Your ENTIRE arguement about whether people can afford to pay is totally irevelent seeing as I merely said SOME people cant afford memberships, and your whole point was about the percentage of pawns who claim they cant afford to join, again I'm only saying SOME cant afford to join, so I'll ignore all of it.

Now, I was a non paying member once, after I liked what I saw...I paid, many many people have done the same, do you understand what it has to do with it now? Remember now, I said non-members should get good service and features, NOT the best, just good. Members get premium service, thats what the non paying members are enticed by. Thats how it works.

As for name calling, I was referring to your lashing out calling me a moron just a couple weeks ago on the GC board, in fact you referred to ALL of us as "a bunch of morons". I agree with you on that one point though, "Calling someone names is a weak debating tactic."..indeed.

My argument about whether people can afford to pay ie IRRELEVANT? That is another asinine statement. Of course it is relevant!!!!!!!

If people do not like being limited to one tournamnet, they can simply PAY FOR A MEMBERSHIP!

BUt, instead, their stance seems to be this:

1) I like the site enough to want to be able to play MORE GAMES and/or MORE tournaments....

2) BUT, I don't want to buy a membership.

In other words, they like what they see and want more of it, but thye don't want to pay for it! Evne though msot of them can afford to but just choose not to! AND YOU SAY TIHS IS IRRELEVANT???

also, I must potn an innaccuracy in your last post, you said "Remember now, I said non-members should get good service and features, NOT the best, just good."

I remember what you said just fine. you said that non paying members should receive "THE BEST SERVICE POSSIBLE." (caps added by me for emphasis).

NOTE YOUR use of the word Best there. NOw you are changing it to "they should get GOOD service" (again, caps added by me).

Well, the service they get now is PLENTY GOOD! Yet you repeatedly ignore that obvious fact! thye get a loyt of features for ZERO dollars! So, they are already GETTING the good service you say they should get.

As for the weeks-old argument you are referring to, I thought that was a dead issue, but since you drredged it up, yeah, I called some people morons, because they were actling like morons. But I should not have said that THEY were morons, just that I thought their ARGUMENTS were moronic.

In my defense, I was being flamed by about twenty people at once, wihch makes it difficult to maintain composure.

Yes it was irrevelent because you went on and on and on about what percentage of people can afford to pay when I merely said SOME cant pay, so your arguement about the number of people who cant afford is COMPLETELY IRREVELENT. Now if I had said ALL people who dont pay cant afford to, your arguement would be revelent.

I remember what you said just fine. you said that non paying members should receive "THE BEST SERVICE POSSIBLE." (caps added by me for emphasis).

NOTE YOUR use of the word Best there. NOw you are changing it to "they should get GOOD service" (again, caps added by me). Its obvious you cant or choose not to read, nowremember I said On my other point you obviously misinterpreted what I meant, and maybe I didnt elaborate enough. then I went on to say that they should get good service, not better. Nowhere did I say they dont get good service now, I said many times they DO get good service and I think it should remain and I challenged you before when YOU said it shouldnt remain as such, so no idea where you dug THAT one up from, so I'll leave it alone.

Again as for the name calling, yes it was on an old issue you called us all morons in your tantrum. I was pointing it out since you pointed out how it is bad debating tactics, thought it was a little ironic given you resort to just that.

TTJazzberry, you engage in name calling as much as anyone, so give it a rest.

NOw you are just making no sense at all. It seems that you AGREE with me, yet you are acting like you disagree.

Letm e help you try to make sense of this, I can see you are confused.

You just said that you did NOT sat that the brain Pawns do not get good service?

OK, fine! Then, if nothing is lacking, WE AGREE! That si what I ahve been saying all along! I have been saying that nothing is wrong with what the b rain pawns get now, and if they want more, they should pay.

It seems that we agree on this, yet you are arguing with me.

as for the relevance of who can afford to pay and who cannot, yes, the point is mostly irelevant, except that people use that BS excuse as a reason for wanting to get more features without paying for it. People have used the exact wording "Well, I cannot afford a membership" while asking for more features.

Maybe I should go to my next car service appointment anddemand a complete detailing of my car-- when they tell me I can have extra features, I'll say that I cnanot afford them!

Well, guess what they'll say! TOUGH! My not being able to afford extra services is not a reason for htem to just give me those services!

