Fencer: Ok, thank you.

WatfordFC: Yes. Nothing will be lost.

The most active users list only shows Knights and Rooks and yesterday's champ was Erinity with a spendid 2479 moves.

But in the Pawns camp, spurred on by the competition, it was SafariGal who had far and away the most moves.

9. July 2006 .. 4600

Enough to put her, if she was a paid member, into the top 5 most active players of all times:

.1 francescolr ... 7621
.2 imsoaddicted ... 7227
.3 FOTBALISTA .... 5367
.4 beaupol ....... 5250
(5 SafariGal ...... 4600)
.5 Rainbow Days ... 4544

If you sign up to a Tournament where brains are required for the entry fee, and the game doesnt go ahead, do you get your brains refunded?

BIG BAD WOLF: agreed, I don't think that tourneys are a problem

Marfitalu: maybe not for him, but it might be for other players :)

especially when you are in a tournament with 2 games between all players .. for example in a reversi tournament where most games end after the same amount of moves .. so both games would end at the same time and same day

Vikings: Since it is still the "testing" month, I will give my opinion.

The limit of 1 per opponenet does seem low. Is there a way to maybe make the limit of 1 non-tournament game per day, and maybe 3-4 tournament games a day.

I know it adds to the complexity of the rules, but I see this limit as one that is to help stop some cheating - and most of that would come from non-tournament games.

Fencer: Can you some how put that on the games board, that you have used your action points with the same person for that day, so it is fair to everyone

Vikings: You can postpone the winning move to the next day.

it seems to me that 2 completed games a day should be counted with the same opponent since many people play 2 games with alternating colors, especially in tournements

actionpoints: The Ludo discussion board ( http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=115 ) would be the more appropriate board for such an announcement. :-) Thanks.

i have fast paced ludo games in the waiting room if anyione is interested

Thanks eveyone  ;)  

Groucho: every move counts, this is just about the winning points

Groucho: Yes.

BIG BAD WOLF: but points for every move?

Groucho: It means if you play 25 games with the same opponent, one 1 completed game is counted each day.

its called 'action points' so actions should be rewarded (imo)

cheating is of course not allowed, but playing fast games is. even if its with the same opponent .. its still action

using multinicks is always cheating, working together with someone else isnt (not even in ponds imo, but thats another matter :))

pawns can only have 20 games at once so it takes quite some action to reach the level as the top action players are now

there is also a ranking with most moves per day .. which is almost the same list (almost!) .. but there is no prize attached to it

i think it would be bending the rules to allow only points with different opponents .. that has little to do with the action

maybe the action points list could be separated from the list which is used to determine the prize winner though ?

as long as the action points make people move faster .. it seems to be working a bit .. (it wont make me move faster though .. i always need some time with tougher moves, but easy games or games with less option are moved fast by me)

anyway .. action points are given per move (and per win) .. thats what action is

especially if it encourages people to make friends to work together to move very fast
(there are also tournaments inside fellowships with only a few people (friends) .. those tournaments still count in the total tournament list)

Groucho: What, precisely, is your proposal. I'd like you to demonstrate how it will affect the current structure.

playBunny: The point being made is that the potential for abuse is wide open with the current structure. I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I know you are at the top of the pawns but I don't have you in mind anyway. So relax. I frankly don't really care about how the paid membership side is structured, although I think a POPL there is wise also. But in BK we have had a history of multinics etc and abuse in the past and the current Action Point structure has at least one loophole I think needs to be reconsidered.

Foxy Lady: "Not to someone who has been on here under 6 months and who is a problem.IMO thats rewarding for unruly behavior."

You obviously have someone specific in mind for such a statement Foxy Lady. If that's not baiting them then what is this baiting thing that you are on about?

Foxy Lady: Are you insinuating that *** names removed ****, all of whom have been here less than 6 months and are currently strong contenders for a membership prize, are a problem, people who have exhibited unruly behavior? Are you suggesting that these persons are cheating multi-nicks?

Please be clear about what you are saying. Innuendo does not make worthy postings.

Which is why a Per Opinionated Post Limit (POPL) is a good idea. ;-)


edit by Eriisa. Names removed

Foxy Lady: Yep!!

playBunny: Not at all. It doesn't affect me directly but I do think it's something to look at. Why do you object to a POPL? It seems reasonable to me since you play with other pawns anyway and the playing field would be leveled anyway.

A point limit per opponent would help to assure that an unscrupulous multinic couldn't win a membership or anything for that matter.

We'll find out soon enough if I'm all wet or on to something. I'm sure tomorrow other will chime in their thoughts. Or we'll get the notice. ;)

playBunny: Thats not fair at all IMO and that remark is called baiting.

Groucho: It sounds like you have personal issues with someone. Someone pooped your party and you want to poop back.

Groucho: Exactly!!!!!

Foxy Lady:  Which is why a per - opponent point limit (POPL) is a good idea. ;)

Foxy Lady: I'm a pawn


Nahhhhh just kidding

Groucho: I agree with you pawns with multi accounts can cheat very easy.We Black Rooks have nothing to gain, except if we won is to give our prize to another member.I'd gladly give a prize away to a pawn thats been playing here for awhile.
Not to someone who has been on here under 6 months and who is a problem.IMO thats rewarding for unruly behavior.

You try to come up with a nice idea and all heck breaks lose!!

TheLamer: but like Groucho said,pawns are ratied differently in this action,so WHY must you use loopholes? Cheating is cheating is cheating.

gambler104: ROFLMAO, well hang in there it's only 26 days to go, and I haven't made a move for a couple of hours so I'm sure to catch up.

skipinnz: I'm already starting to feel worn out.

