If someone does not like the site, why would they be here?

Helping Brainking Tourney
Stevie's Dollar Donation per player Reversi

Hi all, for every player who enters this tourney ,I will donate 1 dollar to Brainking. So more pawns and Knights can join in, I have set 1 game each and max 5 slots needed (means 2 games each colour too). If less than 15 players, I will donate 2 Dollars per player. Have fun and enjoy the games :o)

Would be nice if I could find 1 or more players who are willing to donate the same amount, to double or treble the money etc :o)

This site is both a good games site and excellent social experience.
The memberships of all levels wish the site to retain its flavour.
The current server troubles are a major source of grievance and need resolving.
What is needed is sufficient revenue to allow the hardware upgrade.
The only point of dissention appears to be how this is achieved.
Options
1) Get more from those who already support.
2) Get more paying members.
3) Get those who currently do not pay to contribute.

Have I missed anything?

I see you here often when I'm here despite the server problems, I think you like this site, am I wrong?

Ughaibu : the remarkable feature of this site is especially,that it is often down and it needs more money for a new server.
Pioneer: I am sure some pawns will leave, but I am sure too that some others will buy a small membership and than the site has more money to buy a new server and we,the paying members have a site with a better technique.
Other ideas are welcome too, I think.

Caissus writes:
"Playing only unrated games after some time for non-paying members is the most used restricton on other chessservers"

But how, assuming it's factual, does this translate in net revenue production? What chess playing pawn is going to be compelled to buy a membership here because of the simple prospect of losing his rating status? Rather, it seems more likely he'd just go find another of the hundreds of free chess sites already on the internet.

The remarkable feature of this site is member involvement but the members are separate from the business angle. To maintain the present nature of the sight we (the members) need to support the business side without it over-running the social.

..and they mostly must have the opinion to get more paying members with this mode.

Commonality is no guarantee of apposition, rather the converse in my experience.

I'm not worried about how they feel about their ratings, ratings are a convenience for prospective opponents. Fine in the example at 2.5 percent it's clear, but this depends on their opposition, it's also at an extreme, there can be medium level payers with quite disparate percentages or the opposite effect can also pertain.

Playing only unrated games after some time for non-paying members is the most used restricton on other chessservers..

I believe you could still judge their suitability as opponents by looking at their win/lose stat. If they lost 200 chess games, and won 5 - well you could easly tell that they are probable not too good at Chess.

"People dont play to get a rating" - well some do, or they would not cheat to try to get their ratings higher. The way they cheat is by using free pawn accounts, and this would just take that away.

And if they are playing just for fun, then they don't need their ratings anyway! :-)

I like ratings - I try my best to keep my ratings good while at the same time have fun!

If a Pawn can afford $5 to join a prize tourney then they can afford a $5 membership.
If a viable collection method exists then why cant it be used to levy revenue.
In fact why not make a one off registration fee for pawns now .. never to be charged again...?

What's the point? People dont play to get a rating, they play because it's fun. If pawns dont have ratings how are we meant to judge their suitability as opponents unless we trawl through all their finished games. I think it's a looney idea, you might just as well get rid of ratings all together.

But a only small amount for pawns makes sense, therewith we do not lose too many players.
If only the half of the pawns pay 6 € in the year we have no more problems..

OR, how about all pawn non-tournament games be unrated (not counting towards rating for either player)

For tournaments, let the games against Pawns count towards ratings, but just don't "show" the pawns rating in any list. Let it add up in the background, and if someday that pawn become a paid member, then those tournament games that were already played could then be included in the ratings list.

A pawn would still be able to play their games here, but without paying, they will not know how they stack up!.

(Downside is when joinging tournament for a range of rated players - for example, under 1500 tournament)

Good side - A person could not create a pawn account and just play private games with them to help their ratings.

Playing only unrated games for pawns is not a bad idea.

I agree with you Noho, a problem is perhaps the fees for small amounts?
But I think too a free account is a very nice thing,but if there is no money for a new technique it is bad for us all! I am for a small amount for pawns, for instance 6 € in the year,or they should can play only unrated games after an half year.

One of the reasons oft quoted for not persuading the thousands of people who currently use this site free to contribute, was the innability to accept small amounts (costing more to collect than their value).
If as it seems possible to accept $5 entry fees without penalty... WHY NOT LEVY A SIMILAR CHARGE ON THE PAWNS?
Is it seriously being suggested that there are not at least 1000 of these people able and willing to make such a payment?
Once again those who pay are getting a sub standard service. I have limited time now so when I do have time, access would be nice.
Again I say ... restrict the capabilities of those who dont pay to allow those who do to get value for money.
It might also persuade those who freeload (can pay, wont pay) to either depart or shell out.

Questions are good Niki, it gets answers for everyone :o)
Well if theres enough interest in a 5 in line one, I could do it cos I like that game too LOL

Thanks for all that.. sorry if they were inane questions.. pure ignorance :)
Also just realised that you've been referring to reversi, so actually nothing to do with me ! LOL.. but if you ever do one for 5 in line, yes, I'd be interested please ! :0)

Players would need to request to be in mine

Is everybody on it that plays the type of game, or are you only part of it by request ?

I like it because its like on ongoing tourny, I dont know about accuracy

thanks for that :)
so why do people like this system ? is it seen as more accurate ?

c&p'd BBW post just for Niki ;o)

Overview of ladders. (each system is a little different, but here is an overview)

Everyone starts at the bottom of the ladder - "Rung 1" (or Rung 10 depending on the ladder)

For each 2 people on Rung 1, they play the game. The winner moved up, the loser moved down (or stays at the bottom)

Then when 2 players are on Rung #2, they play. The winner will go to Rung #3, the loser will go back down to Rung #1.

