alilsassy: In a fellowship? Sure why not? It was theirs. There have been plenty of times though when Fencer has made adjustments for people in fellowships when this was the case. If someone bothered to ask, I'll bet something would be done.

Lets be realistic, there really are times, when things really aren't pressing or an emergency. They only get brought up when someone has a reason for doing it.

If you really want me to spend time going through all the boards that haven't had posts in months, deleting those mods, I'll be happy to do it. Didn't seem that important at the time. If it is a concern, it can certainly be done though. I suppose perhaps you are interested in helping to moderate those boards with pawn moderators? It can certainly be brought up, if so. We are always looking for "fresh ones" who want to help out.

alilsassy: yes as long as it is the same account

rod03801:Thanks for updating your board Rod, but I was only using that as an example....this is an issue over many boards, as well as a few fellowships. Just curious how long a fellowship (with no LB) stays active after the BB becomes a pawn? Can this account return to BK a year later and resume the position as if they were never gone?
 

alilsassy: Well yes, at the time, I thought she would come back as a paid member. But do you notice when the last posts were before tonight? It hasn't exactly been a pressing issue. I have removed her now, I hope that is satisfactory.

Bernice: I would think positions such as Moderator's would be held for paying members. If Fencer felt redfrog was suitable for the position then maybe he should donate a membership to him. lol
I see there's a lot of that going on here with pawns holding moderator positions, for example:  Members only board. Kind of ironic to see a non-member holding the power. "This discussion board is available for paying members only - anybody with the membership level Brain Bishop or higher." (no offense against this individual...I just think it's time for an update)

rod03801: I agree with Rod, I will also be deleting further post (without warning or notice to anyone that has been warned in the past) on any board that is inappropriate.

And any further silly BICKERING will be deleted as well, and will result in bans if necessary. If there is intelligent conversation that can be had on the topic, without fighting, then that is fine. This IS NOT going to be a free for all.

Bernice: No, enough is enough. I WILL be deleting further posts containing items that have always been considered against the rules, regardless of what Fencer posted. PERIOD.

rod03801: calm down little fella...you will have a heart attack....if what you say is correct then Fencer is an idiot.....**** we can all take his example and post whatever......calm down now, take it gently wee one.

Bernice: Too frightened? You are commenting on something you know nothing about. Globals/Mods have ZERO ability to edit or delete Fencer's posts. I would hope you have seen me enough on this site to know that I take it all VERY seriously, and have privately stated my opinion to Fencer on how I feel about his post. I can do NO more than that, whether YOU choose to believe it or not.

How come Redfrog can be a global mod when he isnt even a paying member?

MadMonkey: Gone but not forgotten.

MadMonkey: Some of us spend alot of money here, unlike you begging and it does bother me....but its ok my days are done as well.

Marshmud: Well that is sort of what you told me, i was working it slightly different, BUT there are thousands of different methods players could use as you say. For them to be 1 point off i do not know, let them explain NOT that they should have to. Fencer did make a striking point early (jokingly or not) with his "Yes, I am a loser and I cannot stand anyone else being successful" point of view. It does seem there is a lot of that going on here lately. Maybe i should do that every Spider Line4 game i lose

Exactly as you say, there is no need for a player as good as him to cheat. So why would he ??? He is a life member anyway, not as if he needs membership.

Have all these people accusing him bothered to ask him ? of course not, its much more fun, and stirs up more crap, and upset more people to plaster it on the Discussion boards. That is what i call stooping low !!

Guilty without and trial or any proof.

Fencer is not interested, and the only reason i am is i hate players ganging up on others from my own experience, and times like when we had the KM here etc... It seems something has to happen every few years here, as i said, VERY sad

MadMonkey: That formula you speak of, or the 150% increase per move....150 bid after a bid of 100 has many variables. It depends on the size of the group, the bkr of the players involved...etc... and only works on the 16/16 ponds. Actually as the players now bid higher its obsolete and doesn't work. Many have asked me (or I asked them) to help them in ponds as I was trying to get more players involved ....and many currently play..

