I agree, auto-pass should be an option at the user level. If I could make my turns automatically pass, or make the only move available then I would choose to do so.

i find it annoying sometimes too!!!! when i am in the middle of talking and then get the message about the turn being passed!!!! I certainly would not like to see it here...

This is a great site with so many great features... be thankful for what you have got and the speed fencer works at to get things sorted and also the replies to us all :)

i agree, the site is very good. I pay here and no longer pay at iyt. I am just saying that I would prefer that feature, especially in games that take a long time as it is (e.g backgammon).

I was wondering if it was ever brought up about having the Tournament Creator have the option of setting a 1...2...3 wins in place of the standard 3 wins. I myself prefer 1 win, or have all the games rated which would help alot! At least the choice should be up to the Creator of the tournament! What do ya think Fencer?

That is a feature that has been discussed on here even long before I first came to the site. (Because I also brought it up. *EDIT - Just looked, did that on Feb 18th, 2003!)

I believe one of the original reasons Fencer did not want to put it in is because it would take away an option to chat in between moves.... or a conversation could get lost or something.

But it would be a great option - I have been playing a backgammon game recently where in 20 moves, 19 of them were me just passing.

Anyway, it could work. For example, if I make a move, and the next person can not move, the computer lets me keep moving until the other person can move. Then when the other person comes on line, they will get a message like "You could not move for XX turns, would you like to go through each move or go to current move?" - Then they could go through each move if they wanted, or just skip to the current move which is ready for them to make.

But, bottom line is Fencer does not want it, so O'well.

Maybe Fencer can give us his reasons again. I should think that at least 90% of the members would like an auto pass feature.

The other reason (besides the inability to chat between moves) was that the board can change substantially in one move (for example, in reversi (or even backgammon)) that it could be even more confusing to new players who maybe just learned the rules. It could (and likely would) also cause many many many complains / comments regarding "My opponent is cheating." or "This game doesn't look right." or "Why did my opponent get to move more than once?" or something like that.

that is why it should be a user choice. Beginners can choose not too turn it on.

If it was a users choice to turn it on, what if the other player didn't want it?.. I can see mud slinging starting there in that particular case..

This site is different, you can see the whole chat in the same window as the game itself. Other sites only show the last message.
So I dont think the loss of converstion is a valid reason.
I find Reversi so frustrating when I wait ages to move when the other player has no moves available for a handfull of moves

I wouldn't want to use auto-pass in the gammon games once the cube becomes available.

Well I think, if you don't like the apples, don't climb the tree.

Cant see how a chat should get lost, but if that's the only reason/excuse i suppose we have to accept it.

What about this: It would be a complete pointless waste of my time to program it, if I want to use your expression.
Shortly - I don't want to do it. Kevin already pointed out all my reasons.

He said his reasons were pointed out. He didn't say it was because it was too difficult to program. It would help if you would read his post?

LJ, I've never said anything too you until now. But reading your post all over the place, I feel I must now. You are the most pessimistic, negative, gloomy, distrustful, cynical, unenthusiastic person I've ever seen on here. Ever heard that saying "If you don't have anything good to say, just don't say anything"??? Well you should just leave it alone. I know this post is off-topic. LJ if you wish to reply to what I have said, please do so in the Boiler Room.

Look I agree that it is a needed feature, but I don't run this site. If Fencer says that how he wants it then so be it. I like the other features enough that I'll continue to be a paying member here. If you don't like the way the site is ran, then don't let the door hit you in a** on the way out.

#1 refer to these two post below

Fencer 2004/02/29, 11:09:37
What about this: It would be a complete pointless waste of my time to program it, if I want to use your expression.
Shortly - I don't want to do it. Kevin already pointed out all my reasons.

Kevin 2004/02/29, 00:05:50
The other reason (besides the inability to chat between moves) was that the board can change substantially in one move (for example, in reversi (or even backgammon)) that it could be even more confusing to new players who maybe just learned the rules. It could (and likely would) also cause many many many complains / comments regarding "My opponent is cheating." or "This game doesn't look right." or "Why did my opponent get to move more than once?" or something like that.

#2. It's Fencers site.
#3. When in doubt, refer to rule #2.

