i like to play please now in backgammon my number is 11654

Every person here has different needs and wants from somebody else. I dont need or want the ability to play 600 games (or1600 or whatever) But I like running fellowships. You may want to play 600 games, but dont care at all about discussion boards, or whether you can show a picture of yourself. Most of us already get more than we need when paying for a knight anyway.

Why should it be cheaper for you to play 600 games and not use fellowships, than it is for me to play 30 games and use fellowships?

One price one membership, and everyone can do whatever they want to do. Some people save 42 cents a day, other people pay an extra 42 cents a day, all the new people never know any different.

Many people only want to play games here, so it makes sense to have one paying level that gives a player the ability to play more games and a higher level that gives a player the ability to start fellowships & tournaments, etc.

I see what you are saying Green.
You are either a pawn, with limited features. (which makes sense, to give people a chance to enjoy the site enough to determine if they want to join) Or a full membership, where you get all the benefits available (except access to the dice rolling codes) on the web site.

There wouldnt be another choice, so no one would feel like they only use such and such, like BBW said. It wouldnt even be an issue.

Maybe you could make the cost somewhere between what the two prices are right now, and Fencer would not lose any money?

This all started because there are not enough members to have good team tournaments. If you can just squeeze another 42 cents per day out of the rooks, you could give the knights a discount by 42 cents per day, and you would have plenty of members who are allowed to play in more than one tournament... without losing money.

yea.. and if you don't offer a choice, or take away something that is already here - you will also upset many knights who would not upgrade at all.

Why should Fencer put in extra effort to remove the Knight membership?
And besides, if the knight membership is just what someone wants, why take it away from them?

my proposition was to not give the choice, just get rid of the knigh memebership. Who cares how many features you use? The main thing you pay for is to play the games whenever you want.

Buy why? Many knights barley even use more then what they get as Pawns, and don't need the features of a rook. If they had a choice of either paying more, or just droping a few games - many would probable just drop a few games.

really? People would choose not to join because of paying 83c a month extra?

How about a poll to test that theory. Personally I think the rook membership is extremely cheap as it is.

I think it would end up losing money for BrainKing.

If the price is the same as the rook for everything, some knights would not pay since they barley use what they have now. If the price was the same as a knight, with the option to donate more - well then many users like myself will spend just what we need to get the membership, and not donate anything more.

It would certainly solve some problems..
Just make shorter rook memberships for those who do not want to spend as much money..

i know, i was just being all inclusive in the description. Just one level of membership (equal to rooks) is really needed, and lift all the restrictions. In fact I can't really understand why people choose knights when they can be rooks for an additional 83c per month.

You already are able to donate as much as you wish to.

Personally I think there should be memebers and non-members, along with an option to donate more for those that wish to. I'm not sure why we need all these levels of membership.

Agreed BBW, as at first Knights were not going to be allowed to play in any team tournaments. Then Fencer decided to let them play in just the one.

I think the main problem is now the Knights can only play one team tournament, that Rook members are joining ones they would not normaly play.
This is giving alot of them alot more games than they would normaly play. After playing in quite a few team tournaments you seem to notice you come across alot of the same players again & again as it is often the same Rooks playing in them.
I know that the idea is to try to get members to upgrade to Rooks.

Is this reason really working do we know ?

We would certainly get alot more teams entering tournaments if Knights were allowed to enter more than one, but of course there is that magic 50 game limit to be kept to.

promise?

I would like to see the rule of having to have a higher then a knight membership to join team tournaments and also have the ability to let my tournaments run out of time, when they get deleted for not enough players, i find that as a double jepardy effect,what goes for one goes for all.DONE!!!

You know I liked the idea at first of having a limit of 1 team tournament for knights, but I would like to see that rules lifted.

The only problem I would see is if a team signed up a knight member, then when the tournament is about to start and that knight is over the 50 game limit, it would cause problems for the whole team.

But again, think it would be a good idea to find a way so knights can enter more team tournaments.

i think fewer people are entering because the team tournaments are taking too long. Especially since Knights can't enter 2.

This seems stupid because at the rate some of them are going you could be stuck in a tournamnent for years.

3 days now some games have extended due to auto vacation. Same games 2 times last time. And its not meant to affect us..what a crock

Ok, I see the Players Result tables now also. I looked at the tournament while it was in the "waiting" stage to start round 3 of the tournament, so I'm guessing that during the hour it was in this "waiting stage", that it must not have had that link.

