[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Hubert wrote on Fri, Jan 27, 2012 02:37 AM UTC:Christine, I see no reason to be so compassionate toward Jepps. Here is what happened. I came here and criticized game for clarity and unoriginality and rated it poor. (I also question the use of 'Seirawan' as part of the name, Is this coopt of the name of a living grandmaster's variant? But maybe he had permission.). Jepps answered rudely with insult. I asked if I was breaking community tradition with my rating and comment and should I use system differently. Jepps accuses me of hating him because I am British, a very strange thing, almost paranoid, and based on no evidence. I respond no, I am not British. Jepps then quits website with rant against British, completely irrelevant to what had happened in this sequence. Look at Jepps website. He thinks he is author of scripture, transcendent being, founder of Jeppsian order of monks, has self-named with a word that means 'sacred'. Extreme ego. And what about sacred transcendent being that is bigoted toward British people? Very weird personality that I have no sympathy for.
Possibly, the most exciting thread of all time. And i see we have probably another Mr. Hubert comment coming, lol. Jörg, look, i can do your name perfectly, hehe. I also blame you for this latest .. activity, lol (**smiling and said in a joking way**). And you too Charles, hehe (**said in same way as above comment**). It would be a pity if we lost Simon from this website.
Hubert wrote on Thu, Jan 26, 2012 07:14 PM UTC:I went to your website, Jepps, and now I understand you better. Jepps 'bible', Jepps 'scripture', Jeppsian 'faith'. Simon Edward Jepps, also known as Svoreign Jepps by spiritual transcendence. You proclaim yourself as self-annointed prophet and transcendent being. Your reaction to criticism is now clearer.
Note that Jeppseirawn has 6 Ratings now with average of 'Good'. After 36 comments, basically this comment thread is filled with vapidity, at best people are holding off till they study the CV, so a mere 6 ratings. Charles Gilman saying 'It would take a lot of practice to get used to these pieces'? That ramifies strangely in several ways, not least does Charles dutifully play-test then unbeknownst? I would think no, rather so much time spent on interesting cataloguing. This CV of Jepps looks pretty creative, but not having much read either accompanying comments or fully the rules-set so far, I was more interested in couple CVs he already posted not yet more than glanced at for other priority. So hoping his material somehow gets resolved to stay available for future inquiry.
Please remove all my games, my account and all my comments. The British do not deserve to read my works let alone comment on them. I therefore do not wish to be a part of this community.
Thanks for the agreement, Mr Gilman, although I find it odd, since you have made many unmemorable pieces yourself and given them many unmemorable names. Not to pick fight here, but it seems you might be on shaky ground calling Jepps pieces unmemorable.
Jepps, I do not understand conclusion that I am British, what is that based on? I am not British. Recent comment was not even about your game but rather about community consensus on how to comment and using rating system, and I thought it reasonable to ask as follow up to a comment of yours, actually more respectful to you than you are being to me. I hope not all posters of games here are so short tempered.
If it were not acceptable to rate a variant as poor, the rating would not be available. Also, if only flattering things were said about a variant, that might look like the consensus. How is someone supposed to assert that they have read the page and previous complimentary coments and does not agree with them? I can see what Hubert means, the two pieces are not very memorable. If 'Hawks sweep in from a distance and attack prey at their feet. They also hop forwards further than they do backwards. Elephants charge forwards and have two tusks which point left and right of their next step. They also have an L shaped trunk.' is supposed to be a mnemonic, it does not work as one. It would take a lot of practice to get used to these pieces.
this really does not have to get out of hand. (edits follow, less said the better i think) Look i don't really think Simon is saying everyone should only give positive feedback, that is what he himself does. He does have a point though, bad games get no good ratings and people dont talk about game, and the game passes into the sands of time. I was of the understanding, as far as everything i have seen on this website for years, that people can, and do, rate games poor, granted not much, but it happens, and no one appears to have a problem with that. There is not some type of policy that this cannot be done on this website, why would there be an option to rate 'poor' and 'average' or 'below average' etc etc.
Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with Hubert's criticism, but in my opinion Jepps' behavior in this thread has been indefensible. If you're not prepared to tolerate criticism of your work, you shouldn't make it public. The suggestion that only positive commentary should occur is childish and transparently self-serving, especially for someone who drummed up attention by rating his own game 'excellent' four separate times.
The 'Poor' rating is there for a reason, and anyone who thinks you can distinguish good amateur content purely by the quantity of attention garnered is sorely lacking in experience of such matters.
'Is it consensus here as Jepps says to say nothing if you do not like a game, to let silence speak for itself? If it is consensus, then that is what I will practice if I continue here. Also if so, perhaps we no longer need the ratings levels, just a thumbs up option?' I fully answered these questions, so i do not understand why you are asking again. Once more, people can bag any game they want, and rate it as they like.
Actually Hubert it's my game page and so for the 7 millionth time if you don't like it don't comment on it. Considering you so keenly wanted to rip it apart regardless of previous conversation I'd be keen to bet my bottom dollar you're British. No offence. ;)
Sorry, I do not understand 'see if you can find a Hawk that moves like a Bus and an Elephant that moves like a Kangaroo' unless it is sarcasm, perhaps? Is it consensus here as Jepps says to say nothing if you do not like a game, to let silence speak for itself? If it is consensus, then that is what I will practice if I continue here. Also if so, perhaps we no longer need the ratings levels, just a thumbs up option?
Hi Mr Hubert, how are you going :) ok, i think we both have not fully understood each other, so, let's see if we can fix this up. I will give an example of what i was trying to say earlier. I don't like the rook/knight and bishop/knight compound pieces, i find them frustrating to play with and too powerful, especially with the queen etc. That is my personal taste. I do appreciate these pieces though, they are classic fairy pieces, and there is nothing wrong with them. I would not rate a game 'poor' because they are in it (feel funny saying this cause i may release a game with these pieces in it, but there is a reason for that, haha). This is what i thought you were doing, rating a game 'poor' because you personally did not like the pieces, but i can see now, it is more than that. You don't like the pieces because of different reasons than i was thinking. Does that make sense? So i understand why you rated this game 'poor', even though i do not agree. And you can rate as you want, that is ok. Now, you said 'if it is inappropriate to rate a game poor when that is what you think then editors should remove that option.' No no, the editors here, i am pretty sure, do not think it is inappropriate to rate a game poor. It's an option because it is ok to rate that way. No editor said you shouldn't. And you said 'If editors want a 'don't say anything if you can't say nice' website that is their decision.' No, no editor said this, that is not a policy for the website. Also, not sure why you said '...you want me to rate game excellent?' Hmm, i don't think i said i wanted you to rate the game excellent did i? Anyway, all is good, hey, i think you should consider becoming a member of this site, i think it would be nice, you are having fun talking on forums, yes? Ok, hope i explained myself clear, laters :))
Oh by the way everyone, this game is also included as the fourth book to The Jeppsian Book Of The Living, so if you like philosophy, poetry, music and chess, then you can't lose.
;)
;)
@Hubert Oh well, guess it's just not your game. But there are zillions of others here. Go visit some of the other pages, see if you can find a Hawk that moves like a Bus and an Elephant that moves like a Kangaroo.
Incidentally there is no need to give negative feedback on any game which is why I as a member here never do and only ever give positive feedback. If a game is truly poor it will not receive the necessary ratings or positive comments required to be noticed anyway.
Just my opinion. ;)
Incidentally there is no need to give negative feedback on any game which is why I as a member here never do and only ever give positive feedback. If a game is truly poor it will not receive the necessary ratings or positive comments required to be noticed anyway.
Just my opinion. ;)
And yes I would rate many medieval chesses and old shogis poor because of too many different pieces types with not enough clarity. But Jeppsereiwan pieces are even more inelegant than those because of two types of divergence. And if it is inappropriate to rate a game poor when that is what you think then editors should remove that option. I rated game poor based on unoriginality (minor downgrade of existing games) and inelegance of new pieces. If editors want a 'don't say anything if you can't say nice' website that is their decision. But then you will see too many new low quality variants (there are too many already, some inventors think every impulse is great new variant).