Long John, people are split on this subject. Not EVERYBODY wants automatic moves. Fencer cannot please everyone, and his decision on this is not to have it. It makes some people happy, but not others. As I said, he can't please everyone. But thats his decision and there isn't much point in 'translating' (i.e twisting) his words to try to change his mind. I doubt that will work.

Reason #1 - "the board can change substantially in one move" - I don't think this is a valid reason, because if someone has the "Auto-Move" feature turned off, they can still be able to go through each move (or each pass) as if it were happeing - just to speed things up, they can do all the moves in a row so they don't get lost, and the other person does not have to wait 15-20 moves.

NOTE: Good point about double cube in the Gammon games, there may be times I have a pass situation but want to double - so auto-pass would not work in those games, without more complex programming and such like DailyGammon has to "roll-back" the game to the point of the double.

But I guess my thinking is even if not everyone wants to use Auto-Pass, they could simply turn off the feature and go through each move and hit "pass" - while the other person has already went through the same moves. The only difference is it would take only a few mintues, instead of days/weeks/months to go through the 15-20 passed moves!

Bottom line - But the most important rule is this is Fencer's site, and if he does not want a certain feature or game or something, then it is 100% his decision not to have it. (Hopefully he will keep an open mind about what others want and read all opinions, but that is his choice.) So if he does not want it, that is cool with me - As long as he knows others think this would work well at this site.

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

Reality is that you assume that being right has a special degree of objectivity where you're concerned, it's not the case, plenty of people disagree with you on all the things you feel are self evident. That's life.

Maybe Fencer prefers to not be bothered with it beccause he has a lot of other more important things to work on. There are 11 games in development showed above. The site is working better and better and this is because he is working on it. I agree with backoff, if you dont like it, leave.

Hear hear. Its like I said. If you don't like the heat,stay out of the kitchen.

Yes, performance and reliability are more important than features. Having said that this feature is obviously worth doing as an optional flag for the user. People who don't like it can choose not to activate it, thus pleasing all the people. :)

I wouldn't recommend that. Picture this...

One user (say a new player, although it doesn't matter) decides to turn this automatic passing off. They play a game with a user like Long John who feels the most important thing on this site is for games to go as fast as possible. It so happens that LJ is to make several moves in a row as his opponent cannot move. However, because this user has the option turned off, each move must still be passed. And it turns into a similar situation as to what happened with the whole resignation things - whoever doesn't turn this "option" on will be pressured by such users into turning it on and it would turn into a huge argument about "It's an option for a reason" and "If you can't make a move, why not let me move again?".

oh well, i think that the bigger problem is that some players play so many games that they only move every 3-4 days and sometimes not at all for a long time. I have played some games that drag on forever and I lose the context.

Kevin - This is how I would have it so a situation like that would not happen.

Lets say I'm playing User A which has the "Auto-Pass" option turned on. I make a move, person A can not move, so I'm allowed to make another move RIGHT AWAY without no wait. User A comes on-line, goes to the game and because he has "Auto-Pass" turned on, it goes directly to the current move that is ready to be made (possible with a little note saying "XX number of passes were made for you because you had no moves".

Now lets say I'm playing User B that DOES NOT have "Auto-Pass" turned on. I make my move, and the other player does not have a move so RIGHT AWAY I'm able to make another move (note - Still the same for both options). (now is where it will differ). User B logs on, and because they have auto-pass turned off, they will now see the FIRST screen where they have to pass. They can then RIGHT AWAY go through all the screens just like normal and just hit "pass" after "pass", since the other player has already moved.

This way User B does not get "lost" with a board looking different - they are able to go through all the screens like normal.

As for an example, I just recently had a backgammon game where I had 19 out of 20 moves that were passes - and this took a couple of weeks just to go through those moves. All those could have been done basicly in one day! Even if a person has it turned off or on, it still would have taken one day.... just the person with it off would have went through EVERY screen instead of just trusting the computer and going to the last screen.

At least that is how I would do this option, with the only exception being backgammon with a CUBE dice since it is possible for a person to cube even if they pass.

I hope I explained that well enough - if not, I'll try to do it a little better. :-)

... So what I'm actually saying is that there really is not a way to turn off the auto-pass.

The option would really be if you want to actually see everything screen, or just auto-pass to the current move. If you elect to see every screen, then you would still be able to chat and comment on every move, and since all the conversation stays on the page, it would also not be lost.

