 |
|
 BrainKing.comBoard for everybody who is interested in BrainKing itself, its structure, features and future. If you experience connection or speed problems with BrainKing, please visit Host Tracker and check "BrainKing.com" accessibility from various sites around the world. It may answer whether an issue is caused by BrainKing itself or your local network (or ISP provider). World Of Chess And Variants (videos from BrainKing): YouTube Chess blog: LookIntoChess.com Sinulla ei ole oikeutta kirjoittaa tälle alueelle. Tälle alueelle kirjoittamiseen vaadittu minimi jäsenyystaso on Brain-Ratsu. Moodi: Kaikki voivat lähettää viestejä
<< < 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 > >> 20. Syyskuu 2010, 02:27:38 Otsikko: Re: Is anyone else finding  rod03801: That is a very good explaination but does nothing to solve the problem  20. Syyskuu 2010, 02:24:55 Otsikko: Re: Is anyone else finding MadMonkey: it just kick me off. Would not reconized Brainking.com. What the heck is going on? 20. Syyskuu 2010, 02:15:17 Otsikko: Re: Is anyone else finding  Mousetrap: It does not so much effect brainking for me, BUT does on Facebook. It must be something to do with the States. They are asleep in our morning, and as you say i have no problems anywhere, but from about lunchtime it gets slower....can not think of any other reason  20. Syyskuu 2010, 02:14:49 Otsikko: Re: Is anyone else finding  Mousetrap: Personally, I haven't had a problem in ages. Just a reminder to check the usual article out. http://brainking.info/archives/414-About-the-complexity-part-1.html  20. Syyskuu 2010, 02:12:00 Otsikko: Is anyone else finding Muokannut Mousetrap (20. Syyskuu 2010, 02:13:07) and harder to access brainking at night? Seems that early morning in the UK is the only time we can get on with no trouble these days 15. Syyskuu 2010, 11:13:08 Otsikko: Re: Achievement rabbitoid: Hehehe... playing against him, and being able to finish the game without resign it, should give an achievement too, Rabbit... :) 15. Syyskuu 2010, 00:06:46 Otsikko: Re: Achievement Justaminute: When you play against His eminence, as I do, it's very simple: just roll. play whatever you like, the game won't finish in your lifetime anyway. 15. Syyskuu 2010, 00:03:29 Otsikko: Re: Achievement rabbitoid: No idea how you play clowning backgammon but your post was very entertaining. 14. Syyskuu 2010, 21:34:53 Otsikko: Re: Achievement furbster: Furbuster you just need to play somebody who hasn't got auto pass. That way you can achieve it. LOL 14. Syyskuu 2010, 19:34:37 Otsikko: Re: Achievement  rabbitoid: Congrats on the achievement, i actually still need that one, maybe i should take auto pass off ha 14. Syyskuu 2010, 19:31:21 Otsikko: Re: Achievement Gabriel Almeida: Ah, clowning backgammon, my favourite subject I roll and move pieces wait 2 weeks (for a "5 day tournament") His eminence passes for the 10th time in a row (can't do that in a hurry, you need 2 weeks to ponder the subject) I roll and move Wait 2 weeks What a suspense! His eminence passes for the 11th time in a row (you never know, something might have changed) Wait 2 weeks Continue to shift vacation days. You never know. Maybe the rabbit died of boredom? Wait 2 weeks What's the lifespan of a rabbit, anyway? What do you know, I DID get an achievement for this game: "Force the opponent to pass the move 10 times in a row without using the autopass in a single game of backgammon or its variants." Isn't life a treat 14. Syyskuu 2010, 16:27:39 Otsikko: Achievement Muokannut Gabriel Almeida (14. Syyskuu 2010, 16:36:13) Hi, I don't know where to do it (it must be a DB for that stufs, for sure, but... there are so many DB!!!), but I would like to suggest another Achievement. Look at this game that I'm p+laying with Altermann, and you will note that I have 50 or more pieces (I haven't counted alter's pieces, but there are a lot, also). It's an epic game! :) Could this be bolded with an achievement, in future? 