Walter Montego: Couldn't we just give it more time and observe? I have my own theory about this system and until I can see it in action, we can only speculate. It wouldn't be wise to make big changes only 2 weeks after the release.

Fencer: I think the problem is the preception of fairness. It doesn't look fair, even if the numbers don't matter. Then why not just have it at 100%? Or do as I've suggested and let the tournament creator decide and you take you cut from what he gets? If he sets it too high, he'll get no players. If anyone gives it all back, then it doesn't matter, and you can charge a couple of bucks for the privilege or have them sponsor part of the prize in addition to having all the entry fees paid out. I have freely given up money to sponsor a tournament. I get little out of it, but it makes for added interest and a well attended tournament. You should at least let the creator of a tournament that sponsors a prize of a six month membership or its equivalent in BK Brains be allowed to award a higher percentage of the BK Brains collected from the entries to be given out to the participants. I would also like have more positions than first, second, and third place, for when there's a lot of people entered into the tournament.

diogenes: Right, I am in a big stress now and I admit the word "babbling" was inappropriate. Sorry. But your "the way youre behaving towards your supporters seems to get worse each day" is simply too much, don't you think?

diogenes: In my opinion madPhilip's behaviour is NOT getting worse every day and it stays the same.... I haven't noticed anything you say about his behaviour. But that's only me.....

diogenes: It wasn't me who started to write with exclamation marks, capitalized words and similar unfriendly attributes. I always try to explain everything in peace but when I see someone could ruin my work for no logical reason (and I'll be glad to know I was wrong), I have my right to protect myself.
Btw, if the site would be to money oriented, I would never respond.
There are many things which I have to see from much more complicated point of view than a normal user can see. And since a day has only 24 hours, there are many situations where I prefer to say "no" shortly, instead of starting a complicated discussion.

"Any other babbling about a percentage is simply ridiculous"

and - btw.: do you feel right to babble in this way towards definite (and "no-cost") supporters of your site? i feel this is ridiculous!

you have your site now in 15 languages and this appears to be a good way to earn money! and, as you already know, many supporters feel you are getting more and more money-orientated and forget - as in this discussion - how people pay and support you personally!

dont make this site too money-orientated! you may have to live with the money you are earning but youre still in a community of supporters and even friends who always felt on your side, like me!

sorry to write this now in public, but the way youre behaving towards your supporters seems to get worse each day and this last statement of yours confirms this in my humble opinion!

fencer - i know that - i just compare and realize that 30% are a lot! it would encourage more of us to take part in this kind of tourneys if we knew it was more "fair". and at the end, you could take even more profit out of this nice idea if more of us were participating!

Pythagoras: Right.

Fencer: Yes of course, whoever wants not to participate in a specific tournament or something, has the right and the option not to participate on it!
But i think that doesn't mean we can't suggest better(in our opinion) ways of handling some situations right?

diogenes: I've said it many times but I'll do it once more:

• What you buy is what you get. Nobody forces you to spend the Brains in tournaments. Use them to extend your membership and you don't have to feel any loss.
• There is nothing like 30%. A tournament is defined with an entry fee and who wants to participate, pays the entry fee. The tournament is defined with a prize and who wins, gets the prize. Any other babbling about a percentage is simply ridiculous.
• And, of course, it's just an option. Who wants to ingore these tournaments, it's his right. BrainKing is full of other features which can be used without any Brains. If you liked it before, there is no point to stop it now.

That's my final word to the subject.

there is no reason for taking away those 30%! there is no reason giving'em to the site-creator. this method simply means (to me) that our "BRAINS" ARE WORTH A 30% LESS! its difficult enough to win one tourney with a prize. so why playingém in order to give the creator a guaranteed extra amount of -virtual but real- money?

I just ain't playin

Czuch Chuckers: I see a lot of potential in these fee tournaments. I only just started doing tournaments again. I had stopped in 2004. I don't have too many and so far I've only sponsored one of those. 2004 Third Quarter Number 3 Dark Chess. This was the first time I ever lost a tournament of Dark Chess, so maybe I grew disheartened? Anyways, I'm over it and I have started creating a few tournaments again. I'm planning on sponsoring the third quarter Dark Chess one again, but now there's new options. Not all change is an improvement from the start, if ever, though most things on this site always seem to tend toward getting better. Fencer might be a great programmer and he is certainly a responsive site owner, but he might not understand human nature or how to sell products as well as some sales type people do. Most people don't mind paying a cut if they think they're getting a fair shake or if they believe no one is taking advantage of them. Obviously if he put into effect what I said to do it would greatly lower his take of the action. But if it increased the number of tournaments with fees by five times he'd come out way ahead in the long run and people would be happpy or they'd not participate in those types of tournaments as BIG BAD WOLF has pointed out.

