Does the exchange rate really matter?!! Some people can afford it and are willing to pay, some people genuinely cannot get together that much money in one go, and some probably could afford it but are not willing to pay. There are plenty of people in each of those categories.
As for restrictions, I haven't heard Fencer mention anything about this, and a general discussion (I think someone also said earlier) about it will never reach any kind of agreement! (Except maybe that players shouldn't have limited moves! LOL! And I'm sure there will be people who disagree with that too!)

Think of it this way - if you make $50000 CAD a year, or $50000 US per year, do you think that's the same? You will surely be able to buy more with the US dollars than with the same number of Canadian dollars. Right?
Why do you think exchanging your money into US will make you money? If it does, why don't you? Then you can purchase your membership for $28 and be happy! :-)

not the way I look at it...if I took a trip down to the US I'd be getting more money after being transfered and you were to come here you'd be losing money after the transfer...so I think that 43 dollars is 43 dollars and 28 dollars is 28 dollars...please let me know if I'm wrong...math is not my strongest lol

well thanks you guys...so what do say we start off on another foot lol...DK would you mind playing a game :)

But even if it is more Canadian Dollars than US dollars, aren't US dollars worth more in general, so paying $43 CAD should be the same value as $28 US - like everything will cost more CAD than US.

Yes, TTJazzberry and I agree with you

my point still..I still think that the players shouldn't have limited moves...doesn't anyone agree with me :)

Kevin's figures are almost idential to the one I gave. So, the ten dollars to two dollars was a GROSS exaggeration. instead of two dollars a month, we're talking about 3.10 a month. BIg deal. Three less sodas instead of two less sodas.

And bout the number of games - MiseryMidnight is getting pretty close, at 723 last night! That's by far the most i've seen of anyone!

When i bought my $28 US membership, it costed about $43 CAD. I don't remember when that was, but i guess it says on my profile :-)

I think right now it's about $0.63 US to the Canadian Dollar.

What exactly is the exchange rate? Last I was in Canade it was 1.6. Are you saying it is closer to 5 now? that seems difficult to believe but I could be wrong. HOwever, I don't really know because the only figure you gave is one that you ackowledged to be off target with your next sentence.

either way my point still stanbds, that most people would rather do something else with the money, not that thye iod not have the money.

Dimitri- two dollars is alot of money...don't forget we're from Canada...and you're 2 dollars is like 10 dollars down here..maybe not quite that much but it is more down here...I payed for a year membership which is almost 30 dollars but translated into our money it costes me more than 50 dollars...so whatever you think is cheap it isn't cheap to others

Oh I know what your saying and it makes perfect sense, but implementing such off and on restrictions could be a nightmare...then again I dont know, I have never run anything like this nor do i know much about it. I do feel however that any site that solicits or encourages the soliciting of new members should be prepared for the increased traffic that results. However they achieve that is best if it doesnt effect paying members, or as little as possible.

I really don't think there should be any limits on non-members for their moves either - but if the server is getting to busy for what the site can handle, I would rather as a paying member get priority over the people who don't pay (at least during those busy times) It would be nice if all sites could handle high volume times, but many can't - and if this site keeps growing as fast as it has.....

But even if they limit the moves to 10-20 during the peak times - that still almost as much as IYT for the whole day. (And during peak times - I'm only talking probable 3-5 hours that it's the most busy - leaving 20 hours of non-restrictions)

I agree with everything there BBW except the move limitation during peak hours. Any game site should be prepared to handle the high volumns of activity that come with encouraging new members to play here. Again limiting non-members moves serves to limit members who play them.

To expand on my ideas that I posted earlier.

Brain Rook - Keep the same - up to 1000 games (Unless you start getting people up to that amount and they keep on timing out - maybe drop that down to 500 or something - still way more then most will use)

Knights - I guess keep the same.

