@ H.G. (and Ben, Fergus, or any [editor] who care[s]):

I have an axe to grind against CVP site, of late, and for quite some time, in fact. I admit it. I feel discriminated against, somehow (though maybe it's just acute paranoia/[being pretty darned steamed, now and then]).

H.G., you wrote, in the post I am replying to, that [henceforth!?] [all!?] [newly!?] published CVP [authored items that are about] CV inventions should be 'sufficiently' original [I suppose meaning in the 'opinion' of a given editor(s) 'judgement', to paraphrase an earlier post by Fergus in this CVP Comment Thread that I seem to recall].

Well, H.G., as far as I am concerned, this piece of policy that you propose (and that, at least so far, almost all of your fellow CVP editors who have recently visited CVP site [i.e. since the start of 2025]) have, as if, by default (you yourself have kind of put it to me that way, in this CVP Thread) condoned this policy, by their very act of staying silent (note that editor Ben has not been silent - he in effect, it seems[??] agreed with you, at least in regard to rejecting some of my own CVs still in my pipeline, waiting for publication - Fergus has been silent on that ruling, but far from silent on many other aspects of relatively recently discussed matters in this Thread). That is, these silent editors, as if by default (and you, again, H.G., seem to interpret it to be their default stance), i.e. in the way of not giving any posts that object at all to your policy proposal. Is it now fully in effect as an official CVP policy, as if your so far unchallenged opinion/(policy proposal) is in effect a new, ironclad, CVP CV item/(Page) publication requirement 'law' (Fergus, for example, might elect to comment on that, in this Thread)?.

As an aside (#1), one problem (e.g., for me!) I may have had for quite a while now is that, a kind of CVP editors' snowball effect can happen now and then: as soon as any CVP editor(s) see(s) that a fellow editor is at the least even a bit squeemish about publishing something on CVP site, quite possibly every CVP editor may in effect jump on that bandwagon (excuse my mixing metaphors - anyway, I do not care about such trivial stuff like that, right now), rather easily, if they're not quite sure if they (dis)agree with that fellow editor, even.

As another aside (#2), I see it, so far, it's one thing to silently abstain from voting in a democracy, or even within a typical sort of business organization, say one with Robert's Rules of Order in effect, but it's another thing when being someone who has volunteered to be an editor [say on CVP site] to stay silent on what I, at least, see as an extremely serious proposed policy, e.g. the current one I am writing about, that has been put forward by H.G. [there could be a separate discussion on this whole view of mine re: all CVP editor's right(s), if there should be any, to abstain for very long on {any?} policy issue(s) discussion(s), I suppose]). This is such an extremely serious policy proposal by H.G., as I see it, that it could, in the fullness of time (i.e. if this proposal is fully accepted by CVP staff) perhaps even become a sort of existential threat to the (widely!?) hoped for (even minimally sustained) popularity of this CVP site, as just possibly more and more [potential] contributors over time, in effect, may vote with their feet, as in, quit/(stay away) from this CVP website, perhaps forever more (as in, possibly not ever even bothering to later visit now and then, to even check if anything has significantly improved enough, to their own liking).

Anyway, H.G., you may ask, what prompted me to reply to your post, in regard to this particular policy proposal of yours, until finally just this day? Well, I'll tell you, H.G. - a bit further below, I'll give a short list of some CVP published CVs (a number of which you yourself updated their Pages, without adding any Comment [to such Pages], whatsoever, say especially to the effect that the CVs in question lacked sufficient originality, in your own opinion, at the least), which today I saw were Commented/Updated/Posted upon (in any way, whatsoever, unless somehow any post[s] were deleted by editor[s]), in the CVP public Comments Thread, that were dated 3 April 2025 or later. That's aside from other considerations that have somewhat restricted my own free time to post at length on CVP site, etc., for quite a while now.

Not to beat around the bush much longer (if so), I've detected (at least in my own opinion [which may well be a bit biased, I admit - not to mention that I think any number of the CVs I listed further below are, shall we say, not even worth walking the short distance across my own side street, to even become just a spectator to a pair of people playing a game of such a CV that might be among the ones that I have listed below - you be the judge, H.G., if you care to check all 5 of them quite closely, regarding assessing their playability]) a certain lack of originality to the following (5) CVs in the short list below. You tell me, H.G., or any other editor/poster, why you may disagree with my assessment re: their insufficient originality - I admit it may be a different 'lack' of such originality that you and Ben opined upon much earlier (elsewhere, I think), when not recommending the publishing of many of my own still-waiting-to-be-published CVP Rules Pages, for quite a few CV inventions of mine, which you, H.G.. recommended that in some cases should be instead merged together to make for fewer such Pages (especially due to your own /[Ben's?] perception that many CV inventions/Pages of mine still awaiting publication were not quite original enough compared to others of mine), never mind (and I paraphrase) your added observation (again elsewhere, I think) that some still waiting Pages of mine just might be (at least temporarily) rejected for publication for any other possible reason:

My list of just some (5) published CVs on CVP site that seem to lack sufficient originality, perhaps, in my opinion at least:

1. Xiangqi vs. Orthodox Chess
2. WWII Chess
3. Palace Shogi
4. Swedish Hopper Chess
5. SuperKnights Grand Chess

Regards, KP.