14. Syyskuu 2010, 00:19:33 Otsikko: Re: MadMonkey: Yes, I agree... that could be the idea! 13. Syyskuu 2010, 13:00:44 Otsikko: Re: furbster: Especially in Team Tournaments that are for the lesser played games, it would hopefully encourage more to try as you say  13. Syyskuu 2010, 12:54:57 Otsikko: Re: MadMonkey: i think brains for the winning team in a team tournament is a good idea, it'd encourage more people to play, and they would be more competitive 13. Syyskuu 2010, 12:40:08 Otsikko: Re: Gabriel Almeida: It would be GREAT if ONCE a year Fencer set a few normal Tournaments and a few Team Tournaments with either Brains (or even Membership) as prizes  12. Syyskuu 2010, 19:10:57 Otsikko: Re: Fencer: Team Tournaments started with brain prizes. It would be great if you do that again, Fencer. It would be good for brains utlility, and to stronger/more dinamyc team tournaments... 11. Syyskuu 2010, 19:17:51 Otsikko: Re: ScarletRose: ahh i don't think they put mine n the right place ha 11. Syyskuu 2010, 18:41:54 Otsikko: Re:  ScarletRose: LOL  11. Syyskuu 2010, 18:24:38 Otsikko: Re:  furbster: hon.. everyone got their.. ahem.. Free Brain when they were born.. *giggle* 11. Syyskuu 2010, 16:42:30 Otsikko: Re:  MadMonkey: Wow, an old post. Just to put that post into context, that was BEFORE the current system of brains was in place where they are used to buy "REAL" things like membership. An overview of the post - have a game site, a fake "currency" that people can earn - and then use that fake "currency" to buy special things - special things that would not take any actual money away from the site owner (like lost membership), but other little perks here and there - like maybe the ability to post in color for a week being something that can be purchased with the fake currency. 11. Syyskuu 2010, 16:28:47 Otsikko: Re: Fencer: Have you thought anymore about the discussion that started back in 2004  HERE & HERE by coan.net It sparked a discussion about having Brain Prizes for all Tournaments. It has been mentioned a few times since (i have it on my list for you  lol)You thought it was a good idea at the time  any new thoughts on the matter It would need a bit of thinking about, the only addition i would make is those being members of winning Teams get a Prize as well. (if only a few Brains) 11. Syyskuu 2010, 16:07:21 Otsikko: Re:  furbster: By referring new paying members. And I prepare another option that should be much easier to everyone. 11. Syyskuu 2010, 15:56:21 Can anybody remember how to get the free brains, since we can no longer buy them at the moment? 5. Syyskuu 2010, 20:40:37 Otsikko: POND DISCUSSION tenuki has responded to the acusations brought up about him, I have moved it over to the Run Around The Pond Board for those that are interested http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=77
any further post on the subject should be made on that board 4. Syyskuu 2010, 22:10:05 Otsikko: Re: To those who think collaboration is OK Muokannut alilsassy (4. Syyskuu 2010, 22:17:01) rabbitoid: Perfect example....IMO, it's cheating, simple as that! collaboration is : to work jointly with others.....both ponds & poker should be an individual strategy, not a partnership with another player. 4. Syyskuu 2010, 20:46:51 Otsikko: To those who think collaboration is OK Would you consider it OK if applied to poker too? allied players telling each other what their cards are? it's exactly the same principle. 4. Syyskuu 2010, 17:57:08 Otsikko: Re: ponds alexlee: I think this is not about ponds, but about BK politics. 4. Syyskuu 2010, 16:10:05 Otsikko: Re: ponds Hrqls: Thank you for seeing my point about "losing on purpose for the goal of boosting ratings." I really have a hard time thinking of this as team play? A game where 2 players sign up as a team and they know who all the teams are is fine. Ponds you sign up as a single player. If teams are allowed then create a pond for teams and that would be fair play for all. There is a discussion board for ponds and that might be a better place for this? Members who do not play in ponds must be slightly bored with this by now. 4. Syyskuu 2010, 11:00:41 Otsikko: Re: ponds Hrqls: Both tenuki and Pedro Martínez are strong players, and I want to be able to respect them both. What they have achieved on this site has taken a lot of effort and deserves respect. And when one of them accuses the other of cheating, I still want to respect them both. Apparently, tenuki hasn't broken any rules even if there was team play - but the current discussion