... yea, just as I suspected... the tournament creator who was on the winning team plus winning all his games also has access to the site code.... Can someone say conspiracy??? LOL

I see the Players Results table - I see the dice roller won all his games. :)

I would agree that backgammon is the one game that can support a bigger team (possible up to 10 players), but on the flip side - it might mean less number of total teams.

2 games per opponent? Why? Backgammon is one of the games that does not really have an advantage for one player over the other, plus currently there are less and less players signing up for team tournaments (and double games may keep them away), plus with only 1 game per opponent - the team tournament might complete sooner.

Other then that, I 2nd the 2nd request for fencer to add the 2nd backgammon team tournament.

2nd request for Fencer - can he set up another one straight away (Backgammon Team Tourney) and make it say 10 players per team? 2 games per opponent.......???

BrainKing's Very First Team Tournament - Backgammon is COMPLETE!

Link to tournament

There is a small bug in the tables (created a new section for the winning team), which I'm sure Fencer will fix as soon as he is on next.

Here are the results:

1st place: · · ® · Cajovna · ® · ·

2nd place: !Bry's Backgammon Fellowship

3rd place: ◙ The Gammon Cube ◙

4th place: HOME

5th place: Neznalkovo spolecenstvo

Congrats to all!

- - - - - - -
Request for Fencer:

1) Can we see the Player results table for the completed tournaments like we see for current tournaments.

That's OK, anyway I just upgraded, so it's moot.

LMAO @ Ceridwen ;oÞ

The Old man, you would have to wait for the tourny to be completed first :o(

Only if you're over 85 and bring written permission from both parents.

I have 1 game left in a reversi 8x8 tournament, but my opponent plays once every 7 days. If I resign the game, can I sign up for another reversi 8x8 tournament, even if the tournament hasn't finished ? I am a Brain Knightmember. Thanks.

I don't think you'll see any activity for a while. The problem is that he is rarely playing, yet has 666 unfinished games. To me this is a mind blowing number for someone with a full time job. :)

here is what is added in their profile,
In this time i am playing games only in one or two days for week.

I akcept only game with seven or more days to move because i am very busy or travelling.

I am a 26 years old computer admin.

I like playing games, read books, hike, running and a little aerobic.

My favorite game is Five in line.

It is not important win, it is important play.

Let's go ...

And with the last part that says let's go. When are you going to restart playing ur games? And I know I'm not the only 1 that would like to know...

Backwards into the Future?

or how about.....

Halma 10x10: "The tournament without a name"

Line4 - Line-r-up

Halma 8x8: Halma 8x8=64? Tournament

Halma 10x10: So many spaces, so little pieces

nope not helping BBW, it was you that was asked LMAO

Names.... Hum..... not sure. (looks around for others to throw out some suggestions)

BBW: And what about some proposals of other tournament names? :-)

Line 4 is good, cos it wouldnt normally be stretched out for years :o) And as BBW says its a good game for a wide range of players :o)

For new team tournaments, here are some tournaments I would like to see:

Crowded Backgammon - A popular Gammon game, maybe 5-7 players per team. Need to get this one going since after this starts, we should be ready for out 2nd regular Backgammon team tournament (with 1 game left to complete) [name suggestion: Don't stand so close gammon]

Halma 8x8 - Not to popular, would not make it more then 4-5 players per team.

Anti Froglet - Some-what popular, could probable get enough team even with 5-6 players per team. [name suggestion: The Croaking Frog]

Halma 10x10 - Would stick with 4-5 players per team.

Line4 - It's an easy game which more "non-regular" players may play - probable could handle 5-6 players per team.

Again, just a few of my suggestions! :-)

antidisestablishmentarianism? Perhaps not.

Or "eat me if you can"? :-D

"Take my pieces - i dont want them !!" applies to me in any version of chess anyway ROFL

"deep boredom"

"Anti-Kasparov" ? "No, Anti-mate" ... "Ultimate Antimate" ! :-))

Any good idea for anti chess team tournament name?

No harm done, UE. I was just pulling BBW's leg.
I'm not that strict as not to allow a few posts of good-humoured banter occcassionally - heck, I'm one of the culprits!

parlez en anglais svp

LOL

Steve started,i defend myself sorry my captain of nackgammon tournament,that is not off topic,why did you pick me? What does love in the air have to do with tournaments?