Malkovich: The flood is coming

[Joaz Banbeck]

Creating a new forum is fine with me, but I'm strongly against anything that involves someone other than the players deciding what is and is not a "Malkovich game". I'm not sure whether there are players who feel that the games they play in the Malkovich forums are not actually Malkovich games.

It's clear that not all the ongoing Malkovich games are exactly like the first game that was played, but I don't think it's so terrible that the form is evolving into different directions.

I think that the term you want is 'devolving'. The players in question are simply doing less. Not different, just less. Unless you consider snide comments about one's opponent to be an improvement in a different direction.

I enjoy several quite different commenter styles: the traditional long diagram commentaries, Araban's video commentaries, Magicwand's brief "feel"-based comments. I think some of these differences might even give some insights into differences in the way the different players think, which seems like exactly the sort of thing the name was referring to.

Furthermore, although I haven't played much yet myself, I feel there's a lot of educational value in just trying to justify my own moves in writing in a public forum. Possibly Malkovich games that are mostly instructive to the players and not to the spectators should have another name, but I think making this distinction now is premature. It's a hard distinction to make in any case, since the strength of the spectator would matter a lot in determining what is useful or instructive, and since things that are intended to be useful aren't always, and things that are not intended to be useful sometimes are. To me it seems better to stick to a simple and clear definition like "games that are commented by the players during play" instead of trying to dictate how the games should be used.

The strength of the players is not the issue in defining a Malkovich game, for there is always someone who is of the proper strength to benefit. The goal of a Malkovich game is to be explicit, not to be strong.

[padic]

Creating a new forum is fine with me, but I'm strongly against anything that involves someone other than the players deciding what is and is not a "Malkovich game". I'm not sure whether there are players who feel that the games they play in the Malkovich forums are not actually Malkovich games.

It's clear that not all the ongoing Malkovich games are exactly like the first game that was played, but I don't think it's so terrible that the form is evolving into different directions.

I think that the term you want is 'devolving'. The players in question are simply doing less. Not different, just less. Unless you consider snide comments about one's opponent to be an improvement in a different direction.

The term I wanted was "evolving", which is why that was the word I put in my post. It's a simple, objective word that carries no value judgement of any sort.

It seems clear that you don't like the more sparsely-commented games. That's fine. However, others do -- I do -- and it seems somewhat presumptuous of you to just dismiss the possibility that this might be so. "Not different, just less" is self-contradictory. Less is different. And in some cases, more is just not better.

To be clear, I absolutely don't want the richly-commented games to go away. I just don't see why there's any reason we have to choose between the two -- can't we have both? Having too many threads is not something I see as even a potential problem. I'm under no obligation to read all the ongoing threads. In fact, even now I do not. If we ever reach the point where it becomes technically hard to keep track of the threads we do want to follow, we should implement some technical solutions, such as special filtering and subscription options. However, I don't think we're there yet, and besides, that's the sort of problem we want to have. That problem is just a direct indication that a large number of people are enjoying the forum and participating.

[Joaz Banbeck]

I suggests create an Turn Based sub forum for people who want to play without having to write long explanations (they can still add (hidden) comments for spectators, but it's not required and not the main goal of the games.)...

I think that this is a great idea, and if nobody objects strongly in the next several days, I'm going to do it.

There are enough objections - particularly Daniel the smith's - that I am putting this idea on indefinite hold. There is a problem, but I want a better solution.

[topazg]

We could always say a maximum of 5 Malkovich games going on at any one time, with no-one involved in more than one of them. People put nominated matchups up and we have a poll vote - highest votes gets selected to play. That way, it serves the community's interests rather than the desires of two players.

[Magicwand]

We could always say a maximum of 5 Malkovich games going on at any one time, with no-one involved in more than one of them. People put nominated matchups up and we have a poll vote - highest votes gets selected to play. That way, it serves the community's interests rather than the desires of two players.

if you want community intrest then as long as there are few people who are intrested in watching the game it should be ok to play.
they always can ignore if they wish.
i dont know why this issue came up.. but..after my games i will quit playing until 100% of members agree that it is ok for me to play.
why??? because i have to serve the community's intrests.

[Solomon]

i dont know why this issue came up.. but..after my games i will quit playing until 100% of members agree that it is ok for me to play.
why??? because i have to serve the community's intrests.

You don't need 100% of the community's support to serve their interests, just like how the President doesn't need 100% of the country's votes to serve.

[gaius]

We could always say a maximum of 5 Malkovich games going on at any one time, with no-one involved in more than one of them. People put nominated matchups up and we have a poll vote - highest votes gets selected to play. That way, it serves the community's interests rather than the desires of two players.

if you want community intrest then as long as there are few people who are intrested in watching the game it should be ok to play.
they always can ignore if they wish.
i dont know why this issue came up.. but..after my games i will quit playing until 100% of members agree that it is ok for me to play.
why??? because i have to serve the community's intrests.