Pawn - Possible limit their moves during "peak" hours when the server is the most busy. Possible 10-20 moves max during the peak times? Or if you can keep track of how much bandwith a person used, limit that for pawns during "peak" times - since cruising message board also takes away from the server. (During non-peak hours, don't limit them in their moves)

I also still like the idea of letting pawns only enter 1 tournament a month. It does not matter if the tournament is over before the next starts - just as long as it was 30+ days since the last started. (Since now tournaments can be as many as 14 games out of their 20 limit - it is hard for pawn to keep that many games open for tournament) Playing in 1 a month would still let them enjoy the tournament, and use the site to help decided if they want to pay here.

As for non-tournament games, possible limit them to 10 games.

limiting non paying members moves DOES negatively affect us. I agree 100%. Thus, I am OPPOSED to any limiting of the number of moves. BUt I do think the numnber of GAMES should then be lowered, as long as a person can move in each game as many times as he wants. Maybe drop the number of games to ten.

If that makes it tough to play in a tournament-- TOUGH. Buy a membership.

if that means you do not get to play as many games as you like, TOUGH. Buy a membership.

When I was growing up, three was a brief period of time when money was very tight. But at no point was 2 dollars a month impossible to attain. I oculd just do an odd chore for someone and make two dollars. There are plenty of ways to do it.

As I have said, if anyone TRULY is so destitute that two dollars a month is too muhc money, then perhaps the person in question would want to consuider playing fewer board games anyway and finding some way to make a few extra bucks.

BUt, let;s be honest here. of the 4800 Brain Pawns, how many of them TRULY CANNOT AFFORD a membership?

3, maybe 4? I doubt it is even that. For someone to TRULY not be able to afford a membership, the person would ahve to

1) not smoke

2) not drink alcohol or soda

3) not buy ANY candy or sweets

4) Not eat out, EVER.

5) not go to a single movie or even rent one from the video store

etc.

Dmitri, your correct when you say "This si a running debate that really has no good solution"...because its true, the more traffic we have the more it slows the server. As I stated before my only concern is I paid to be a member and by limiting non-members I play against adds up to the same as limiting me, I cant go on making moves when they cant, however limiting their games instead has no impact on paying members.

With regard to those who can not afford, I too have no kids but the LAST thing I'm going to do is say how anyone with kids can afford $2/mo. Thats a very broad statement and easy to say when not in those shoes. Another thing to consider is although it may work out to $2/mo it is still a minimum of $10 up front to join.

To address one more comment "The more moves that non members make, the slower the system rusn for paying members"...well many of these moves that non-members make are against us members, again providing us with entertainment without which I would not have paid for. I also like the fact that they make suggestions for improvements for the site as it benefits us all. This shouldnt be about the "haves" or the "have nots" rather it should be a place where we can all enjoy the games. The only difference should be paying members get more of them, and not relegating non-members to a second class status.

Dakota-- the site runs slower as more people are making moves in games. If a person has 20 games oging but is making ten moves in each game, that slows the system as much as someone who has 200 games but moves once per game. The more moves that non members make, the slower the system rusn for paying members. I often hear about people who have family and thus cannot afford to pay for a membership. Well, i chose not to ahev a family, because I think my hobbies and intreests are more important. why do I have to financially support thr gaming interests of those who chose family as their greatest interest?

This si a running debate that really has no good solution, because the site would not be fun to thep aying members if the 4800 non paying members were not here. What I find sad is that people do not pay but then want fencer to do more for them.

Also, regarding the person you mentioned, the one that supposedly cannot afford to pay a membership-- I still maintain that anyone can afford a membership. We are talking about two dollars a month here. Tihs means that twice a month, she could drink a glass of tap water instead of some other beverage, which would amount to a two dolalr savings. I do not believe that ANYONE has suhc a tight budget that TWO DOLLARS cannot be saved somewhere. Until I actually see a budget sheet indicating otherwise, I will stick to that notion.

This doesn't mean every non paying member should become one just because he or she can afford to. But, if you choose not to become one, be satisfied with what you already have and don;t complain if you have restrictions that you do not like. If you want to pay, then complain, if not, then don't.

