Feel free to chat, make suggestions, or tell your scores!
You can also chat with us on mIRC - server irc.newnet.net, port 6667, channel #minesweeper
Viewing Page 16 of 27 (Total Entries: 2685) |
![]() |
|
May 2nd 2008 at 10:01:20 AM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
Well NF isn't faster, but I've noticed that when using too much flags the spread between a players best times tends to be smaller because a higher 3BV boards can take as much clicks as a low 3BV board. I remember someone noticing it took him over 100 sub80s to get 1 sub70. While Gergo needed only 1 to get sub70 and the same almost applied to me hadn't I blasted that 118 of 120 yesterday (k it was with flags, but >90% NF). @Kamil: nice vid ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 2nd 2008 at 08:38:01 AM |
|
Name: |
tK |
Comments: |
Quote btw, play NF its better for low 3bv boards /Quote NF exp WR: 45 F exp WR: 37 nuff said :P I would say that NF has more potential on int, but on exp flagging is still faster, and I would also say that realizing the potential of NF is harder even on int, but I may be wrong there. No offense NFers :P |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 2nd 2008 at 08:07:28 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
Just made my new Pwnage video ![]() ![]() Btw, today I got my 3rd Dreamboard but of course blasted on the start-clicking ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 2nd 2008 at 01:11:21 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
Today is the 1st anniversary of my most important day in my life - 1st Poland record ![]() ![]() @Ronny: Sometimes luck is is more important than skills, that sucks. Oli jumped from 44 to 39 on 115, and I wouldnt say that he is better than for example Manu ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 1st 2008 at 04:14:51 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
That stupid blast does make me wonder....Why on earth do I play a game in which luck can be equivalent to 2 years of training with some bad luck? Take my lucky 81s board in 2003....my average has improved 20s since I got that board and my current record is only 2 seconds faster. I bet without luck I could play 2 more years and never get a 67 or faster like I almost had tonight on a ridiculously easy board. Minesweeper is cruel game if you think of it....almost time too quit. ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 1st 2008 at 03:20:26 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Best expert: |
NF 79 -> FL 67,3 (118 of 120 blasted) |
Comments: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 1st 2008 at 01:25:42 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
Why its not possible to get sub12 on vienna? ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 1st 2008 at 02:40:10 AM |
|
Name: |
joni |
Comments: |
hahahahaha that was hilarious coming from you KAmil ![]() ![]() ![]() I of course favor the Keep-it-Simple approach. To me "58 on a 211 3BV" gives the same amount of information how crazily fast the game was (but is less prone to errors ![]() (i guess the disappointed reader's post served one purpose at least. It made me learn the word "stool" ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 1st 2008 at 02:25:04 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
lol, u r right ronny, it was 58,485 ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 30th 2008 at 04:44:47 PM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
Their attorneys are currently preparing the cases... ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 30th 2008 at 03:45:09 PM |
|
Name: |
Michael |
Comments: |
What's happening with Christoph, Damien, and the IMC? There were loads of posts and then nothing for ages. What's going on guys? |
![]() |
|
Apr 30th 2008 at 03:37:16 PM |
|
Name: |
fritz |
Comments: |
@ronny: i didn't recognize that ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 30th 2008 at 03:04:01 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
* and your time was 58.485s ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 30th 2008 at 02:59:59 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
Congrats...and you forget the 2nd good thing: the smaller the steps, the more records you get. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 30th 2008 at 02:00:53 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Best expert: |
NF 3,66 -> 3,67 |
Comments: |
World record ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Also made my 3rd 12 NF on vienna, on 41, Ive never solved sub40 3bv board on it yet ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 30th 2008 at 12:40:24 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Best expert: |
not me |
Best intermediate: |
not me either |
Comments: |
@fritz: I'm not scared away that easily ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 30th 2008 at 09:08:17 AM |
|
Name: |
fritz |
Comments: |
@ronny and gergö: please keep posting!!!!! it's always great to see sweepers improving, so i don't even mind if you would post more details of your score improvements. ronny is in my opinion totally right: these (ronny's and gergö's) post keep the community alive (in some ways). i don't say that everyone should post congratulations for every little highscore, but let them tell us when they're getting better. (VC: vvvw (1st time i got a fuinny one)) |
![]() |
|
Apr 30th 2008 at 03:08:55 AM |
|
Name: |
manuel h |
Comments: |
as always: both extreme ways suck, so find a good way in between ;-) @ Dissapointed reader u r not completely wrong, but if u say stuff like this please give us ur name... and @ Yet another disappointed reader: ur so **** ******* right !!!! PEOPLE why wont u come to that **** irc channel ? is easy to get there! ( lol i havent been there for like 3 weeks ;-)) mfg |
![]() |
|
Apr 30th 2008 at 02:49:54 AM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
I read above: "Feel free to chat, make suggestions, or tell your scores!" If you remove all those post as you suggest, what's left? 1 post a week, a couple of score posts and discussion between fighting IMC members....if you rather read that, try visiting a doctor for some anti-depressant ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 30th 2008 at 12:09:06 AM |
|
Name: |
Yet another disappointed reader |
Comments: |
Hey, guys, there is an minesweeper IRC channel made for such talks! irc.initialized.com #minesweeper IRC client: www.mirc.com |
![]() |
|
Apr 29th 2008 at 11:12:02 PM |
|
Name: |
Traian |
Comments: |
that was mean, dude. let the guys enjoy the game. |
![]() |
|
Apr 29th 2008 at 08:47:09 PM |
|
Name: |
Dissapointed reader |
Best expert: |
999 |
Best intermediate: |
99 |
Best beginner: |
9 |
Comments: |
Ronny and Gergo, could you please inform the world daily about the colour of your morning stool? Or something more interesting, maybe? |
![]() |
|
Apr 29th 2008 at 10:14:20 AM |
|
Name: |
Traian |
Comments: |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 29th 2008 at 07:09:16 AM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
@Gergő: I've solved about 650 int boards this year (of which about 50% NF). Which doesn't have to mean I've played much less than you...I think it only means that I tend to blast more because I take every possible risk on intermediate. On expert your scores are definitely better (I have 2 sup2's and 1 sub80), but last week I'm slowly starting to learn to play on my intermediate speed without blasting everything...so a little improvement on that and I think I can catch you up again. :) |
![]() |
|
Apr 29th 2008 at 06:44:11 AM |
|
Name: |
Gergő |
Comments: |
