[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Response to comments

Posted By: phil simborg
Date: Wednesday, 26 February 2014, at 3:38 p.m.

In Response To: XG Semantics (phil simborg)

I can see the point of those who want to keep unlimited games...yes, those of us who play a lot and know the game are used to it, and it doesn't matter what the hell you call it, we all know what XG means. To us, it really is no big deal.

But what about new players and relatively inexperienced players, where the semantics do matter? What about every time I give a lecture and I have to explain that "unlimited" doesn't really mean that and I have to explain what it really is?

Don't look at this from the standpoint of one of us highly experienced players. We need to have terminology that is not misleading and that best describes what it is we are trying to describe.

I also agree that "single game" can be confused with a game that does not include a gammon or backgammon--thanks for that comment.

So, what about "Individual game" or "Individual games" or "Independent game"?

After all the comments, I am leaning toward the above.

Of course, the ultimate decision is always Xavier's, but I know he is sensitive to the advice and opinions of the players on this forum.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.