Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

On this note, may I suggest that maybe some common terminology and so on be
agreed to?  Stuff like Braves Chess be quantified as a universal game fix,
rather than a separate game and so on?

I do agree that people need to watch what they are saying.  If someone
thinks something is flawed, please explain WHY so that a better creation
can come about?

I have not read recent exchanges in some threads that prompt this new
topic, but noticed a few words. However, generally, what Joyce raises
here, inconvenient ad hominem poor choice of words, in the nature of
attack, is not nearly so offensive as the following. (1) Rudeness
involving preoccupation with one's own portfolio to the near-exclusion of
the other 3000 CVs on this page, and 2000 CVs in Pritchard 'ECV', and
other sources (2) Refusal to  refrain from publishing, article or
Rules-set or Preset, when it is found there is considerable similarity to
pre-existing work (3) Assumption that we all adhere to
''prolificism,'' to tolerate that failure just to acknowledge prior art someone's own closely duplicates, even when it is clearly called to
attention. So, discourtesy comes in many forms, and greater indiscretions
are substantive.

George, I find myself in substantial agreement with much of what you say,
though far from all of it. One of our recent prolific posters has
suggested a better breakdown of categories in which this site accepts
submissions. You are saying substantially the same here in your point 2,
if I include a footnote-type or me-too category that some posts would be
relegated to? I might buy that but not all will agree. But we will all
likely offer different categories. So that discussion might well better be
carried on elsewhere, say in the categories discussion.

On your point 3, where I leaned a bit against your viewpoint, I've
changed my mind somewhat, and I lean a bit toward your viewpoint. So I
will, for example, acknowledge ERB in Lemurian as someone 'modern' who
did a unique game with shortrange pieces.

On point 1, I find myself in substantial disagreement. The site has
created a wiki, open to all, which is doing, or trying to do, some
fascinating things. It has, currently running, 2 tournaments, structured
to provide a quite diversified  portfolio of games. There has been an
influx of new people, many bringing their own games, which has prompted
impromptu Invent and Play arrangements. Yes, the new people, myself among
them, don't know the rich history, and this is a lack. This is why I have
changed my mind about mentioning similar items in write-ups. I assume here
that having them mentioned in the comments wouldn't count.

Realistically, though, few are going to make a serious attempt to read all
that went before, or even a major chunk of it, and fewer still will
remember all they've read. So it's pretty much up to those who remember
it as it happened or played it or made it back when to apprise the rest of
us of such facts as they know, if the record is to be kept straight, I
would imagine. 

Joe