Regrettably I am under orders to make this painless.
To those who played well and beat me I give my thanks for the lessons , for there is always something to learn.
To those who are my peers I thank for the many hard fought games and hours of pleasure.
To those who played well and lost, take heart for there were few easy games.
To those who debated well irrespective of their views held, I give my respect. I have always been able to separate animus from argument.
To the detritus I leave this thought, had it not been for you I would have stayed even though I had no time to play. Simple arithmetic says that you have lost a paying member, more I had already persuaded several pawns to promote and got promises from more. You may (and have) said “good riddance” but who really loses?
Lastly this is not done in a fit of pique, it is the measured response to a set of circumstances with which I am not happy.
Goodbye.

Fencer.. I do not think there are many who would object to you running this more on a commercial basis, as long as the paying customer came first. It is your choice to run this how you will, but I firmly believe that the labourer is worthy of his hire, and that it should be possible without changing the site flavour to much.
I respect your right to give your time and effort for free but would rather see you garner the rewards rather than those who take advantage of your generosity.

Nobody is suggesting locking them out completely.

Just when the site is busy giving preference to the paying members

Fencer... while BK has a strong social infrastructure it is still fundamenatlly a commercial concern.
It follows that the paying customer should take precedence over those being served "pro bono".
I noted when the new configuration was originally discussed that access priority would be given to paying members.
I cannot see why by the simple expedient of logging out pawns based on length of time logged on when the system gets busy cannot be used to ensure paying members can always get access.
Ultimately the loss of a few disgruntled pawns does not outweigh the possibility of losing just one paying member.
More a public statement that this was to happen may encourage some of those to take up paying membership.

I am not sure how the statistics were gathered but they make interesting reading... It bears out the snapshot that suggests that at any given time a third of players online are paying members... surely giving the paying members priority (ie in overload disconnect longest pawns on then the problem is solved. people who are enjoying the site free can hardly complain and the people who fund the site get value for money...

Fencer please explain why not?

This site is both a good games site and excellent social experience.
The memberships of all levels wish the site to retain its flavour.
The current server troubles are a major source of grievance and need resolving.
What is needed is sufficient revenue to allow the hardware upgrade.
The only point of dissention appears to be how this is achieved.
Options
1) Get more from those who already support.
2) Get more paying members.
3) Get those who currently do not pay to contribute.

Have I missed anything?

If a Pawn can afford $5 to join a prize tourney then they can afford a $5 membership.
If a viable collection method exists then why cant it be used to levy revenue.
In fact why not make a one off registration fee for pawns now .. never to be charged again...?

One of the reasons oft quoted for not persuading the thousands of people who currently use this site free to contribute, was the innability to accept small amounts (costing more to collect than their value).
If as it seems possible to accept $5 entry fees without penalty... WHY NOT LEVY A SIMILAR CHARGE ON THE PAWNS?
Is it seriously being suggested that there are not at least 1000 of these people able and willing to make such a payment?
Once again those who pay are getting a sub standard service. I have limited time now so when I do have time, access would be nice.
Again I say ... restrict the capabilities of those who dont pay to allow those who do to get value for money.
It might also persuade those who freeload (can pay, wont pay) to either depart or shell out.

I dont really have time for this BUT....
We need the improved hardware to support the number of players.
The vast majority of the players do not contribute.
Rather than approach the FEW who do pay for more whether $5 or $12.50 how about restricting the Free access in favout of the paid... it might encourage those who are happy with the site but live within their twenty games to contribute and thus use the site more.
NO I AM NOT SUGGESTING BANNING PAWNS... but if the cake is limited first shares should go to the people who paid for it....

I need to tender my apologies to all the people I am playing for not making my moves with my usual celerity.
Im starting a business and my girlfriend has a broken wing...
Throw in a couple of really interesting end games which I need to study and an extra tourney starting and i have too many games too little time.
I have used my holiday to stretch all my games and will make sure none time out.