That's the basics of a ladder system.

Could you please explain (simply) what the ladders system is all about ? how it differs from ratings ? I don't play at other sites where they have this, so have no idea how it works.. cheers :0)

I wasnt starting a coversation about ladders so the post could disappear down the page, I was saying I would run one if there is enough interest.

I know Fencer is happy with them but I think they are probably a low priority on his to do list at the moment.

Brian thank you for your kind words I was touched.;•) I love this place and spend a lot of time here. When you extend a helping hand it comes full circle. Thanks it's not just me that does this. I have some great people behind me helping every step of the way. I 2nd it. GO BRAINKING.

If I remember correctly, I was thinking Fencer liked the idea of possible having different "ratings" or ladders and such.

Then again, maybe I'm just wishfully thinking!

I would like to publicly thank Linda for setting up this tournament and her hard work with Fencer to allow those pawns and knights with full limits of games to enter this tournament through them. I think it is a great idea and I think we will get well beyond 100 players. I encourage all to join this tournament and throw your 5 bucks into the pot. 5 bucks is like 2 new release DVDs at the video store. So chip in. Also I am also adding, that if I should get lucky and win the tournament, I want to donate the 50 bucks to the boost a pawn program that Linda has to get some more pawns memberships. If you know someone who is a pawn and would like a membership and cant afford it, ask them to get in touch with Linda or get their permission to have their ID turned into Linda. I think this is also a great idea. GO BRAINKING!!!!

If you are a knight or a pawn and do not have room to enter this tournament and would like to pm me with your nic & Id # We will get you in. Thanks ;•)

I was thinking about setting up a simple ladder for the BK reversi players similar to the GT ones, one ladder per variation.
If you are interested, please let me know in one way or another.
It would be set up on my website and accesable from BK. But the games would have to started manually etc.

Steve

It was everyone.

i take it that it wasnt just me that couldnt get on last night ? (with the game time suspended is the only clue)

Thanks :-)

That sounds like a fun idea. Good luck with it Kevin. :•)

Since I have to renew my membership soon anyways, i figured i'd have another membership competition so i could pay for them together. I do not want to simply set up a tournament because i want any pawn to be able to enter regardless of their current tournament status, and do not want to give it simply to the person who is the best at a certain game.

So I have decided to have the following competition:

---

Any player at the pawn or knight membership level can enter. To enter, you must send me either a private message (to Kevin) or an email (to Kevin_P86@hotmail.com or kevin_p861@yahoo.com) which contains as many english words of a certain length that you can find. However, each word in your list must be the same number of letters and the winners will be decided based on total number of letters in the list of words. All the words must either be found at www.dictionary.com or the URL must be provided to the online dictionary in which it was found. No proper nouns, slang or abbreviations allowed (including those found at www.dictionary.com). The prizes will be a number of 1 year Brain Rook memberships - the number depends on the number of entrants. The deadline for entries will be Friday, March 19, 2004 (the last day of winter). Only one entry per player will be accepted.

---

I will allow Rooks to enter as well provided that they give me the name of a pawn or knight that will receive the membership, should they win.

Good luck everyone!
Kevin

good girl ;oÞ

OOPS...sorry Steve :( and Knights :(

Your wife and I Andersp will have to set up a permanent pay link between bank accounts LOL

Come on Long John..you know ..the more water you take from a well the better it is! LOL

Move or Pay!! LOL

Like I had said in previous posts, I feel this idea is a special tournament and they should not count toward your games played limit(20 for pawns, 50 for knights) It also should not count against knights or pawns who carry on in another backgammon tournament. This pay tournament should be considered a special exemption from those restrictions. You will get more response that way, in my opinion.

Like I had said in previous posts, I feel this idea is a special tournament and they should not count toward your games played limit(20 for pawns, 50 for knights) It also should not count against knights or pawns who carry on in another backgammon tournament. This pay tournament should be considered a special exemption from those restrictions. You will get more response that way, in my opinion.

Ok is this suggestion better? The most active player doesnt pay a nickel. The (we) others pay the difference to the "winner". So if Steve has 800 moves and #2 has 700..then # 2 pays 800-700 = 100 x 10 cents...and so on...und so weiter (german)

better Steve? LOL

I take it there's no potential legal problem with BrainKing making money from the prize tournaments(?) It might be an idea to make them a regular feature with fairly fast time limits, maximum 4 days to avoid the automatic weekend. Is there a possibility to waive the restriction on pawns competing in multiple tournaments if they play in paying tournaments?

I think Linda J's idea is great, among other things by getting the ball rolling it puts members in the mood to make a difference. How about tournaments in other popular games, chess for example?

Andersp , I could never afford 1 cent per move, you think.. a weeks wage to Fencer from me would be phenominal LOL

LJ so what happened to the J after the L on your head? LOL

Bernice you forgot the Knights, they pay too :o)

I dont really have time for this BUT....
We need the improved hardware to support the number of players.
The vast majority of the players do not contribute.
Rather than approach the FEW who do pay for more whether $5 or $12.50 how about restricting the Free access in favout of the paid... it might encourage those who are happy with the site but live within their twenty games to contribute and thus use the site more.
NO I AM NOT SUGGESTING BANNING PAWNS... but if the cake is limited first shares should go to the people who paid for it....

302paid players....is that all there are???? not counting CAOZ and management? wow...no wonder Fencer is struggling.....even at $5donation per head $1500 isnt going to go anywhere.

it works out at $12.50 approx per paid player, to raise the $4000 that is needed...
if each and every one of us paid for an extra 6 months right now....PROBLEM SOLVED...alternately we could each pay for a pawn, but would they all renew or just enjoy our money and donation of a membership and then leave?

I think each of us extending a further 6 months now is a far better idea.