I have been reading this string about Members and non-members. I agree that members should have benefits that non-paying members dont have. However I think members should have their own board. Members are the only ones who can belong to fellowships and play in multiple tournaments. Also members can play more games at a time than the non-paying members. So if you are really an addict to playing the games and you have time to play a lot then you should pay for a membership.

For me personally, right now with the downturn in the economic market of the USA, I am unemployed. I lost my apartment and was forced to move back home as i am also in debt. I can barely afford to buy groceries for myself right now. I cannot afford to throw away 2 bucks a month on a game site. I have the time right now to play but when I start working fulltime again, my time will be limited and a membership will be a waste for me as I will not be able to take the time to make it worthwhile. If Fencer wants to put more restrictions on non-paying members, that is fine. He is in this for fun and to make a profit. That is good business. However I would encourage him to make the site friendly to those who cant pay. ItsYourTurn.com has made it less friendly as they have cut daily moves to 25 a day. this means I no longe play in their tournaments and dont play more than a couple of games at a time there. I dont know how many people could finish a game in just 25 moves. So if Fencer decides to put limits on moves at some point, let me make a suggestion. I know this makes some paying members crazy, but I think a fair limit would be 100 moves in a day. I am one of those non-paying members that can deal with some limitations.

I agree Brian, I was a paying member at IYT some time ago. Not long after Pat threw move restrictions for non paying members. The pace of my games with them suffered as a result, I felt this policy hurt the paying member as well. That is not what I paid for and subsequently let my membership lapse.

I would add that I feel Fencer and the people who assist him do an awesome job in making this a great place to play games. I also commend him on listening to what everyone has to say and trying hard to please everyone, though that is an impossible task as some people will never be happy regardless of what you do. I also am glad to see that the shutdowns on the site have been less over the past week. There have been a few short outages but nothing significant. Great Job Fencer and friends.

I agree, 25 MOVES a day is an Absurd limit, that was a mistake on IYT's part. I think being able to play 15-20 games for free is pretty good, as long as one can actually make the moves for those games! with IYT's system, a person can play 20 games, but only make 1.25 moves per game? that's crazy. if he makes 6 extra moves by mistake, he has to forfeit. that is nonsense. At the veyr least, one should be able to make 3 moves per day per game, which would be 60. If 60 it too many,m then the number of games should be reduced to fit the reduction in moves.

60 would definatly be a good start. Personally I think there should be no daily move restriction and maybe decrease the total games playing at once to 10-15 at a time...just a thought. Anyway my reasoning is that any restrictions placed on non-members should not in any way impact paying members.

After getting the "sorry the site server is at capacity right now" message three times this morning, perhaps non-members should be restricted to 20 moves a day, this may give the paying members more chance of accessing the site and give the non-members more incentive to pay the much needed membership monies? $2 a week sounds pretty cheap, (it cost me a lot more with the exchange rate) there can't be many things you can buy in the US for $2.

Dream, if you limit non-paying members to 20 moves a day you end up hurting the paying members as games will last weeks if not months. Also if alienate the non-paying members then they will not pay for a membership or they will just not play. Non-paying members bring new people to the site who can and might pay to be a member. I would venture to say at least half of the players are brain pawns. I would agree to a move limit that reasonable or reduce the number of games you can play at once. Non-members help build the site as well as the paying members. IYT reduced their site moves to 25 a day and people are leaving that site in large numbers and coming here. If they get that way here, you will see that happen here and there are other sites similar to this one. You will then have a lot fewer style of players to choose from to play.

actually, I think it is about 85% brain Pawns.

also, I doubt it is the brain pawns who are slowing the site down, but rather, the brain rooks who make 1000 moves a day.

I don't know if it would be a good idea, but it MIGHT be a good idea to limit members to 100 or 200 games.

I usually try avoiding anyone brain rook on up when looking for a short game to play as they usually have so many games going on already. However I think they need a server that can handle ever increasing volume of growth on this site. However I know this takes money to accomplish and some down time to get the job done. I as a non-paying member dont mind some limitations as long as it is reasonable and fair. The notion that Dream made about only 20 a day will only drive players away. That is the way I view it. Just make it fair and fun for everyone regardless of their level of membership.

For sure I agree, if they limit moves for non-members then I too get limited when I play them. Limiting the number of games seems to be the better choice.

I also agree that even members should have some limitations in number of games played. Dmitri, your probably not far off with your 85% estimate and I still agree that having a good variety of opponents helps make this site what it is.

What do you think would be a good game limit TTJazzberry? Right now Brain pawns get to play up to 20 games at a time. I could see 15 games. This would reduce some of the strain on the server. Maybe limit brain rooks 100 games and brain pawns to 50 games just to relieve the stress on the server. I know there would be complaints by these paying members. However the new restrictions wouldnt take effect until the current
paying cycle is done. Also give brain pawns 2 weeks to get down to meet the lower game playing limit or forfeit the most recent games to reach the limit. Does that sound fair?