps in.

I hear a hint of discrimination from you.. What.. you don't think pawns count??

What.. are you better than a pawn.. ?? Thomas has every right to his own opinion as well..

Geez!!

Nonsense..weak level,Scarlett.

Don't try to intimidate me.. Cas.. You are just man.. You ARE the weaker sex..

As a Pawn, I admit we are not entitled to as many rights as paying members. In any case, maybe Fencer should just make moderating rules such that there is never any dispute as to who can ban who, who can become moderator etc. It's just too loose as it is now...

A good site should have a solid set of rules that everyone WILL follow or not be part of the site. I've written the main policy document for an Internet Relay Chat network in the past and, believe me, there are a LOT of things that need to be taken care of in that environment. In the end, IRC operators (like discussion board moderators here) have an effective tool to police an otherwise unmanageable mess...

ThomasBarnes, I can vouch for smelly socks, he is not 'fake', he's just one of the many who read this board who normally choose not to post. Name calling won't help any situation.

Anyway even if you count the pawn accounts, 10 votes out of 11478 members isn't bad ;o)

Well looking at a couple of the pawn accounts, 2 were made withing the last week - one not even playing games.... so if you want to include fake pawn accounts in this "vote" of yours, then give me about an hour and I'll have 50 votes against this little vote of yours.

Some pawn votes should count and some should not. It is easy to tell which are which. It just takes a few clicks.

1) If you are a true player here and haven't expressed an opinion, please do so.

2) If your account was just recently created, we will not count your vote, so please don't bother posting here. We have enough going on as is.


I would really like to see this board come back under control. I think the only way for that to happen is for Walter to resign as moderator (Fencer has basically told me that if Walter requests to be removed, it will be done). I have asked Walter to please step down.

I would like to continue to see everyone's opinions posted here for all to see.

Thad

Thad - you are not going to get too many more to post here - just look when Socks posted, he was jumped on right away.

My opinion to bring this board back under control - Change it so posts have to be approved for everyone. Then only approve post which deal with the subject of Gothic Chess.

Ok, thanks for your thoughts BBW. If I can't get this situation resolved shortly, I suppose it will have to come to that. I will only switch to that as a last resort. Unfortunately, we are nearing that point.

For what it's worth, I agree with BBW.

Thad, no disrespect to either of you, but since you ask for opinions... I think the only way for this board to 'come back under control' is for you and Walter to make some ground rules about how to run this board - preferably privately - and to stick to them. Right now people are taking advantage of you two not getting along. Instead of asking Walter to resign, work at creating a system that you both are happy with.

Discussion about patents, lawsuits, and moderators. :)

You only want dedicated players?!

Your own little kingdom :o)

No, Ed, this board IS a concern of mine, harley, BBW and everyone else that wants the best for brainking. At the moment this board is a mess - a mess that is not good for prospective members to read. We are trying to resolve the situation.

Actually I don't remember saying his or anyone who does not play the game often opinion does not matter - just that fake pawn accounts should not.

And if you must know, the only reason I don't play Gothic Chess or offer that game in any of my "all game" tournament is that I don't know how much longer the game will be left on the site, and I don't want to be stuck in middle of games when it is removed, or have players stuck in my tournaments when the game is removed. As a side note, I am signed up for the Gothic Chess team tournament but is one of the less popular variants so probable will not start any time soon.

OH NO - Trice lied about what I posted - EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. Going to be a Trice and call my lawyer and sue... Whaaaaaaaaa Whaaaaaaa Whaaaaaa

(sorry, that was my Trice impression)