I am not knocking whatever site you have just come from.
I just wish to inform you that in nearly a year on this site I ahave only encountered one case of suspected improper behaviour.
I have found no wackos or weirdos and providing a modicum of decorum is maintained, a wide variety of views opinions and prejudices are freely aired and traded.

Decent people come to this games site to avoid people such as I have described. OR
You meet nicer people on this site because Fencer will not allow that sort of behaviour.
FACT
A lot of the girls on this site who have chatted to me have commented on the lack of "cybersex" freaks.
I do not criticise the sites per se anymore than I criticise the M25 or M4.. as someone so sapiently renmarked "its the people and personalities that make BK what it is".
Or do you not agree that this is a superior site... er by deduction one concludes nicer people...

There are those who give offence and those who take it.
May I suggest that those who are exceptionally sensitive take the trouble to both read and comprehend what is normally written in plain english.(When I err in fact or presentation I do appologise).
I did not say that every person, who played those sites at those times,had those attributes. No more when I say there are maniacs driving up the M4 to London every morning, do I say that every driver is one, you are just more likely to meet one.
However during a period when I was in pain most of the time and slept less than 2 hours a day I started to play chess on these sites, at all times of day and night, to keep my brain active, I noticed clear cyclic patterns.
Of course my characterisation of people whose acronyms include "bumboy" "slut" "cum" or any of the thousands of other variants usually associated with porn spam and whose opening intro is "dont like games wanna cyber" as weird and wacko may be offensive to any of you who share those tastes.
However in this instance I feel that I am nearer normality than they and consequently feel the descriptions accurate. I also dont give a monkeys proverbial.
I believe they were using the "waiting games" board as an advertising hoarding and had naturally grouped to times when people leading conventional lifestyles(politically correct enough?) are unlikely to be around.
Last point.. I actually did not criticise the sites except by implication that they allowed this happen. Moderator you cannot disallow comment based on fact of people or institutions on the grounds they cannot defend themselves, you may inform them critique exists, but under those rules you would have to delete virtually every post on every topic (Bush Blair Iraq etc etc) including your own.

Quote "It is the people/personalities who make BK what it is".
The infrastructure helps promote this.
IYT was populated by an incredible number of wackos and weirdos who crept out at night...
I may not agree with much that is said, but I defend the right for people to say it..
Here I get good games, and socialise as much or as little as I choose.
While the character of the site remains... so do I...

The Sneak preview is here for those who are awake.
Harleys Interview

The interview is done... I was due to prepare it tonight.. not in the mood so it will probably have to wait til I get back next week...

I am collating the questions today.... This is your last chance...
I have some 40 odd questions already ... some are variations on a theme and will be amalgamated.
Without specific instructions to the contrary questioners will retain anonymity....

Any more... get them in soon....

The internet is not as anonymous as people think. To avoid the more obvious aspects of traceability, takes a skill and knowledge level well beyond the capability of the mentality required to "spam" a game site.
Perhaps a fellowship which fencer passed the offending IP's with date and time of attack might be an idea?
One thing, we have a worldwide membership so finding a local agent should not be to difficult.
Alternatively given the size of the concerned membership, electronic warfare is not beyond our capabilities.

PREPARE YOURSELF FOR A BLOCKBUSTER
Questions to me for Harley please here by message or to Isaiah63v5@aol.com....

Dont eat me Fencer but Jason has a point...
I was trying to work ot how a player could in a very short time go from unrated to a greater than 2K rating (not provisional) and found loads of one day players who basically contributed BKR and departed...
We also no of the KM scam...
May I suggest we identify these privately and let you filter Fencer?
I know a membership of 9000 sounds good ... but is it real?

I have to say I was being very parochial and only considering chess. Games like backgammon with an element of chance mean that the ratings have less significance (I know skill level should mean "more likely to win").
And not all ratings boosters are bad players!
One thing i have found though.. playing honest players the relative rating positions work in regard to win loss ratios....
Last point .. players who occaisionally make really dumb moves are clearly not relying on help!

