Foxy Lady: Move 17 was the one which seemed a bit odd to me (there was another too) ... but my reference was to a particular person who, so far as I am concerned, cheats because they "don't play cricket", and have openly admitted so.

Foxy Lady: I don't think so, most of that conversation and feelings came about because of another pond

BIG BAD WOLF: And don't forget all the ideas for changing the starting points or the bonus.

Foxy Lady: I was curious as to why you always bid so high.. haha.. okay.. so you like the bonus..

WhisperzQ: I happen to click on the pond you had in a message,it's my pond........I always go for the bonus my question is"Is there cheating going on in that Pond? I'd like to know really.

Some other pond suggestions:

Invite only ponds

Ratings limit on ponds

Fellowship only ponds

Walter Montego: Points all well made and essentially I agree. But like you, I will play the individual game no more.

But with regard to team tournaments where "anything goes", after some contemplation today I have to report that I struggle to condone a game which encourages traitorship ... trust is something which is hard to earn and I would certainly never encourage anyone to break it, or participate in an activity which might lead to such. It probably has to do with my funny fundamental immutable moral values. I see this attitude (only displayed by I a few I admit) as a microcosm of why of we have some of the problems we do in our society.

WhisperzQ: That's the thing about having it as just two teams. Almost all games that involve more than two people or teams have this conspiracy problem. Poker is notorious for this problem when played with strangers. The game Risk is too. It just seems to me that those games that have the players work towards a positive goal are prone to conspiracy if all the players don't play for themselves. Two handed games are fair as far if I make a bad move, you win. In three or more handed games, this isn't always true. I make a bad move and you might lose because of it and the other guy wins. Just try and devise a game that gets around this. If you know of one, please post it on this site, maybe we can get Fencer to add it.

Any deviousness in a Team Pond game will be more than acceptable and fair. If it doesn't work, your team loses. If it works, your team wins, the other teams loses and no one is cheated or hurt. Say we started with two teams of eight players each. All sixteen players bid. Before the game starts, the eight players of each team might want to talk about playing certain bids or something else but they don't have to. As the game gets down to say 5 players, it would either be 3 against 2 or 4 against 1. I really don't know how it would go. I'm thinking the the remaining team members would be sending ideas back and forth. Could 1 person make the next round against 4? I'm sure it could be won 8 to 0 too.

If this way of playing Ponds has is flawed too, then there's not much more I can suggest. You have me thinking about conspiracies. I suppose one big problem would be team members that don't follow the team's plans, or worse reveal them to the other team. Traitors! It'd still be fair. The team loses and that's how it goes. Nothing like your example when two or more people purposely bid crazy to gain advantage and hurt uninvolved players.

Ponds is still on the site because people like to play it no matter how flawed and conspiracy prone that it is. You can do as I have done and stop playing the game, or just bite the bullet and play knowing that can happen. Your view of fairness in this game is different than other people. Some of whom veiw what bothers you as part of their fun in playing the game, though from what was written earlier I'd say most people don't like conspiracies. Besides your veiw of the fairness of it, others might not like it because they aren't in on it. I doubt much if your list idea would work as sooner or later something of this nature will come about. Just typing the wrong button can happen too. That happened to me in that Very First Pond. It wasn't until a few rounds into the game that Fencer made it possible to change your bid.

What do you think Fencer, Team Ponds? I'm sure some of the fellowships would have fun challenging each other, plus you could have round robin tournaments like we have for the other games too. There could be independent teams too. Just sign up at the tournament page. And of course invitationals. I get a number of people to join my team and we challenge someone else to get a team together.

Walter Montego: No, I have played ponds from the beginning ... my first and probably only win was the very first pond ... before all the funny business started. I had seen some of the discussion previously, in particular Basplund's open admittal that he conspired with others to rort the result ... as the cricket comment implies, being legal does not make it right. The debate in the pond kicked off because he scored a bonus in "unusual" circumstances.