has shown that nobody (perhaps except Fencer) is really happy with this interpretation of the rules. I do think it was wrong of Pedro to make public accussations, especially without proper evidence, and I have made that argument earlier in this discussion. But the problem is, I don't know what else he could have done. Clearly, if Fencer's position is that he doesn't really care and we shouldn't take the games too seriously, there's noone to turn to with your frustrations. I think that's the biggest problem here, and I think Fencer's disgraceful goodbye to Pedro confirmed this. I don't like it here anymore, and I'll just finish the games I've started and not start any new ones. As for BrainKing3, I couldn't care less at this point. 4. Syyskuu 2010, 10:07:30 Otsikko: ponds personally i always think games should be played without help from anyone else ... ponds included .. i like the invidual acclompishment :) but calling someone a cheater while he is just making use of the rules is too much the issue with team play in ponds might be brought up in a discussion about ponds .. that has my full support personally i think team play should not be allowed, and i think to remember from the earlier discussion that most players think about it that way i fully respect tenuki and i dont think he has done anything wrong personally .. (although i didnt think about the rules about losing on purpose of bootsting ratings .. that indeed conflicts with the outcome of the former discussion (in which team play was not forbidden)) 3. Syyskuu 2010, 23:32:59 Otsikko: Re: ponds & team play  Bwild wrote "I agree, and feel sorry for those who have purchased lifetime memberships. it has to be discouraging,to say the least, to find out the sites owner could care less if cheating goes on,or if long time members leave because of the lack of interest provided by the owner. " Thanks. But mostly I have myself to blame. My love of variants got the better of my judgment. Live and learn: in the future, support responsive individuals and organizations. 3. Syyskuu 2010, 19:10:07 Otsikko: Re: ponds & team play Muokannut Gabriel Almeida (3. Syyskuu 2010, 19:13:57) Bwild: KM story was never properly solved. I left this site for a while because of that. Purple let me (still) blocked because I asked what happened, and asked why should only KM members moderate checkers board. I was an active player than, and stopped playing it (and writting in that board) because of that. That's why I say: Brainking really "don't give a sh..." (as Fencer said) about cheating. That's what I said in PM to Martinez: we should play according to this rules. I don't like them, but I play only against who I want (who I trust). But it's wrong, in my opinion. Wrong and bad for the site. Other sites "died" because of that. Km group made the same (and still cheat) in IYT, for example. Giving up to fight this is a way to give a "slow death" to the site. I'm not criticizing, I repeat. I'm giving you (and Fencer) my opinion, in order to make (keep) brainking as a great games site, maybe the best of the world! 3. Syyskuu 2010, 19:03:29 Otsikko: Re: ponds & team play rod03801: However, Rod, Bwild said something interesting, about "loosing on purpose...". It's another way to see the question... I agree with snoopy too. We should listen to both sides of the story. Although, I think Martinez was not incorrect, and his observation has legitimacy. 3. Syyskuu 2010, 18:24:25 Otsikko: Re: ponds & team play alexlee I already said it. Read the rules of Ponds. Where does it say it's cheating. It was even brought up at the beginning of Ponds that it would NOT be considered cheating. Unfair? Possibly, to many people. Again, I would NOT want to play in a pond where I knew people played like that. 3. Syyskuu 2010, 18:23:14 Otsikko: Re: ponds & team play Gabriel Almeida: "However, BK stays much poorer without Pedro Martinez." I agree, and feel sorry for those who have purchased lifetime memberships. it has to be discouraging,to say the least, to find out the sites owner could care less if cheating goes on,or if long time members leave because of the lack of interest provided by the owner. when the KM members were finally exposed for being cheaters and thieves...it took a lot to get any action from the owner, and they are right back in our midst. IF...and I say IF...bk3 ever evolves,its my understanding there will be no more fellowships. well..imo...if theres no fellowships, and cheating is allowed...why pay to play? 3. Syyskuu 2010, 18:21:24 Otsikko: Re: ponds & team play rod03801: User agreement >>Game Guidelines: NO CHEATING. This includes using outside programs to help play and losing on purpose for the goal of boosting ratings. Your account may be banned, and ratings will be removed. Why wouldn't ponds be like any other game at BK? It says "losing on purpose for the goal of boosting ratings." 