@Ronny: It really seems so... Than, you are better than me, or it can be that you played more than me on int. I think, I completed around 1100 games on int, and around 150 on exp, beg is around 1200. These are estimations, but finished beg and exp games are above 1000, and exp is above 100, it is sure, and all games this year were NF. Considering the fact that I began NF this year, I have quite good NF times, and I remember that my NF exp best was around 130 at the beginning of february, but now I love NF and I might be uncapable of getting used to Fl anymore... |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 29th 2008 at 06:31:28 AM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
@Gergő: I've installed clone in Feb. 2007, but all time before late November 2007 are basically terrible. Yesterday I happened to compare my stats of 2007 and 2008 on NF expert: Year: 2007 Solved: 110 Average: 131s Year: 2008 Solved: 111 Average: 101s So I guess my NF skills have improved slightly. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 29th 2008 at 05:39:53 AM |
|
Name: |
Gergő |
Comments: |
@Traian: Welcome in the team :). BTW I blasted also lots of sub 80 times, but I'll never give up to prove that I'm able to do at least one sub70 ![]() @Ronny: When did you begin your statistics? I personnally wrote it since I use the Clone, that is for 3,5 months. I try to get a lot of sub 80 times but it seems that sub20 is easier for me than sub80. But let us continue that certain coevolution on exp, as well ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 29th 2008 at 02:30:37 AM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
@Traian: I haven't played intermediate either and been trying to break my NF expert (79)......I've blasted so many >80% solved sub80 boards (even on high 3BV boards) lately, that it wouldn't surprise me if I suddenly get a sub70 or a hops when I finally do get my record. I'm 80% sure I'll get in within 1 week. Let's see who gets it first. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 29th 2008 at 02:11:42 AM |
|
Name: |
Traian |
Comments: |
ok, Ronny and Gergő, it seems I will compete with you on intermediate this period of time. ![]() only now I try to focus on the expert. it's the only mode i can hope to break my record. and it seems closer and closer every time I play. I have tons of perfectly started games, blown after 30s, with estimated times in the 55-62 range. me wants ze record! ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 29th 2008 at 01:01:09 AM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
@Gergő: I think that's statistically perfectly normal. You have the same fastest time as me. I also have only 5 sub20s. If I solve a board now in 22,0s it would be my 16th time overall and I even got 10x22 with flagging before getting my first sub20, so once again, pretty similar to your stats. Remember that the faster your times get, the smaller the time differences. To improve 1s you now already have to get about 7% faster. If you check 'occurences' in Clone, it will almost certainly show a 'bell curve' with a slightly steeper egde on the left (that's caused by you getting better over time). |
![]() |
|
Apr 28th 2008 at 11:23:32 PM |
|
Name: |
Gergő |
Comments: |
Just few interesting pieces of information: I started this statiscics in this January. Since then I have 116 sub25 NF int times. I consider it quite good, but only 4 of them are sub 20 and additional 4 is sub 21. Yesterday evening during a phone call I played a 43 board and solved it in 22,4xx seconds... ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 28th 2008 at 11:13:11 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@Elmar: I put oil into it but its still slow ![]() ![]() Congrats to fritz |
![]() |
|
Apr 28th 2008 at 05:35:22 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
I've solved a 3x3x3 in 112sec is that good. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 28th 2008 at 02:54:18 PM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
@KAmil: Got my 5x5x5 last xmas. My first solve was <1h though (during xmas dinner to the excitement of my parents). ![]() My current record is 3:58. Have fun praticing. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 28th 2008 at 01:19:43 PM |
|
Name: |
fritz |
Best intermediate: |
15,64 on vienna sweeper / 4,148 3BV/s |
Comments: |
wow! i just got a 16,621 on clone on 3BV=61 ! @ 3BV/s= 3,905. on clone: time and 3BV/s highscore, overall RQP (4,256) and IOS highscore. the board had 5 openings, only one 5 and no 4. i'll upload it later (together with about 2000 - 2500 other files) |
![]() |
|
Apr 28th 2008 at 12:22:47 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
Allegro finally sent me Rubik's cube 5x5x5 ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 27th 2008 at 10:47:50 AM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
@Kamil: Clearly you're are very close to breaking that WR now...I've made a lot of improvement as well this weekend: set my 2nd best NF time (80,7 on 3BV=128) and 3 other Top10 times and broke my 'Flag' 3BVs. Soon we'll both beat those times ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 27th 2008 at 10:24:52 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Best expert: |
47x4 -> x5 |
Comments: |
47,45 NF on 144 ![]() ![]() My Vienna Int record is 12x2 on 50 and 52 3bv, so I only need an easy sub35 for 9 ![]() yesterday I got my 1st 30 3bv board every, but blasted in strat clicking ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 26th 2008 at 04:44:55 PM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
I think they should kiss and make up though... ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 26th 2008 at 10:19:16 AM |
|
Name: |
Michael |
Comments: |
@Kat - I assume your comment about 'wannabe relationship counsellors' was directed at me, amongst others. If so, you've missed the point. When I talked about finding a solution, I meant a solution to the problem of the collapse of the IMC, and that Damien and Christoph's positions both seem untenable. The two of them can fall out as much as they like, it's none of our concern until it affects the IMC - which it is doing now. That's why some of their personal concerns need to be addressed, so if and when we do rebuild the IMC, we can learn lessons from recent events. It's nothing to do with helping them kiss and make up. |
![]() |
|
Apr 26th 2008 at 10:05:19 AM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
@Damien: Txs for fixing my profile ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 26th 2008 at 09:33:57 AM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Best expert: |
Website updated |
Comments: |
Not a lot of news this week, except E Tao Jin is first girl to sub50, and Zhang's China ranking is offline (or behind a firewall?) |
![]() |
|
Apr 26th 2008 at 06:29:39 AM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
@Kamil: Congrats...especially on a 157!!! ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 26th 2008 at 01:20:33 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Best expert: |
NF 47,63 -> 47,344 ( 47x4) |
Comments: |
3BV=157, Vienna, in my folder ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 25th 2008 at 04:43:53 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
*vid linked ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 25th 2008 at 04:42:56 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Best expert: |
NF 2,021 -> FL 2,107 (3BV=190, 1 flag!) |
Comments: |
My best expert game so far. Too bad I accidentally flagged 1 mine at the start, but I still like it. At least it shows I can keep up with Gergo non-flagging on expert again....now all I need is an easy low 3BV board to catch up on time as well. FL 3BVs=1,9996 -> FL 2,107 FL IOS=1,15328 -> FL 1,16550 NF RQP=44,361 -> FL 43,289 (5th Flag time overall...with 3BV=190 ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 24th 2008 at 09:24:03 PM |
|
Name: |
Schu (Andrew McCauley) |
Best expert: |
1 |
Best intermediate: |
14 |
Best beginner: |
52 |
Comments: |
man am I glad I resigned from the IMC |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 24th 2008 at 08:29:22 PM |
