joshi tm: Because nobody made a change yet.

Fencer: But if somebody does, I hope the somebody will give warning before, since the non-participation of pawns is an important part of the strategy

rabbitoid: True.

rabbitoid: I do not think so. Strategy's will change a bit indeed. I think the game is better to play and the ponds will be filled up faster.

joshi tm: I think what he means is if a current rook drops to a pawn, they know to just bid 1 more then their last bid. If Fencer changes it so they can play and does not let everyone know, then they will fall in the pond because of the rule change. (at least that is what I took from it.)

My opinion - let pawns play, but limit to 5 ponds at a time (5 ponds where they are still running - if they fall in, let them join another) (and if they are a bishop+ and have more then 5, and drop down to a pawn - let them continue all that they started.)

coan.net: That's exactly what I had in mind. As for allowing pawns to play a pond, or 2, or 5, I've been suggesting that for a long time now. The ponds have been drying up because lack of new faces for years. Remember when I used to start a daily one-day pond? I had to stop, because not enough people showed up at the end. There are only so many rooks, and most of them lost interest.

rabbitoid: Yup, ythat's why I'd like to give limited play to the Pawns. They will surprise us, and of course, this rules change must only apply to the new generated ponds after them or announced with a bling bling flashing message box on the main page ;)

joshi tm: Why would allowing pawns to play a pond constitute a "rule change"? Who cares who the entrants are, it's the same game with the same "rules". Good grief.

grenv: Because the Pawns can post moves again. Pawns were before eliminated by posting an easy bet of 1 more of their last bet.

joshi tm: I'm afraid I didn't parse that explanation, can you try to phrase differently?...

you are saying that pawns and non-pawns had different rules about what they are allowed to bet.. but that could be solved by just making the rules the same for everyone? Therefore I presume you meant something other than what you actually said?

grenv: Pawns were not allowed in ponds. If someone became a pawn, part way through a game, then they stopped being able to bid. It was a known strategy that if you saw someone become a pawn, you knew they couldn't bid anymore, so it was safe to bid one point above that player.

The point is, to make sure people realize that this strategy would no longer work, because pawns would now be able to bid.

rod03801: seems like a programming bug.. if you start a game you should be allowed to finish.

grenv: No, that is how it was intended.

rod03801: Still a bug, just injected in the design phase :)

grenv: No, at the time ponds were a "member exclusive feature" - so when people dropped their membership level, they are no longer able to play. (just like pawns are no longer to do much in a fellowship once their membership drops.)

I think it is found now that ponds are a little "stale" with all the same players, so allowing pawns to play a limited amount - in my opinion - will be a nice thing. (again, like others said - Fencer needs to make sure people are aware of the change since it can affect game play in a big way as explained already.)

coan.net: You guys can try to convince me all you like, but I think such a rule is silly and wrecks the game, not that i care since becoming a pawn myself, just an observation.

grenv: I think you are missing the point. No one is complaining about the change. People just want it announced, when it happens, so they know not to play that way. It is a major change.

grenv: "wreck the game": No. It's one of the factors to be taken into account. Same as, for example, if you are in a 2-day pond, checking people's profiles to see if they've been online the last 2 days to place their bets.
By the way, it can backfire: I remember a pond where I placed a "surefire" bet and found myself swimming along with others when the so and so renewed his membership an hour before deadline

rabbitoid:

I think a better rule would be that if someone doesn't play then force a maximum possible bet for that player - which would reduce their total to 0 next time giving everyone equal information.

Games really require everyone have equal information to be a good game and since there are different time zones and everyone has different ability to be online a different amount of time - there is not equal information in this regard, giving some people an unfair advantage.

grenv: As i see it.To many pawn,s have dropped done from a higher membership.Creating problems all over.

grenv: The rule of taking a persons last bet if they time out was put in as a way to compensate for not allowing vacation days in the game. Big ponds can take months (and even more then a year) to play - and since you can't use a vacation day on a pond while you might be away, many will plan ahead and place a slightly "higher" bet that will hopefully keep them in place for the rounds they will miss, and hopefully be around when they get back.

I guess there is a concern about "equal information" - but the problem is in many games (like Battleboats - I can look at my opponent past games to figure out if they like to place boats near each other - if they normally place them near the edge - figure out where they normally like to shot at first so i don't put my boats there, etc...). I guess the good solution would be to jut place in the dark ponds if you really worried about this.

coan.net: you're right about dark ponds... that would be my choice. I think we should also have separate ratings for the 2 variants :)

grenv: There are separate ratings for Ponds, Dark Ponds, and Rain Ponds