NOOOOO, please keep playing! If people aren't interested then they don't read - but I enjoy observing for sure, as do many others!

[quantumf]

i dont know why this issue came up.. but..after my games i will quit playing until 100% of members agree that it is ok for me to play.
why??? because i have to serve the community's intrests.

You don't need 100% of the community's support to serve their interests, just like how the President doesn't need 100% of the country's votes to serve.

I think that's MW's point...

[freegame]

I just suggested to create a seperate sub forum for turn based play.

The Malkovich subforum with games aimed at the spectators, to give the spectators an insight in the players thoughts. The players have the obligation to comment on their moves and answer questions from the spectators. This does not need to be really long comments and questions, but they should provide some quality to the game for the spectators. This subforum should not have dozens of games, but a limit is not necessary as the quality is good.

The turn based subforum with games aimed at the players. Giving the players a chance to get experience. The principles are just the same and the players can still comment on their move if they want to and spectators can ask questions. But there are no obligations from the players.

[Kirby]

I would be very disappointed if this thread deterred Magicwand from playing games.

[Magicwand]

I would be very disappointed if this thread deterred Magicwand from playing games.

long as i have my fanculb i am willing to play.
thing that bother me is that i dont see any problem with current setup and some people are trying to change for whatever reason..

if it aint broke dont fix it.

[Solomon]

i dont know why this issue came up.. but..after my games i will quit playing until 100% of members agree that it is ok for me to play.
why??? because i have to serve the community's intrests.

You don't need 100% of the community's support to serve their interests, just like how the President doesn't need 100% of the country's votes to serve.

I think that's MW's point...

*whoosh* - The price I get for not enough sleep .

[Violence]

I... don't honestly see how there's a lot of clutter around here, and while I do admit I could be commenting more, I don't see how it's reached the point where we have to move games to a separate forum.

[CarlJung]

I just suggested to create a seperate sub forum for turn based play.

The Malkovich subforum with games aimed at the spectators, to give the spectators an insight in the players thoughts. The players have the obligation to comment on their moves and answer questions from the spectators. This does not need to be really long comments and questions, but they should provide some quality to the game for the spectators. This subforum should not have dozens of games, but a limit is not necessary as the quality is good.

The turn based subforum with games aimed at the players. Giving the players a chance to get experience. The principles are just the same and the players can still comment on their move if they want to and spectators can ask questions. But there are no obligations from the players.

I strongly object to this idea.

If one want's to play turn based games (for oneself, not the audience), why not do it on a turn based server? What's so terribly wrong with all the turn based servers that it warrants L19 to create a new one?

• If the players want commentaries on their games, why not play them on the already established turn based servers and post them in the game analysis subforum or the GTL once they are finished.
• If there is no commentaries from the players, a spectator can find higher quality pro games for free on the net and it would serve the same purpose for the spectator.
• The only reason I see to create it is if a spectator wants to inquire about a move for a game in progress. That isn't happening a lot on the already ongoing malc games as we could read in the initial post.

Do one thing and do it well, does that ring any bells? L19 is a great discussion forum. Cramming in a turn based server when there are already several fully featured ones seems odd.

[Magicwand]

I just suggested to create a seperate sub forum for turn based play.

The Malkovich subforum with games aimed at the spectators, to give the spectators an insight in the players thoughts. The players have the obligation to comment on their moves and answer questions from the spectators. This does not need to be really long comments and questions, but they should provide some quality to the game for the spectators. This subforum should not have dozens of games, but a limit is not necessary as the quality is good.

The turn based subforum with games aimed at the players. Giving the players a chance to get experience. The principles are just the same and the players can still comment on their move if they want to and spectators can ask questions. But there are no obligations from the players.

I strongly object to this idea.

If one want's to play turn based games (for oneself, not the audience), why not do it on a turn based server? What's so terribly wrong with all the turn based servers that it warrants L19 to create a new one?

• If the players want commentaries on their games, why not play them on the already established turn based servers and post them in the game analysis subforum or the GTL once they are finished.
• If there is no commentaries from the players, a spectator can find higher quality pro games for free on the net and it would serve the same purpose for the spectator.
• The only reason I see to create it is if a spectator wants to inquire about a move for a game in progress. That isn't happening a lot on the already ongoing malc games as we could read in the initial post.

1. i dont mind moving to other forum. then who loses?? (forum an people who actually enjoy little commented game) what give you right to deny their right?
2. you are welcome to download professional game and not watch my game.
3. same answer. if you dont think you like it then dont watch..too simple.