@ H.G. (plus others who I addressed in my previous post, in this Thread):

Regarding the list of 5 CVs that I thought (in my opinion) were insufficiently original (the 5 may be worth discussing, if your post I'm now replying to is [yet again?] indicative of a true/unofficial policy on CVP site that I was unfortunately unaware of, until it was just a bit too late, for my stuff to be published by any editor, to date), that list of 5 is given again below, with my explanation of why I thought they may not meet such a threshold. I pointed these 5 out (to be viewed as examples) in my previous post in this Thread, since you yourself opined quite a while back that at least some of my own still waiting-for-publication CV invention(s) were, in your opinion, insufficiently original.

The result of that opinion of yours, to date, as I see it, is that you, in effect, heavily contributed to the blocking of a huge load of stuff, that I have waiting to be hopefully more closely examined by others (at least by more than 1 or 2 editors) as to whether any should be published (and, hopefully as individual CVP Rules Pages, as I very much prefer). Never mind your claim that I'm somehow distracting you too much in your last post (should I care, when you may simply have elected not have responded to my previous post, or to any others of mine in just this Thread, since your views seem already clear? - but by posting I did kind of give the benefit of the doubt, in case there was any hint of flexibility/interest to see by any poster[s], at all, otherwise). Note also that I'd rather see all that load of stuff of mine published first, than instead do stuff that you (and any others?) may prefer I do first, i.e. in spite of what you indicated in your post that I am replying to. Of course, I also wonder about any CVP editors who may still be deciding about my waiting-to-be-published stuff, even if a large number of them eventually agreed, by way of (any Comment[s], at all), with any or all of your assessments to date about my waiting stuff.

I'd note again, that the sort(s) of publishing hinderances of much of my stuff in my pipeline, that I've been faced with on CVP site to date (which can indeed be overcome, perhaps especially by those who are skilled enough as Contributors, and/or if they may be willing to cave on [at least some of] their principles, plus sacrifice more of their free time) might happen later on to other CVP Contributors, at least in theory). OK, I think I've largely said my piece (in just three paragraphs), in case very few got the most vital points from my previous post, in this Thread.

As a digression (especially to you H.G.), as to why I'm trying to fight what I see as a good fight on this CVP site, at least at the moment. Even I myself am not quite sure why such a fight (i.e. via my posts on CVP site) is worth it. I do have at least some free time, even of late, yet it's typically far from even just a very few hours every day of the week. I still live with a lot of pain - literally - every day. I trust you couldn't possibly believe me as to why, H.G.. Let's just say I'm doing my little bit to try to help save mankind, from any number of threats (I hope Fergus won't be offended [i.e. as in do an edit - hopefully only a partial one, at worst, rather than delete this whole post], since he is whom I see as, in my own informal way, CVP editor in chief, if I say here that I personally feel the need to ask for, as it were, favors from the Universe [the last word being a mysterious term astrologers in newspapers sometimes use], any number of times a day). The threats to mankind are real enough, in any case, regardless of whether you think any new medication - read any general news headlines about various parts of the globe, on the internet, on most days so far this year, for example. That's a big reason why I wonder why I use much of my free time at all, on frivolous matters (especially in this current year), such as on this CVP site, for example.

Anyway, regarding the 5 CVs that puzzled you as to why I mentioned them in my previous post, H.G., regarding as to why I saw them as lacking in originality:

1. 'Xiangqi vs Orthodox Chess' and 2. 'WWII Chess' (which has a shogi army for one side's army) are in my view both not original enough to be published as a CVP Rules Page (and here's where other people might agree or disagree, besides yourself), simply because I see them as more suitable to be (perhaps merged, maybe as you'd refer to it) called cases of armies that might be somehow added to 'Chess with Different Armies' (overlooking for the moment that you assessed each of these two CVs as each being mismatches too much in favor of one army or the other, H.G.).

2. 'Palace Shogi' is something I think in hindsight I was way too hasty about in assessing. I thought this CV was a bit too similar to Shogi (with some Chinese Chess rules added in), but today it is far from clear to me that it's too unoriginal, since its seems many (special!?) rules are added in to this CV

3. 'Swedish Hopper Chess' was a bit too similar to FIDE Chess - just one piece in each army is different than for FIDE Chess.

4. 'SuperKnights Grand Chess' is a CV I thought was a bit too unoriginal, for the same reasons that you did.

Note again that all 5 of these cases, that I happened to see in less than a week, were of already published Rules Pages on CVP - I was attempting to try to improve my case, as I see it, that CVP site may already be abundantly full of unoriginal stuff, yet all of a sudden it seems my stuff was heavily picked on. It may simply be that I should have (as a purely practical matter/strategy, as a Contributor) tried to publish just a few of my waiting CVs over the space of several years, as if to keep a low profile, and then maybe no one might have caused me my current misfortune on CVP site, as a Contributor.

Regards, KP.