Gordon Shumway: Congratulations, Tenuki, on winning the proposed future BrainKing Championship!

gambler104:  Not quite true in backgammon, because of the luck factor.  Still, a tournament winner would be "one of the best".  Match length should be sufficiently long to reduce the effect of luck, say 15 or 21 points.

gambler104: I also like the idea of a BrainKing Championship.

rabbitoid: I really like the idea as well but for a completely different reason. I think it is a good alternative to the rating system and stairs which can be manipulated. The official tournament winner can rightfully declare himself best at a game presuming all players are allowed to play.

I add my voice to the "agree" crowd, for a different reason: because everyone creates "all game" tourneys, there are far too many. Either people set the minimum number of participants too high, and they never start for lack of participants, or they set it low and we have a zillion "tourneys" with 4 participants, which is not much fun.

One may hope that "official" tournaments, if not run too often, may solve this problem.

I agree with MadMonkey when he said:

"I would like to see regular Team Tournaments, something like 12 every 2 or 3 months (maybe 2 chess, 2 Lines, 2 Gammons, 3 Others(as we call them) and 3 from this group (Reversi, Go, Boats & Espionage) as an idea."

I think a new set of TEAM TOURNAMENTS on the first day of each new season would be great. That would be quarterly, and you could theme the team tournaments around seasons.

I finished almost all of my team games in the last tournament very quickly, and since then I have been waiting for the new ones to begin. They are very fun.

I've said for a long time that I would love to see some sort of "Official Tournament" - something ran by the site, that is "Official" - something that if someone was to join just 1 tournament, this would be the one...

I would say once a month, have an "Official Monthly Tournament" of all the games. One month do a quicker 2 days time limit, the next month do a longer 5 day time limit.

Then in December/January, have an official "Yearly Championship Tournament" of all the games.

This way if someone was to join just 1 or 2 tournaments, they could just join the "Official" ones which hopefully will be pretty big and fun.

I say only 1 a month since there are plenty of other tournaments to join. Plus I would stay away from prizes - except maybe awarding "Brains" as the prize - and maybe just for the "Yearly Championship" tournament.

But monthly official tournaments - A BIG YES - Something that stands out and says "Hey, there are a lot of tournaments - so if you are going to join one, join me - since I will hopefully have a lot of players providing a nice challenge and fun games to play".

pauloaguia: I agree to a point, its just an idea, but also i think its nice to give the Pawns something, this way we know brainking will have one new member. True they may not keep it, but at least they may help spread the word the advantages of being a paid member.

It would also stop anyone who thinks it is clever to create multiple accounts to give themselves a number of chances to win an overall Tournament. The best they could do is win the Pawn one, unless they buy multiple accounts, but then Fencer gets money anyway

Like i say, they are just ideas. I just hope for more Team Tournaments myself or/and Team Stairs

MadMonkey: I only don't like the idea about tournaments for pawns and for paying members. There are good players in either side, why shouldn't they be allowed to compete against each other on those tournaments?

Hrqls: I do not think we need regular Tournaments like IYT have. We create our own here which is great, but saying that look how many are still waiting for players. We seem to have to many individual Tournamnets as it is.
I create them 1 a week, and once a month in the Madhouse, plus any special ones people want. Yes, i go over the top, but i think Fellowships are a great thing to have and try to involve everyone as much as possible.

I like the idea of having a champion for each game every year.

As a treat maybe Fencer could have 2 prize Tournaments a year (1 for Pawns & 1 for Members).

As, has been said i think we should concentrate on Team Tournaments, as that really is part of being in a Fellowship, playing for a Team.

Its been roughly 14 weeks since the last Team ones started. Most first round are almost over, in fact some are in the final now, ok exception will always be the long games like cloning and Froglet, but why should the rest have to wait to start again. After all, there are quick games here now like Cheversi & Mancala.

I would like to see regular Team Tournaments, something like 12 every 2 or 3 months (maybe 2 chess, 2 Lines, 2 Gammons, 3 Others(as we call them) and 3 from this group (Reversi, Go, Boats & Espionage) as an idea.