I like the idea of team ponds and would consider playing in one, but tehr wsould be a few players that cause me to withdraw from even a team pond, who know what sort of deviousness they might be able to think up to stuff those too.

WhisperzQ: You've decided to do what I have already done and that is stop playing Ponds. We had plenty of this kind of thing way before your little mishap, which after looking at the link to your game isn't nearly as bad as a Pond I was involved in where three people out of the blue bid 1, 2, and 10 while everyone else is bidding in the thousands. The problem with Ponds, and your game is good example of it, is that those bids might actually have not involved any conspiracy at all.

As for quoting the user agreement, I have to assume you just started playing Ponds because this very behavior is allowed by Fencer.

I requested a version of Ponds that would have two teams to play against each other with the game ending when only the players of one team are left in the game. Purposely bidding low to help your teammate would then be part of the accepted strategy. Team Run Around the Pond should be a workable and fun game.

Vikings: Thanks for your vote of confidence. I could proabably come up with a couple of names myself, but I will not be playing this game again ... except maybe in a fellowhip where I don't give a toss about winning or losing, just enjoy the comraderie.

I am essentially competative (my wife would say essentially is an understatement LOL) by nature. I do not enjoy playing in games which rely mainly on chance or where some competitors are at a disadvantage because of unshared knowledge.

WhisperzQ: I could come up with 16 people I could trust, you would be 1

The point is that, IMHO, all ponds should be played this way.

Perhaps ponds should be for us ordinary folk and septic tanks who those who wish be caniving (sp?) and devious. It is not us ordinary folk who have stuffed a fun game, but the cat is out of the bag now, the idea would never work as how would you ever know if someone was not playing cricket no matter how much they protest.

WhisperzQ: I think golf applies here also

WhisperzQ: I agree with Czuch, I really like that, and I like the Idea of an cricket (honor) pond, it wouldn't work as a dark pond I fear as someone would slip through. I wish Fencer would make these ponds invitational, as I think you could easily find a core group that would abide by your "cricket" analogy

WhisperzQ: Thats an awesome analysis! Maybe you could start a series of :cricket ponds" where all participants agree to only play their moves to the best of their ability, with out profit by "looking to see who has been online" or 'finding out who is in a dark pond".... just an honour type of thing, where everyone just plays by the intent of the rules.

Vikings: Cricket is a sophisticated, and perhaps today antiquated, bat and ball game where there are a limited set of rules. Each player plays by those rules and only those rules. If an action is not covered by the rules then they do not do it, rather than doing it until someone says, "hey you can't do that" and changes the rules accordingly.

In cricket playing societies the phrase "It is not cricket" or the like are used to refer to people or actions which try to gain an advantage, not by breaking the rules but going outside the intent of the rules.

The game is enjoyable because it is played so that excellence may triumph, not deviousness.

In my opinion, and I think others, the actions descibed below and in this pond are "just not cricket".

WhisperzQ: I don't get it, enlighten me

WhisperzQ: HAHAHAHA

WhisperzQ: lol. Very clear indeed.

it is obvious that none of you play cricket.

Czuch Chuckers: exactly, there is only 2 or 3 people that I would care to know if they are in it. thats easy to look up and anybody can. That doesn't give me a huge advantage, maybe 100-150 total, and I have always said that it is unwise to go for the bonus early imo. I know there are some players that have gone all out looking for vacation days and making charts etc. And if its public information, I can't begrudge anyone spending the time. I don't like to spend that much time myself, I'd rather use my formulas, mostly

Vikings: you dont need to know all players but I can think of one who wil always make you not want to go for the bonus because they always go really high, and I know one who is nototious for playing really low bids at really weird times, so if you just check out those two you are ahead of everyone who doesnt know the same.

