Yes, things like that certainly could happen. But that would only happen if a player views tournaments as the only reason they are staying - because they left due to not being able to join another tournament. That could be i guess, but since they can only join one at a time (and i'm assuming it would this player's first tournament) why would they leave just because they cannot join another tournament? None of this affected me because i was a rook before tournaments or fellowships got introduced, so i guess i don't really know - maybe you would have a better idea than me.

Kevin: ... OK, it should say in the 2nd sentence: "the FINISHED games would still be there and count TOWARDS the other players win/loss" So in "quiting the tournament", it does not remove there already finished games - and the finished games still count toward the win/loss of the other players that are still in that section of the tournament that that player and the other players are player - which the first player decided to just remove himself from the possiblility of winning the section. The games of that person needs to be finished BEFORE he is allowed to remove himself from the possiblility of winning the section and "removing" himself. OK, I hope that will explain it beter. (I'm really not trying to make it difficult - hopefully you will understand what I'm trying to say this time!)

... and for the second part, I guess I will argure it with you. Only 1 tournament would not be enough for me to figure out if I like a site or not - that is enough to decided wether I wanted to pay or not since I don't play that many non-tournament games. If I was a new pawn, and then I joined a tournament. (Which says I'm only allowed to join 1 at a time). I then finish all my games in that tournament in say 2 weeks. Well then I find out I have to wait for other slow players to finish their games in the section to start my next tournament (which I lost all my games so I know I'm not moving on) - so I wait....1 month.... 2 months..... 3 months.... (and by this time, I stop visiting this site - which I like, but stoped playing because I could not join my next tournament - which is the tournament I would have playing with a new friend which would have kept me playing on this site, and paying so I can play more games with my new friend! Now I have so many friends, and I'm a rich person - so I even pay the $1,000 for a awsome Maharajah account! O'wait - I forgot I left after 2 months of not being able to join my next tournament - the site never got my money. :-(

Anyway, that is just an "extreme" example - but things like that do happen - and when you first join, you do not know to join a small 4 player, fast tournament - you don't know that until it is too late and your stuck waiting.... and waiting... and waiting....

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

BBW: If it will remove the person from the tournament, and even if they win they will actually not, it will not really be necessary to wait until all the games are finished (even though later in your post you said "The person and his games would still "be there" and count" which kind of contradicts your 2nd sentence) ;-)

Why would you need more than one tournament to figure out? And even so, pawns can join more than one tournament - just not at a time. If they are worried about it taking a long time, they always have the choice to join one of the small tournaments (4 player max, for example). But that's kind of beside the point.

Kevin: OK, here is what I meant to say: When a person is done with all his games in a tournament, give that person an option to "remove himself" from any chance of winning and moving on to the next section. The person and his games would still "be there" and count, but even if that person does win the section but already "removed himself" - it would go to the next person down the list. In thery, you would not remove yourself if you still have a chance to win the section, but since the game site can not decided it for you at this time - this would let the user decide. (I hope I explained that better this time) :-)

I disagree that only 1 tournament is enough to determin whether a site is good enough or not - but we can disagree about that! :-)

Well I know this was discussed many time before, with many different opinions (OK, just 2 opinions - 1. Everyone can afford membership and 2. Not everyone can afford membership) - and I have stayed out of it until now.

Anyway, I do know people who can not afford to pay for memberships. While I was still working as a network administartor (before being laid off in Sept 2001), we donated computers to a local "free net" - which then donated those computers to libraries and to low income families. They also offer free internet access to people who could not afford it also. Now if you don't have an income, and stay at home mom/dad - and you have to priorities between food and game site - I believe most would choose food. I'm sure EVERYONE could scrape up enough for a membership, but if you are already on a low income - that extra money you scraped up could be used other places other then a game site.

Anyway, the point is some people put their priorities of their family ahead of game playing. Could everyone possible find an extra $10-20? Sure, but if they are that bad off - unable to find a job - and sitting at home with kids and can't get out of the house - a free game site is a great way to just site down and relax to get away from things for awhile.