|
Name: |
Minesweeper Addict |
Comments: |
Happy birthday Rogen & David Barry! Long Live the Community! |
![]() |
|
Apr 24th 2008 at 06:59:17 PM |
|
Name: |
Wannabe Relationship Counselor |
Best expert: |
:trepxe tseB |
Best intermediate: |
:etaidemretni tseB |
Best beginner: |
:rennigeb tseB |
Comments: |
Thanks, Kat. I really appreciate that. ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 24th 2008 at 12:46:34 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@Damien: Do all the things what IMC wants and everything will be ok ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 24th 2008 at 02:00:20 AM |
|
Name: |
Name field is required |
Best expert: |
Serpenter |
Comments: |
small improvement on int 14.246 -> 14.126 ]8) |
![]() |
|
Apr 23rd 2008 at 03:03:20 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Best expert: |
Vienna 999 -> 91,9 (didnt solve any expert boards on vienna yet;) |
Comments: |
Still struggling to get used to solving expert boards again (after my long struggle to get sub20 with flags on int)...but at least I'm close to sub90 now....so next week I hope to seriously start attacking my NF 79. @daniel: Congrats, very nice improvement. |
![]() |
|
Apr 23rd 2008 at 02:36:39 PM |
|
Name: |
daniel |
Best expert: |
62-> 60 :) |
Comments: |
cant say whos right in this case, but that christoph became that personal makes your point more likely, damien, as you avoided that level (though i can understand the frustration christoph must feel about not getting on with imc and all that, which might explain his behaviour - but not excuse it) beseides that im getting nearer to that ******* one-minute-barrier...60,74 on a 133board - nf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 23rd 2008 at 12:18:23 PM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
May she rest in peace. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 23rd 2008 at 07:22:07 AM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
@gergo: wp is correct, of course. @nikolaj - i am very sorry for damaging your joy in minesweeper. you and maruda are a big reason why tournaments are fun! it was just very bad timing: my girlfriend returned from a 4 day holiday while Christoph was replying, and I turned off the computer without seeing it and went to bed early (you can ask people on irc last night). I deleted it 5 minutes after reading emails this morning, and apologised. my mouse died last week..maybe it's time for optical |
![]() |
|
Apr 23rd 2008 at 06:19:04 AM |
|
Name: |
Gergő |
Comments: |
Ok. Than there is no connection between this debate and their resigning. I think, it is important to make clear to eliminate any kind of assumptions about the connection between the two events. Besides, Gergely told me that he would not organize the tournament this year in Budapest due to lack of time. Thank you for the answer, WP. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 23rd 2008 at 05:57:02 AM |
|
Name: |
WP |
Comments: |
@Gergo: Schu and Gergely left because of time constraints, I believe I was told (I'm too lazy to check for evidence ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 23rd 2008 at 05:22:56 AM |
|
Name: |
Gergő |
Comments: |
I do not want to support any of the parties in this debate, but I think it would be interesting to know, why the two IMC members Schu and Gergely left the IMC. All I see that there are opinions, and a great fog in front of my eyes. I cannot decide who is right, and maybe in a certain way none of you or maybe all of you. It looks like a political scene, where everybody and nobody is right, as the entire reality with all of its mosaics are invisible for the audience and maybe for the participants as well. Opinions of all IMC members might be enough for me (or for us) to create my (our) correct opinion, but it is not sure at all. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 23rd 2008 at 04:40:11 AM |
|
Name: |
Nikolaj |
Best expert: |
55 |
Best intermediate: |
12 |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
Well... I wanted to announce my recent Nonosweeper achievement (11 on int) and saw all this stuff... @Both: Your behavior is childish. Now I'm not sure to come to Vienna. I really don't like the atmosphere here. ![]() @Christoph: I might not have all the necessary information, but from what I've read, you are wrong when talking about the legal stuff (at least according to the czech law which is *supposed* to be unified with the rest of EU at least in crucial issues). Czech law requires explicite permission. You were not allowed to copy all the stuff and asking permission (or expecting he must know about it) later. Damien quite consistently asks you to remove data illegally copied from his site - it doesn't seem to me like giving you or the IMC his permission. You should ask Damien BEFORE you copied it! And immediately remove it when he told you to do it! @Damien: Publishing those mails and chatlogs (please write ASAP to remove it bla bla bla) was extremely dirty trick. Christoph replied in 45 minutes, whole stuff remained online for at least 11 hours when I read it! You should ask him BEFORE publishing it! ---------------------- As for the remaining aspects of this situation: IMC is dying (or already dead), no doubt about it. In fact it seems to me, that IMC=Christoph at the moment (haven't seen any poll about removing Damien's entries from .cc, looks like only Christoph decided to leave it there). Christoph treats IMC as if it was his child and doesn't want it to die. That's quite understandable. It's fault of every single person who was elected! If you weren't able to guarantee working for IMC all the year, you shouldn't run! If you didn't intend to be active member, you shouldn't run! All I know is: IMC is not functional from the first elections. I really hope this will change after this disgusting situation... I expect new members of IMC (WP and Jason) pushing the IMC forward by being active. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 23rd 2008 at 01:59:49 AM |
|
Name: |
Kat |
Comments: |
Clarification: I do not expect to maintain ownership or rights over anything of mine i put or allow to be put on the internet. BUT i find the copying of details without consultation of the community in very poor taste. I guess it means that i am heavily behind a transparent IMC. How can we put the burden on the IMC members of making ALL decisions without community input? |
![]() |
|
Apr 23rd 2008 at 01:55:32 AM |
|
Name: |
Jan Parucka |
Best expert: |
2 |
Best intermediate: |
15 |
Best beginner: |
57 |
Comments: |
Well, what the ********** Anyway, my insignificant opinion. Most of the people don't give a **** if the ranking is official or not, completness is much more important. Well, there may be some cheaters or extremely easy boards but overall the ranking works just fine for putting one's times in bigger picture. Damien's ranking is the most complete one and it really must have beeen a lot of effort to put this all together and keep it up to date. His position is absolutely understandable to me, it's like giving his child away and I don't really see a point of doing it. This site works well as unofficial ranking and I'm pretty sure that for most it's sufficient. Having an official ranking for all home-made records is pointless and pretty much impossible. As it is now, IMC is rather underground organization in my eyes and also unofficial on top of that. I think it's role should be to focus more on tournaments, especially the online ones because they have a bigger potential to have more participants. IMC should set up its own forum to allow the rest of the sweeping world a better chance for input, discuss things in more organized manner, and to function as a platform for organization of online tournaments, monthly rankings etc. It would have its own ranking based on those tournaments and may be called the official tournament league ranking, or something to that extent. Both, Damien's site and IMC site would link to each other and IMC's site may host Damien's unofficial ultimate ranking as well. Also, I think that this guestbook works quite fine for those who are just curious about some recent Kamil's records and such ![]() Admittedly I haven't thought this through at all, I just had a feeling that it's time for another quartal year post of mine, mwhaha! |