The same applies here. If someone truly cannot afford a membership, well, hey, life sucks sometimes, and you can;t always have everything you want. A gaming site is a pure luxury, and it just amazes me that cheapskate freeloaders want more than what they already get. YEah, that's right, I said cheapskate freeloaders, because that's what they are.

Where did I join in the name calling? Enlighten me I'd like to see. Making up crap isnt good debating either, its desperation.

"In my defense, I was being flamed by about twenty people at once, wihch makes it difficult to maintain composure."

- There's a good reason for everything...

I enjoyed this site as a nonpaying member and enjoy it just as much as a paying member. So far, I haven't taken advantage of any of the membership perks, other than the nice extra pull-down menu for making moves.

I agree with Tjazz about the "best" service possible. That doesn't mean we have to give pawns all the perks of membership, only that we should all welcome the pawns to the site and help them out as much as possible. That's what Fencer does. That's why I joined, because I was treated well as a pawn.

Refreshing to see someone see's what I mean, thats exactly what I'm trying to say pipilo.

TTJazz, I don't see why anyone wouldn't see what you meant. Seemed obvious to me! The more superlative service this site offers to nonmembers, the more members we can expect to get onboard. These days, everything is a choice when it comes to spending money, unless you're one who has so much that you don't care where it goes. Making a game site a priority for your $20-$30 or more per year takes more than tournaments and the ability to play 21+ games, it's a choice that's made more with the heart than with the wallet.

<well pipolo, it seems we just disagree on this one. You tihnk the non members are not getting enough, and I think the are. WHat do you propose the non members get that they aren't already getting? And why do you think they would then become members, if they would be getting MOE than they are now? IF what they have now isn't enough to make them become members, why would they become members if you give them more?

Remember, we're not talking about making extra features for the MEMBERS, this discussion is about giving the NON members more.

NOw, if you were saying that giving MEMBERS more features would enticep eo0le to be come a member, I agree! If a person is NOT yet a member, it must be nbecause he isnlt satisfied with what the MEMBERS get! RIGHT??????? So how is adding features for the NON MEMBERS going to satisfy those concerns?

Please explain this to me.

TTJazzbberry-- You are out of your mind-- I should "swallow my pride" just because theo thers disagree with me, even though I was right? You live in a fantasy land. I don't care of 100 people tell me that 2+2 is 5, I will not "swallow my pride", I will continue to argue that iti s actually 4.

Obviously the case in question was not as clear cut as that, but that doesn't mean I should Lie and say that I think I was wrong. If I think I am right and everyone else wants to argue, so be it.

You also GROSSLY misstated what the entire discussion was about, but nothing much else that you say is accurate so that is no surprise.

BUt, let us stick to the topic of the one tournament issue. I'll restate my question one more time just to make sure we are on the same page:

If a person is NOT yet a member, it must mean that he is unhappy with what the MEMBERS have-- after all, if he is unhappy with what the brain pawns have, how wouldthat affect him if he were a brain knight? It wouldn't.

So, to say that the brain pwans are not members because the pawns do not have enough features, is just a silly argument!

If you gave the brain Pawns FIVE tournaments instead of one, how owuld that affect a paying member? it wouldn't. So why would this make someone more likely to be a paying member? HMM>. I guess it wouldn't!

DK, once again we misunderstand each other. I think the nonmembers are getting plenty. No argument there. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else. In fact, I was quite happy as a nonmember with all the service and features I got as a pawn. The only reason I joined was because I liked the site and wanted to support the people running it, so they could buy a new server when this one started to get overrun with hits. I am not going to join a tournament or a fellowship in the near future, nor do I plan to carry more than 20 games at a time, although I wouldn't balk at accepting an invitation if I already had 20.

If you were running the site, I'm sure I would not come here as frequently, if at all. I would guess that we'd have far fewer members. "Cheapskate freeloaders" indeed! I bet the site would have a lot fewer of them as well!

WHERE did pipilo say non members arnt getting enough??? Your latest distraction really threw me this time.

I think when Dmitri gets frothing at the mouth he starts imagining things.

I think he meant pipolo. It must have been on another board...

oops.. I messed up your nickname again-- I hear it in my head and then I type it out. I meant to write to Pipilo, but I wrote to pipolo instead.