I agree with having non-members only having 20 games limit...but I don't agree with them having limited moves...everybody on this site should have unlimited moves..My sister and I are on here constantly...and we play at least 50 moves a day...and I don't think that's fair for people that are staying home and have nothing to do which is my sister...but she can't afford to be a member because she just had a baby and right now all the money they get has to go towards the baby...so for my opinion I think that all players should have unlimited moves...sure I have plenty of troubles getting in but I always get in when I try like an hour later and there's no problems...thank you for hearing my 2 cents...:)

LMAO Bumble!! :P
Just because I can do the time warp it doesn't mean I'm unin.. untellin.. intenningenen.. STUPID!! Now take it to general chat before I ban you! LOL! :D

Harley: REALLY??? You mean it's just an act? (only joking of course! But this 'time warp' thing....)

LMAO, sounds like a challenge to me Fencer!! (only kidding, even I'm not that daft!)

Kevin: Actually, there is a limit for Brain Rooks but it is 1000 games and I doubt that anybody (including eddie spaghetti) would be able to reach it ;-)

I definately don't agree with limiting rooks to number of games (especially if it's so low!). Even if it was enforced that rooks can only play 200 games, say, it would probably only affect 5 players (i know of three). So would it really be worth it to make this limit (one more restriction on the highest paying level) to reduce the number of games 5 players are playing?

You can tell exactly how many pawns are on this site, and thus the percentage of them, by going to the "Player List," then sorting by "Level." At this very moment, the pawns start near the bottom of the 4th page, meaning there are about 200 non-pawns out of the 5000 or so on this site (that's about 95-96% pawns).

I learned quickly that if I set long time-limits for my games, the number of moves I even get a chance to make each day goes way down. Even with 3-7 day limits, I really can't move very much in any day unless I happen to be online with someone with whom I'm playing.

I am seriously considering joining the site and will recommend that the 3-4 family members with whom I play try BrainKing as well. I'm a member at GoldToken, but not at IYT. My brother is a member over there.

I would encourage anyone who loves playing games on these sites to send a payment, not for the features or for the number of moves, but for the guys who run the sites. I know Chad over at GT is in the same boat as Fencer over here. He has a full-time job and a family. Somehow he manages to spend what seems to be 30 hours per day developing the site and keeping everybody happy. If nothing else, think of it as a donation to chip in for a new server. This site is so good that it will continue to grow indefinitely.

I'm amazed that BK has no advertising and I'm very impressed with the detailed features available here. Supporting something like this site is akin to supporting public radio. People will pay from the heart. The trade-off of limiting nonmembers is that you'll lose a few more potential "site-lovers" right off the bat.

Best of luck to you, Fencer! Thanks for creating a great place to play.

I mistyped earlier. I meant brain knights should be limited to 50 games not brain pawns. My mistake. Then I went checked it out and brainknights already can play 50 games. I apologize for the screwup. LOL

Brian, you suggested "Maybe limit brain rooks 100 games and brain pawns to 50 games just to relieve the stress on the server. " I cant speak for all members but personally I wouldnt have a problem with the 100 game limit, however increasing BrainPawns to 50 would lessen the incentive to become a paying member.

I wont get into the maths (not my strong suit..lol) but whether its 85 or 95% it just goes to show as members we rely on alot of non members for our entertainment here.

Right now BBW it is a what-if thing. However being realistic with all the work that is being put into making the site better limits will be soon I am sure. I think however everyone here should have a say in the potential limits and then some kind of compromise can be reached. Right now it appears that game limits as opposed to move limits seem to be better.

So are the Admin's looking to change what Pawn/Rooks get, or is this just a "what-if" type of thing?

