I saw the question one other time but not the answer

What do the little dots next to games we are playing on our game list and what do they mean?

sorry, wrong board, the description of this board mentioned features.

Is it possible we could get a feature that would let each players color be chosen randomly once the game starts? I really hate having to choose wether im white or black, I'd like it to randomly pick for me at game start.

lukulus: *
3**3
*

Fencer: So we now know why is Fencer so bussy - he is clicking on google banner

plaintiger: So what? I have nothing against people trying other game sites as well. It doesn't matter if they find an URL here or elsewhere. But if they click on the ad here, I can get some extra income from Google.

plaintiger: Google Ads works by reading the page that will contain the ads and deciding which are the key words. It then hauls out one of a selection of ads based on those words. I don't believe participants in the scheme have much control over what Google chooses though it would make sense, as you point out, not to have competitors advertised.

um...new question: why are there Google ads for other gaming sites ("Play Backgammon with Us!") out on the login page? isn't that a bit self-defeating? wouldn't Filip rather people came and played backgammon *here*?

volant: excellent - that's just as i hoped. thank you!

It is kind of amazing that this referral program has generated such heated debate!? It's an imperfect system, that doesn't seem to be in doubt. But in the blink of an eye, Filip could just as easily scrap the whole thing, and we'd all have "no brains"! Not that he'd want to necessarily, he has his own reasons for it being there, but he could do away with it.

For example, over two years ago, when I was a pawn, I referred a player who immediately became a Rook, and that player referred several other players of a specific game type who also became Rooks, but I got nothing. I later became a Knight, then a Rook, then back to a Pawn, then a Knight, but there was no retroactive payment for my referral; just the way it goes.

There seems to be about five times as many Rooks as Knights, so it is obviously the optimum choice for those who do pay (or get a membership via grant). However, this is common knowledge, so retroactive rewards do not seem in order, but that is Filip's domain, so I'll say nothing more.... I'd become a Rook again, except that with over 50 games going, I cannot devote enough attention to each and play as sharply as I'd like, although this may not be of concern to many other players that just to have a lot of games going. The main drawback of the Knight membership is having to wait for other players to finish their games before another tournament of that type can be entered, but by trying new games I have adjusted to that somewhat; also, I look for events with shorter time limits.

After experiencing many different internet games sites over the past several years, I believe beyond question that this site is by far the best, all things considered.

ScarletRose: My heroine

Princess Alison: I am so sorry to have upset you.. and yes.. I didn't think of how the outcome would be. For I really didn't have the intentions of it being taken personally as you had.. please pardon.. and I will remove that post promptly..

plaintiger: The next news item will show up on your main page when ever Fencer posts one

got a question: i've just clicked the "remove" link at the bottom of Fencer's latest news post to make it go away, but having never used that link before, i don't know: will the next news Fencer posts appear when he posts it? or have i just turned his news off until i turn it back on again somewhere?

thank you! :)

FEW nice people??? sheesh.. there are lots of nice people on this site. wow..

I'm sure she didn't intend to, Princess Alison. But either way its probably best addressed in private or at a board like general chat.

harley: Well maybe a certain somebody shouldnt leave remarks that can actually hurt somebody's feelings

What Jason said...

Princess Alison: You are most welcome, it peed me off quite a bit too!

Lamby: I am fuming over that remark Lamby. Thanks for your support

Princess Alison: I agree with you! Some people should think before they speak! Its not about 'skimping' How rude some people are!

reza:

playBunny: Scarlet Rose, mabe you she read all the entires properly so u will understand what is going on here before u accuse people of "skimping" I was not skimping at all, so get your facts right please.

playBunny: Or who have money, but cannot pay online!

Princess Alison, ScarletRose: I'll second that. It's not cool to make fun of people who lack money.

ScarletRose: Excuse me its not a case of skimping.

Purple: But u shouldnt have to do that, i should have got the brains, end of story. But thanks anyway , you r one of a few nice people on here that support one other

Fencer: Perhaps the Knights could be allowed to enter up to 10 tournaments of any type or just remove the tournament game type restriction completely instead of limiting them to 1 of each type. Seeing how they are limited to 50 going games total, that should be plenty of tournament admissions. I also fail to see why a Knight is limited by what type of game the tournament is. The total number of games going should be the limiting factor. If someone only wants to play Backgammon, why not let them?

Another thing that can be done, would be to lower the fee for a Knight membership while leaving the restrictions in place and the create a new membership category priced at or near the current Knight membership that would have the restrictions removed and increase the number of going games to 80 or 100. It could be called a Bishop membership and would fit right into the scheme of things. This would give people an extra choice to choose the membership that best suits their needs.

playBunny: I believe that a member is allowed to pay the difference of the price of a Knight member to a Rook membership prorated for the remainder of the Knight membership and get the upgrade in membership. The difference between the two is about 10 euros for a whole year, isn't it? Maybe you can check into that. It doesn't seem like it would cost you much more and your friend's gift would still bare most of the cost.

eagle eye: True.. haha

ScarletRose: ... or pay nothing and enjoy whatever is free :-)

Fencer: I think he should be your spokesman Fencer.. seriously.. then you can tend to the brains thingy..

BIG BAD WOLF: Yep, I understand that, BBW, but I have to wonder whether it's working. Another possibilty is that a Knight realises that they're so little better off than a Pawn that they might as well be one - and doesn't bother renewing. So Fencer loses the 60% rather than gaining the 40%.