3. Syyskuu 2010, 18:20:04 Otsikko: Re: ponds & team play Gabriel Almeida: Yes, I DO agree completely. I wouldn't personally play that way. I guess my point is that it isn't fair to publicly crucify someone for something that isn't TECHNICALLY cheating. 3. Syyskuu 2010, 18:17:28 Otsikko: Re: ponds & team play  Gabriel Almeida: there are always 2 sides to every story and im waiting on hearing what the accused says on the subject 3. Syyskuu 2010, 18:02:33 Otsikko: Re: ponds & team play rod03801: Yes, I understand... I didn't explained myself properly. I mean that it can be acceptable according to the rules, but it's morally (in my opinion) unfair and unnacceptable, because players don't play with the same chances. Is like a "horde chess game" or "Mancala game" if 1 player always play with white. A fair game, in my opinion, should give to both players the same possibilities, and the winner should be the player who have more inteligence, strategy, luck, whatever... not the one who have more "relations" Unless it is a game of "relations", as we have some in internet. That's my point. In other words... it can be legal, but it's still unfair! 3. Syyskuu 2010, 17:54:02 Otsikko: Re: ponds & team play Gabriel Almeida: But it's NOT the rules. Where in the rules do you read that? And it has been stated in the past that there was not going to be restrictions on "team play". 3. Syyskuu 2010, 17:18:42 Otsikko: Re: ponds & team play Hrqls: Rules are rules, but... this is OBVIOUSLY cheating (latu sensu), as some players as MORE CHANCES to win than others, not because of their inteligence/strategy/luck, but because of their "connections". As a game, it's absolutelly unnacceptable! 3. Syyskuu 2010, 14:36:34 Otsikko: Cheating stuffs Muokannut Gabriel Almeida (3. Syyskuu 2010, 16:47:14) Brainking never cared about it. It's a "political business". As brainking's owner, Fencer is free to do whatever he wants. However, BK stays much poorer without Pedro Martinez. Couldn't this be solved more peacefully, Fencer? That "Fine,..." it's a "I want you to leave", and it's not honourable for you and the site. 3. Syyskuu 2010, 10:54:02 Otsikko: ponds & team play the whole issue about ponds is : is team play allowed ? this topic has been discussed before (i think on the ponds board) if i remember correctly the outcome was that team play was allowed, although many players didnt like it this means that its not cheating to have someone tell you your bid for the next round .. so that he can bid 1 higher 3. Syyskuu 2010, 06:15:56 Hey, the Phillies won tonight! just saying 3. Syyskuu 2010, 05:50:17 Otsikko: Re: I will ask again??? Bernice: Once wasn't enough? If there is an answer, it will come. It has been brought up. 3. Syyskuu 2010, 05:47:54 Otsikko: I will ask again???  How come Redfrog can be a global mod when he isnt even a paying member.. can't anybody do anything about this? 3. Syyskuu 2010, 04:50:17 Otsikko: Re: How come Redfrog can be a global mod when he isnt even a paying member? 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. 3. Syyskuu 2010, 04:48:31 Otsikko: Re: How come Redfrog can be a global mod when he isnt even a paying member? alilsassy: yes as long as it is the same account 3. Syyskuu 2010, 04:46:06 Otsikko: Re: How come Redfrog can be a global mod when he isnt even a paying member? 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? << < 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 > >> |
Päivämäärä ja aika
Ystävät palvelimella
Suosikki keskustelut
Yhteisöt
Päivän vinkki
|
|
Tekijänoikeudet - Copyright © 2002 - 2025 Filip Rachunek, kaikki oikeudet pidätetään. Takaisin alkuun |