![]() |
|
Apr 23rd 2008 at 01:46:42 AM |
|
Name: |
WP |
Comments: |
*sigh...* Does the IMC really need a ranking? Does it need all these "trimmings"? Sure, it would be nice, but it sure creates problems...'cos not everyone in the IMC is able (or willing, maybe) to make a ranking, or make a "best" minesweeper programme. They might not oppose the idea, but if some can't do much for it (by "it" I mean the ranking or programme) then it falls to those remaining to do all the work. It isn't really fair (nor smart) when there are probably other players out there who would willingly help (and who might have more time on their hands) to do all that, but just happen not to be in the IMC. Bottom line: The IMC should not be the only one who can do something for the community! Besides, I'm inclined to agree with Jon that the matter should have been brought up in the IMC before being made public. I'm not saying it wasn't done, though, I'm too new to know. Just saw Kat's post, and I'd like to add: if you want something to be private, don't put it on the 'net. (It's a general observation, not a reply to you, Kat ;) ) |
![]() |
|
Apr 23rd 2008 at 01:22:43 AM |
|
Name: |
Kat |
Comments: |
This is why i don't post on big issues very often(if at all)!! Christoph, my comment was not at all personal. How could it be when i know so little about you? All that i know is that you are a nice guy, run tournaments and rarely say much in #minesweeper. I have voted for you the 2 years i have had a vote in the IMC elections because i believe you care about minesweeper and our community. My comment was shorter than it should have been(had to get ready for a meeting at work) but it came from me having a fair bit of experience on management committees, once the issues that you are managing get to you so badly it's not wise to keep at it. NOW to perhaps break a personal GB rant record (and offend many) i'll keep going.... HOLY ****! hasn't this brought out of the woodwork all the wanna be relationship counselors! Whilst i'm sure you are all experts in having relationships ![]() Damien, you really should have reacted quickly when info was copied from your site. It may be your site do do with as you like but you are trusted with other peoples information and that comes with huge responsibility. Lastly, as an individual not representing anyone but myself i can get as personal as i like. Feel free to gimmi hell back, i certainly deserve it. ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 07:53:21 PM |
|
Name: |
Arjádre |
Comments: |
Has this community given up the joy of minesweeper in order to pursue some pointless war of trivialities and laying blame? I hate to see such tension between players. IMO, the IMC needs to establish itself a bit better before it starts labeling rankings'official.' Yes, the ideal is an official IMC ranking on an IMC website, but that ranking isn't about to appear out of nowhere. It'll need a foundation, whether Damien's ranking or some other, upon which to build. Please excuse me if I'm not making any sense. I just miss the collaboration we used to have in this community. As always, congrats @ record breakers! ![]() Happy Sweeping. |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 06:52:11 PM |
|
Name: |
Jon S |
Comments: |
Let's see. Now I have enough information to have an idea about what might have happened here. I don't know what's going to happen with the IMC now, but I do not think that this public discussion is in the best interest of the IMC. The question I'm asking myself is if there's anything the IMC as an organization could have done to prevent this from happening. Damien has been a member of the IMC for some time, and have also been in charge of the ranking at this site. I don't know if the IMC ever discussed if these (somewhat conflicting?) roles might result in problems some time. It seems like this situation might have been avoided if one of the following agreements had been made: 1) Damien can do whatever he wants with his ranking, and that's none of the IMC's business 2) Damien has to cooperate with the IMC to make an official minesweeper ranking either at his site, or another. 3) ... something else... Ok. My point is that this should probably have been decided a long time ago, so Damien's role in the IMC could have been defined more clearly from the get-go. Maybe there has been discussions about the topic. I haven't even checked to see if it's been mentioned, but I'm told that the IMC haven't been very transparent so far. If this had been done, the following might have happened instead of this public discussion: Let's say that Christoph decides that Damien isn't meeting his role as an IMC member. Maybe he's sabotaging one of Christoph's projects by not cooperating about making an official ranking or something else that it's specified that he should be doing. The next step should probably be to have an internal discussion of the matter in the IMC. Maybe the IMC should have the authority to then demand that Damien either starts playing his role in the organization or quits/"gets fired". I imagine that "sacking" an IMC member can't be done unless he's broken some serious rules, and the reasons should be revealed to the community since they elected the IMC. It's too late to take this internally in the IMC now of course, I just wanted to give my opinion on how we might prevent this from happening again. Of course it doesn't make that much sense that only Damien should need to live up to his role in the IMC, so maybe every member should have some predefined role. Now if one member of the IMC isn't satisfied with another, he/she will have to convince the IMC that the other member isn't living up to her/his role as an IMC member. If someone starts a public discussion despite this it would still not be pretty, but it might be easier to decide who has actually done something wrong. Just some thoughts. |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 06:22:53 PM |
|
Name: |
Michael |
Comments: |
I have read everything Damien has linked to. I think I understand both parties a little better. This is Damien's view, as I see it: Damien has put in several hundred hours worth of work into his own personal website. He is proud of it. Not only has he been, essentially, a slave to those of us who participate in the rankings (he enters scores universally, not selectively), but he’s put a lot of effort into contacting retired players, trying to gain permission to use scores from other rankings, etc. This has not been easy. The IMC (or at least, the IMC as represented by Christoph) also want a ranking for the IMC website. An ‘official’ IMC ranking. To do this, they want to copy Damien’s scores – naturally, since Damien’s are the most complete scores. The IMC ranking would be virtually identical to Damien’s ranking, so straight away we have a problem of what the actual point of creating it is. Secondly, this idea doesn’t sit well with Damien because he’s put so much effort and time into his rankings, and to have them copied and pasted into the rather faceless and perhaps sterile ‘official’ format feels like something is being taken away from him. It is not exactly egotism; something that he has created from scratch over many years would be branded as something that simply ‘is’, when the true story is that it has been crafted over a long period of time. Especially when it seems unnecessary (the two rankings will be almost identical). Perhaps this train of thought doesn't represent absolute rationality, but feelings are not rational, and we can’t help how we feel. That is the sense I get from reading the emails. On the other hand, Christoph seems to think: A ranking is meaningless if it cannot be relied upon. So to give a seal of approval to a set of scores, we have an independent body, which is the IMC. The IMC should have its own ranking, because otherwise a series of problems arise: 1. Rankings may be incomplete, or less complete than they could be. 2. Scores may be accepted into non-IMC rankings in ways that the IMC has agreed should not be allowed, or personal bias may affect what is accepted. Everyone has their own ideas of which clones to use, which 3BV limits are best, etc., and if rankings are run independently of the IMC then one person’s ideas can take over. If this is the case, the IMC would be pointless. 