My own subscription was a gift from a friend. I could not even afford to pay for my Knighthood, let alone a Rookhood. And the Sponsor a Pawn schemes (when done out of legitimate motives) are a recognition that money is not an abundant resource for some of the BrainKing customer base.

In the end the answer can only come out of Fencer's records. What are the renewal rates, and the conversion rate of Knights to Rooks, Rooks back to Knights and the like? I suspect that it's too early and the numbers are too low for any reliable conclusion.

In the meantime I make a plea for those who are Knights out of necessity but getting a deal that's out of proportion. Personally I don't care so much about the limits on number of games; as a speed player I only want a few active at a time anyway (thus I get many games completed within a day or so) but the tournament restriction is ridiculous if it means that I can only play one or two per year!

And I would love to be able to create tournaments for other speed players. As a Knight I can't create them myself but I can do it indirectly by asking a Rook to handle the admin. The restriction is thus not a real one, it's just an arbitrary hindrance. Given that creating a popular tournament series (and it would be likely to become so) is a benefit to the site, it could also be seen as a case of "cutting off the Knight in order to spite the site", as it were.


Fencer: I don't want you discussing it at all! It's not complicated, though it may seem that way if you're busy working. I'd like this certainly not minor matter to be given some thought at a later time. If it seems complicated then you don't understand what I'm saying and why. So only when you do, would I care for a response.

For Princess Alison it's simple: Just tell her that she will retrospectively be awarded her Brains when you make the change to the new system.

[Search key added: #Membership Levels#]

Fencer: I will pay to upgrade her to Rook if that will get her the brains retroactively.

Fencer: Yes but i didnt know that they were going to subscribe to a ROOK did i, so, i shouldnt be penalised for that, and no its not obvious why u dont go into details.

Princess Alison: All right, let's have it justified. Now, you don't get any Brains for a player above your own level. Later, you'll get them but not always (and for an obvious reason, I don't go to details).

Fencer: But i am not making it complicated i think i have a very FAIR argument, but u can not seem to be able or to want to be able to justify it

playBunny: No, no and once more no. Please don't make it complicated, I don't want to spend the rest of the day discussing this minor issue. BBW is right, I should make him my spokesman.

BIG BAD WOLF: This all stems from my previous argument of allowing my referral to give their brains to somebody who is already a ROOK and not to me being the referrer. Can you or Fencer justify that, no you cant

playBunny: I think the purpose for the limits on the Knight membership is to encourage users to buy a full Rook Membership.

But at the same time, for someone who does not want a lot of games and does not need the extras, then a knight membership is a good thing to have.

To increase the knight membership privledges would only decrease the rook membership. The limits are in place so when a user does want more, they will upgrade to a full rook membership.

Which of course all of this is my opinion. :-)

playBunny: Your one fair

Fencer: LOL. Nobody says it's fair. I'm saying the opposite - that it's not fair.

Okay, so you put it in place three years ago when you were first considering the idea. The length of time doesn't mean that you got it right and it doesn't mean that it has to stay that way either.

So I am saying that it should be fair. If you don't like the word 'fair' then how about 'reasonable'. Is it reasonable that a Knight should be unable to play in tournaments because they are stuck in one that is edging along at the speed of treacle on a cold day?

Saying that "if someone doesn't like it they don't have to use it" comes across as disrespectful. If I were a pain in the bum to you and other Knights too, and you wanted to get rid of us, then that's a useful comment as it's likely to make people see you as thoughtless or uncaring and they'd be more likely to leave. But I don't believe it's your intention to discourage people. So to express it as a response to a legitimate issue is disappointing. I'd rather you thought about the issue than posted an immediate gut response.

The fact is that I do have to use the system that you created. Or leave the site. Again, surely that's not what you're suggesting!??

Why did you create the Knight level? Presumably because you recognise that some people are on low incomes, some people are unwilling to commit much money to something until they are sure of it, and yet others recognise that they'll only make limited use of what's on offer and needn't pay for unlimited use. Plenty of reasons, and it's great that there's a more affordable way to be active than having to be a Rook.

Yet I say again - why does the Knight have to be only so little above the Pawn and so crippled compared to the Rook. Pawns may come and go, they may convert to paying members. A Knight, however, is already a paying member and keeping them paying is a good thing. You may see it that a Knight with crippled facilities is more likely to pay for Rookhood on their next update, and that will be true for some. But there are also those who cannot afford that difference - small as it may seem to many people. I believe that if a person can only afford to be a Knight then they're likely to stay as a Knight, yet continue to feel dissatisfied at the perceived value for money.

Finaly, you mentioned to Walter about having limited time to respond. Remember Filip. Today's customers are tomorrow's customers - if you treat them properly. So can I suggest, then, that you make a reply like "You've made some good points and I intend to get back to you as soon as possible" (and mean it) - rather than appearing to throw cold water in people's faces and walking away!

[Search key added: #Membership Levels#]

BIG BAD WOLF:

Fencer: You're probably right about the endless discussion, but I think you could've chosen your words a little better to help alleviate their concerns. There's often times unintended consequnces caused from even the best of intentions.
May your work go well.

Princess Alison: you are welcome

playBunny: "Yet the fee for a Knight is over 60% of the Rook's"

What could be a better reason to upgrade to a rook!

Walter Montego: No, I perfectly understand the point of complaints. But I am working now and I don't want to raise more and more questions at the moment. No matter what I answer, if it's longer than 2 words, it will always start a new discussion and I don't have time to participate in it now.

lukulus: Oh ok, i apologise.

Thank you for your support though