I like the 6 month time limit for paid members. 1 or 3 months can fly by quickly, and for some longer type games (like anti backgammon), it can take 3-4 months just to complete 1 game (even with both players moving daily.)

It seems Fencer is talking about these charts while pauloaguia is talking about the BKR history and graphs. Yes, pawns do not have access to the history, but (as Fencer said) even guests can see the rating charts. :-)

I must say that I totally agree with Walter Montego. Perhaps I'll decide to stay a pawn after my membership gets finished this time since I really don't like any other kind person to pay for me and I haven't yet received any answers from those Iranians I had asked if they wanted to join as a paying member either. Or shall I say only two have said that they want to join BK as a paying member.

I am now the top rated player in Screen chess, Cylinder chess and Berolina chess and really wish to stay the top rated player. So even if I am a pawn, if I still play those games, I think it is not fair to have me removed from the charts. That's some sort of pushing players to join by money. But, I totally agree that those who have played against four oponents and are no longer playing the game at least with the same ID, are to be removed from the charts. If one is the top rated player, there must be no fear of accepting new invitations to games. I have always admired that of Walter Montego. He playes DARK CHESS with everyone interested. That's how a top rated player must be.

Fencer:
I believe we had a discussion of removing inactive players from the charts before. This is a good idea. That way I wouldn't have look at a game I no longer play on my main page, would I? It'd certainly get those players that won four games, took the top position be virtue of having defeated four players and have never played another game of it, but continue to use this site. If you're going to keep your ranking, then you should have to continue to play to hold it. Besides, you say they keep their rating it just won't show on the ranking list until they start playing and finish some games, right? Though I consider the established rating the important one, it's nice to have a high ranking with an established rating on the provisional chart too. I think I'd cut the time to three months instead of six. A month for a seems kind of short. Though that's an incentive to become a paying member and yet get to see how the site works too.

As for not having Pawn members listed in the rating charts at all. I think this is a bad idea. As long as one is active by the criteria set forth, you should have a rating listed. We're all members of this site, paying or not. For some people 20 games or less is plenty for them. I can see not joining as a paying member if that's all they use it. Why penalize them? Also, as others have argued, I sometimes look through the list for prospective opponents and I am not interested in whether they're paying members or not, but if the game we might play will be a fun or chalenging game to play. The ratings and rankings help in finding opponents.

Agree with Stevie. Remove inactive, keep pawns on the charts.

I like the remove in-active players...but think Pawns should stay on charts etc

I think Paulo Aguia wanted to say graphs, not rantings or charts...

Then I must be making some confusion... what charts are we talking about?

pauloaguia: Nonsense. You can see the ratings and charts even in a guest mode.

Szirak: pawns already can't see any ratings on any charts because they don't have access to them ;)

Which brings me to another suggestion: maybe (just maybe) on the PaidMembership Detail page, there could be a link to a snapshot of the so said charts. So that we pawns know what we're missing (a few of the other functionalities could use some examples or better explanations too).

How about if pawns just can't see their ratings on the chart!?

BIG BAD WOLF: An option of showing ALL ratings [including the disabled ones] should do the trick.

I like the idea of removing inactive players from the charts. I will just have to remember to play a game of each game type every 6 months.

= = = = =

Removal of pawns from charts. I kind of like the idea - give another prevledge to paid members.

But another negative to that is some paid members like to find like-rated players to play, and it would then not make it easy to find them if they are pawns. For example, *IF* I was the best ranked on the ratings board in Backgammon, I would want to know if a pawn has a higher rank then I do to challenge that person to a game. But if they do not show up on the ratings board, it would be hard for me to find them.

That's fine :-)

Purple: Inactivity has nothing to do with payment. If they don't want to play a certain game type, then that surelly means they probably don't bother their rating in that game either.
Take a look at Fencer's profile. It's been ages since his last Horde Chess game so, naturally, he'd fall off the ratings. He probably doesn't bother that much since he's only playeda few games anyway.
Besides, you can allways come back to the ratings as soon as you finish another game of that type, nomatter how much time there is left in your membership.

(Sorry to use your profile Fencer, but Purple had no suitable example in his )

pauloaguia: That could be a problem if Rooks had time remaining on their paid membership..unless they notify Fencer they are not returning.

Purple: I think it goes for inactive dormant rooks as well

Yes. Remove inactive, dormant pawns.