3. Without an IMC ranking, there is no ‘official’ ranking, merely a series of unofficial ones, which may or may not be reliable. I have one or two things to say on the matter, but first I would like Damien and Christoph to confirm that what I have said accurately represents their respective views. More misinterpretation is best avoided. If what I have said is accurate, I think I have a tentative solution – tentative because it is a little radical, it would require compromise from both sides, and I am not a parent of either Christoph or Damien and have no authority over what they do and how they feel. But I have ideas that I’d like to share, and before that we need to be clear about how each party feels about the current situation. |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 04:28:41 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
Off course we can continue this pointless discussion till Godwin's law (see link) pops-up to see who won. Or we can end this by all realizing that every personal attack towards another will ruin their own reputation more than the person you're attacking. If you both love this community as much as you both claim, you wouldn't continue this discussion either. My 2 cents. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 04:20:08 PM |
|
Name: |
Christoph |
Comments: |
But of course the mails and chatlogs have stil to be removed asap. |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 04:17:08 PM |
|
Name: |
Christoph |
Comments: |
I did read little of it now... and I change my mind... it is funny (especially the first part) ![]() I love how damien could forget to mention that not finding things in the IMC history means not a lot since big parts of Detrusors forum were lost because of a server problem and most of last years IMC meetings were not loged ![]() Also he mentioned recently to me that he could remember things which according to his reply never happend - i.e. the IMC discussing about an IMC ranking... ![]() ![]() Of course the parts of the emails and chats are FAR FAR away from being complete or representative (and as I didn't compare everything I can't even say if true). However, I will not go through his reply line by line (I didn't find too many containing true statements, so I would have to write a lot - I really have better things to do). @Kat: On a personal level Damien is a good guy. Only when it comes to minesweeper he cannot accept anyone besides him. I didn't start the discussion on that level - I just told the community that it was going on and that I had enough of it. (btw, on which level you think is your post?) ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 03:18:54 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
Translation: Damien: "please tell me ASAP if they should be removed" Christoph: "Yes, please" ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 03:14:11 PM |
|
Name: |
Christoph |
Comments: |
I didn't read your reply yet - but already for legal reasons I have to insist that you remove everything that violates privacy immediately: emails and private chats are PRIVATE. As far as I can see you did just heavily break the letter secret. This is far away from being funny (I'll read through it before I decide if I take any legal steps - doing sabotage to my and others "spare time projects" is one thing, but violating the letter secret is something really really bad). |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 03:07:48 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
Having read all that (ok not ALL, but most), I think that too much trust between Chris and Damien has been spilled to continue to work together on IMC related stuff (nor that it is useful to continue the discussion on who is right). Trust should be a basis between the 'leaders' of a community and when that basis is gone between some or their 'leaders', then it's time to change the group till you get a group that does trust each other again. I happen to help run a website of a totally different internet community (BHD Anti-cheat) and the 6 people that run things have a special forum called 'Trusted members only'. I personally like that title much better than 'Admins and Leaders only', because it clearly states how we keep things running smooth. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 02:29:30 PM |
|
Name: |
AreOut |
Comments: |
I think we should cut all the crap and just let the best sweeper (currently Dion) to set the rules... |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 02:28:20 PM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
Thanks Ronny, Joni and Thomas - I understand your opinions much better now. Joni's comment about understanding each other is spot on. I finished my reply (linked), but this may no longer be necessary considering some of the thoughtful responses. If we kiss and make up, do we need to spend the next year arguing about who was more right? There is no black and white..I will probably look back on my life one day - and realise that I was an idiot. Christoph, I apologise for offending you and giving you any wrong impressions. (My reply breaks your legal privacy by publishing our emails - please tell me ASAP if they should be removed). Tommy, I voted for 100 but the result was 4-3 in favour of 99 (although Dan changed his mind after Christoph posted the result in the Guestbook). So far we don't have any rules about what to do if a vote changes, but I am pretty sure the entire community uses 100. Oh, and I did install a forum recently, but I've been sidetracked lately! |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 02:23:16 PM |
|
Name: |
Kat |
Comments: |
Christoph, I think your decision to step down is quite wise since your posts seem to be attacking Damien on a far too personal level. |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 01:53:03 PM |
|
Name: |
joni |
Comments: |
@Ronny: the answer to all your questions: http://www.planete-demineur.com/phpBB2/index.php the closed IMC section is there too, just hidden for the non-members... the Guestbook SUCKS... |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 01:32:44 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
Looking at this chaos of long posts and considering that this guest book was meant to be a place to say hi to each other, post scores, congratulate others, motivate people to get better, help beginners and share minesweeper experiences: I think what this website needs is a forum that has different sections: - Public spam / greetings / discussing sweeping tactics / congratulate / help / share experiences, motivate sweepers, help beginners etc. etc. - Official score posts for world ranking/country ranking and related discussions - Public IMC section for minesweeper rule discussions and posting IMC decisions - A Closed IMC section for IMC members to hide discussions between IMC members that are of no use to visitors. I think that would make thinks a little more clear than a guestbook. BTW guys, don't mistake sharing ideas with official IMC agreements and don't mistake misunderstandings with lying. Because that's what this all looks like to me and all it does is damage relations and scare away new and existing visitors. |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 01:11:21 PM |