Christina, if a game is all about two added pieces, is the only thing new about it, and I don't like the new pieces, you want me to rate game excellent? I think piece+pawn combinations are unesthetic. I think Jeppsereiwan is not a good variant because the new pieces are not very good, so I said so.
ok, sorry for my post, you are right, you are entitled to your opinion. It's just that, it is your opinoin, your personal taste, about the type of pieces you like. Because you like certain type of pieces, does not make a game that has other kind of pieces 'poor'. You would rate all the old medieval shogi games 'poor' i am guessing. They have pieces like .. 'moves 1-2 squares vertically, 1-3 squares diagonally and any amount of squares horizontally.' Even pieces that move in more harder ways to learn. There are pieces i don't really like, certain compound pieces, other people do not prefer them too, but heaps of other people like them. I am not going to go and rate these games 'poor', just because i personally dont like these pieces. when i first made games, i was not understanding much about 'piece density', and i made games that are 'horror's', because of too many pieces, these games can be rated 'poor', because of that reason. All they do now, is show what not to do, they show how a game is destroyed because of too many pieces, lol. But to rate a game 'poor' because you dont personally like pieces ... well, not the right thing to do, i think. Anyway, that is personal opinion i guess, haha. Sorry if i upset, my bad, i got to .. not post so fast hehe. All the best.
To Jones, there are some fairy pieces with good clarity (grasshopper, commoner, mastodon, camel, immobilizer, etc.) some with moderate (cardinal, marshal, wildebeest) and many with poor clarity (nightrider, bifurcators, coordinator, almost any from Gilman pages, many Betzas, Jeppseirawan). Poor clarity is main reason why so very few play or are interested in variants. If you like complex compound pieces with poor clarity, good for you, you play those games. Not saying you should not. But my opinion is that more clarity is better and this is page for opinions.
Colorful description and insulting rejoinder does not give pieces any more clarity. Multiple elements, different forward/backward, different movement/capturing. Arrogant responses does not change this.
@George - You are right, combining with Pawn is always a tantalising and interesting concept, but usually it doesn't take off because of only perceiving its ability based on its one square move. With a 100 Square board it suddenly becomes a slider with a 3 square long first move - this is what enabled me to add more depth to the pawn combo by assigning 3 orthogonal squares to both Elephant and Hawk.
Thanks for taking a look. I know you like to get immersed in the most intricate of variant details and so feel free to analyse this particular pawn combo. ;)
@Hubert - It couldn't be any more self explanatory. I quote:
'Hawks sweep in from a distance and attack prey at their feet. They also hop forwards further than they do backwards.
Elephants charge forwards and have two tusks which point left and right of their next step. They also have an L shaped trunk.'
You must simply lack imagination.
Thanks for taking a look. I know you like to get immersed in the most intricate of variant details and so feel free to analyse this particular pawn combo. ;)
@Hubert - It couldn't be any more self explanatory. I quote:
'Hawks sweep in from a distance and attack prey at their feet. They also hop forwards further than they do backwards.
Elephants charge forwards and have two tusks which point left and right of their next step. They also have an L shaped trunk.'
You must simply lack imagination.
I was beginning to look at Jepps' for recent analogy to the best way to introduce Grasshopper and Contragrasshopper. That is, method of pairs leaving the rest mostly the same, or pair-related like Left Schizzy and Right Schizzy. In 'ECV' there are only a couple of attempts to compound moderately with Pawn, contrasted to about 20 bi-compounds with Camel. That of course only covers the era 1900-1990 or so.
hmm, you say .. '.. with divergent both move/capture and forward/backward, ..' well, that sums up fairy pieces .. you say 'lack clarity', i don't see why??. (edit) ...
Jepps Hawk and Elephant, with divergent both move/capture and forward/backward, lack clarity and esthetically unsatisfying.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.