peacepickle , i suggest only playing shorter limit tourneys in the future 1 or two days limit, or upgrade your account and play more games to keep you occupied , also for the small amount of going to a knight you can play one of every game there is in a tournament , not just one like you seem to think .
peace

There are no limits on the brain pawn ids, so let them go fight it out like the old west :) Any number of family members can play in either section.

One big difference: The top two paying members per section advance to the semifinals. Only the top section winner in the brain pawns will advance to the semifinals.

You keep playing on once you win your section, since if you win your tournament, BrainPawn or BrainPayers, you get seeded into the finals, and do not need to play in the semifinals.

The semifinals will be the mix of BrainPawn section winners and BrainPayer 1st and 2nd place section finishers. Whoever wins that goes to the finals.

There are 4 people in the finals, for those counting :)

Make it to the finals, collect your cash. $500 per person. Second place finisher gets $1500. Winner gets $3000.

I consider myself as being a candidate to get seeded directly to the finals. I hope nobody has a problem with that. So, the BrainPawn winner, the BrainPayer winner, myself, and the seminfals winner will duke it out for the World Championship.

No further concessions, take it or leave it.

I'll stand by my words. What I quoted from Eriisa is very condescending. I'm a pawn, and am in no way frustrated here at BK as she assumes we pawns all are.

I'm here for one main reason: I enjoy backgammon and look forward to playing good players who can challenge me. From Eriisa's record, it seems she's here for other reasons and does not understand the true competitive spirit of tourney play.

It can be frustrating for ANY competitive player (not just pawns) to wait and wait and wait for players in his or her section to make a move. Sometimes anxious tourney players just need to be reminded that time allowances are part of online tourney play.

I take little pleasure in pounding weaker backgammon opponents in tournaments. One tourney at a time is all I want for now even though Eriisa thinks all us pawns are frustrated and feel otherwise.

Some people like to play 150+ games at once; others like to play only a few tourney games. Whatever floats your boat. The main thing is that we're all here to have fun. Right?

peace

ok, im going to put in my 1.5 cents worth..hehe
i read Eriisa's message twice, peacepickle, and didnt read anything condescending? maybe it could have been gentler, she was just pointing out that sections arent complete in that tourney, she wasnt taking pot-shots at pawns.

second---(hope i dont get in trouble for this ;o)--) as far as the Gothic tournament for $3000-- i agree, no way can we stop cheaters, i dont think the revised idea about a sperate pawn tournament with a seperate paying member tournament and then the winner of each going to the finals, will make much of a difference from the original set of rules.... what if the pawn is another paying member using an alias pawn? that could be you, Gothic, it could be anyone.

i honestly considered joining, though i've never played the game, played only chess as a youngster, so have only rudimentary skills, but for the fun of it, not hoping to win... especially if Andersp (my husband) could join too, just to track how good or bad we both are doing, for fun, certainly knowing we wont win money. we do that now in all other tourneys, we love this site, its so much fun!!!
the options are wonderful (for all the tourney games til this Gothic one)... and im one of those ive read complained about, who have like 200 games... (personally i have over 500...hehe) and its my right... and i can go as slow as i want, if i time out, then its my own fault..(i havent timed out yet) so i dont like when people comment that there should be limits to how many games you can have.

I think, though, in commenting about the Chess tournament for $3000, that Gothic has the right to write his own rules... so therefore, only one in this household can join. its fair in the eyes of the rules, but its not nice to 2 paying players.


Antje

Eriisa, is it fair for you to flame NoMeansNo back? For a person who is supposed to be in charge of Customer Service here at BK, it seems like you should know better and should take a gentler tone.

You miss NoMeansNo's point completely when you state, "I know its [sic] frustrating to be a pawn and allowed only one tourney at a time, which is why many of us upgraded our membership."