|
Name: |
joni |
Comments: |
guys i really think this is going too far... I do agree Damien has difficulties on mantaining this site organized at times, he keeps changing the structure and page names week in and week out (you're lucky you don't get to see the myriad of files in the server), and even has trouble being coherent with his own decisions... never mind the IMC's (how many times has the ranking criteria changed, without even Damien being really sure how and why?). I confess that was the reason why I thought a more "structured" person(if that term even exists) could have been of more use in the IMC... but that was it! Taking all that and saying he has consciously sabotated IMC's work is going way too far... I think the problem here is you both have your vision on how you want the things to be... and you don't like the vision you THINK the other one has. That means you have difficulties in both making clear your view of things to the other in the first place, and in putting yourselves in the other's point-of-view. hope this helps... |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 11:50:38 AM |
|
Name: |
tK |
Comments: |
@damien what about 3bv limits (christoph told me that you decided not to comply with the 100 3bv limit, instead using 99)? It may not be much, but seeing as christoph told you, it should not have been hard to change that policy (and this is not about kicking out any old scores, it is just about modifying the rule that determines whether or not a new score enters the ranking, it is just a minor change of policy that requires a completely neglectable amount of work). solid evidence? ha ha. IMC logs are confidential (meaning that publishing old ones is unfortunately pretty much out of the question), publishing the contents of conversations that happened a year or so ago is impossible anyhow. You could agree to publish old emails, but that is pretty much it. One member of the IMC, especially if it is well known, can easily block progress in some area. Just keep contributing comments/new arguments to a discussion until the consensus is that it may be a better idea to decide later. Try to solve all the problems you are going to face on the way to a goal immediately, and you will fail - it is not hard to get a chatroomful of IMC members to attempt just that. Just make things too complicated. As a matter of fact, I sometimes felt that I was unwantingly doing just that. Making that strategy look like you are doing your best to contribute to a discussion is not hard. Now it deeply and sincerely disturbs me to attack you like this damien. But I have talked to christoph, and am convinced that everything he did was for the community, the IMC, and not for his own benefit (except for the fact that he is part of this community as well). And I can't explain why you did what you did if that was the (only) motive. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 11:30:10 AM |
|
Name: |
Christoph |
Comments: |
@Damien: Then take your time to make up an answer - I'll shut up til then wondering how to give 'hard evidence' on an informal platform like this (perhaps Benson knows ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 10:04:56 AM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
Christoph, I haven't even had time to finish with your first set of accusations. It would be nice if you sometimes provided hard evidence instead of always making claims. I still stand by our agreement last month that this should have nothing to do with our friendship - this should be a professional matter. Michael, it would be a huge favour to the community if you thought again about the offer to join. You can make a difference. |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 06:24:05 AM |
|
Name: |
Christoph |
Comments: |
You might have recognized that Damien implicitly blamed me to be a liar (and what else should he do? ![]() However, I'll say things a little more direct: In the last post Damien did either lie or prove to have big holes in his memories (personally I trust in his recalling abilities ![]() 1.) 'none of those things christoph claims that i stopped were ever talked about.' has nothing to do with truth - we talked about these features at the last Budapest tourney. I showed Damien the source of minesweeper.cc there, explained him how the online rankings work and told him about the possibilities we would have if we worked together. If we had started working together back then, we would have had a good site cooperation at the beginning of the summer 2007 - then these features would have been the very next tasks (and we could have started them almost a year ago!) 2.) 'Christoph copied my ranking without asking me or the imc' is also not true - I asked him and I told him that I'd do that (he never answered explicitly). He was present, while the scores were put on minesweeper.cc. He didn't say anything about removing the scores for the following 8 weeks. In the four weeks after we talked about these scores and Damien had really strange ideas about me breaking copyrights - but all the scores where all the time at his mercy(!), he had administrator trusties on minesweeper.cc and could have removed them by himself if he liked! - but he didn't bother doing so in 12 weeks! To make something more clear: I thought Damien was trying to get the maximal profit for himself and would in the end cooperate when there's nothing more left to offer. But as I offered him already everything possibe (including all the fame for the rankings, a special credits site on minesweeper.cc that tells him to be the great hero of ranking building and even to help him building special features for his ranking (without any credits for me)) and as he still refused joining forces I got very frustrated and told him that I'm thinking of quiting (which possibly would have been a danger for the world championships - what is not the case now ![]() Also I didn't say anything about trying to destroy his site - I said that if we're not working together (and thus get insurance and redundancy) our both work is in danger to vanish. |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 01:06:02 AM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
@ryan: i have suggested this before (in the imc), i also suggested if the imc wants an official list they can not accept old scores without evidence, and (in personal contact with christoph - because the imc never talked about it) I was extremely excited to let the imc work with my ranking. However, Christoph copied my ranking without asking me or the imc, the imc assumed christoph got permission, and when I told Christoph he broke copyright he threatened to cancel the Vienna tournament and said if I tried to fight him he would quit the imc and my site would be destroyed. @kamil: none of those things christoph claims that i stopped were ever talked about. i actually wrote zhang (about joining our scores) and i wrote curtis (about making an online player) on my own idea last month to see if it was possible...the imc was never told Christoph had any of these ideas. As Jon said, if the imc wanted to do this, how can one person (me) stop six people? @everyone: i really want the imc to work! the fact that the imc can fail by one person leaving says a lot about the influence of one person. if we can get the imc to work openly, this can be avoided. i will still try to finish my answer tonight. thanks for your patience. |
![]() |
|
Apr 22nd 2008 at 12:02:16 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
Just solved 144/146 @ 43NF on timer couldnt find 2 squares, then found 1st square @ 44 on timer and misclicked 2nd square @ 45 ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 21st 2008 at 11:38:45 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
