... Once again good bye I'm neither gonna follow the topic nor reply.
You should have done that weeks ago when you first came into this topic and replied with "not interested", rather than trying to cause trouble over topics that you don't like. @JoelCyril_6A_Autumn, alias @LostSeoull
I think there are too many accusations of multi-accounting going on here. Imho, I doubt any multi-accounting is happening in this thread.
Also, I see no reason for this thread to be moved to Off-Topic. It doesn't really fit in Off-Topic. Maybe a better fit would be to move it to "Chess Books and Equipment", where a number of Kickstarter topics have been started in the past with universal acceptance. But it's also OK where it is now, in my non-mod humble opinion.
@EscherehcsE
The only suspect of multiple accounts is JoelCyril_6A_Autumn, who I believe is really LostSeoull. Notice how both of them say a very similar thing in nearly identical manner. His/her then turning around to say that I'm really the OP in another account was a tactless deflection of my confronting him/her. (OP wants to fund the program while his/her alleged duplicate, @BattleChessGN18, wants to negatively criticize the program staunchly for falling out of its predecessors' reputation?)
Regardless of any of that, my bottom line driven home was more or less what you're saying: the thread doesn't need to be move to off-topic. There are people who do enjoy the discussion of this chess program. Just because @JoelCyril_6A_Autumn doesn't like it or finds it annoying doesn't necessarily qualify it as "trolling"; which he/she obviously knows it isn't.
At any rate, I reported him/her (@JoelCyril_6A_Autumn) to a moderator. I realize I should have just done that and not fan the flames. I do take responsibility for that.
No, there is no misunderstanding.
You have posted a whole lot of "meaningless content", which is against chess.com forum TOS. You inappropriately referred it as "off-topic" when it obviously isn't. You don't like the topic, then you could have simply not posted. Instead, you took it upon yourself to disrupt the thread by calling it (and us) a "troll"; and contributed nothing to the discussion of Battle Chess: Game of Kings.
We were all discussing a chess program that we love(d)/like(d)/enjoy(ed). You were not. Do you get it or not?
<snip> And then, yes, the programs' flip-page animations, which they were, took seemingly way too long. Albeit, BC 1992-3 (the program that my screen name was based on) had very smooth animation that took at least slightly less time; depending on the machine and operating system it was on back in its time.
For me, animations taking too long mostly weren't an issue. If I couldn't finish a game, I always saved it for another day. And, BC92-3 series also had a features that make a game faster. It allowed you to zip-play without the animation: the character just slide across the board instantly, and captured characters disappear in an instance, without having to deal with the slow walking-cross-board animation of the piece and their 6-20 second animation sequence.
I used BC as a training tool, because it was freakin' hard for me to defeat. The animations didn't matter to me. It was an excellent chess program that really taught me how to be a standing chess player.
You are right that it looks like GoK wasn't much more than just a cheap 'let me use a reputable name to make cold cash' ordeal. I couldn't have been more disappointed because of the long list of reasons I left here. I regard Battle Chess 1993 as my most updated version of Battle Chess, because it is a prized treasure to me, compared to what GoK had to offer. I told the developers that. I left it as a review on their feedbacks page.
I'm confused about the various versions of Battle Chess. When you talk about the BC 92-93 series, are you talking about Battle Chess Enhanced (original design with improved 256-color VGA graphics and symphonic audio), or the Battle Chess 4000 version?
I don't even know what battle chess is, and I came in here out of curiosity. Goodness but these threads get strange in a hurry.
I don't even know what battle chess is, and I came in here out of curiosity. Goodness but these threads get strange in a hurry.
Yep, it's an interesting thread. Bottom line, don't buy Battle Chess: Game of Kings, lol...
When you talk about the BC 92-93 series, are you talking about Battle Chess Enhanced (original design with improved 256-color VGA graphics and symphonic audio), or the Battle Chess 4000 version?
Battle Chess 1988-89:
Battle Chess 1992-93:
You have to use a credit card. Send me your #, security code and expiration date and I will hook you up I promise.
why cant i just do it myself?
Got it.
Battle Chess 1992-93 = Enhanced, not 4000
Thanks!
Haha Good old 4000.
See that? All these versions in the Battle Chess series is a golden classic: '88-'89, '92-'93.
Game of Kings? Uh-uh. No. Hardly.
It really pisses me off that the proud traditions of Battle Chess has been spat on in this newest version, which was advertised as the "best update" of them all.
Again, this is not speaking to the awesome animations that GoK proudly boasts. Those abundance of anim sequence are awesome and really fun to watch, giving credit where credit is majorly due. The animators must have taken weeks, even months to complete and perfect them. They are a treasure in themselves. Don't get me wrong!
However, we must look to 92-93 for inspiration of said BC traditions. This was a time when
- There was beautiful flowing music (composed by Scott LaRocca),
- White was red and Black was blue,
- The Rooks were towers that transformed into stone beasts when they moved, and
- (most importantly and mainly) the diabolical game's "AI" beat the living logic out of our skills during play, every single froikin' time! It was always 2+ steps ahead of you, no matter how clever or innovative you (think you) were!
I'm sorry, I'm just repeating everything I've already mentioned. Maybe I should stop, unless I want to have a nose-bled meltdown. 
No, there is no misunderstanding.
You have posted a whole lot of "meaningless content", which is against chess.com forum TOS. You inappropriately referred to it as "off-topic" when it obviously isn't. You don't like the topic, then you could have simply not posted. Instead, you took it upon yourself to disrupt the thread by calling it (and us) a "troll"; and contributed nothing to the discussion of Battle Chess: Game of Kings.
We were all discussing a chess program that we love(d)/like(d)/enjoy(ed). You were not. Do you get it or not?