If I had to choose, for Pawn i would allow them to enter 1 tournament a month. Even if the games are over, just let them start a new tournament every 30 days. And then give them say 5-10 non-tournament games. This would solve the problem of pawn trying to join tournaments, and then finding out they don't have enough free space (since it can be as many as 14 games, or smaller - it is hard to guess). No move limit - which I think most people don't like. (Heck if you limit them to 15 like someone suggested, that would mean only 1 non-tournament game!)

For Rooks - Please don't limit them to only 100 games. 200 games maybe, but I would prefer no limit. (One of the main reasons I'm a rook and not a knight)

... those are my thoughts

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

I think that all accounts that have been inactive for over 3 months should be deleted to make some more room.

That is true - but even if 4,000 people have active account, and 200 are paid - that is still 95% non-paid. It's hard to tell for sure. :-) Just my guess

BIG BAD WOLF: My question is how many of the over 5000 accounts have been active in the last week. If you look at the player list there are hundreds of players who do not play here anymore.

85% brain-pawns. Well there have been over 5,000 people who have accounts here, and under 200 paid members made a move yesterday. So is around 95% brain pawns is my guess. :-)

What do you think would be a good game limit TTJazzberry? Right now Brain pawns get to play up to 20 games at a time. I could see 15 games. This would reduce some of the strain on the server. Maybe limit brain rooks 100 games and brain pawns to 50 games just to relieve the stress on the server. I know there would be complaints by these paying members. However the new restrictions wouldnt take effect until the current
paying cycle is done. Also give brain pawns 2 weeks to get down to meet the lower game playing limit or forfeit the most recent games to reach the limit. Does that sound fair?

For sure I agree, if they limit moves for non-members then I too get limited when I play them. Limiting the number of games seems to be the better choice.

I also agree that even members should have some limitations in number of games played. Dmitri, your probably not far off with your 85% estimate and I still agree that having a good variety of opponents helps make this site what it is.

I usually try avoiding anyone brain rook on up when looking for a short game to play as they usually have so many games going on already. However I think they need a server that can handle ever increasing volume of growth on this site. However I know this takes money to accomplish and some down time to get the job done. I as a non-paying member dont mind some limitations as long as it is reasonable and fair. The notion that Dream made about only 20 a day will only drive players away. That is the way I view it. Just make it fair and fun for everyone regardless of their level of membership.

actually, I think it is about 85% brain Pawns.

also, I doubt it is the brain pawns who are slowing the site down, but rather, the brain rooks who make 1000 moves a day.

I don't know if it would be a good idea, but it MIGHT be a good idea to limit members to 100 or 200 games.

Dream, if you limit non-paying members to 20 moves a day you end up hurting the paying members as games will last weeks if not months. Also if alienate the non-paying members then they will not pay for a membership or they will just not play. Non-paying members bring new people to the site who can and might pay to be a member. I would venture to say at least half of the players are brain pawns. I would agree to a move limit that reasonable or reduce the number of games you can play at once. Non-members help build the site as well as the paying members. IYT reduced their site moves to 25 a day and people are leaving that site in large numbers and coming here. If they get that way here, you will see that happen here and there are other sites similar to this one. You will then have a lot fewer style of players to choose from to play.

After getting the "sorry the site server is at capacity right now" message three times this morning, perhaps non-members should be restricted to 20 moves a day, this may give the paying members more chance of accessing the site and give the non-members more incentive to pay the much needed membership monies? $2 a week sounds pretty cheap, (it cost me a lot more with the exchange rate) there can't be many things you can buy in the US for $2.

I chose the 100 move limit based on 5 moves per day on 20 games. I normally average about 15 games at a time. SO based on that I would get 6 moves per day on each game but would probabl carry 7 to 10 games at a time if the 100 move limit were implemented so I could make 10 to 15 moves per day on each game which I feel is a good day's work on any game. I feel 60 moves would be a bit low as only averaging 3 moves a day on a game would be a bit slow. Just an opinion. However there are no move limits so the right now the point is moot.