I decided to read all the long posts and I have only 1 question to Damien: Chris wrote: "If you're interested in the damage he caused (Damien): We could have set up a lot of features for the community. Already half a year ago we could have had: * online videos for almost all clones (so that everybody could watch videos in the browser without needing a clone) * direct uploads (you would just need to click a button to upload a score you just played or have in your history) * ranking cooperations (uploading a score to i.e. minesweeper.cc would have made the score also visible on Damiens ranking - or the chinese, russion or japanese one - depending on what you desired and who would have joined in)." I think he wouldnt write it, if it wasnt true, so my question to Damien is: Why u dont wont these things, if they would improve rankings and u would waste less time for boring uploading? ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 21st 2008 at 07:17:32 PM |
|
Name: |
Ryan Heise |
Comments: |
My opinion: IMC should maintain a ranking only for official competitions. Damien should continue maintaining his unofficial records list, and it should be labeled "unofficial world records". The IMC and Damien should not fight over control of the unofficial list or try to replace it, the IMC should focus on getting more "official" competitions happening and record the results of just those, officially. This way, Damien's unofficial efforts and the IMC's official efforts will not conflict. (When I say "should", that's probably a strong word, since it is only a proposal ![]() For a model solution, consider the Rubik's Speedcubing sport, for which there is both an official rankings maintained by the official organisation which recognises only times scored at competition venues under competition regulations, and a separate unofficial records list run by a regular member of the community which accepts records scored by people in the luxury of their own homes (where cheating is more possible, hence "unofficial"): http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/index.php http://www.speedcubing.com/records |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 21st 2008 at 06:33:47 PM |
|
Name: |
Michael |
Comments: |
@damien - thanks for the update @all - it seems the IMC is slowly dissolving or falling apart, however you like it. While now isn't the time for it, it looks like there will come a point in the next few months where we have to make a big decision about the IMC : abandon, rebuild, or keep the status quo. I think we should keep in the back of our minds that this is looming. If we're going to rebuild, we should do it properly, so let's keep a mental note of all the ideas we have for what the IMC could or should be. I've just written about 2/3 page in Word on my thoughts on what we need to do if we're going to rebuild from scratch. As I said, now isn't the time for it, but it looks like that time will come and we shouldn't forget about it. |
![]() |
|
Apr 21st 2008 at 04:10:32 PM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
i spent 5.5h tonight collecting all the emails between christoph and me, re-reading the entire forum, and printing and reading all the imc meetings again. i have nearly finished writing the history of the imc's involvement with rankings. @tommy: to quote "But it seems extremely strange to me that damien actively and conciously does not comply with the rules that the IMC - of which he is a member - implements. Definetly food for thought." It is strange...because it is false. I will try to finish a reply tomorrow night, and I would really appreciate if no one else starts throwing accusations around. @Joni: The IMC has never talked to me about my ranking or 'tried to reason' with me. I will explain in my reply. @michael: thankyou for waiting @ronny: correct btw, now that christoph has left, all the people who wanted to keep the imc secret have left (meeting 2007-10-14 & 2007-10-21) |
![]() |
|
Apr 21st 2008 at 03:45:03 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Best intermediate: |
FL 20,126 -> FL 19,451 (3BV=36, 1 flag) |
Comments: |
Finally Sub20 flagging!!! ![]() Only 36 3BV, but a difficult board to play fast....I especially liked the fact that I hold the nerves to find the most efficient place to flag on the board, which even made the difference to get Sub20. ![]() I think I'll stop playing intermediate now and will try to play some expert again to get a sub80 that I'm proud off (not a lame 3BV=116) @About the IMC discussion: I've seen (and solved) enough Internet conflicts to know that if you take both parties apart and let them tell their motives behind their actions.....that their actions were never intentially meant to harm, provoke or disrupt things even though the results of their account may have turned out different. I've seen enough of Christoph and Damien to know that they are both greats guys and do greats things for the community......therefor I will support both. Vid linked ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 21st 2008 at 01:45:07 PM |
|
Name: |
tK |
Comments: |
OK. My turn I guess. I apologize in advance in case I sound/get impolite, which is probably going to happen. I can not say what happened in the IMC before the beginning of this year, I was not a part of it yet then. I also did not see much of the ranking discussion, because lots of it was between christoph and damien, and I had my mind more focussed on other topics. But I would like to state that I completely support christoph, I had conversations with him about the topic and I witnessed the discussion (if it deserves to be called that) about whether or not winmine was legal. @damien if something else happened than christoph posted please give your version. I find that excuse not to say anything very weak, we deserve to know the truth if it is something different. If this were me I would definetly defend myself. How can you claim that you do not have enough respect in the community to be able to present your side of the argument? And are you honestly afraid of starting a flame war? Do you really think that this kind of issue will be resolved without an emotional and heavy discussion? I do not think that that is actually possible. It doesn't need to be destructive, but it will pass as a flame war by some definitions. Or are you afraid that people WILL flame you and that they will gain more respect than you have in the community? That would imply that there is something serious to flame about. I dont get it, but that excuse sounds extremely lame to me. @IMC. I also agree that transparency is important, I was one of the people that brought it up internally, and I spoke out for it. However, forbidding discussions via other media is a nice idea in theory, but will never work. Also I think that there are some things that have to be internal, such as score validation, because it is extremely important in that case that members can speak their minds about scores freely. But most should be open IMO. Of course nobody can force damien to do anything with this site. He can accept Jesus Rob Lovetts 35 expert if he desires to, the IMC is not the institution (or whatever to call it) to take care of that. But it seems extremely strange to me that damien actively and conciously does not comply with the rules that the IMC - of which he is a member - implements. Definetly food for thought. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 21st 2008 at 01:10:40 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
I played for 4 hours today, but didnt solve ane exp board ( 4 times blasted on 50-50 est41-45NF with 80% board solved). Too long posts for me, I wont read ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 21st 2008 at 11:10:46 AM |
|
Name: |
joni |
