Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Earlier Reverse Order Later
[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Feb 9, 2011 05:18 PM UTC:
Every so often, we get discussions about what should, or more accurately,
should not be allowed on these pages. As the person primarily responsible
for what got posted and what got censored for the past 2-3 years, I am the
one to whom you should direct your complaints [or compliments, although I
know better ;-)] about what shows up here.

My policies are few and simple. I push politeness and abstract strategy
games. I oppose censorship. Simple ideals to state. Implementation is a bit
more difficult; reality is far messier than the printed page. In practice,
this means I will post anything that approaches chess and is written to a
minimum standard. I will also delete comments that I feel have overstepped
the boundaries of this site. This is a 'G' rated site - one for general
audiences, including children. A certain level of civility needs to be
maintained. To this end, I ask that all comments address the post and not
the poster. Don't get personal. It only detracts from what you may be
trying to say, and it will provoke a response if not curtailed. 

Having discussed censoring people's comments, let's move to censoring a
page, whether a game, piece, or information page. It has been suggested
that an editor might be more discriminating in choosing what to post or
reject. The great bulk of what I've rejected has been poorly-written game
pages. Consider some of what's made it onto the site; now imagine how bad
something has to be to get rejected. People, you can do better. Rarely, I
get an exact duplicate of a game I know is already posted. These people are
always disappointed that their great idea is already online. I do, however,
require something new and legible. Understandable - sometimes that's a
judgment call. Worthwhile - that's always a judgment call.

So why don't I make those calls? On what basis should I make them?
There's either personal taste or some general principles. Personal taste?
I started by designing 4D variants, then ran shatranj all the way out to
'Next Chess'. Recently I started a free-for-all with a game that uses
leadership rules to structure multimove variants. Based on my designs, I'm
prejudiced against boards smaller than 10x10, pieces that don't capture by
replacement, en passant, castling, and any piece that moves more than 4
squares. You sure you want my tastes? That leaves general principles. 

What principles do I adopt that exclude games, pieces, or information
pages? The same problems as above apply, although we reach them by a
somewhat different direction. How do I exclude people? Well, to be fair,
what's the purpose of the site? To celebrate chess and chess variants, and
make them available to everyone. To me, this means the site is 'G' rated,
and anything that approaches chess and is coherently put together should be
made available. It's not like we don't have the room. I encourage
creativity. Who knows what a person's next game will be like?

'So why don't I make those calls?' I do. You may not agree with the
results. I encourage you to comment, civilly, on any page you like or
dislike. That's why we have a rating system. People can learn from good
feedback. People can't learn anything if the idea never sees the light of
day. No one person can speak for everyone, I believe in allowing people to
speak [politely] for themselves.

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Wed, Feb 9, 2011 06:06 PM UTC:
Joe, the main issue here does not concern posting games. It is about
posting pages that are more prescriptive than they are descriptive. This
site is about providing people with information. It should not be about
prescribing what names people should call pieces. If this is the personal
interest of a contributor, and we post his pages, there needs to be a clear
disclaimer that we, as a site, are not prescribing anything.

Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Feb 9, 2011 07:01 PM UTC:
Hey, Fergus. A specific issue, of Charles' piece lists for example, was
not the sole inspiration for the editorial, but rather an attitude I sense
on occasion, and which has started to crop up again in various comments. I
wanted to warn everyone before I felt obligated to act. This generally
saves a lot of trouble in the medium and long run. 

As for the categorizing of submissions, well, the site might want to update
a little. It wouldn't hurt. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to
tackle it, though. Grin, my track record indicates I'm too easy.

Charles Gilman wrote on Sun, Feb 13, 2011 07:54 AM UTC:
Talking about things that editors do, a year ago I sent an update to
Honeycomb Chess, an old-style page, and it has yet to be posted. Is the
address on the 'contact us' page out of date, or is there some way that
non-editors can update their own old-style pages, or is it just that
updating these pages is low on editors' priorities and it's better to
send to a particular editor? I am planning to send an update to another
page soon, and want to get that one to the right address too.

Charles Gilman wrote on Sat, Feb 19, 2011 07:34 AM UTC:
I have now completed the file for the second update and am eager to send it
for posting. Where should I post it, and should I send the Honeycomb one as
well? Will sending them in a zip file help?

Steven Streetman wrote on Sat, Feb 19, 2011 04:39 PM UTC:
Sorry about the lengthy nature of the next post on submitting a Chess
Variant.

Some of you, who I have emailed these instructions to, have already found them useful. If you are not about to post a chess variant you will probably just find the post cluttering up your screen. If I could have posted this and just had one line appear on the comments page I would have done that. Sorry once again.

Charles Gilman wrote on Mon, Feb 21, 2011 07:04 AM UTC:
Steven Streetman's comment in all very well for (a) brand new variants and
(b) variants already in PYO format, but what about a page created before
PYO existed? Surely it would be wrong to set such a page in stone even
against the will of the variants's own inventor.

7 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.