If you are more private person BBW, how come you find it so easy to post etc? LOL

Yeah LJ he doesnt want people seeing he is here but not taking moves LMAO

LJ - What the heck does that have to do with the discussion we are having????

I'm not going to take it away.

... and for the people who like that feature, they can keep it on.

I'm the type of person who keeps their window shades down - I'm a more private person in nature.... that's just the way I am. :-)

(I'm not saying to take it away, but let it be an option to be able to turn off for who does not like it!)

I hope it's NOT an option in the new version.
It is one of the things that makes this site feel like a real community. Sort of all being in the same virtual room.
I don't understand the need for secrecy here.

It is one of the things that attracted me to this place..

Not trying to argue with anyone, just stating my "vote"

Actually, I don't like the fact that anyone can see what I'm doing - If I had the option, I would turn that off. It's really no one elses business to know which games I'm playing, which boards I'm reading, or which profiles I'm looking at. (I'm hoping it will be a feature in BK 2.0 to turn it off)

I do not wish to speak out of turn, but as I understood it, there was 2 options that had different prices. In the condition that the database server currently is, the $4000 server is the better option. The other option was a higher price tag.

......ZETES

I'll still be taking questions for zetes for another couple of days, please send any questions to me, and state if you want your name put with the question or not!

Nobody is suggesting locking them out completely.

Just when the site is busy giving preference to the paying members

I don't know about you, but as for me, and I suppose many other payers, many of the games are against pawns. so what would be the point in allowing us to play, but locking the pawns out?

So maybe $4000.00 was a ballpark figure?

Fencer... while BK has a strong social infrastructure it is still fundamenatlly a commercial concern.
It follows that the paying customer should take precedence over those being served "pro bono".
I noted when the new configuration was originally discussed that access priority would be given to paying members.
I cannot see why by the simple expedient of logging out pawns based on length of time logged on when the system gets busy cannot be used to ensure paying members can always get access.
Ultimately the loss of a few disgruntled pawns does not outweigh the possibility of losing just one paying member.
More a public statement that this was to happen may encourage some of those to take up paying membership.

after that post....I might start a "STALKER" fellowship....anyone interested..PM me....*JK*

why would you care if someone knew you were looking at their profile????????

what?????.....does this improve the BK structure, features and future....how trivial....who cares who you are looking at?

now I know how to look at your profile without making you paranoid! lol

I believe it will show you the last action I did. (or went through the system)

So for example, sometimes I may want to look at someone's profile but do not want them to know I'm looking, so I will open that person's profile, and very quickly make a move in another window - that way if they look, my last action was making a move, even though I'm back at the original window looking at their profile. :-)

it should show what ever he clicked on last ;)

BBW, I know you usually use multiple windows, what I ment was where will it tell me you are at If I see your name on the Who is on-line?

It will always show yourself as viewing on-line players (since that is the last/current activity you are doing when you envoke that command) :-)

smart "rear end"

524 pounds LOL

at the moment about 900 to 1000 dollars I think

If a person uses more than one window at a time here, where would the view on-line players say you were at? What ever you did last?

wow...google tells me 2 of them are expensive :(

one at 2800mhz ( whatever that means) 524 english pounds.....STEVE whats that worth

bwildman: A new database server will be purchased. Liquid had defined the cheapest configuration, still powerful enough to solve all current and possible future performance problems. I don't know all details but it would contain two Xeon CPU's and some other nice features.

So far i have only gotten 4 entries - one with three-letter words, two with five-letter words and one with eight-letter words.

There is just under a month left to enter, but the more entrants the more winners, so go ahead and enter!

The details of this competition can be found at This page or message#87012 on this board.

You can go to the "Players List", and sort by last action - so you can see who has done what recently. (That is where I got the number of 2,300 in the last month, and 1,700 in the past few days)

There are a total of 414 people that has above a "pawn" membership (Can be seen on the "Paid Membership" page) I know some paid members do not play here no more, and I don't have the time to go through the 2,300 to count all who activly play, so that is why I estimated 360-390 paid members are still active here - but again, that part is just an estimate.)

maybe some of the payng members have multiple id's?

What do you mean? I figured it was because of their game limits and cause they've no fellowships to visit.

couldnt be a coinsidence could there?

Interestingly even though there are more pawns than pieces logged on the majority of players engaged in a BrainKing activity are pieces.

At the moment about 60% of the first page of online players are pawns.

Why do you guess such a small proportion?

I am not sure how the statistics were gathered but they make interesting reading... It bears out the snapshot that suggests that at any given time a third of players online are paying members... surely giving the paying members priority (ie in overload disconnect longest pawns on then the problem is solved. people who are enjoying the site free can hardly complain and the people who fund the site get value for money...

Fencer please explain why not?

I would still like to know what this raised money will be purchasing...and will it fix the problem?

Just as a side note, I did some calculating on Febuary 17th, and here are a few numbers I came up with.

During the past month, only 2,300 users were active (Total Rook + Knight + Pawns)

During the past few days, only 1,700 total were active (Rooks + Knights + pawns)

(now my guessing part) - Out of those numbers, I would guess around 360-390 are paid members, with the rest pawns.

now THAT is a good idea...for the $5 - give them 30 games, allow them to join 5-10 fellowships, still calling them pawns but with a star next to their name or some such thing...Good one Lythande...but then on 2nd thoughts, if they can afford $5 for the game then Lindas tourney should have 1000 people in it and it isnt looking as healthy as that at the moment. But then they do have till the end of March to sign up so things could change :)

"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? "

Maybe 1000 are, but how do you choose 1000 to levy the charge on? Even if 5000 are able does not mean every pawn is able (&& can justify the personal cost/value ratio).

i think the idea was not to display there ratings , they would still have one but they couldnt see it unless they paid membership

if pawns only could play in unrated games, I personally would avoid playing all pawns!!! I prefer rated games. A change of this sort would limit potential opponents greatly for me...

Thank you Steve R for your offer with your tournament. I am going to be doing good to squeeze in the backgammon prize tourney. If I have some room I might do the reversi thing too.. Reversi is not my strong suit but it is for a good cause.

Ughaibu:You are right,I like this site and I am here despite the serverproblems too.
Even so the site would be better without serverproblems, am I wrong? And I think this would sure not change the "nature" of the site.

thxs :)

Fixed.

http://www.brainking.com/game/Tournaments?trg=2214&tri=7247

can you look at this Fencer it is a four way tie in Section 1 ;)

Quite but those who like the site need to exercise care with ideas that might alter it's nature, ie behaving as other sites do.

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?