Just my sixpence worth, I was happy to hear about action points as I thought I'd get a lot more games played. Also stairs and tourneys might move faster. How wrong could I be LOL, the tourney I'm in is still waiting for first round games to finish so as to start the second round. At present rate it could start Sept. Stairs well my 1 game has moved a bit but I wouldn't say at a fast pace. If anything I'm making less moves since action points started, but who can tell what might happen, after a couple of weeks playing the same person to build up points, might be more soul destroying than competitive. Actually think my views come to a shilling instead of sixpence.

BTW, I really like this brain competition of analysis and finding loopholes :)

playBunny: just look at my P.S. in one of my posts before

Dissolving of pairs suggested by Groucho would need bigger teams than just of 2 persons or really dramatically set the limit of pair points to a low number.

TheLamer: What's the Stairs loophole?

And for pawns the best solution is to team up and use the 'stairs' loophole (I spotted a pair already doing this)

TheLamer: yes, I forgot free slots is a resource specifically for Pawns, and to an extent for Knights too. Those who wish to compete next month (assuming th same format) would do well to plan for plenty of free slots at that time.

Little addition: of course I forgot the fact tha tournament games give more points. So I think the best thing for rooks is to create special fast tournaments for teamed up persons.

And really rook with 2000 tournament games has some advantage.

Of course little problem is not everyone has the same starting point, but especially with pawns.

Some have more games started like others, some are just waiting for their slow opponents with all slots filled, some pawns were rooks before and have advantage of having more games running, but also an disadvantage they cannot start new fast games, some are able to find loopholes or willing to use them, some not.

P.S. for example actual loophole is a pawn can play in more stairs if he just removes himself from the old one before and this is way to go around game count limit also.

For paying members it's not hard to find a way to move in many games, they can start any new ones and the competition is equal.

For pawns the best solution is to start with new account and to play either with known fast opponents or to team up and play with friends.
And/Or use current loophole and jump through stairs like crazy.

Though of course the easiest way is to find same addict and to play 2-3 games can be enough if both move all day instantly :)
Or to make a program like I described before :)

TheLamer:  I think pawns are placed in a separate competitive category

As a competition it will, like all competitions favour the set of people with more of the right resources. that's what competitions do.

Think of any competition that has an even chance for everyone and you've got yourself a random draw. Are you saying you want this to be more like a lottery? I'd say that's not your intention but it's the reason I suggested that you haven't given enough consideration to the nature of "competition".

In motor sports the team that wins has the money and brainpower to create the fastest cars and put in the best drivers. in sports it's the ones with the best coaches, players, diet, etc, etc.

Here money, technology and expertise are not resources but there are others. This competition will be won by someone who invests a considerable amount if their time into playing games. To amass points you need a fast turnover of moves plus time.

For a Rook one possibility is having hundreds of games. One move per day in 1000 games is, say, 1500 points (assuming some percentage of tourney matches). The players whose BK style is to have hundreds of games will thus have an advantage. How is a 50-match Rook supposed to compete against that? Is this fair? No, the 50-match Rook doesn't stand a chance because they lack one resource that this competition requires.

So, would you eliminate or penalise the Rooks with 100s of matches to make it fairer to the others?

But Rooks with 100s of games are still only competitive if they spend a lot of time making moves in those games. How is a working Joe who has family and social commitments on several nights a week supposed to compete with those who are home-based or otherwise have plenty of time on their hands? Is this fair? No. These time-restricted people don't stand a chance. They lack another resource that this competition requires.

So, would you eliminate or penalise the Rooks with time to play to make it fairer to the others?

Rooks without 100s of games can still compete if they have a smaller number of games with high-turnover opponents. In fact it's the only way that they can compete against the 100s-gamers. Fast-playing opponents is another resource in the competition. How can someone with mainly sloth-like opponents compete? Unfair again, surely. Speedy opponents is a resource.

So, would you eliminate or penalise the Rooks with fast opponents to make it fairer to the others?

Now, if these are the resources and some competitors are resourceful enough to gather more of what's needed, is that anti-competitive?

Is it wrong to find and play speedy opponents? What if it's a friend? Does that make it wrong? Friends who are willing to help are another resource. That's unfair to those who canot gather similar support.

So, would you eliminate or penalise those with friends capable of making a contribution, to make it fairer to the others?

If, in finding that speedy opponent, they happens to be another competitor, is that morally out of the spirit of the competition? In the absence of people online who are willing to play fast, what is more natural than to harness a competitor for some mutual points raising?

Notice that this argument has been applied only to Rooks. You want to attack Pawns for some reason but Pawns are essentially Rooks who lack the multiple-games resource that Rooks have. If you're against Pawns then you must be against Rooks, too, for their competition is the same but with one extra resource.

You seem to be saying that the competition's resources are loopholes and you want to close them.

And that's why I say you haven't thought this through.

After all, the best solution would be to remove us pawns from the competition, because due to the limitations they are almost forced to find loopholes, though this is pretty creative moment and I liked the challenge in discussion boards competition :)

This is nice too, but can have bad effects on our health or can result in firing from jobs... Because there is danger of even bigger addiction.

Either way, one who doesn't agree with the purposes it should fill, can stay away. It's clear that the winner will be someone playing bulk moves or moves in games that are commonly played fast with few thinking involved, like ludo or gammons where is no problem to find fast opponent.

TheLamer:  Yes, I agree on a limit.  Unless we don't mind a player with only 2 or three opponents getting in excess of 1500 points a day.  

Well, I mean it's your idea, Groucho, I didn't read everything fully, I just wanted to state this and then forgot to look whether someone already come to the same conclusion.