Single Comment

Mats, I must start with an apology. My statement was emotional and rather
over-the-top, instead of reasonable. I'm sorry. I should not have posted
that statement. I was wrong to do so. And my display of bad manners makes
my arguments about your conduct far more difficult to prosecute either
successfully or comfortably. 
Nevertheless, I will attempt to explain where our differences lie. I will
copy some of the CV comments:
2006-05-30	Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther	None	Joe, I followed your
suggestion and replaced the knights with Elks, instead of the rooks. It's
implemented as a variant in my Elk Chess. It seems to work fine, too. I
think it has to do with the fact that the Elk's value is on a par with
the other pieces. If one introduces Chancellors to the Fide setup, I
don't think the game would work very well.
--Mats
(and now I've uploaded a bugfixed version)
2006-06-01	Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce	None	
Hi, Mats. Shouldn't I at least get honorable mention on your Elk Chess
page for coming up with Elk Chess II? ;-) Joe
2006-06-01	Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther	None	
Joe, no that does not qualify to be mentioned! But I am still not
convinced
that the notion of Elks together with Rooks works that well. What are the
Rooks supposed to do when the Elk takes control of an open file? They
can't oppose because the rook is worth more than the Elk. However, I
later found out that, thanks to Elks, one can play on the wings instead
and temporarily ignore the open files. So it's possible that this
variant
works anyway. Time will tell.
--Mats [end of quotes]
Quite a change in attitude in a very short period of time. Another quote:
2006-06-02	Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther	None	
Joe, I don't know what got you upset. If it was the trivial idea of
replacing the knights with Elks, I had already investigated that before
you proposed it, and I had dismissed it, for reasons I already  told. But
when you proposed it again I investigated it again, and decided to add it
as a variant. [eoq]
If the variant is that trivial and you had already investigated and
dismissed it, why include it in your game? Especially without noting its
poorness? If it was worth including in the game, it was worth crediting.
You are trying to have it both ways. I object to that general attitude.
Further, you have changed your page to include references  and links to
everyone but me - thanks! That was a good laugh. (Seriously, I did laugh;
it reminded me so much of work.) That you went back and changed your pages
after I made my comments says something about the relative merits of our
positions. 
Here, I must apologize again. That I implied you gave no credit at all was
wrong and misleading. This is where I went over the top. You did, when you
became aware of their existance, name the games that contained the Squire.
I will state here that I do not remember any designers names associated
with the games you credited on your Mammoth Chess page when I looked at it
a few days ago. Again, I state this is wrong. 
Cavalier expropriation of ideas and a reluctance to credit either sources
or original creators coupled with a dismissive and condescending attitude
first made me seriously consider saying something. But, finally, it was
your dismissive and condescending statements toward others that prompted
me to respond. Telling Alfred Pfeiffer to, in effect, run along and stop
bothering you as you no longer have the time to bother with chess was what
got me irked enough to write. Mr. Pfeiffer wrote a nice expansion of your
initial idea, adding details that clearly could enhance the game. You
said:
2006-06-01	Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther	None	
Alfred, I think I will have a break now. If you have a good game idea you
could always ask somebody at the Zillions site to implement it. Sometimes
they will.
--Mats [eoq]
Now run along home like a nice boy - not. I'm a New Yorker. I know when
I've been dissed, and when others have. I do not like to be in this
position, but, as it occurred in a public forum, I felt and still feel it
must be addressed publicly. In a forum like CV, all we have are our ideas
and our willingness to work. Everybody should be credited, no matter how
trivial the idea or how invisible the work. That everybody plays in good
faith should be a fundamental principle of this site. This is my main
position, and I have no hesitation in asking every member of this site to
weigh in on this question.
This post is already too long. While there is much more I wish to say, I
will sum up my 2 main points:
 I apologize for my improper emotional post, it should not have happened.
 Give credit where it is due, and it's due if you are aware, or should
be, of the existance of a reason to give it. 
Finally, I will say again that you are an excellent piece designer
(although I think you need to work a little on game design); and I'd much
rather we played nice together. 
 Joe Joyce