60 would definatly be a good start. Personally I think there should be no daily move restriction and maybe decrease the total games playing at once to 10-15 at a time...just a thought. Anyway my reasoning is that any restrictions placed on non-members should not in any way impact paying members.

I would add that I feel Fencer and the people who assist him do an awesome job in making this a great place to play games. I also commend him on listening to what everyone has to say and trying hard to please everyone, though that is an impossible task as some people will never be happy regardless of what you do. I also am glad to see that the shutdowns on the site have been less over the past week. There have been a few short outages but nothing significant. Great Job Fencer and friends.

I agree, 25 MOVES a day is an Absurd limit, that was a mistake on IYT's part. I think being able to play 15-20 games for free is pretty good, as long as one can actually make the moves for those games! with IYT's system, a person can play 20 games, but only make 1.25 moves per game? that's crazy. if he makes 6 extra moves by mistake, he has to forfeit. that is nonsense. At the veyr least, one should be able to make 3 moves per day per game, which would be 60. If 60 it too many,m then the number of games should be reduced to fit the reduction in moves.

I agree Brian, I was a paying member at IYT some time ago. Not long after Pat threw move restrictions for non paying members. The pace of my games with them suffered as a result, I felt this policy hurt the paying member as well. That is not what I paid for and subsequently let my membership lapse.

Thankx Harley
but I'm still not getting it,I guess I'll just have to get some one to look at the problem from this side.

As for the paying/non-paying Members your all right,My wife has a paid Membership here and I have one on another site and it give us a chance to meet and play other people,but as for what we can and can not have I think we all should just make do with what we've got and be Happy with it.

Fencer/Filip YOU ARE one of the best.

We've all here have said it or at least most of us have,so here it is again HIP HIP HOORAH to Fencer and all those involved with this site and it progress.

PS
You will always have mine and my wife personal thanks for your hard work making BrainKing a site we can come to,as well as being part of your FAMILY.

Again THANK YOU

Edward John Davidson
NightHawk

I have been reading this string about Members and non-members. I agree that members should have benefits that non-paying members dont have. However I think members should have their own board. Members are the only ones who can belong to fellowships and play in multiple tournaments. Also members can play more games at a time than the non-paying members. So if you are really an addict to playing the games and you have time to play a lot then you should pay for a membership.

For me personally, right now with the downturn in the economic market of the USA, I am unemployed. I lost my apartment and was forced to move back home as i am also in debt. I can barely afford to buy groceries for myself right now. I cannot afford to throw away 2 bucks a month on a game site. I have the time right now to play but when I start working fulltime again, my time will be limited and a membership will be a waste for me as I will not be able to take the time to make it worthwhile. If Fencer wants to put more restrictions on non-paying members, that is fine. He is in this for fun and to make a profit. That is good business. However I would encourage him to make the site friendly to those who cant pay. ItsYourTurn.com has made it less friendly as they have cut daily moves to 25 a day. this means I no longe play in their tournaments and dont play more than a couple of games at a time there. I dont know how many people could finish a game in just 25 moves. So if Fencer decides to put limits on moves at some point, let me make a suggestion. I know this makes some paying members crazy, but I think a fair limit would be 100 moves in a day. I am one of those non-paying members that can deal with some limitations.

Your right, $2/mo isnt much for those that have it. I guess what I was saying is there are alot of people in alot of different social classes economicly. Some may feel they live on too little as it is so cant justify another $2/mo to play online games when thats $2/mo less that can go toward the family getting by.

I also know people on here who dont join for other reasons but they too contribute in many other ways and in doing so helps make this site one I became a member.

As for the board...I doubt I'll use the new board much because I dont have anything to say that I'd rather non-members not see, but I dont have anything against it being there for others to use.

... and what is forgotten is there are already a lot of member only boards (Fellowship boards) - I'm not sure how this new board will help...... it is now just another board to add to my long favourites list....

Since there is a new members board can you talk about anything you want...I know that's what the general chat board is but I'm just wondering about the members only board...good day everyone :)