With a new game I can think of three methods,one is to use your beta testers (established players) to set the baseline. Another to use the system as is until a base is established. A third would be to log results for the startup period and run an offline analysis to baseline initial BKR's.
Going back a bit I also think Ratings should have a half life (decay) to make people work to keep them and to offset the influx (i believe the current algorythm has a positive bias) if not then it should have.

Excel lies....no account has been taken of the players who played lost a few then departed fbefore ever entering the lists...
I wonder if changing the system such that unrated players did not affect the ratings of the people they played until they had established a rating for themselves. At the very least it would discourage the one day ratings boosting campaigns since they would have to compete and complete against 5 already rated players before being able to have an effect.
The time taken to establish such a net would surely discourage the more casual offender.
It would also encourage even the most sensitive ratings protector to play unrated players... thus giving them a genuine start value.

I think the rating system has been skewed by "ratings boosting". However I think that this has been spread across the board so the average has lifted.
I know that at least one player on my current list has an artificially enhanced rating. Gained against players who never stayed on long enough to gain a rating their 1300 has been added to the pool without their being added to the divisor (rated players list).

Linda get Fencer to put it on a green board or include it in his membership page

Case histories of which we are aware;-
Fake Id's getting sponsored...
People saying they would rather buy a DVD...
I am not a bleeding heart liberal and as so rightly pointed out this is a games site. It is not something that is vital to the survival of the individual.
I do not, nor ever will, tell people how to spend their money or comport themselves (except within the bounds of social acceptability).
A public statement was made that memberships would be subscribed for. However worthy an idea given what is available for free I would suggest that individuals could find better causes for the money.

Charity....
True charity is discreet and needs no publicity...
It is the lending of a helping hand to those in need...
BK is not a necessity of life... Surely the funds could be put to better use where lives could be saved...
Given recent experience .. does anybody believe it will not be abused?
Those who cannot afford the luxury of paid membership already get the basics for free...
If you can afford the ISP charges, phone bills and computer then if you want more you can afford that as well.
So look at the statistics for whatever country you come from... in England how many die for lack of Kidney Dialysis... how many children cannot reach the abuse helpline (run by charity) or samaritans or salvation army or any of a hundred genuine causes that save lives or relieve pain or suffering...
Rather than a token effort here, go quietly forth and when you see someone stranded or in difficulties or even that you can help just because you have skills or equipment... just do it... seek no reward and no publicity and enjoy the quiet satisfaction of having made a difference... however small...

I do have an ego...
Yes I like to win...
and yes I expect to be in the top third of any chess club I join...
But chess is the sort of game where total mismatches are no fun...
BKR within limits tells me where I am...

Apart from the top positions...
Again I ask oes it make any real difference?
Often I will get beaten by a new player who is finding his level...
But a consolidated rating is a useful tool to find my peers... And some very good games are the result..

OK ..
point taken...
People in the top 10 then should be obliged to accept challenges from say the top 20... (like a ladder) then they will have to earn their places or have their BKR capped...

They only cheat themselves.... It is not illegal since they gain no advantage.

A high BKR earns nothing, no cash and only respect if they can back it up byt beating you.

There are some people who while not going to those lengths nurse their BKR.

Let them... they do no harm and if it makes them feel better .. fine...

Sounds ominous.... could you move inter fellowship team matches up the agenda

Guess that debate draws to a close...

happy to oblige ... should an intelocutor be required

Yet another party pooper....

along with deadend same day same time someone called pap 26. November 2003, 13:33:39
joins deadend 26. November 2003, 23:26:05
and I wonder how many more inbetween. Joins enters 3 tourneys and then lets them all time out

Suggestions as to how to end this sort of abuse were made... may I ask which if any are to be implemented

what sanction if they dont... erasure... they just come back as another pawn

Ok a probation period... and how about having to have played some games before being allowed into tourneys.
I am not overly concerned about method here.. just a realistic cure...