Here is what pipilo said:

"TTJazz, I don't see why anyone wouldn't see what you meant. Seemed obvious to me! The more superlative service this site offers to nonmembers, the more members we can expect to get onboard. "

on its own, that statement would not be construed as meaning that the non members are not getting enough features (or "superlative service" as Pipilo put it).

But, Pipilo stated this in the ciontext of lending support to TTJazzberry's argumeent and in opposition to mine, which indicated to me that Pipilo thought that what the non members now receive is something short of what they should be getting.

Pipilo, if you do NOT feel that way, then why did you chime in the way you did? It certainly looked to me as if you were implying that, otherwise I am not sure why you clarified TTJazzberry's statement.

Again, if I am misunderstanding either one of you, I apologize. BUt if you obth think that the non members are getting enough services, then what are we arguing about?

DK, I didn't think either one of us (TTJazz or I) were saying there should be more features for pawns, only that we provide them with the best service possible. I think we all agree that Fencer is already doing that.

Also, I haven't really noticed many nonmembers complaining about the lack of features. They (and I, when I was a pawn) certainly have the right to make suggestions for new features and services. It's up to Fencer what he wants to do in response. In this country, the majority of people don't vote in our elections. That doesn't mean they don't have the right to complain about our government. I'd prefer that more of them vote, but that's not about to happen, unfortunately.

TTJazz's opposition to your statements didn't, in my opinion, constitute a call for more to be offered the nonmembers on this site, only that they be given the best service possible. I still agree with that, because it is just that which enticed me to become a brain rook. I don't normally speak between the lines, so I advise you not try to read between them.

ok, it looks like we are on the same page now. I thought that TTJazzberry has disasgreed with me when I stated that brain pawns should not be complaining about being stuck entering only one tournament and thus not being able to enter another one.

I agree that brain Pawns are not complaining about much, but that one complaint has ben made quite a few times.

Obviously Fencer is oging to make his own decision, I just thought that people were asking a bit much, since thye already get good service (which the three of us apparently also agree on).

LOL.. whenever u 2 get debating stuff you both start repeating the same things over and over again...
OVERALL, i agree with DmitriKing.. though both of you certainly have valid points. Is it necessary to say them over and over again though???

I TOO became a member after a short period of time, because I am a total game addict, and I like the way this site is set up and the way Fencer takes such good care of it. And I too must say I resent when non-members complain about certain things. But, I'm not sure the thing that started this whole debate was that much of a complaint, but merely questions...

Non-paying players who have complaints about things that would be alleviated by becoming a member, SHOULD NOT COMPLAIN. That much I agree on.

Yes I agree alot of repeating gets going on here. It all started because I disagreed with this part of his posting.. Yet, for whatever reason, non-paying members are under some delusion that all their inconviences should be alleviated. I felt it was unfair to assume ALL non members think that way.

Somehow it got twisted, the original point I made got lost, and suddenly I'm accused of saying non members dont get good enough service and that they should get as good service as the paying members. After I FINALLY got my point across that I DIDNT say that, he comes back saying "OK, fine! Then, if nothing is lacking, WE AGREE! That si what I ahve been saying all along! ...lol, go figure.

BBW, you have a good suggestion about letting them opt out of the tournament if no chance of getting to the next round, after all they done that tournament for all intensive purposes. I am all for keeping the limit at 1 tournament as well, there has to be incentive to become a member.

TTJazzberry, you said "BBW, you have a good suggestion about letting them opt out of the tournament if no chance of getting to the next round, after all they done that tournament for all intensive purposes. I am all for keeping the limit at 1 tournament as well, there has to be incentive to become a member."

I agre with this! And it seems that we obth agree that then on paying mmebers are already getting good service. so I am not sure what we are arguing about. Perhaps we just misunderstood each other.

As for the "cheapskates" and "freeloaders," I may not have made myself clear on this. Not all Pawns are cheapskates or freeloaders-- some are perfectly content with being a pawn and having limitations on their games and tournaments. This si fine with me-- they realize thay are not paying anything and soo they do not ask for more. Thep eople I cma calling cheapskates and freeloaders are those who are pawns, paying nothing, yet want more than what they are already getting. To me, that is the definition of a free loader. SOme will disagree, but I stand by that definition.