Czuch Chuckers: I understand what you are saying, but the game is still dark, and who would want to go through enough profiles to find everyone? Heck I'll save everyone the trouble I play every dark pond that is at least 2 days time limit, and that I am welcomed to play

BBW gets the credit for this one, he discussed it on one of the boards a couple of weeks ago

I guess.... its just a shame that these games arent played the way they are intended just because we are online and people can get away with it. But I know it is stupid not to take advantage if someone else might anyway.

Vikings: OMG!!! hahaha,...

Czuch Chuckers: It's not a secret, if you suspect someone is in a dark pond, go to their profile, click tournaments, and look for the name in the pond in signed or started section depending on the situation, you won't neccessaraly know everyone that is in it but just the ones that you look for

so now people have a secret way to know who is in dark ponds????? thats seems really fair...

BIG BAD WOLF: I used your trick to find out about the person that I was thinking of, good thing because I might have gone next had I not have known because of one of the bids

Vikings: I removed everyone I could find, about 3-4 players I found was below the limit that I removed. But some unrated players might have snuck by.

.... but of course I just fell in that pond, so I don't care anymore!

never mind, I figured it out

Did you manage to get the low BKR's out of your elite dark pond? Specifically a certain somebody that always tends to lose in the 3rd or 4th round. I ask this publicaly so everyone will have this information

Vikings: thanks :)

BerniceC: they will not be able to bid, therefore they will receive a bid of zero which in the first round will drop out along with the lowest bid higher than zero, then the pond rill run like normal from that point.
As far as people who are now pawns who have set up ponds, they will run like normal as long as 16 people or minimum required by that particular pond remain for it to start.
Why not let the rest of the people in the pond play it out?

is it possible for pawns who were paying members, and are now pawns and have ponds up to be started in a few hours to still have these ponds start?
I dont think that should be so, knowing that they cant play in them.

As was guessed, the ratings fix lowered everyones ratings - so I revamped the requirements for the "elite" ponds to a level which should still allow about the same amount to play as before.

BBW's Elite Pond I (over 2100 ONLY)

BBW's Elite Dark Pond I (over 1600 ONLY)

BBW's Elite Rain Pond I (over 1500 ONLY)

grenv: It appears that my prediction about this happening again has come true. As I said then, the game is flawed if you view these types of conspiracies as cheating. There's no way to fix it, so it's either put up with it or quit playing the game.

What ever happened to the Team Pond game a lot of us were posting about? If Ponds can be played as a two team game, this would eliminate this problem and should be a very fun game to play. Your teammates could try to bid low and set up a similiar situation but it wouldn't be viewed as cheating since you're all in it together and it is known from the start. In fact, knowing when to do it or not would determine the winning team in a lot of games.

Vikings:

Foxy Lady:

Vikings: Wheww thanks i was a tight worried about that.

Foxy Lady: it should keep runing like normal since all pond games are created in general

The Retreat was deleted by the new BB the Pond i formed when i had the F/S is still running.Does it run or what do i do?

Vikings: If anyone wants..... come on over to the ponds plus fellowship if you want less moderated discussions on this matter.

The discussion moved to the Ponds Plus FS...

I can forsee where this discussion is heading and I think it is a relevent discussion, however, I wan't to remind everybody as this could get a little heated....
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL NICS IN THIS DISCUSSION!!!

Goonerg: unfortunatly you are preaching to the choir

I just noticed that the usual suspects are playing in this pond with me...

http://brainking.com/en/Pond?g=1244

wonder when the "team" tactics will kick in?

Vikings: To me it is cheating pure and simple. It is gaining an advantage over everyone else in the pond through a fact that only one person knows. It makes a mockery of the ponds.

grenv: your independant panel idea seems good on the surface but I think it would cause more problems than it is worth, I think the accusations would fly all over the place, just look at the animosity towards moderators, think how much that would increase if ratings are at stake, and what about the innocent person that just took a chance that someone would bid zero, some kind of proof or pattern and investigation would be required.
I think that the invitational solution is the best