It is a Troll. How can you say it's not? This thread was posted 3-4 years ago and you brought it back now which is a Troll. Try asking someone whether this thread is a Troll it not. I, first a fall don't even know who @Lostseoull is. Yes, I agree that I said something somewhat analogous to what he said but you can't judge and compare falsely blaming that we are the same person. If you think we are the same person, You have no evidence proving your false statement whereas I have a lot. If chess.com looks at my IP and his, they will know that my account is not only in a distinct country but also a different IP. Secondly, I can send a photo proof of me stating that I'm different from that individual. Thirdly, If an attested government document of me and the person is sent, the team will apprise me as innocent and you posting "Pointless content". There, My pieces of evidence are more trustworthy and loyal, making your words blasphemous.
So, @EscherehcsE, I sent a paragraph here trying to prove who I am and why @BattleChessGN18 is trying to turn this into a blame game with each other. If you think I'm correct, Kindly make him understand what's wrong with his side...
I have two comments to you.
1) I don't think @BattleChessGN18 did anything wrong by bumping this thread. I just don't see how you can refer to bumping an old thread as a "troll". It's simply adding new information to supplement the content of an old thread.
2) Regarding the argument about multi-accounting, I'd prefer not to get in the middle of the argument. If I were you, I'd just ignore the issue. If you're innocent (like I feel you are), then the mods will do nothing, and you can either hang around the thread or return to the thread later (just everybody be nice), and @BattleChessGN18 will eventually realize that you're not going to be punished for multi-accounting and that just maybe he was wrong in his suspicions.
Beyond that advice, I don't think there's much I can or should try to do. Just let the mods sort it out.
It is a Troll. How can you say it's not? This thread was posted 3-4 years ago and you brought it back now which is a Troll.
You don't even know what "Troll" means. It refers to people who post in a manner that is meant for no other reason than to be a nuisance and to irritate.
Neither I nor the OP were doing this.
I was speaking in aftermath of the long-gone fundraiser that the program isn't worth it. I left a detailed, developed critique on the issues of the newest version of this program.
Trolling, on the other hand, would be coming into a chess thread and asking it to be moved to chess.com's off-topic forum. Trolling is throwing empty jabs, like "@LostSeoull looks like another member who was rectifying you", just to try to provoke a response. Both of these things were what you were doing, and we're not going to tolerate it. It's inappropriate behavior; the rest of us were discussing the updates and current goings-on of a chess program in a chess news forum.
Why are people to not think that your intention was probably to be some rash annoyance? (Whether you are @LostSeoull in another screen name or not)
Bringing back long-lost subjects are called "Trolls"
No, Bubba, it's not.
... I think It's a breach of TOS as far as I know If you bring back an old topic that wasn't responded to long back ago. Chess.com states that If you want to create something similar to those, You should not comment on long-lost topics but must make a new one If you want to.
Please tell me exactly where in the TOS it says this. No, don't ask me to "look it up [myself]". I want you to link me to the TOS page and quote me exactly the part of the TOS that says this.
Also, to everyone involved:
for the record, may I please kindly please be referred to as the woman I am. I'm not a he.
(It's alright. It's a common innocent mistake.)
I don't even know what battle chess is, and I came in here out of curiosity. Goodness but these threads get strange in a hurry.
+1 wonder why both parties seem to need to uphold the tos when they aren't mods and haven't received provocation (in my opinion).
+1 wonder why both parties seem to need to uphold the tos when they aren't mods and haven't received provocation (in my opinion).
You're absolutely right. My only original intention was to explain why this thread doesn't need to be moved to another forum. And, I still stand by that conviction.
I don't even know what battle chess is, and I came in here out of curiosity.
BattleChess isn't known to a lot of folks of the newer 2000-2020 generation. It was a 2D animation chess program where chessmen characters performed live action battles during captures and checkmate. The cartoon animations were tragic, humorous and simply childishly-goofy, which is what I enjoyed about it.
Most of all, it was one of the best of its time in its ability to play Chess.
Also, to everyone involved:
for the record, may I please kindly please be referred to as the woman I am. I'm not a he.
(It's alright. It's a common innocent mistake.)
I will endeavor to refer to you as a "she" from now on.
You have to understand that I'm an old geezer, and when I learned English in school, we were taught that if the gender is unknown, you should use masculine pronouns. I know that's not what the politically correct crowd does these days, but that's what I was taught, and it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. :-)
It's alright, darling. "Old geezers", having reached a grand age (80+ in uptight Chinese tradition; 60+ in my book), are generally and loosely regarded by me as being wise, lovable, relatable, respected; and simply adorable.
How does it feel to join a class of really cute grandpa's who smile and humbly laugh at almost anything, even when there is evil and ugly all around him?
Photo proof of me will say it all. (Your desperate Bravado says it all about your failing attempt at your own uphill battle. Neither LostSeoull nor you can prove it's different people in each screen name through photos, namely that it's expressedly prohibited at chess.com.)
Your false accusations aren't gonna work. Try harder. (Nah, Bubba. I really don't think I have to; seeing that I seemed to have hit the nail on the head quite nicely.
)
Here's a tip: Next time you impersonate or make false similarities with other people try make it real (You're not convincing me that @LostSeoull isn't another screen name of @JoelCyril_6A_Autumn; especially seeing how defensive you are.)
Case in point, Bubba: you went into a childish fury because your "Not interested" remark, which was your first in this thread, was regarded as "meaningless posting", which is prohibited by chess.com TOS. So, instead of simply calling it quits and finding topics that do appeal to you, you decided to amp up your bickering by pretending to be multiple people agreeing with you.
Notice how after a decade of this measly thread's existence, it hasn't been locked; and neither are the members banned for "trolling".
Returning your own words to you: Nice try. Try harder.