Uh.... no, sorry. I haven't thought of a way to do it that won't be too database intensive. Same goes for mark all read.

it's not as simple as: checking -> IF the new post flag for anything under it is set THEN set it?

K how about the bug where if you click on a Page number of a Thread (with multiple pages) then it sets the icon to Unread and takes you to through (each?) page of the thread until it is "caught back up".
That one's starting to really BUG me :).

weathertop wrote: it's not as simple as: checking -> IF the new post flag for anything under it is set THEN set it?

Unfortunately not :)

I think I may have a way to do it, will see how it works out.

asm wrote:

I exclusively use the "Recent Threads" view for the forums. I read pretty much everything so far.

I as well, and as such, wouldn't mind if those buttons were a bit bigger. Not a real high priority or anything, but I would like it.

Is there any reason that we couldn't have or wouldn't want all games in a round robin tournament to be played simultaneously?

M57 wrote:

Is there any reason that we couldn't have or wouldn't want all games in a round robin tournament to be played simultaneously?

There is a setting on your preferences page for this under Tournament Preferences (click on the Settings link in the upper right corner of this page).

Wow! Interesting.. Interesting that the default is "Off" (I think it should be "On").  Even more interesting that it's even something that is individually selectable.  How many people in tournaments even know it's a option?

I was thinking that the person who runs the tournament should be able to make it "Simultaneous". I'm pretty sure I  understand the main reason for making it individually selectable, but.. Oh well, ..I suppose it's a done deal now.

I actually just found out about that setting just the other day. For some reason mine was set to "On" before I even knew about it.

The only downside I can think of in using this setting is that one little hiccup could wipe you out of a tournament super fast. For example, the bowling tournament I'm in only has 2-player games. If something happens in RL that causes me to be skipped in every game, I'm that much closer to being completely eliminated. I'm not saying that'll happen, but it is a possibility.

I believe the reason why the default is no is so that players with a limited number of games do not use up all of their slots at once. Also, it was originally this way prior to having the option.

The further downside I see to having it on (mine is) is that in a big round robin tournament (if everyone had theirs on), you would get flooded with multiple games and it can be hard to keep track of what you were doing in each of the games.

Alpha wrote: I believe the reason why the default is no is so that players with a limited number of games do not use up all of their slots at once. Also, it was originally this way prior to having the option.

I thought tom removed the # of games restriction for tournament games, didn't he?

StepOnMe wrote:

Alpha wrote: I believe the reason why the default is no is so that players with a limited number of games do not use up all of their slots at once. Also, it was originally this way prior to having the option.

I thought tom removed the # of games restriction for tournament games, didn't he?

I agree with Step, I think there is some special logic around tournaments.

wait wait wait wait wait, when are the pancakes coming in the mail?

What if you have your thing turned to have all your games start at 1 time and the other players in that game don't have it turned on?

RiskyBack wrote: wait wait wait wait wait, when are the pancakes coming in the mail?

they're supposed to arrive the day after the maple syrup.  (EDIT: an emoticon just for you!)

RiskyBack wrote: What if you have your thing turned to have all your games start at 1 time and the other players in that game don't have it turned on?

That's not necessarily a problem. just because you have the ability to play all your games at once, doesn't mean you will. you would only play the games where a) you were supposed to at that time, and 2) with any others that also had the box checked and were available. You would end up getting to those people that didn't have the box checked in their due time.

I think I would rather have it where it's a tournament option rather than a player option. You could create a tourny where all games start at one time or not, rather than giving the player all the power.

So what happens with the turn timer on games you're invited to? I know that it still ticks away, but does it just keep going or count against you? (meaning it'll skip/boot you once the 2-day turn limit is up)

StepOnMe wrote: So what happens with the turn timer on games you're invited to? I know that it still ticks away, but does it just keep going or count against you? (meaning it'll skip/boot you once the 2-day turn limit is up)

Tournament games you are Auto-Booted during the Invite/Join phase if you reach the Boot Time!

you wouldn't be invited, thus the timer wouldn't activate, unless you both have your thingy set to ON (or its actually your turn to play given one of you have it set to OFF).

of course, all this devil's advocating is assuming tom coded it up to work that way...but it makes sense to me, so why wouldn't he have?!

That makes sense w'top. Thanks!

RiskyBack wrote: I think I would rather have it where it's a tournament option rather than a player option. You could create a tourny where all games start at one time or not, rather than giving the player all the power.

It pains me to admit it, but I agree with Risky. It should be one of the parameters of the tournament.  Like any other game or tournament, if you don't like it, don't join.  If one person has the ability to set their thingy to "Off" (man, that's awkward), then the whole point of everyone playing at once is lost and the tournament will be held up because of that one player.