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

BBW: Yes, it would likely also be able to determine when a player is eliminated (cannot possibly move on). But you said:

"And yes, when I say "quit" a tournament - not really quit, but let a player deterime for themselfs that they "can not win the section to move on" and then let them joing their next tournament."

So you mean I could go into one of my tournaments and "remove" myself from this tournament (decide i cannot possibly win)? I'm assuming any remaining games i have would remain in progress. But then what if i did happen to win the tournament? Wouldn't that create a problem?

And about your comment that tournaments can last 6 months - they sure can! But like I've said before - having the ability to join tournaments is a privelege for everyone on the site, especially pawns. I definately agree that pawns should be allowed to try out the tournaments. And that's what they are allowed to do - try them out! You don't need to join very many tournaments (one should be plenty) to realize what they are like: goal accomplished. If they want to join another tournament before theirs finishes, they can purchase a membership or simply not join another tournament.

Basically a free membership is designed to try out the site. It's not too much to ask for nonmembers to pay the measly 28 bucks for Rook or 18 for Knight for a year. That's basically a couple of dinners out, or 7 packs of smokes, or 9 Northwest lattes...and it lasts a year. Can't afford it? Buy the 1/2 year. Ten bucks for 6 months...that's all. Try it out, if you like it, support it. The idea that someone might not be able to "afford" a paying membership makes me wonder how they can afford their online service? It's a matter of priorities IMO.

Yes, I indeed meant if they have played all they can play and stand no chance of getting any further, but I dont feel real strong about that aspect of it. I think if its an issue to them and if its within their means, they should consider a membership to alleviate this problem.

Once it is implemented that the system can determin a section winner as early as possible (or at least determine when a person has no chance to move on to the next section as early as possible) - as long as the player is done with their games in the section, I believe they should be allowed to join the next tournament. (since it would still be within the rule of "1 tournament at a time)

And yes, when I say "quit" a tournament - not really quit, but let a player deterime for themselfs that they "can not win the section to move on" and then let them joing their next tournament.

In a way I also think that it is good to make pawns wait for a section to finish before moving to the next tournament, BUT when a section can take up to 6 months - that could mean a pawn could only join 2 tournament a year - which I know for myself would not give me a very good impression of this site, and in turn probable not get my money.

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

TTjazzberry kind of mentioned this at the end of his post - I think making the pawns wait for the section to finish is a good idea. If they don't want to wait for it to finish, they can become a member and join all the tournaments they want. And I don't think letting people "quit" tournaments is a good idea! If you mean only when they have finished all their games and can't move on, then maybe. Except there is one itty bitty problem with that - Fencer told me he will eventually implement a system where the tournament section winner could be determined early if possible, except this is not done yet. Therefore, it is unknown to the server when a player has no chance to move 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.

CleverHunk: I'm not sure if you got the answers or not, but here they are.

No, neither paid or non-paid members can "quit" a tournament. It's not a big deal for rooks because they do not have a tournament limit.

As of right now, you have to wait for the SECTION you are in to be complete (not the tournament) - in case there are more then 1 sections.

WOW - I leave for a few hours, and I miss a lot.

[Dmitri King May 2003, 22:00:01] "Remember, we're not talking about making extra features for the MEMBERS, this discussion is about giving the NON members more."

... actually, this never started about a non paid member wanting more features. It is not about giving non-paid members more tournaments.

HERE IS THE PROBLEM: non-paid members are limited to 1 tournament at a time. (This is a good rule in my opinoin) They can play all their games and finish the 1 tournament - the problem is that even though they are done with all their games in the 1 tournament, they can wait many weeks/months for other people to finish their tournament - up to 6 months if a paid member uses their vacations / weekends / and move limits! Even though the non-paid member is following all rules, THEY finish their 1 tournament BUT since OTHERS do not finish their tournament, they have to wait. - it's like they are being punished by other slow players - which in turns makes this site and it's players look bad - which in turns might turn away this player from enjoying this site and possible paying for a membership. If you can get a non-paid member to enjoy the site, you might get them to pay - and having them wait up to 6 months to enter their next tournament might just turn people away from this site.