Maybe we could have a poll and find out how many members who think its fun to send a "not touched"
game back and forth across the Atlantic LOL

DId i hear correctly??
LongJohn saying he will not renew his membership??
Fencer if that is the case, please accept it and I will pay for another non-paying Member to replace him.

I and a lot of others are sick of hearing his complaints and I must agree with Backoff when he says""most pessimistic, negative, gloomy, distrustful, cynical, unenthusiastic person I've ever seen on here. Ever heard that saying "If you don't have anything good to say, just don't say anything"???""

This man WILL attack me on every board that he can post on, and it is starting to wear thin.

He even used me as an example of why something would not work....the arrogance of the man is intolerable so Fencer please accept his resignation and at such time i will send you a replacement membership :)
I hope this will be a deal :)

That's enough. This board is for feature requests, not for arguments. And it's absolutely normal that some requests are accepted and some requests are rejected because, as harley said, nothing can make everyone happy. When I say "NO", it means "NO" and it's pointless to bring the topic back here. It can be discussed elsewhere.
Renewing a membership is optional, not mandatory. I don't force anybody to do it.

hopefully LJ wont and give a few of us a bit of peace :)

the only reason I came into here was because i was used as an example, and Memebers told me of his attack on me..
"""This might confuse the old timers such as Bernie, but I think the rest of us could understand it ok"""

Im sorry to have to keep on apologising for this mans continued harrassment of myself and others...
I personally think somethink should be done about it....there have been to many complaints on the boards in general

Long 'if I don't agree it's wrong' John resigned a couple games because 'I can't be bothered playing so slow'. Tough noogies. As for the feature? There are times when I know it would have come in handy, but I'm not really thrilled about the idea, so I, for one, am quite glad Fencer has vetoed the concept. I guess I must be 'blind'.

as you said....tough noogies :)
agreed..Peace will reign :)

I was wondering if it was ever brought up about having the Tournament Creator have the option of setting a 1...2...3 wins in place of the standard 3 wins. I myself prefer 1 win, or have all the games rated which would help alot! At least the choice should be up to the Creator of the tournament! What do ya think Fencer?

How about letting user see who is on another persons friends/enemies list.

I normally would think this is a bad idea, but since privacy is not an issue here, and you plan to keep the "spy" what you are doing option, I think this would be a great way to dig a little deeper into other users personal busness!

LOL @ BBW! But actually, I'd like to see that! I recently found I was on 2 peoples enemies lists that I have never played a game with and as far as I know I've never spoken to them! (Not bad going!) But I did think then that it would be a nice idea if we knew whose enemies lists we were on!

You guys are having a laugh, right? You can't be serious.

The public boards would soon become clogged with people demanding to know why so-and-so is on so-and-so's enemies list.
Not so good for the youngsters here who have been advised to avoid certain people.

The need to know is for the paranoids among us. If someone's on an enemies list, it's for a reason. No-one needs to know why.

I agree with Bumble,
Youll soon find out if you on it, when you try to send a message etc.
So no need to show it really

It's funny though. I haven't got anybody on my enemies list. I prefer to work by the maxim, 'Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer'!

I have a load of people on my friends list but there are about 6 that I haven't got the faintest idea who they are.
Their profiles offer no clues. It's because they've changed their ids.
I've stopped short of sending a pm along the lines of 'Hi, you're on my friends list! Who are you?'

A short description next to a friend's name should solve this problem of "I don't know you" ;-)

I have the same Bumble, shed loads on friends, (inc people I dont get on with) none at all on enemies :o)

Thanks Fencer. :-)

A lot of people don't understand how this system works. A request is made then Fencer needs a bit of time to chisel out his commndment on a tablet of stone, then the moderator has to trek to the mountain top to collect the stone then trek back down again to deliver his decree to the people. :-)

Well as long as the moderator doesn't get mad at all of us and throw the tablets down and shatter them....

Well bumble was going to add a rockery to the garden this year.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Wrong board....

Unless the rockery is not gonna have a central feature, then we could request one ;oÞ

Yeah, a statue of Fencer. (Duw, what a thought!)

It'd make achange from garden gnomes - and I'm leaving this conversation pretty sharpish...!

How do you put a description next to someones name?

It was a proposal for implementation.

Gee wiz..... I knew that! LOL....Thanks Fencer :)