Remember, Eriisa, this is the TOURNAMENTS Board. NoMeansNo is NOT frustrated with being a pawn; he's frustrated with a slow tourney player. And btw, the last time I looked, paying knights who have upgraded their memberships can also only play in one tourney at a time.

I agree with those who say the slow tourney player is within his right. He is. In online tournaments, slow play is a tactic some players try to use to their advantage. Then again, some players honestly don't have the time or desire to move with any greater speed. Rod and WK pointed that out to NoMeansNo.

Your cheap shot at BK pawns, however, is very condescending. Think you're going to win any paying converts or new friends by talking down to them like that? Don't count on it.

Hope you'll treat the membership (paying and non-paying) better next time. Have a nice day.

peace

I really do not think its fair for you to flame at someone when you are not even in that section of the tourney! I also see that he is not the only person to have uncompleted games in his section. And thirdly, your own section is not complete, there is still one game playing out.

I know its frustrating to be a pawn and allowed only one tourney at a time, which is why many of us upgraded our membership. I personally have around 150 games, and yes, I move slowly on some. But that is because I can only be online here at length at weekends. For that reason, I make sure I enter only tourneys that are at least a week time limit and usually are even longer.

If somebody makes 1 move a week which is within the time limits of the tournament, it is NONE of your business to critisize him/her for that.

That is what turn-based playsites are all about: to be able to make when you want to.

If you want only fast games, play only fast tournaments. Your fault, not his.

I agree this can be frustrating.. but it isn't fair to be so upset with someone for that. The better solution would be to only join tournaments that have the time limit to your liking. This person probably signed up for a 7 day limit because he needs it. He is well within his rights to do this. If this angers you so much, you should sign up for tournaments with a 1 or 2 day time limit.
Just a friendly piece of advice. :-)

I understand we all have our real lives, but do we really have to bare with players (?) like this one in our tourney (7 day limit) who has not completed a single game while most of us are done with all our games? I just checked on the profile, this person has about 200 tourneys going, with 0 completed games! So a bunch of people have to wait MONTHS to finish one round, because of one person who loves to JOIN but doesn't PLAY? I'm majorly upset about this. Yes, I am allowed to play in ONE tourney only, for the moment. But even if I were a paying member, I would be agitated!
Oh, the ID is Backoff KM.
PLEASE, PLAY!!!! (and I do know all caps and exclamation marks are rude, but.. jeez, buddy, why sign up if you don't have time for this, for US??!)
:(

:)

I don't see what could be fairer.

There will be two tournaments.

One for all the BrainPawns the site can withstand. You want to make 10 IDs and play under fake names, be my guest.

There will be another for all of the paying members.

Each tournament will produce a winner. These winners are automatically entered into the final round of the World Championship.

Each tournament will also produce winners for each section. With the exception of the sections winners who went on win the whole tournament, the remaining section winners, brainpawns and other brains alike, will duke it out for the prize money.

I will create a private tournament for the semifinalists, who were the section winners from each tournament. This tournament will also feature prize money for section winners and the overall winner.

The overall winner of the semifinals will join the two winners of the other tournaments, as well as myself, and the 4 of us will duke it out for the World Championship title, with, of course, even more money.

Is this satisfactory to all?

I agree with you Stardust & back up Gothic on this. Look, this is a test flight. Rules fluctuate as new possibilities are considered. Details must be ironed out. Let's get real, folks. If Mr. Trice put up a cool million I wonder how many would be popping out of the woodwork demanding their "right" to a shot at it. This is ridiculous. :o)

BBW : my post was dircted at andersp. He seems to think that just because there are two paying members of BK in his household they should both be able to enter the tournament. I agree with GothicInventor,there is no 100% way to stop cheaters. He (I think) is hoping to filter them out as best he can. This is not an easy task as anyone can attest to. One way he hopes to do this is by limiting participants to one per household. (And I think he explained his reasons for that quite clearly) This certainly in no way means that if two people from the same household entered they would cheat. It's just one way to 'squelch' it.