Best expert: |
my turn i guess *sigh* |
Comments: |
unfortunately, I can't say I didn't see something like this coming... although given not an attack of such proportions. I've never been an IMC member but I did think the IMC would fare better if both Damien and Rogen were not part of it (for different reasons), and did ask here pubblicly for them not to recandidate the last time around. Then again, having an IMC with a strong authority without these guys in it is by itself quite difficult. As I've said way too many times... what this IMC lacks is a statute, that says what it can do and what it can't. What its liberties are, and what its responsibilities. Christoph sais that Damien has not complied with the IMC decisions... I ask myself "Can the IMC impose it's decisions to Damien in the first place? Does it have this authority?" It's well known that Damien has always done with his site as he pleased... and I even had the impression the first IMC had somewhat given up any hope of making him reason. Not surprisingly the only ranking they had authority over was actually the BestEver at Planete-Demineur (which was also the most up to date). A year or more ago the BestEver stopped updating... Detrusor got a medical internship and left the maintainance job in the shoulders of Schu, who didn't have time either. By what I recall both rankings had roughly 400 members, of which ~200 unique per ranking. Having a UNIFIED ranking which could be mantained by several people at once (who better than the IMC members themselves, would you think?) was an imperative. Christoph worked hard to achieve just that and I can understand his frustration IF Damien now doesn't hold to the promises HE MIGHT HAVE MADE back then (I'm not talking emails here, but actually face-to-face discussions in Vienna and Budapest) To conclude, the model with a ranking mantained by only one person has continuously failed! With both Damien and Detrusor... the fact that we have one ranking that works ok for the moment and is even almost unified is actually quite amazing and certainly feels like a pleasent exception rather than the rule around here. --- A lot of words that don't say much ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 21st 2008 at 09:16:10 AM |
|
Name: |
WP |
Comments: |
@Michael: I think they used the planet-minesweeper forum before, only that that part of the forum was private. Forbidding private discussions seems a little extreme, though... I have always been for making discussions public, and even making it possible for non-IMC members to join in. In fact, the ideal, in my opinion, would be to discuss everything like the community used to do before the IMC was created, and the IMC would only vote on it in the end. (and I feel like I've said this thousand times!) |
![]() |
|
Apr 21st 2008 at 09:15:02 AM |
|
Name: |
Timothy |
Comments: |
I have a problem with my minesweeper clone 2007. Every time i solve a board and every time i try to exit the game I get a error message. Does anyone now what I can do to fix that? |
![]() |
|
Apr 21st 2008 at 07:18:04 AM |
|
Name: |
Michael |
Comments: |
@damien - there's a chance it could descend into a flame war, but I think we have a fairly sensible user base here. People will be prepared to hear you out. This is a bit of a bombshell for me, and I imagine most others. I didn't see this coming, and I'd like to get a balanced view of what's been going on so that I can decide where I stand. We'd all like to hear a response from you. Both you and Christoph have seemed like nice and reasonable people when I've spoken to you, and there's a lot of respect for both of you here, so I don't think you need to worry about getting a fair hearing (if I can put it like that - I don't mean to imply that anyone is on trial) @all - presumably these conversations were conducted by email, so I'll throw an idea out there. What do people think about a rule that forbids the discussion of IMC related matters via email, or other non-public methods? It seems a little far, perhaps, but it would seem to eliminate this kind of problem. Imagine a case where there is a specific IMC forum set up, where everyone can post, and all IMC business had to be conducted there. It would be a forum, rather than a live discussion, so no time zone restraints. The IMC discussions would have to be completely open, and everyone's colours nailed to the wall. Thoughts? |
![]() |
|
Apr 21st 2008 at 05:03:17 AM |
|
Name: |
Christoph |
Comments: |
@Jon: It's less about the decision but more about delaying the work itself - it's pretty easy to 'help' in a way that nothing happens. There is no and never has been any problem whatsoever about Damien having his own ranking - the problem is that he did everything to prevent an official IMC ranking. |
![]() |
|
Apr 20th 2008 at 11:16:17 PM |
|
Name: |
Jason K. |
Comments: |
I suppose as an IMC member I should chime in. But I feel like the only thing I can say at this point is that I'm with WP: transparency needs to come, and come quickly. While I don't think everybody jumping ship individually is the correct way to express frustration, I'm half-inclined to agree with the idea of blowing the whole thing up and starting over. The IMC is an excellent idea, but at this point it's just that: an idea, one that has so far proven to be quite difficult in establishing and maintaining. If it can't be fixed as presently constituted, perhaps a clean start is best. Anyway, I feel like I should state that I have no intention of quitting anytime soon. Things are not at that depressing point yet ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 20th 2008 at 05:12:47 PM |
|
Name: |
Jon S |
Comments: |
@Ronny: Thanks. I think I played at least five hours the last two days to finish those nine games, so it wasn't that short time. It's not easy to finish a lot of games when you're an NF-er. I got totally crushed when I tried to play at minesweeperlive a while ago against a flagger with similar records to me. I try to take it a little bit slower on expert than on intermediate, so I don't blast so many games. @Christoph: I'm sorry to hear that you're retiring from the IMC. I don't want to say much more before Damien has had a chance to respond, but it sounds kinda strange that a single person could ruin a project like getting online videos if the six other members of the IMC was for it. As for any issues about Damien's ranking, I don't think that he should be forced to run it according to the wishes of the IMC. If he chooses to ignore some of the rules for valid scores, I suppose that there's a need for another ranking. I just uploaded my new expert record to minesweeper.cc, so I can get that validated at least. I guess that someone might say that there's a problem that some people do not bother to upload their score to minesweeper.cc, but I don't think Damien can be blamed too much for that ![]() I hope that the IMC will be able to sort out any problems, and can continue working for the minesweeper community ![]() |
![]() |
|
Apr 20th 2008 at 04:29:37 PM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
Hi guys, I am not sure how to respond to Christoph's claims: if I ignore them, some people might believe them - if I explain what has happened, it could start a flame war. Neither is a happy outcome for a community based on trust. WP is completely correct that IMC discussions should be made public, and she has my full support. @Jon: congrats on getting back in form! @Ronny: stop worrying...you will sub60 this year. @E Tao Jin: you deserve this...wow! |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Apr 20th 2008 at 04:20:52 PM |
|
Name: |
Michael |
Comments: |
Wow....this is pretty heavy stuff. Can we have some opinions or information from other IMC members please? I'm not really sure what to think at the moment. Damien, do you have a response? |
![]() |
Viewing Page 16 of 27 (Total Entries: 2685) |