My suggestion is to either re-work it so when a player plays all his games in a tournament, and there is no way to move to the next round, let them join their next tournamenet - OR EVEN BETTER - as the very first person kind of suggested, let a person "quit" a tournamenet after they complete their games if they know they can not move to the next round.

I know some people really want to limit non-paid players, and even take away tournament all together - and I know for myself, I do not play many non-tournament games, and if I could not even try out tournaments here, I probable would not have stayed around. What you have to remember is different people have different needs and enjoy different things. And if you don't show non-paid members what this site can offer - you will not get very many people to join. (Very few people will join a site if the service they get as non-paid players is bad!)

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

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.

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).

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.

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?

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

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.

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!

<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!

I certainly agree with TTJazzberry in the sense that pawns should get good service to get them to pay. And I certainly agree with Dmitri in the sense that they are already getting plenty! I see it definately as a priveledge to join tournaments at all - and some of them (not recently that i've read, however) are complaining and want more. Fencer chose to allow them to play in tournaments to see what they're like, and they should be happy, not complaining.

Well exactly pipilo. If I had twenty people telling me I'm wrong in accusing someone of being a cheat, I would swallow a little pride and admit maybe I went a little overboard. I certainly wouldnt resort to calling them all morons.

"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...

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Regarding memberships, which seem to have a significant effect on the number of tournamnets people can enter:

TTJazzberry, you disagree with me when I say that people can afford a membership, they just do nto want to.

I pose a question to you:

Of the brain pawns, of wihch there are 4800 (approximately), how many do you think really cannot afford a membership? Conversely, how many just choose to do something else with the money?

Remember, we're talking about twenty dolars here. Someone who goes to the movies twice in 6 months can obviously afford a membership, but like many people, he has decided that movies are more important than a brain King membership.

I am curious about your response to this question. If you don't want to count the inactive brain Pawns, don't. Just take a numbetr at random, say 1000 brain Pawns. How many of those 1000 do you think cannot afford a membership?

Here is a second question-- why do you think the current benefits extended to non-paying members are INSUFFICIENT for their being able to decide whether to become a paying member?

You indicated that people take the site for a "test drive" wihch I agree with-- but what I do not understand is why you think they do not have enough available to them to figure if they want to be a member or not.

One final note--if you do not agrreee with qwhat I say, and youtell me so, I do not consuider that "name calling." If you think my argument is asinine, please tell me so, I am a big boy and I can handle it. I don't go whining about "name calling" when someone uses a word like ridiculous or asinine. Those are just two words used to describe an illogical or nonsensical argument.

TTJazzberry-- apparently you have difficult with reading comprehension. I called ONE of your comments "asinine," yet you spoke as if I called ALL your stetements asinine.

If you take it as such an insult to have your comment referred to as asinine, then don't make asinine comments.

The fact is, you said "Remember, we were all non paying members at some point" as if it actually means anytihng, whne it clearly does not mean anything!

That wasn't even the statement I called asinine though (although I should have). No, theasinine statement of yours was that the non paying members should be given "the best service possible." You derided my understanding of business, yet you failed to explain why anyone would PAY for a membership if they are given everything for free.

Please enlighten me.

BY the way, the reason I did not call you a "moron" is I do not wish to engage in childish name calling. Calling someone names is a weak debating tactic. On theo ther hand, there is nothing wrong with taking issue with a particular STATEMENT that someone makes, wihch is what I did-- I attacked the STATEMENTS, not the PERSON.

