Board for everybody who is interested in BrainKing itself, its structure, features and future.
If you experience connection or speed problems with BrainKing, please visit Host Tracker and check "BrainKing.com" accessibility from various sites around the world. It may answer the question whether an issue is caused by BrainKing itself or your local network (or ISP provider).
Walter Montego: It has happened and reported before by others. I do not know if there is a "ghost in the machine" but I doubt the ghostbusters could do anything about this kind of ghost. I would speculate that a lady bug must be making rounds somewhere and only "bug exterminator" Fencer could do something about it.
Aganju: Why would it make you make this move? Why did it move for you and as you say what happened to the six? You obviously would have made completely different move. I have never seen the game do something like that. Perhaps there's a ghost in the machine?
The system just made a ridiculous and illegal move for me: Backgammon (Aganju vs. TerryS) I never even got to play, my last move was Backgammon (Aganju vs. TerryS) where I close the homoe board completely, and that should be an easy win. Then the system plays a 'pass' for TerryS (or he did), and then it played a roll of 1 and 6 for me, not using the 6, and opening up the blocked 6. That is illegal, I had to move the 6 too somewhere. What is going on?
rod03801: I looked at the running tournament list, and it is indeed on there twice. (I only purposefully created one of them). I have NO idea how I'd be on it twice though, because the only link I used was on the Tournaments discussion board.
Wait. I take that back. I MIGHT have used a link from a message I got when the tournament started, and maybe one of the times, it was the one for the mystery 2nd one. No big deal I guess. Other than I did not create 2. Maybe it had something to do with using the template I had saved?
beach: I don't know. I know I only signed up on one link, and I personally seem to be in 2 tournaments on some of the games. (Definitely not all of them!).
EDIT : I just checked my own list, and for me, it's only 3 of the games that seemed to "Double up". Dice Chess, Dice Chess 10x10 and Frog Finder. I don't know how many others had this happen. (Obviously at least in these 3 listed).
I created a single elimination tournament that was set to begin Dec 26. It allowed for 2 extra days before being deleted. For some reason, it seems to have created "double" tournaments in some of the games. For example, Frog Finder. There is one version that has 4 people. Then there seems to be another version that has 5 people. When you go to it's main tournament page, where it lists all of the games of the tournament, it is only listed once of course, and if you click on it, you see the version with 4 people. (Not the "extra" one with 5 people) BAH HUMBUG!! #3 is the 4 person one BAH HUMBUG!! #3 is the 5 person one.
El Cid: as we cannot set vacation days anymore, i mean to assign them to specific dates and are dependent on the automatic use i am strongly against your suggestion .. i might be on vacation or a working trip without spare time to play for more than 1 month ... that is what my vacation days are for
you can see i didnt use all of them this year, so i dont delay games on purpose
if you want games which cannot be delayed, then use any of the appropriate time controls
El Cid: I understand what you mean, but it has the same effect - who cares how many vacation days he has left after all his games timed out. My point is that if you think that people have to much vacation, the total vacation time should be reduced, not its usability.
The whole discussion comes back to the old point of 'some people drag the games out too long by using up all the time they have'. That has been discussed often here, and looking at vacation days is just another flavor of it. There is no solution, except not playing with people who do that, or not playing in tournaments that allow it. So take your pick.
No, what I mean is that if a user doesn't login for a month, then their autovacation would be set to off. That is, they would keep all of their remaining vacation days, but the autovacation feature (that automatically reduces the vacation time you still have left, when you timeout in a game) would be suspended. Therefore, instead of delaying a game for two months (until the 30 vacation days are used), the game would end when it times out and if the user logs in again in July, he(she) would have all of the vacation days left.
I'll give an example Gamão (Royal__Flush vs. ennukene00) Under my suggestion, ennukene00 would still use the autovacation days for january 1st, but after that the game would timeout (when the time limit was reached) and he would keep the 29 remaining days for when he logs in again. As it is now, the game will probably only end in late february, the site will be considering a time-out for every hour during two months and an hour of vacation days left will be reduced.
El Cid: do you mean you want the vacation they have invalidated? Either they have it,or they don't. What you asked is basically to cut all vacation down to 30 days. I could agree with that, but it would be a clearer statement that way.
coan.net: Given the "kick off" ... how about the feature I ask every year, at this time, that people that do not login for a month have their autovacation suspended? The checking is already being made (they appear with a grey background in some pages) and it would reduce the two month delay that happens with the vacation days renewal...
Hey Fencer - since you are playing around with the code, you could always throw out a couple of quick new games. Here are a couple of variants that I wouldn't think would take much work, but should be just as popular as the current games.
#1: Logik-6: Logik-6 is the same game as the popular Logik game, but with 6 spaces instead of 5.
#2: Ludo Express: Ludo Express is the same as regular Ludo, with the following changes: (1) Get out of the start with either 1 or 6, (2) Roll 2 dice each turn... double mean nothing special, (3) Each dice is separate - like Backgammon, you first make your move with one of your dice, and then the other - with the same or different piece.
Ludo is already a popular game, and quicker games are always popular - so making Ludo an ever quicker game would work very well.
(Can't blame me for always trying for a new game here and there! Merry Christmas!)
BGBedlam: Well, I didn't plan to create any action at all this year, so this one was started without any preparation or detailed rules. Ergo, I would like to keep it simple. Maybe next time I will define more sophisticated rules, along with an automatic system that would prevent any possible exploits. I guess that some people won't take it as a real membership promotion because of a "what's in it for me?" problem. It's their prerogative, of course. As I say, this is just a simple "let's try it and see where it goes" action, nothing more. For the time being, I would like to keep it as it is.
Fencer: I see that you're discouraging people swapping vouchers with each other Fencer, but is there anything wrong with this really. Maybe a limit of one voucher per friend would be sufficient. I the vouchers are going to be given away anyway. does it really matter if they go round in a circle?
Aganju: Yes, I know that no matter how good a system is, some people will always try to exploit it. However, until it becomes a large scale problem (and I hope it won't), everything can be solved on an individual basis. But of course, if someone is given a friendly hint "please do not do it" and refuses to cooperate, his vouchers can be cancelled, passed to other people of my choice, etc. But it would be applied only if everything else fails.
Fencer: First of all, thanksfor putting the offer up!
Question is, as you are stating that the vouchers cannot be used for the buyer himself, you obviously don't want people to use that as a simple 'buy 1 year, get 2.5 years', but for *giving* to others - very nice also in the sense of Christmas. But now John could buy a year and give his vouchers to Jane, and Jane buys a year and gives her vouchers to John, basically circumventing the limit. Do you actively discourage that, meaning you will not assign the vouchers then? Or is that accepted? I thought about not posting that to not give people ideas, but, realistically, many will come up with this. Easily.
Fencer: Indeed. Or people can send a pm to you, something like "I want to give 6 months to Gabriel Almeida (cof-cof), 6 months to a nice girl (I'm sure we have some in BK) and 6 months to... Gabriel Almeida, again!" :D