I do not think a $2 suggested one off payment is beyond anybodies means. It is to deter people from making multiple ID's and using them to disrupt the site.
Perhaps if you would be so kind as to leave personalites out of it you could insteadv offer a constructive solution to the problem of the abuses highlighted here recently.
My previously posted views, if actually read were...
1) The principle of free play provides a pool of competition which I should not like to lose.
2) Those people who do pay should be given precedence of access when resource is in short supply.
Neither of those previous points has anything to do with this suggestion. They were to address a different problem.

Simple really....
You cannot stop multiple ID's
You can provide incentive for them to behave within a code of conduct...
An enrollment fee...
Before the play for free party form a lynch mob read on...
It only needs to be a couple of Dollars...
It only needs to be paid once....
It can be later offset against other memberships should knight or rook be taken....
Since they then have something to lose "flaming" "tournament killing" become controllable and BK building expensive...
And if you can afford the ISP service/computer etc 2 bucks will not kill...

Now why didnt I think of that... instead of using the BKR to play amongst my peers...
If the ratings algorythm works as I think it does then he must have built a huge pryamid for it to work... perhaps if instead he had spent the same effort studying the game of his choice to improve his skill he could have the satisfaction of earning his rating.

I have no statistics but the recent discourse on identity verification suggests that spurious memberships are created for other disruptive purposes.

Fencer
May I draw your attention to a player DEADEND..
Joined 26th signed up for tournament first 5... resigned all games today 27th...
Appears no doubt in statistics for site and (no doubt) will never be removed...
May I ask what steps you propose to prevent the quiet enjoyment of the site by others being spoilt by this conduct.

Anybody that places confidential or private information over the internet onto a server not controlled by a formally regulated organisation or system and without an appropriate level of encryption or access control, is asking for that information to appear in the public domain.
This is not to suggest for one moment that BK would abuse its position, simply that the medium itself is insecure.
Simply put... if you have something to hide, dont hide it here.
In the same way you would not discuss your love life, or office conspiracy et al where it could be overheard.
Then whether or not your messages can be overlooked becomes largely irrelevant.
Having seen some of the posts, personally I feel anyone who could sift through all that rubbish for a nugget of interest deserves a medal.

I am talking about completed games list... to group games by player or review recent

Fencer
Has there been a change in functionality with the new code?
I do not seem to be able to select column for sorting order of played games. I am sure I used to be able to put them in date order...

Fencer
I have posted a new news page (chess club) but it has not replaced the last one on the club front page?
Is there some other action I have to take?

Eriisa
I take it you refer to the bile board or graffiti wall. I was not aware of fellowships dedicated to that function.
The parties involved in the clash of personalities (delightfully phrased), that sparked my post, were as i recall both rooks.
Fencer clearly has it in hand.
The real point I was trying to make was to keep the angst of this board.

Fencer... an idea for the pot
given the world wide nature of the membership would it be a good idea to have more than one moderator per board. By careful geographical selection monitoring could then be 24hr.
Further as "big boss" (not my favourite term) of a fellowship and having been travelling a lot recently, I have not done all that was needed to restore the fellowship PC (post crash) it would assist greatly if I could have a standin?..
Though the guys in the club have done a lot having someone else also able to post the news etc ... thoughts?

Given that poor old Harley has clearly not seen this may I make a point about the function of this board.
This is the site main discussion board...
quote "Board for everybody who is interested in BrainKing.com itself, its structure, features and future"
It is not the place for cat fights. There is absolutely no excuse for public personal invective.
Disagree by all means but express yourselves in civilised terms.
To do less is to demean yourselves and reduce your conduct to the same level as those whom you abuse.
More importantly you bore the readers and lose the force of any validity your arguements may have had.
A thought for Fencer... why not have an board for people who wish to indulge themselves in this way. At least then the rest of us could enjoy reasoned debate and those who like that sort of thing will also have their needs met.
The moderators could then simply transfer offending posts to it.
One last thought... there are those who give offense and those who take it... you can only be provoked if you allow it.