sidpatel: I don't agree with that since there is no real advantage to only count wins in tournaments. It might be a way to reduce the loopholes, but max number of wins against an opponent a day is pretty effective. You aren't going to find too many people purposely resigning to help others. So you would limit it to a few players, and Fencer could check the top point accounts and make sure that all or most of their wins(since an opponent can resign for no apparent reason) are ligit. If Fencer did that (basically checking to make sure that one opponent did not resign multiple games against the same opponent), you might not even have to have the win restriction.

playBunny: I agree. But people can create dummy accounts themselves and credit their action points account with a referral. I'm not saying to stop it, I am just saying that Fencer would have to be very careful if multiple accounts were created all referred by the same user.

sidpatel: Fencer wants four options so he needs a replacement. And I am not too fond of referring pawns since that could open up loopholes. Fencer will just have to be extra careful although it might not matter. It is only 50 points which is almost too small to make a difference in the long run. If a person get 10 new users all of a sudden, I think Fencer would have to be awfully cautious.

playBunny: I guess that works.

sidpatel: The only way you could do that is to remove resigning as an option which some people would not support. Like I said, sabotage could become an issue. I know most people here would not do it, but some people are desperate enough to do it.

playBunny: The resignation suggestion has a flaw with players attempting to sabotage others. If I didn't want you to get a point for a win, I simply resign a game you are winning. I like BBW suggestion better.

Fencer: That sounds good. I think a lot of people would like it a lot. Like you said, it is a game site. And I think that would take away potential bugs. But I think you would need to implement something like BBW said and limit it to two wins a day against the same player. And some people might complain about board points being taken away, but I think the majority would support it. Thanks.

gambler104: It's just a little frustrating when you play all night to try to get points, and then someone comes and gets a lot more without half of the work.

Fencer: I'm not against having board points, but maybe limit it to 200 or 300 a day. That would easily prevent cheating, but still promote reading the boards relatively often.

Fencer: I understand that this is just a test month, but I think people are a little upset since you are giving away nice prizes and they don't think that all discussion points are being earned fairly. And from a post by KotDB, it would seem that they are correct.

Fencer, did you decide what to do with pawns who have more games(from being an ex-paying member)?

pawnme: I agree completely. I suggested the point for a win to Fencer and haven't heard back yet. I might like to see a cap on points for discussion boards at 60 for viewing and maybe create something for posting.

pawnme: yes, but it will only create a minimal advantage.

King Reza: true, but not all boards get updated each hour, and it takes five or ten minutes max to go through them.

nope, you get 2 points for one visit to each board an hour. If you go there 200 times, you still only get 2 points.

What is this case for pawns who have many games. Some have over 100 because they used to be rooks.

Czuch Czuckers: ok, seems to be working fine now.

gambler104: my points are not updating when I read a board.

Is it once a day or once an hour?

Is there any way to figure out your action points if you are not in the top 50?

rod03801: There have been at least a few posts in the past about it. From what I have heard, it is not a top priority for Fencer.

Summertop: You buy a 1 year membership and then click on quantity 2.

Pythagoras: I agree that in the end it does hurt Brain King, but Fencer's point about the short term help is very valid. Almost all companies that sell membership have some form of a discount to increase immediate profits. I personally wouldn't have given a lifetime membership for the equivalent of 5 or 10 years. I would have done it for the equivalent of 25 or 30 years or had something like buy five years, get two more free.

Walter Montego: I basically agree with you in that regard. I was just pointing out why I thought the system had some advantages for games with luck. But two different rating systems would work fine. And in games such as Chess, I agree that each match should count.

one of the reasons I like matches is for games like hyper backgammon. Although this rule may not make sense in chess, matches help players protect ratings in games such as hyper backgammon that involve a lot of luck.