Walter Montego: LOL, I was looking for some support in this venture a few days hence, and it seemed like my concerns fell on deaf ears. I was just happy to see that I am not the only one with those concerns!

Czuch Chuckers: I guess I've been a derelict in my duties as ombudsman, eh?

making a mountain out of a mole hill comes to mind peeps

Walter Montego: Sorry for the confusion Walter, it was emmett's post after yours that mentioned a boycott. I think your message is very well writen and I agree with many of the points. Just disagreed with the now deleted post about enouraging others to boycott, which I think is over the line of what is needed.

Czuch Chuckers: The post in question is now gone so I don't feel I have anything else to add to this conversation. I think what Walter said below was good enough to stand on it's own. If you want to continue or have questions, feel free to send me a PM.

BIG BAD WOLF: I did not say boycott, nor did I advocate such an action. I think Fencer created this entry business without thoroughly checking out how to implement it for greatest acceptance. I put some ideas into my previous post that I thought would make it a lot better for him and everyone else. Who doesn't like winning a prize for finishing in the money? I don't mind paying a fee if I think I'm getting my money's worth, win or lose. I think if what I recommend was to be put into place, lots more tournaments of the "Entry fee" type would be created. After all, the tournament creator would have a chance to get some BK Brains if he didn't award all the entry fees back into it and Fencer could take a cut out of that, say 30%. In the case of a tournament creator deciding to award all the fees collected, it would be a simple thing for Fencer to charge a nominal tournament creation fee to the creator, wouldn't it?

BIG BAD WOLF: I know this is not a debate board....but just by stating ones intent to boycott and give their reasons why, is in itself an encouragement for others to follow for the same reasons, hence encouraging them to boycott themselves.

Czuch Chuckers: If a person wants to boycott by not playing in it is a great idea. Like I said, if you do not like it - don't play them.

To offer your opinion like Walter did below is also good - I'm sure Fencer is glad to hear everyones opinion (he just may not necessarly agree with them all)

But to encourage others is the part that I disagree with. The new system takes nothing away from what people were playing on this site, so I don't see why anyone would want to encourage other to not use the system just because they do not like it.

Added note: there was a message from emmett saying he was going to encourage others to boycott which is now not on the board - sorry if what I'm saying now does not make too much sense.

emmett: Amen....

Czuch Chuckers: I know that Fencer means well, and I love this site. I agree that the premise of this new idea is sound, but its terms exceed polite decorum.

BIG BAD WOLF: I think boycotting is a good way to tell fencer that although we like the idea of entry fee tournaments, that we do not particularly like the way it is currently set up, and maybe a botcott will encourage him to modify them a bit?

I would guess that in a "real world" situation that you would support, end even encourage, the free expression of dissent in order to bring about change?

Walter Montego: What took you so long?

emmett: Why encourage people to boycott - the simply thing to do is if you do not like it is don't play those tournaments. Fencer has changed no other tournament, or removed anything so it is not like anything was taken away - just a new way to play, and if you do not like something, why encourage people to boycott it - Seems more simple to just not play those types of tournaments.

I just created a couple of tournaments. They're not prize tournaments, but I noticed the entry fee set up on the page for creating new tournaments. How come the prize fund is limited to 70%? I wouldn't mind giving all the the winners the whole amount. What happens to the other 30%? Does the tournament creator get it? Does Fencer get it? Do they share it? 30% seems like a very high piece of the action. Even Keno in Vegas ain't that steep usually. If the creator gets it or a piece of it, I definitely think he should be able to award all of it if he so desires. If Fencer gets all of it I have to question this. We already pay for our memberships, why should we have to fork over 30% of the purse to the site operator? A fair cut should be between 5% and 16%. I favor charging no cut at all unless the creator of the tournament gets a piece of the action then I could see justifying Fencer getting a piece of the action since he is supplying the site for the tournament creator to have his tournament. 30% is a little too much and most people are going to balk at kicking in so much. Least ways, I'll be reluctant to enter, especially if there's not too many people in the tournament. I suppose if 100 people sign up and pay 20 BK Brains each, I wouldn't mind 40% of 2000 Brains if I was to win. I just checked, the minimum appears to be 50 BK Brains. So that'd be 40% of 5000 if the creator set it at 40-20-10. 2000 BK Brains in this example. Of course you'd have 100 opponents and it wouldn't be easy to win such a tournament. Still 30% of the 5000 is 1500 and that'd be taken right off the top. It seems kind of high. Even 10% would be 500 and I don't see any extra service provided for the trouble.

