[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item ⇩Latest ⇩Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Howe wrote on 2002-04-16 UTCI have made a change in the comment listing page. All non-HTML comments that are over 20 lines long are truncated at 20 lines with a link to view the entire comment. This was done is response to unusually long comments. I am not complaining about these comments, just trying to reduce the amount of scrolling required when browsing. Feel free to make alternate suggestions as this feedback/messaging system is a work-in-progress. Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-11 UTCHey, David. Somehow my last comment in the 'Rook-Level Chess' thread turned into its own 'Rook-Level' thread (no 'Chess'). Any ideas? <p><i>Hey Peter, I think it's fixed. There was an issue with spaces I think. Time will tell...</i> Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★It would be nice if a place to click to create a new subject at the top of the comments page. Right now, as far as I can tell, you have to page down until you find an existing thread, and click there. David Howe wrote on 2002-04-05 UTCOk, I'll look into extending the feedback system to allow some sort of message threading based on something other than existing pages. I understand why people do not like the yahoo group system, although it does have some nice features. Give me a few days to come up with something. gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-05 UTCExcellent ★★★★★The comment system allows you to see the whole discussion on one page, instead of needing to access (and then page down past all the garbage) a new page for each message. This is a huge advantage, and I expect that people will abandon the yahoo thingy and flock to the chessvariants.com comment pages. John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-05 UTCI fall between Peter and David here. When I write a comment, I don't really plan it. Something in the page, or another comment sets me off, and I just start writing. If it leads somewhere not completely germaine to the page being commented on, so be it. BUT, the result is that discussions that are potentially interesting or inspiring get buried attached to pages that effectively conceal them from later browsers. (Look at the recent discussion attached to the 'Archoniclastic Chess' page.) To do the thing properly, comments should be limited to the variant they are attached to, and any flight of fancy should be moved to the discussion group. I think this is against human nature (at least mine) and I would probably never make 50% of those posts. Furthermore, the discussion group posting may be cryptic outside of context of the variant page that inspired it. On the other side, the number of people 'misusing' the comment system are relatively small. It would be a huge waste of time and resources to build a parallel discussion system for a handful of 'chatterers'. Also, the public discussion board has a better possibility of attracting random searchers. Maybe a compromise is possible. Let me note here that I am no programmer, and I have no idea how difficult any particular idea would be to implement. An idea that seems simple to me might be to allow the writer of an extended comment to select a small set of keywords ('Ruddigore', 'double-move') which the comment system could also search for. Better ideas? Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-04 UTCIt would seem kind of redundent to have you build a discussion group when we already have one. However. There would be some advantages to a home-built discussion board: <ul> <p> <li>It could be integrated with the comment system. What <strong>I</strong> would like to have is a single system where both comments and general discussion are displayed in order of posting. It seems awkward to me to have two different systems with two different user interfaces for one purpose: discussing Chess variants. And I know for a fact there are for both people who use one but not the other.</li> <p> <li>It would be faster (it would hard to be slower!).</li> <p> <li>It wouldn't have all of the stupid advertising the current incarnation of the discussion group has.</li> </ul> <p> But still, it would seem like a lot of work for something which we already have, if not in ideal form. David Howe wrote on 2002-04-04 UTCWhile I agree that discussions of new game ideas are valuable, I don't think they are appropriate for the feedback and rating system. It's better to keep the discussions relating to a particular page on our internal feedback system, and use our discussion group when the commentary digresses to new game ideas. The discussion group has many more features than my crude feedback system, so I think it's better to use that. That is, unless you want me to build a discussion group system that lives on the chess variant pages... :) John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-03 UTCSo, given the amount of chatter about Chatter Chess and Ruddigore Chess and so on, do we need 'virtual' comment pages so we can discuss variants that haven't actually been posted? Then, going forward, the comments will be where they belong. I mean, who's going to think about looking for comments about Ruddigore Chess attached to the Archoniclastic Chess page? Also, to David, I like the little subtle link to the recent comments at the top of the What's New page, but I don't think in GMT. Maybe we could include the current time in GMT, or the time elapsed since the last comment, or something like that. Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-03 UTCI'll add <b>Ruddigore Chess</b> to my 'to do' list, but since that's already 1.83 miles long, don't expect it this quarter. But I will almost certainly write a Zillions Rules File for it, and bully poor Tony Quintanilla into playing it with me by e-mail so I can see if it works or not before publishing. Someday. <p> (I realize I don't <em>need</em> Zillions to play the game by e-mail, but it makes it more convenient and enforces rules that might get missed. Also, I find programming a game a good way to examine a game's rules in details.) gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-03 UTCExcellent ★★★★★If you think Ruddigore Chess seems playable, by all means test a bit more and write it up! You're the inventor. I just blathered away with a crude sketch of the rules and a crazy suggestion, you saw the possibilities and found the specific rule-set that makes it work -- in other words, you do all the hard work, it's your game. <P> You'll mention me, of course, but you know I would never have pursued the idea further... Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2002-04-03 UTCDavid, will this page be linked to the side bar somehow? That would help in the future when it is not longer the new item in the Feedback page. Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCIt seems to me that <b>Ruddigore Chess</b> actually seems playable! But I would suggest that the first three turns be declared a Bank Holiday with no capturing required. Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★David, Peter, great idea! This makes it easy to comment, is practical, timely, and should have a wide audience. gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Most of the recent flood of commants/feebback was caused by my article on ''Chatter Chess'''', which has not yet been seen. <P> Imagine what may happen if chatter chess ever sees the light of day, will the comment system be able to handle such volume? <P> These are important considerations.... <P> <Blink> gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCPoor ★if a comment is submitted in non-html mode, things that appear to be html tags are not printed. But the preview prints them!!! <P> The previous line appears blank but contained left-angle-bracket. P, right-angle-bracket. In preview mode, I saw the html tag, but when viewing comments I see a blank line. <P> This is inconsistent behavior. gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCPoor ★if a comment is submitted in non-html mode, things that appear to be html tags are not printed. Are they interpreted? here's an hr:<HR> <P> The previous line appears blank but contained left-angle-bracket. P, right-angle-bracket. <P> This is inconsistent behavior. gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCPoor ★if a comment is submitted in html mode, its left margin is indented. <P> Non-html comments start at page left. <P> The above is true when viewing with lynx. Your mileage may vary if you use any of the inferior alternatives. <P> gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Perhaps html mode does not work. I see no link about cockles. <P> It should be noted that those who use an invisible smiley must make arrangements to pay a null royalty to me. It was I who invented it, for use in afu. <P> I will type in a <A HREF=http://www.lynx.browser.org/>link</a> to test html-mode comments. gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★What about ratings abysmal, mediocre, and superb? Keeping the discussion alive alive O, I always thot that cockles were a type of dialectic seafood, suitable for the musselbound. However, if in doubt, the question can be submitted to alt.usage.english, a font of linguistic wisdom. Submit without review is not necessary as long as it is made obvious that submit can be found within review: we are accustomed to pesky and insecure programs asking us 'are you sure, are you really reaaly sure, should I do what you said or are you a jerk? 99 and 44/100ths, not 99.4; Ivory Soap (tm). It's your turn in the barrel, as Safire recently apologized for saying -- the phrase is the punchline of a *dirty* joke, you see. Many adages and colloquialisms come from jokes or from Ad Age; and they are ephemeral, for example who today would know what ad agency I one worked for if I specify that it sounds like a suitcase falling down a flight of stairs, as Marcel Duchamp once said. Oh, sorry, it was Fred Allen who said it. As comedians in the Borscht Belt once asked, 'Where's the beet?' Back to topic, how can there be a Comdey Chess, in which every move is a joke?? John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCRegarding 'cockles', below. Note that the link actually provides no solution to the meaning of 'cockles' in this sense. Neither does the Oxford English Dictionary, which has much the same info as the editor's link. The upshot is, we don't know what 'cockles' are. I once read a hypothesis that suggested that expressions that were used formulaicly, but made no sense (like 'dead as a doornail') were actually the punchlines of forgotten jokes. Sounds dopey, but think of how many punchlines you use as metaphors in colloquial conversation, and how often you really tell the jokes they go with. Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-01 UTCPrevious comment has an invisble smiley. Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-01 UTCOnce more, with feeling! <p> John Lawson wrote: <blockquote> 'And on the other topic, once youopen the door to Gilbert and Sullivan chess, logic dictates all sorts of generalizations (Aristophanes chess, Tolstoi chess, Rowling chess, ad...ad...I dunno)' </blockquote> And all of them potentially good articles that would warm the cockles an an editor's heart (assuming they have any -- and just what the heck <em>are</em> cockles anyway?). When do you think you can start? <g> <p>Editor's note: <a href="http://www.word-detective.com/012199.html#cockles">cockles</a> --DH. Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-01 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Thanks for the space, David (my mind, <em>tidy</em>? -- now there's a strange concept!). <p>[I'd have said you had a beautiful mind, but that phrase was already taken. --DH] David Howe wrote on 2002-04-01 UTCOk, it's here. The general comments page. Have at it!! 25 comments displayed⇩Latest ⇩Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.