As for suggesting that all participants in the tournament be paid members of BK so as to hopefully filter out more cheaters...that seems to be a popular opinion.

Bottom line is this...The creator and sponser of the Tournament (of any tournament) should have the right to post his own rules prior to the commencement of said tournament. period. The host of the tournament isn't the one who calls the shots anymore than a landlord can govern who enters your apartment.
MHO

Ok BBW ..you asked questions

He shouldnt invite to a tournament until all rules were 100% done, then he doesnt need to change them..ok?
Ive given this answer to Fencer earlier: Im not the genious, i have no idea how to guard the tournament from cheaters. BUT AGAIN..allow non paying member play and not paying members is wrong in my opinion. Stardust may think whatever he wants..the tournament is hosted by Brain King.

case closed

Stardust KM: I'm guessing your comment about paid members & tournaments being held by someone else was about my comment to limit $$ tournaments to paid members.

The main reason I suggest that is I believe a lot of cheaters are not going to pay $10 just so they can cheat. (Most are going to try to cheat with free pawn accounts) That is why I think that will get rid of many cheaters.

Andersp: Well let me ask you this. What should GothicInventor do with the tournament?

Do you think he should let anyone play?
Do you think he should collect personal data?
Do you think he should not let any pawns play?
Do you think he should limit one per household?

GothicInventor has already changed the rules around a couple of times, and if anyone can come up with a beter way to try to get rid of cheaters, he (and me and Fencer) will be happy to hear all opinions.

I'm sorry,but I honestly do not see how being a paid member of BK has anything to do with a tournament being held by someone who is not directly affiliated with the workings of this site.

BBW..Im not asking for a favour to join. As you say, why allow not paying members to play and not me (in case i wanted) because my wife is a member here too. It doesnt stop the cheating!!
Im sure many are annoyed but i prefer to share my opinion in public, im not so coward so i hide it in private messages. Ive had a lot of supporting private messages today, sorry i havent replied to them :)

case closed...for real :)

Andersp: Yes, I still think it might be possible for you and your wife to both play in the tournament if you contact GothicInventor - but by posting everything in here, he is going to say no. But again, I can not talk for him - and if he does not, well then that is the rules he goes by.

Cheaters - there is no way to get rid of all cheaters. Someone will find away around the system.

What I think should be done: Just let paid members play. If someone wants to cheat THAT BAD, at least they are paying BrainKing money for the option of cheating! (But I'm not in charge - and the person who creates the tournament has the option to make whatever rules they want.)

BBW

In your first post you said that G Inventor probably would allow my wife and me to play if we asked him "he is a nice guy", now you seem to have changed your mind?

Suppose you are as impressed as i am of how smart the tournament directors have solved the cheating problem.

Sarcasm?..whats that? :)

You know there are many tournament I can not enter as a paid member.

There are Pawn-only tournament.
There are Fellowship tournaments (which i do not belong to)
There are High-rated tournaments
There are low-rated tournaments.

Now why is it I can not join the 1500 BKR and under tournament when a pawn can join!

If Andersp is upset that a paid rook can't play in the $3,000 tournament - I'm upset that I can't play in the tournaments listed above!

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

Note: This post is full of sarcasm. Ignore most of it! :-)

before less wanted translators offer their services ...

I have posted my ideas to discourage cheaters ...

and somebody who has paid by personal transfer to brainking,
therefore should be spared out from further bothering by idle control ... ~*~

I have two valid addresses myself, in the same
house but different households - the effort seems
fuzzy as IP tracking is undermined by local network
and all the fancy stuff from my treasure chest of
sophisticated programs making an apple a prune.

Let's say it stiff ... superficial nonsense !

Robert J. Fisher made it although the Russians
evidently cheated by making easy draws against
each other while focussing against capitalism ... :D

Kasparov made it although Karpov cheated by occupying
the mental capacities of thirteen grandmasters and their ideas
which to use they were not allowed without first offering to him,
in the time of a desired lasting soviet chess dynasty ...