One thing while i am here on Team Tournaments. At present Fencer gives a prize to the winning Team of each game. I think there should be at least 1st & 2nd place. There are some Team Tournaments that we know who will win before they even start, Chess being the prime example(nothing against Chess Club, they are awesome), so we are fighting for 2nd place.

Thats my say on Tournaments, Team & Individual.

Fencer could you still have a think about Team stairs please.

cc. Blog site

Hrqls:
team tournaments would be a great idea
but has for normal ones weve enough of them already
and we dont want to become as predictable and boring as ItsYourTurn!!!

i dont think we need automatic periodic tournaments .. but automatic periodic team tournaments would be nice

maybe 5 per month, of a random game type
and 1 team tournament with random games

AbigailII:
I Like The Idea

Well, we don't need them (if they were needed, Brainking wouldn't be as it is right now), but IMO, they could be a nice addition.

alanback: You could send a PM to Summer Flame and ask

alanback: Someone that talks alot LOL

Summer Flame:  I shouldn't ask but I must, what is an "extreme member"?

Summer Flame:

MadMonkey: Its a good idea. I am on Paltalk. I am an extreme member so if anyone wants to set up a room there i would be happy to be an admin there :)

srnity: I have used one for ages for all Madhouse members.
The only draw back as such is that one is based on Paltalk.com, so you have to download there Messenger service to use, but thats no real problem.
The only other one is that myself or someone i can trust has to be there to look after it lol

One based and written just for brainking would awesome

especially if they were created by BK users, for BK users . In another word - By Gamers , for gamers :)

I think it would be a GREAT idea, like Fencer said, it could keep the actual "fellowships" to be "fellowships" (and game/tournament/etc. related) & for those that want to "chat it up" (like me, sometimes), it'd be fun to have "chat rooms"(?) to go to, especially if they were created by BK users, for BK users

emmett: No, stay from my weekend. Usally I can't play during the weekend.

TarantinoFan: I've never said I want to solve such a problem. But since there are people who are, uh, kind of oversensitive to certain things (e.g. their understanding of a "safe site" status), I've just added a note about it.

I don't understand how you think it would solve the problem of children reading the boards if they can gain access the same way they get access to the boards here? You cannot protect other peoples children. Leave it up to their own parents. We don't need another set of discussion boards. In My Opinion!

AbigailII: I have several ideas how to make it kind of unique using the BrainKing database which no other discussion system can access. But the point is definitely NOT to create only unique sites.

To answer the question at the end, IMO, we don't need it. There are already a gazillion blogging and message board sites out there that anyone can join - and Usenet has been there for over 25 years as well. I see little use for "reusing the Brainking discussion board system to build a stand alone site". It will be a like a grain of sand in a desert. Now if Brainkings discussion board system has some unique features there might be a point - but it doesn't (and, being a discussion board system for a site that's mostly a game site - it doesn't need them).

Now, for those who might say, "but it will be closely tied to Brainking" - I say, read Fencers post again. The entire point is to have it *not* closely tied to Brainking, to avoid any possible negative feedback. If it would be closely tied to Brainking, there wouldn't be a point to separate if from Brainking.

We should reduce weekend days from two days to one day, for everyone.

srnity: Yay! Thanks Srnity. That is a brilliant idea.

TarantinoFan: unfortunutly, yes, because it is within the rules, it's not sportsman like, but there will always be poor sports in anything, people that will twist rules for their own benefit, those people should be ignored and left to self-alienation.
As a side note, it's a problem on all game sites, slow movers, thats where there is the advantage of paid membership where you can build your game load up to where you are comfortable with the amount of moves to make, and then the slow movers will sort them selves out eventually

TarantinoFan: Maybe there could be a "setting" on the tournament set-up page where the creator could put an actual limit on how many days over you can go per move - sort of like the setting for how many days the tournament stays posted?.........................