Fencer, I don't think removing pawns from the ratings listings is good for the site. It diminishes the competitiveness, especially for the fringe games. However, the inactive proposal is excellent and well overdue!

Fencer: Agreed, but I think 30 days for pawns is too short. Maybe 3 months ould be more acceptable, and for sure it will remove all those palyers who have left the site.

Fencer: 30 days for pawns? No more playing with slow movers then
Anyway, excelent idea! That'll boost some of my ratings for sure (especially when some players constantly refuse to play to keep their first position safe in the chart)

Fencer: Great to remove inactive players from the charts.

bumble: if i ever took that long to move i would retire ;) .

Jason: That's you, you fool!

hey ..im playing some games where people only make a move every 21 days or so lol

sounds nice :)

great move

There is another thing with charts which will be implemented soon. A player who does not finish a rated game within 30 days (pawns) or 6 months (paying members) after his last finished rated game of the same type, will be temporarily removed from the charts (keeping the BKR, of course). He will reappear there after finishing a rated game again.
The purpose is obvious - to avoid occupying chart positions by inactive players or the ones who already left the site.

I just thing that this is a bad idea! Just my humble opinion.........

like paulo said, I would rather see my position against all players.

Fencer; you will know (probably) how many Pawns will disappear, who might otherwise have taken up Paid membership. To me, this is the only downside.
How about asking top-rated Pawns to see what they might do (but bear in mind you probably won't get a true answer!!!)

hmm ... what about splitting the rating table in 2 ?? or would that just increase the load ? ;)

I believe they will still have thier own rating still ,which they can see ....but just not on a table ? . if thats the case all pawns can still see what position they have on a table ..just that they wont be visible on the table , this is a good idea (in my opinion ) there are alot of pawns that will never upgrade no matter ,but as soon as any pawn upgrades they would appear on the list .

thats why we are discussing .. instead of

As I said, it's just a proposal, not a definitive conclusion. Otherwise I wouldn't waste my time with a discussion.

*nod* i was a pawn not too long ago (oh time flies! ;)) ... i love rankings .. not just the points but the position compared to other players .. i am not sure if i would like a game site without a ranking

but i also love a fast database :) .. and the fee isnt that high ...

There is one thing I'm not sure I got: pawns already don't have access to charts. When you say remove us from the charts you mean remove us our rating position with relation to others. We just get to keep a ranking, not a rating, is that it?

Pawns will also loose some competitiveness. Comparing yourself to others is a very big incentive to try to play better. So you'll risk diminishing the number of pawns on this site that are here just for the competition and that usually make good opponents.
Also, I bet some paying members would prefer to compare their position in a universe of 10000 players rather than in one of 1000.

Another thing: what will happen when a paying member stops paying? disappear from the charts? Or when a pawn that has already an established ranking finally decides to become a paying member? Suddenly show up?
Ratings might become a bit more unstable then what they are already today...

Of course, it would also diminish the time I spend on the rating listings, comparing myself to others ;)

Fencer:

yes: as a negative consequence, a lot of high rated pawns getting disgusted with the site too early ( = before making the decision to go "paid") and going elsewhere. the internet is big.

Phew, everybody knows this most popular BK page.

Yes. You forgot a link to 'Paid Membership'.

There was an idea of removing all non-paying members from the charts. They will be allowed to have BKRs but they won't be calculated for chart positions.

Positive consequences:

• Significantly decreased number of position cheaters.
• Another reason why to pay :-)
• Decreasing the database server overload.
• Significant improving of chart positions of paying members :-D

Negative consequences:

• My message box flooded by complaints from pawns.
• Shorter charts.

Did I forget something?

There is only one man on this site
Who has the chance to censor
I just cant remember his name
But im sure it went something like Fencer


can anyone add to this.....

OKOKOKOK....OK off topic

Hı greeting for all . I saw there is a rule mistake in turkish checkers ı request managers of this site to correct this rule. by

nah...it was deja vu Brian LOL

Stevie: Possibly in the Back To The Future movies from the 1980s. Michael J. Fox and Christopher LLoyd travel through time in 3 movies in a Delorean.

Fencer: Im sure Ive heard that before somewhere

rhiannon: Each time I am more and more experienced with this time travelling.

lol - i've just asked the same thing re deja vu... thought it was me

Fencer: Could you take me back to before my last University History paper? I sure as heck would like to do that one again.

BerniceC: No, only when a year changes. Next "clearing" will happen as of 1st January 2006. Or maybe not, if we manage to get a new database server first :-)