Sportsmen have always had only two secundants throughout history,
of course only for the daily game-aftermath ... ~*~

Just because they are kids doesn't mean they aren't strong enough players to play on their own. I would not be suprised if there was a 5 year-old girl somewhere (probably East Europe) that could beat you GothicInventor.

oops - I'll shush and wait until end of october to post it at the new board ... ~*~ 0:)

You made some good points and I agree about the SS# part. If you win at the race track over a certain amount there's an IRS guy there to grab some. But this seems to be different.

Cheaters are everywhere you cant get rid of them.
Was more fun before the money entered this site.
They can cheat how much they want..as i said in my first post i have no intention to join, so maybe my wife will "negotiate" with Dano :)
Took me more than 6 months to get my SSN so i shouldnt share it with anyone especially not over Internet....case closed from this end :)

No if Joe Cheater buys 10 memberships to try to "dutch" a tournament then Brainking has 10 new paid members. Site benefits. Still not fair I agree.

The site? you mean the players who win ?

Agreed LOL. But one positive is that the site will get more money.

not fair either :)

Yes but obviously pawns can cheat for free in unlimited numbers. Paying members at least have to cough up some money to cheat when it comes to tournaments.

LOL..did we discuss sales?..at least i discussed how fair it is to paying members to be excluded from a tournament.

and to avoid further misunderstandings:

my offer to Dano was just to prove how easy people can cheat anyway.:)

My two cents:
I have to agree with GothicInventor. One entry per household does seem reasonable to me. I have seen this same rule applied to everyday things like sale items in stores. I think it is reasonable for Mr.Trice to apply it in his tournament. Afterall,while the tournament may be played on BK it is owned and sponsered by Mr. Trice.
MHO

LOL..im happy for 60 :)

<'))><
75-25 my final offer ... >8) ... ~*~

Maybe i should join and pm my password to Danoscheck LOL 60-40 Dano?

I think that $3000 tournament is the only one with some restrictions.

just an idea , they would stand out from the crowd so to speak more easily , also prize tournaments seem to have extra restrictions

Thats ok Fencer..i know you think its fair that pawns can win $3000 but not a married paying member...you have your opinion and i have mine.

Andersp: What about tournaments like "only for girls, only for boys, Europe players", should I forbid them? The membership description says that you can play as many tournaments as you want. There is nothing about "all possible tournaments, especially prize ones". I would also have to add something like "you can create your own tournaments but these tournaments must be open to everyone, you cannot add your own rules". It doesn't seem to be logical to me.
jason: Why prize tournaments should have their own page?

I am going to be starting a prize tournament with something like $25 to the winner..open to paying members only. There will be no limit on the number of nics they can purchase a membership for to get a crack at the $25. Fencer shouldn't mind that. :o)

maybe prize tournaments should have thier own page ... away from standard tournaments ,what do you think fencer ?

maybe you should add :

"but if you are married there are some tournaments only one of your wife and you can join" :)

How would you change it?

Brain Rooks

"The player is not limited by number of started games at once nor number of moves per day nor number of joined tournaments"

Hmmmmmmm ? maybe this should be changed?

That's okay - we call that business-entry age
and 12-14 years are tolerable as limit ... ~*~

PS e.g. the father who has signed for his 5 years
old girl being brainknight merely be excluded ...

I just have to disagree with this on principal, since money is at stake. If you are going to sit there and tell me a 5 year old girl is not going to get input from 'daddy' when there is a chance to win $3000, then you have to ask yourself what planet you are from.

If you want to play in a tournament with your kids, there are plenty out there for them to experience.

Read the rules for just about any contest here and you see ONE PER HOUSEHOLD.

It is not possible to AUDIT online participants. I suspect several of the pawn IDs that were made on the same day the tournament was announced are really duplicates of the same person.

Sorry Fencer, you are the genious..not me :)