My debating tactics are to opitn out how asburd some of the ocmments people make are, and then I defend my position with facts and logical arguments. It is a pity you feel the need to attakc this method of debating, although it does not surprise me, as the trend on this board is for people to utter mindless drivel asuch as "Remember, we were non-paying members once!" as if they have any meaning.

geeh,I never dreamed my 2 questions would provoke so much name calling.
being a non paying member,I appreciate what is given to entice me to join.I'm not bitching.I agree with the 1st paragraph of TTjazzberrys post of May24-17:16:24.it's exactly how I would have expressed it.depend on us for you entertainment,eh?bet you say that to all the boys...lol

some sites re free members:
1-limit # moves
2-limit game type access
3-limit tourny involvement
brainking does the 3rd type
this is perhaps the wisest for them,because the other 2 woulds slow things down for free & paying members.
I take it that I must wait for the tourny to end,I did not see a direct answer.
my second question was never answered.can paying members quit a tourny?what's the harm in knowing.will want to know when I sign up.

please lets all leave the name calling at the door.I know that I have played/talked to a lot of you people.and most of you are fairly bright & good spirited lets make an effort to treat each other descently.we can agree to disagree.

yes,you kiddies play nice,or I will take your toys away.jazz ,even the ones that take batteries[wink].

Yes I have read what you said, I just dont agree with your point of view. You said "Your statement that "we were all non paying members once" is just ridiculous. SO WHAT???????
WHat does that have to do with ANYTIHNG? . Again you have to resort to describing someones statements as "rediculous" when you dont agree instead of merely putting your side forth in a polite manner, but I'm used to your debating style by now so like water off a duck anyway. To answer your question, it has to do with EVERYTHING!, you see if you treat them right they may become paying members. There are many people who take the site for a test drive for a while before deciding, so you cant assume they will all join within 3 days like yourself.

On my other point you obviously misinterpreted what I meant, and maybe I didnt elaborate enough. By giving non paying members the best service possible I didnt say anywhere that they should recieve the "same" or "better" service as paying members, I merely meant they should get as good as service possible given their non paying status in order to entice them into paying for the enhanced service.

I still maintain there are people out there who can not afford to spend part of what little money they may have on a games site, but I know from your previous postings you dont agree so I'll leave it at that, but to blanket them all as "cheapskates" is totally off as far as I'm concerned, whether they post or not. Then you have the nerve to call my comment "asinine"...go figure, again I'm used to your debating and I guess I'm fortunate not to be called a moron once more.

TTJazzberry, I find your statements objectionable. First of all, I have made it very clear why I am down on non paying members, haven't you read anything I have written? They are paying nothing yet thye want their inconveniences alleviated or eliminated.

You are correct, BIg Bad wolf was discussing this, but it is the NON PAYING members who actually complain about it, since they are the ones affected.

Your statement that "we were all non paying members once" is just ridiculous. SO WHAT???????

WHat does that have to do with ANYTIHNG? For starters, I was a non paying member for about three days, at which time I paid for a membership, so I am not sure what your point is there. Additionally, when I was a non paying member, I did not write to Fencer or make posts on the message boards saying "Hey, I am not paying you anything, but I have a problem with X y and Z that I would like you to resolve."

Now, on to your next comment:

"From a business standpoint its smart to give non paying members the best service possible to entice them into becoming paying members."

I can only hope you are joking here, because this statement is asinine. If you give the NON PAYING members the BEST SERVICE POSSIBLE, then they would be getting better service than the PAYING members! WHY would you give those who pay NOTIHNG the BEST service possible? Maybe you can explain to me, FROM A BUSINESS standpoint (since you used that term) WHY anyone who is already getting the "best service possible" would consider paying for a membership?

I think the best way to entice people to get a membership is to give them a taste, but not the entire meal.

Non paying members get PLENTY. thye can play 20 games. they can enter a tournament. they can participate on the message boards.

What exactly is the problem? That isn't enough value for the cost of NOTHING that they are paying? Why should they get anything more? Why would that make them become PAYING members?????

The whole POINT of becoming a paying member is that you DON'T have to deal with these issues! If the existence of these "problems" are not enough to entice someone to pay up, WHY ON EARTH WOULD HE PAY UP AFTER being GIVEN what the paying members all had to PAY to receive?

