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! :-))

Czuch: Shhhhhh! Yes, detecting computer cheating is unenforceable from a practical point of view. So are most of the scams that the few cheaters employ as there's only one Fencer and he's a mite busy most of the time, lol. But there are curious and alert players here who stumble across these things on occasion.

(Note that an account where the playing is done solely by a computer and this is made known - that should not be seen as cheating. It's more the provision of a fine opponent for those who want to challenge it.)

playBunny: Okay,my bad on the program ppart! I thought I had remembered in the past that Fencer said since it could not be enforced.... although, how is it enforced? Anyway, as long as it is mad eplain to members about the rake etc, I guess it s a buyer beware, and if you dont like it dont play it!

playBunny: If I understand the present tournament system correctly, I also find it perfectly acceptable. The general ideas of tournaments with entry fees and prize money are :
1) To attract strong players by giving them the possibility to win some money.
2) To attract weaker players that have no chance to win a prize by giving them the possibility to play strong players against some little money.
That the organizer takes away 30% of prizes does not cancel any of these two reasons. And in fact, in our case these 30% could well be explained by the time, energy and potential loss of image for the site induced by fighting cheats :-)

On a different note, now that I read the user agreement again, it is indeed very clear about computer use, but shouldn't it also state that it is illegal to get counseled by another player ? I know that this one is hard to check, but it wouldn't hurt to make it clear to fair players that might not be aware of it, would it ?

Czuch: Using a program to analyse what's already happened in a game isn't illegal but using one to make your moves most certainly is.

I also think that a 30% rake-off is high. Ih fact it's considerably higher than on any of the proper gambling sites. But then Fencer isn't competing with these; this isn't a gambling site. I rather think these tournaments are just to add a flavour of excitement for those that want it. True, there will to be people going into these tourneys blindly but I suspect that most of the ones who have a decent chance to win will know what they're doing. Those with no chance would be in it for the fun and would have already written off 100% of their stake anyway. A win for them would thus be a huge and unexpected bonus!

I seriously doubt that there's the makings of a big scam here. For a start these tournaments aren't going to be flooded by people and money, plus they'll take forver to complete, just like ordinary tournaments. So I'd say the opportunity is a small one. If someone were consistently winning (especially in a luck-based game) then sooner or later they'd come under scrutiny and would likely be found out. But assume that these problems don't exist and someone was able to win a lot without detection .. there's then the problem of "laundering" the Brains - finding people who'll fork over the cash to the scammer instead of purchasing through Fencer. That's likely to be a lot more work that it's worth.

As a comparison of sorts. At VogClub, a non-gambling Chess/Backgammon site there are also money tournaments (Vog "tokens" equivalent to 1 cent). These have an entry fee of 2 tokens and a stake of 10 or 50 tokens. The 10-token ones have a high rake-off (20%) but 12 cents is cheap enough that you wouldn't care too much. Despite this they're very underpopulated. I've played in three-player tournaments (and lost to a beginner! ). I'd imagine that here, when people realise that it costs $1.50 to enter a money tourney, they will see it as only an occasional treat.

playBunny: LOL, I dont think that using a program on this site is considered cheating....

My initial reaction to this whole new brain tournament system is not a good one. Fencer sells you brains to use in a tournament and then he takes 30% of them away when you join a tournament, and a tournament I just looked at for an example you need o get second place just to break even. So the only logical reason to play one of these tournamnets is if you are sure to win. That will be a good incentive to use a program to play your moves for you, along with the potential to seell these brains for cash. It has shades of illegal gambling, as well as being a big scam!

I know that nobody is forced to join these tournaments, nor purchase brains. But I think many people are going to be naiive about these potential pitfalls....

lol

Czuch: Win-win. It sure is - except when I turn you in for cheating. I could have won that tournament! Apart from that bit, though, it sounds entirely reasonable to use your Brains to pay for someone else's membership in return for cash.

So how much discount did you have in mind? Will you have enough Brains by June?

playBunny: You would give me cash to pay for your new membership, except not as much cash as it already would cost you for that membership! I have got my brains for free or for winning tournaments with my new computer program, and you are going to buy amembership anyway, so its a win win situation for both of us!

Czuch: Who to? If I gave you some money how would I receive your Brains?

What is to keep someone who has many brains (brainking brains) from selling them for cash?

Do you like pente?Or Lines?Or five in line?Join this,if you want...
http://brainking.cz/cz/Tournaments?trg=13599&trnst=0

rabbitoid: Yeah, what ROd said - umm, btw, why don't you try that in our game? I could use the help.

rabbitoid: One thing you can do, if you want to know for sure how many points you will lose, is to click on resign, and it will tell you right there how many points you will lose, if you don't like it, you can change your mind and not resign..(Brainking makes you confirm that you really want to resign)

Bluefin: You are not alone. It has been world class slow all day.

rabbitoid: If you are playing with the cube, so that gammons count, you should not resign until you have borne off at least one checker. The system awards points based on the board position at the time of resignation. So, if you have no checkers out, you will lose a gammon or backgammon.

Also, I have been assuming that I should not resign until the move after I bear off my first checker.

alanback: further question: if I resign, I lose how many points? say the cube is still on 1, but I don't have any stones out yet. If I resign do I lose a gammon? I hope so, otherwise it's too easy to avoid a gammon.

Thanks everyone, I don't get thrown out,it's just getting here, then making moves. I'm in central US. I'll just keep trying.

Bluefin: been having loads of that here in the UK over the last month ... im on 2.2meg adsl. I get thrown from the site regulally every day a few times