Vikings: You have missed the point. Some people choose to ignore the time limits altogether. If you join a tournament with a 7 day time limit, for example, is it fair to all other players in that tournament to stretch that time limit to 30 days or more just because you can?

TarantinoFan: I play alot of red and green dot games.......the trick to it is to make a whole lotta moves at one sitting and that way you build up plenty of time (both of you do, actually).......but there are a couple of people that I won't play them with anymore due to them pretty much "making" me time-out by letting the clock on their side really run down

TarantinoFan: thats the choice you make, slow time limits or fast time limits, you can't really complain about people playing within the rules and then say you are too busy to solve your problem

Vikings: So are you gonna come and look after my kids and my partner while I am making sure my little red dot game doesn't time out?

play in fisher clock tourneys only, problem solved

TarantinoFan:
my suggestion is for Fencer to run a poll on this subject and he be amazed at the result i bet!!!!

Family Man: If you want to take part in tournaments then there is no way to completely avoid a certain player. If they are the last player to join a tournament and that tournament starts while you are offline you don't have much choice in the matter do you?

"Snoopy": If it is only a few people, then just dont play them anymore... can we please move on now?

Bernice:

i know i wasnt the first to bring the subject up and i wont be the last
until the matter of abusing vacation days is dealt with
its just so sad that a few people on here are allowed to get away with it over and over

Bernice: I think that the powers that be believe that red and green spots are the way to deal with this problem Unfortunately they don't take into account life in general.

The basic premise of vacation days is a good idea. Most of us have home and family and work etc and knowing that I have vacation days to fall back on if I need them is a good idea.


This discussion is about the abuse of that system and it seems that heads have been stuck in the sand when it comes to that aspect of it.The vacation days available to each player were set at a fixed limit per year for a reason,but it seems that reason has become obscured by the magic green stuff. It seems that if you can pay for it you can continue to abuse the system all you like.

If a player is continually abusing the system surely something can be done about it. A repeat offender should not be allowed to continue their unsportsmanlike conduct after continual complaints.

This is after all a game site and if you want more people to join the site then setting that kind of example is surely not the way to go.

Oceans Apart: yes I edited 2 of mine down the board under threat of having them removed.....Is it the way we speak???? because I couldnt for the life of me see what was wrong with mine except in one I call the person concerned by name....I wont use your name Ali for fear of reprisals HAHAHAHAHA

TarantinoFan: I must admit TF, that this conversation has gone on since forever....way back before Hrqls, and it has never (to my knowledge) been addressed by Fencer directly. As far as they are concerned on here, as long as you dont time out you can do what you want with the time to move....and as I said further down...to prolong a LOSS is very unsportsman like but then......??? isnt that what vacation days are for????

I will be very surprised if both your post and mine arent edited in some way ROFL.....

I have edited my post too.

Quote Hrqls: but as long as they are within the time limit there shouldnt be a problem

And therein lies the whole problem with vacation days. Some people choose to ignore the set time limit for the tournament. Some people will let a game run on vacation days til they have no more and then renew membership so they can allow it to run on even longer.

And some people on this site are not approachable. My deleted comment was in reference to that fact. Some people can get rather nasty both in PM and f/s messages when asked to move faster. And they seem to relish the fact that they are annoying another member and purposely choose to allow that one game to drag. The system allows for that and the start of this whole conversation was to try to find a way to stop that from happening.

Gordon Shumway: 100% agree

I would of created like that if i knew such a crazy outcome could happen.
What happens if they have the same BKR ??? ...............I know, most letters in there name

MadMonkey: That's why you should always create Single Elimination tournaments as "1 win match" - so in case of a draw, the match is replayed

Would be nice though if "1 win match" was preselected when one attempts to create a SE tournament.

coan.net: I remember seeing that somewhere, that is one crazy rule
I do not think it is very fair way to decide the final game of a Tournament though like this was
Why not just play again or black/white peg count or something ?

MadMonkey: In a single elimination tournament, where there needs to be 1 winner to move on to the next round, the "Win" in case of a tie/draw is the person with the lowest BKR rating at the time of the game.