grenv:
I expect the point is that if you are deemed to lose a game your opponent is also penalised in that a possibly interesting game is cut short. In a pond you are one of many so you are affected much more than your opponents, for whom the pond goes on.

Justaminute: Just doesn't seem like the site gains anything... i'm not going to pay membership just to finish 1 pond... so all that is achieved is that you piss people off.... not a good marketing strategy.

I think of it this way, if you sat down and made up a game, would you make it the way Ponds are now? Or would you make it the way it 'should' be? I think almost everyone would design it in the most sensible way, which is to allow everyone to play until they fall, even if it means giving away a few extra days of eligibility to someone whose paid membership has expired.

It also seems that the goodwill gained by allowing players to finish their ponds, rather than marring the game for everyone still in it would be worth it.

Thad: I actually agree - I think that once a person starts a pond, they should be allowed to complete it even if their membership turns to a pawn. I seem to remember that Fencer also was thinking of changing that at some point...... but my memory is not the best, so I could be mistaken.

But for the history of the ponds on this site - they were introduced as a "premium" for paid members. That is as pawns, they were able to play all the same games as paid members - so for the first (more than 2 player) game, it was introduced as something special for the paid members.... as I understand it.

coan.net: I'm fine with only paying members being allowed to play in ponds. I think that's a good incentive to buy a membership here, but ya still gotta allow players who's paid membership expires finish their current ponds. It only makes sense.