The people who aren't paying for memberships but are asking for more features are CHEAP. It has not been my experience that a cheapskate stops being a cheapskate when you give him more than you are already giving him.

Obviously my last statement is oging to elicit responses of "some people can't afford a membership."

Save it, because we all know that's a load of crap. The non paying members choose to spend their money on other things that they obviously deem more important, yet they want to have similar benefits to those of us who have deicded that a membership is what we would rather spend our money on.

I'm not sure why your always so down on non paying members, I'm sure they dont all feel that way, we were all one once. From a business standpoint its smart to give non paying members the best service possible to entice them into becoming paying members so they may enjoy the enhanced service and priviledges that come with membership. Thats what helped me decide to become a member.

"I believe this is really unfair to the unpaid players who play there games regularly -"

how can anything possible be unfair to the unpaid members? They aren't PAYING anything. That they get anything at all sounds very fair to me.

Again, if the tournamnet limitations are that much of a problem for a non-paying member, there is a simple solution.......

Yet, for whatever reason, non-paying members are under some delusion that all their inconviences should be alleviated.

Clever, thats crappy that you have to keep waiting on him like that. Sounds like a silly mind game to me, but as the old saying goes "small things amuse small minds". Lets hope your opponent see's this gripe about the topic and keeps to the game at hand.

I asked a similar question when I first came to the site before I became a paid member, and I have seen similar messages from others since then.

And basicly the only answer I ever see is "o'well.... unless you want to become a paid member, you have to wait for all the others to finish their games in that section of the tournament before you can join a second tournament." I believe this is really unfair to the unpaid players who play there games regularly - since a paid member could hold up a tournament an extra 40+ days if they use all their weekends & vacations. Add to that if they use all there time for each move - they could extend a tournament up to 4-6 months... and depending on the game time limit, maybe even longer!

Hopefully if Fencer see enough people who have this problems, maybe he will try to at least change it somehow.

:-)

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

...I have a question.I posted a message to hannilore about this,just as my webtv went "stunned".so I dont know if she got it.thought this might be a better venue to ask.anyway..
I am in hannilores tank battle tourny.
I confess,I have not done well.and now in the last game with Boondoogle.I have 3 times waited until the last hour before he times out,to see that he finally made his move.watching his profile,I see he appears to be waiting out several the same way.I think this practise is perverse,holds things up unneccessrily.
reagrdlessly,I resigned the game,with the hope of trying another tournament.being a non full member(that will change ,I'm becoming addicted too)I am limited to one tourney.
but it appears that I cant get out of the tourney until it is finished..so my questions thus:
can a non full member quit a tourny?
can a full member quit a tourny?
if so please tell me how.
perhaps the mechanism for tournys does not allow this.

ArtfulDodger's Backgammon For U1600 players :)

Artful's "Let's get loopie" Loop Chess!

Need 8. 5 slots left. come play the craziest chess game that is loads of fun!

Have 3, close when we have 6. Come play!

Thanks sundance...

..Yes the five-in-a-line world cup would be a great one too..as long as we, the UK, can avoid Finland until the final, otherwise we could go out! :) No seriously, it would be great fun for all countries in every game type played on here...The world cup should be the biggest tourny on here and could be held say once or twice a year, depending on the response it could be more...this site is rapidly growing, and who knows in 10 years this world cup could be phenomenal with ALL the best board game players from around the world from which ever site they play at attending this one special anual event!!

:)

Spiderman: a great idea you came up with.
Team tournaments between different countries would be quite interesting in many game types.
Interfellowship tournaments would be a way to do it easily (after that feature is added).

I did actually mention a 'world' cup in my original message...as in ALL countries from around the world! I just used the UK & US as an example if there was not enough 'world' wide interest. Yes you should get a team together from Canada...it would be very interesting and most of all it would be great fun wouldnt it??

:)

lol what about those of us not from USA or UK? :-)