C'mon mate. we have known each other for over 5 years and we both have great respect for tenuki. He has won all my prize ponds and over 50% of all my prizes. My point is, that a player with his unbelievable gaming skills doesn't have to stoop this low....there is no formula for two players to be 1 point off an entire game. Can you at least agree to that point even if its not a game you like?

Marshmud: eh I never had a problem with Pedro......

I give up....it was YOU that told me the formula to use to improve my Pond play..... if 2 people used that method in the same game, there scores would be the same all the way through. Not this game in question, TRUE, but who knows what method was used.

There seems to be a tight little group of players here now trying to get players off BrainKng, hopefully Fencer will see through it and sort them out first !!

MadMonkey: What kind of proof you need? A whole game with a one point difference needs no formula. If not for tenuki being your friend, and pedro not I think you would see it different.

It may not be a game to some, but I have always enjoyed the ponds. Even ran prizes with the ponds, and guess who won them?

Like tenuki needs to cheat....and he has always gained my respect....but he is history now.

I would hate to think how many times people have been *ostracised* for swearing on public boards, but it appears to me to be OK seeing the top dog can say shit whenever he feels like, or is it a case of the GLOBS/MODS are too frightened to pull him up on his language for fear of a backlash in the future???.

I have to say that this 865 bet seems a bit odd - nauars played 865 in the previous round too, but there's no * next to the number like there usually is to indicate that a player was offline and his/her last bet was automatically repeated. I don't see how somebody would guess that it was safe to bet 866 in this case.

Pedro..... i stated that i know of at least one formula that can easily improve a players standing in Ponds (as i proved), i never said the players you mentioned were using it, and also Hrqls has given you a rough idea of one that works.

Is all you have done is slated 2 members and given no proof, just how you see it and that is definitely the wrong way to do it as you well know

One last post from my part.

MadMonkey, Hrqls, cd power: In this case in question, there is no way to speak about using a formula. Take a look at Rounds 22 and 21 in this pond. What kind of formula would you have to have to find out that nauars was going to bet 865? Those two simply cheat. Nauars tells tenuki what she is going to bet and tenuki gains an unfair advantage. It's as clear as anything can be.

I am not going to spend one more bit of my time on a site where cheating is not only allowed, but also supported and promoted, where the User Agreement is not enforced, and where the management seems not to give an excrement about the proper working of all kinds of games on this site.

pedestrian: This is a private joke between Pedro and me. Don't take me too seriously.

Fencer: "Fine.  The problem is solved."

Personally, formulas for ponds maybe slightly help, so I don't really care if someone uses a formula or is in collusion with others. I have only began playing ponds this year, without any formula, and have won 17 of them in a very short time, and even achieved a # 1 ranking for a little bit. So, this shows me I can beat others no matter what they do.

Pedro Martínez: Fine. The problem is solved.

Fencer: You don't give a shit. OK. I'm out of here.

pedestrian: i dont know if you can call it a formula .. but personally i look back to the last 3 rounds .. i look at how much the average increases between those rounds and continue from that .. or i simple do 1.5 times the last difference

its quite easy to copy that and add 1 ...
i think the 'formula' used by other players is a bit more complicated .. but as said .. the goal of this game is to guess the formula used by your fellow players and use it to your advantage

pedestrian: That is what i said....only your explanation is much clearer

Bwild: @ "it seems highly unlikely that these 2(?) players can be 1 apart for so many turns."

Bwild: Sounds like "Yes, I am a loser and I cannot stand anyone else being successful" sort of whining to me. Well, if it makes you happy, carry on.

Everybody else: I don't take ponds as serious games and, honestly, I really don't care if people make some agreements while playing. Actually, I was thinking of making some improvements of the pond system and even started to work on it. However, I don't give it a shit now. You can thank Bwild and his ability to be such a nice person.