I am planning on sponsoring a tournament in the third quarter. I'll be putting up all the money. This is the way it's been for awhile now. Fencer said I could combine doing that with having an entry fee payout too. The thing is, not everyone has these Brains and they won't be able to enter even though I'm sponsoring the tournament. What is the percentage of current members that have BK Brains? It needs to be near 100%. I assume Pawn members are the least likely to have BK Brains. In my open tournaments I like having Pawn members participate. Invitationals would be different, but even then if I have an invitational some of my invitees might just happen to be Pawn members. How hard is it to acquire these BK Brains? For the longest time I never had any. Then a long time ago friend from IYT decided to join this site and he apparently refered me and now I have 50 Brains. I've heard that one may purchase these Brains. It's easy enough to send money in I suppose. How successful has this been so far? I already bought my membership or have had the good fortune to win a prize tournament. I did these things before this new Brain exchange deal come into effect this month. Does buying a membership now also get the purchaser some BK Brains, or do they have to be purchased or won seperately and put into your account?

I hope this new BK Brains tournament entry fee is in a testing stage and some things might be open to change or adoption. As it set up now, I have some problems with it. I think with some slight modifications and more leeway given to the awarding of prizes by the tournament creator could greatly increase the popularity of these types of tournaments. Sharing money not awarded and lowering the percentage kept or even eliminating it if so desired should really be considered.

Stevie: I was also.. had to edit a post I made in a fellowship.. and the dang thing locked up.. haha.. running smoother now.

is anyone else having troubles with the site? it gets stuck when submitting moves or posts? Easiest thing to do is shut window and sign in again?

Jim Dandy, Vikings: I guess Czuch and I were being too subtle with our hints...

Welcome to the Backgammon Board where your comments can extend the discussion that we've been having..

where you'll find my reply proper ..

because here it's all somewhat . (And I do wish there was one of those with a smile or a wink rather than a frown. )

Vikings: I guess I just feel certain achievements in a game should be rewarded,I do see your point though.

playBunny: I don't mean to be redundant.I guess I just tossed it out there without doing my research

Jim Dandy: then it should be called multiple point match and not multiple game match

Jim Dandy: I know you only had a quick "peek" but Czuch wasn't kidding. We have had this conversation on the Backgammon board and it was only yesterday!

alanback: I feel that multiple game matches without the cube should award 2 points for a gammon and 3 for a backgammon.If the doubling cube is available it should be multiplied accordingly,just my opinion

Jim Dandy: I don't know of another site that has multiple game matches without the cube, so the issue doesn't come up. As mentioned in the other thread, it would be possible to have this feature, but I would consider it a variant.

alanback: Is that unique to this site or the usual rule universally?

Jim Dandy: Because a game is a game, whether it's a gammon or not. Gammons are only significant in cube matches.

Czuch Chuckers: I took a peek but couldn't seem to find that specific topic.Thanks anyway

Jim Dandy: That is being discussed currently on the backgammon board :)

Why are two points not awarded for a gammon in multiple game matches? It only seems fair.

HalfPawn: Not 100%. I know two people who play on the site right now that can jam programs and one who used to play here.

playBunny: lol..never mind...

Andersp: I don't understand. Mentioning where, blocked by whom?

playBunny: dangerous mentioning "cheating programs"..made me blocked LOL

Purple: Interesting. Nice job too!

playBunny: In the distant past I had a FS called the Killing Machine where we climbed to the top of the checker ratings. On the way we encountered many program users and our team was not only able to detect who was using them but which particular program they were using. At first we tried to avoid such people but before long we had assembled enough brilliant young program busters where we took them on at their own game and defeated them. Lots of effort and hardly recommended but it is possible to identify the cheaters. :)

nabla: Yes, it's impossible to detect, especially as it would only be done for an occasion move but it would be as well to spell it out in the User Agreement. Whenever someone's asked something like that on the Backgammon board it's been pointed out that the game is in progress and it would be unfair, but most often the person asking knows this and asks after the move anyway. If someone's playing me and they want me to advise them on what's best for their next move, lol, well, we can cheat together and hope that nobody tells! :-))