MadMonkey: seems the posting of the ponds in question is ample proof to me. not like Pedro just pulled these names out of a hat.

Vikings: "I'm just stating what Fencers stand has been"
and that,unfortunately, is nothing.
too busy spending eternity with this supposed bk3, and trolling for black rook money,imo.
it seems highly unlikely that these 2(?) players can be 1 apart for so many turns.
whats to stop the multi-nic abusers from over running us with boosting and cheating in prize tournies and other games if this stuff is just continually over looked?

Vikings: I know anything is hard to prove, BUT for someone to announce on the brainking main board:

Quote:

I would like to draw attention to two cheats
and
I want them to be banned from the site, banned from ponds or stripped of their BKRs and removed from rankings !

is totally out of order. Get the proof first .....

Rod is correct, Fencer has said in the past that because it is a multi-player game, that collusion is not necessarily cheating, he also has said that is would be almost impossible to prove, for example, there are people defending the possibility that these examples are not cheating, I find it ironic that out of the many claims in the past of cheating, the person that tends to stand up for the accused the most is Pedro,
Mad Monkey, if a formula is being used here, there is not enough information to figure it out,

Don't get me wrong Pedro, I agree with you, I'm just stating what Fencers stand has been

MadMonkey: This is why i do not play in ponds & also poker to

& i enjoy playing poker to until this page loading stuff because i still can' t get into.
I still have 1000 chips & can't find a game to use them in

rod03801:

Just looking again, notice in both Tournament Ponds that Pedro pointed out, the FIRST play (which he neglected to mention) were nothing like each other

Again shows me they (like myself, and probably 90% of others) wait to the next round and work there next play out from the average of the previous round

Also, I believe I remember at some point that Fencer may have said that "team play" in Ponds was not necessarily cheating?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm sure I remember it at least being part of a conversation. LOL

rabbitoid: lol Ed Trice...now there is a name from the past

No i am not thank God..... the one i used is just pure maths as long as you get through the first round.....

MadMonkey: Hey, I hope you're not a reincarnation of Ed Trice, he was going on about a magic formula a couple of years ago. when challenged to prove it he didn't do so good.

And by the way, the rating system in ponds is rubbish.

pedestrian:

Like i said i was told A formula by someone in the top 10 about 3 years ago and look how my Rating shot up ( GRAPH ).

OK, it has dipped mainly through time-outs and i do not play them these days very often, but if i wanted i could climb easily again.

I would say that nearly all the good players work to some sort of formula in the head when they look at the numbers......

formulas can be simple, or hard depending who devised it. I know the one i use is simple as anything

MadMonkey:  It does look very suspicious, but I think MadMonkey has a point. It is possible that nauars has a formula, and that tenuki simply guessed his formula and played 1 higher every time.

I just looked at Ratings and i know 2 people in the top 10 who use this formula (could be more of course, just ones i know) BUT neither are ones you mention. They may use a different formula

Pedro Martínez: All i can say on this matter, is they may well use the same formula to get through to the next round

I used to fall in Ponds (normal ones) all the time (ok, now i never play them as i do not like them) BUT i know there is a simple formula to help you do well in Ponds.

When i was told this method and i used it, i used to get through to the next round much easier, not a guaranteed win, but when i used it i was getting to the last few all the time.

Pedro Martínez: it has happened before in ponds (i think by some players from scandinavia ?)

i dont know if its cheating to form teams in ponds .. does it say anything about it in the pond rules ?

Pedro Martínez: well..thats not right,and I agree that something should be done. same thing happened on the texas hold'em tables...but nothing happened on top managements part.
they over look this little thing...then the next..it just snowballs.
frustrating when your trying hard to win fairly.

Pedro Martínez: of course there should be, but will there be???

Bernice: Well, of course it is possible. But whether they are or not, the evidence shows that they collude… and there should be consequences…

Pedro Martínez: is it possible that it is one and the same person?

paully: LOL!