Not sure if it's a bug, or something that is not turned of fully yet, but I'll post just in case you don't know about it.

1) It took about an 1 1/2 hours before the tournaments I created (and then set time for already expired) to leave the "sign up" sheet and go to the waiting state. (So question is if that process runs every hour, or if it's on a difference scedule right now.)

2) All the tournaments that went to the waiting period about 2 hours ago are still in the waiting status.

Again, I'm just posting to make sure you do know about this issue. Thanks.

Something Difference.

Since I create a lot of tournaments, this probable effects me the most - but when I use to create new tournaments, after I created it, it would go right to the newly created tournament. (Which is good so I can check to make sure I set everything up correctly).

Now when I set up a new tournament, it sends me back to the tournament list - then making me go back into the tournament to then check.

Anyway, just curious if this is a known change, or possible a bug or something - but it is really nice to be able to easly check all the settings, date, number of players, etc.... right away.

Again, a small bug - but I'll report it so you can look at it when you have time.

I just got done setting up a board of Battleboats Plus, and getting ready to "Move" and then go to next game.

Well I noticed I do NOT have the 2nd option of "Move and go to XXXXXXXXX game" drop down box. Again, not a big deal - but thought I would mention it.

Yea, it's not a big deal - BUT it also gave me the "null" along with an end of game message, so it will actually affect everyone - but again, nothing that hurts anything since if you click on "null", it still sends you to the correct tournament.

In my message box, I had a few messages - about tournaments next rounds, ect....

In each case, it said the tournament was called "null" - But it does link to the correctly named tournament Also for the game over message, it shows the tournament as "null"

bkr up and down - That was my suggestion! :-)

If problems do come up, don't forget to check http://www.brainking.info

The only thing I worry about is if a paid member is late to renew their membership lets say even just 1 day) - then if their account is removed from all the fellowships that they were in, they would have to go through the trouble of trying to get back into them all.

Not a big deal if you are in one or two fellowships......

Of course once a few weeks pass by, then that would be a good time to remove pawns. Maybe a script that can be ran every month or so to scan and remove pawns from fellowships would be good?

Fencer - You should include some "specials" with the shirts - that is have "bundle" packs that include a shirt, and membership. (For example - 20EUR for a shirt, or 40EUR for a shirt & year rook membership/membership extension) - or something like that.

So as of right now, are the WebTV people still having problems? I know they were yesterday (while the PC people was working).

If so Fencer, you may want to keep the time-out clock off for awhile longer.... to make sure they are all working again.

Yup, I just got an email from the webTV user I was helping earlier this week - BrainKing is messed up for her again also.

Fencer - is the plan still to try to move to BK2.0 this weekend? (Saturday, June 12th)

What happened (in BBW's own words).

- Everyone could access the site
- BK started the switchover.
- Everyone could still access the site
- BK2.0 came up
- Everyone could still access the site
- (about 30 seconds after BK2.0 was up, it had problems)
- During one of the "down times", or "server reboots", WebTV's proxy server checks BrainKing, and does not see it - so it took it off it's list of working sites. (Proxy server keeps "copies" of some sites to increase speed - instead of the user from making it all the way to the destination and back, it stops half way at the proxy server and pulls that page - saving 1/2 the time)
- BrainKing 1.0 comes back on-line
- Most world can see BrainKing, but WebTV see's the broke proxy server copy of BrainKing
- WebTV after a day or so updated it's proxy server and now works for WebTV

OK - that is a very simple explination on what I think happened. :-)

Is the message WebTV users are getting (about site being too busy) a page ON brainking, or a WebTV message?

One good thing Fencer - If BK2.0 went up, and webtv people were having problems - you would then be wondering if it was on your side with the new coding. But since everything is the same today as it was last week - it almost has to be something on WebTV's side.

The person with WebTV is still having problems - How does a person on WebTV empty the cache?

They have tried to turn off/on the equipment a few times already.

Well it sounds like there are multiply people on WebTV still having problems getting connected - it might be a good idea for Fencer to turn it off until we are sure these users are able to get back on.

Yea, I did not see that line, but I remember Fencer saying time was turned off - so I thought I would ask.

I just had a user using WebTV tell me they are still having problems connecting also. I will tell them to try to "empty the cache and switch the unit off & back on".

If there are any other suggestion I can give this user (WebTV), let me know.

Also - is the time-out still off, or is it back on?

The problem with the beta testing is that it was still tested on the same server hardware as BK1.0 was running (because they don't have the resources to purchase additional equipment yet).

The "null" part was probable because of the database connection problems that I think they were having.

If you have a scrool wheel on your mouse, the text can change also if you hold down the "CTRL" key while you move the mouse wheel. (This happens to me often)

Is there any type of rules like in Chess where if both players make the same move for more then 3 times in a row, the game can be considered a draw?

I think the question should be what boyfriend lives 100 miles away!

Andersp - (again my opinion) there is no difference as long as you are not trying to "cheat" the system. There have been people on here who would create multiply accounts (even get them memberships!), play against those "dummy" accounts and purposly lose so their main account can gain more rating points.

(in my opinion) as long as you play a person from the same computer without trying to cheat the system, it won't be a problem.

Andersp - I think the big difference are with people who play with "themselfs" in an attempt to better their ratings. Even though I have not looked at your games with Antje, but if you play for fun like I believe you two do, then it is obvious that it is not for cheating purposes (since you both have plenty of wins/loses with each other).

Anyway, that is what I think the User Agreements is there for - the people who are playing "dummy" accounts with them selfs just to cheat the system - and those are the people who need to be delt with.

Even though I have not talked to Fencer, I can almost say I'm 99% sure if you play someone in the same household will not be a problem unless you are purposely trying to cheat the rating system. (So if you start playing 2-3 games with someone in the same household a day, then it might start being a problem.) And if that is the case, I would then recommend you always play unrated games with each other. Again, just my thoughts.

:-) (Brain thinks one thing, hands type another!)

Well if the game was 4 more or less, I believe that there are no ratings calculated. Then like they said, the rest would depending on the rating of the other player.

Fencer is just like any other administrator at any busniss. Where I work, I have access to all data, plus all e-mail messages and traffic in and out of my building, plus access to anything on any computer in my building. Yet, the only time I have ever used any "power" was after a user leaves the busniss, to go in there and "transfer" the data to another user who would take over their job. Plus if someone reported a problem (lets say another user sending porn/spam/threats, that would be a case that I would go look - but other then that, like Fencer - we have no time.)

-- similar story. I use to work for a manufaturing building (build Yale/Hyster trucks), that was closing down. The manager was getting very paranoid about everything (very tense time for all workers), and even requested that he be given access to everything on the network, and to limit myself to not see the managers stuff. (I told him no, not possible) - so he started to keep all his data on his personal lap top, and I think stoped using the internal mail system for anything important. I sure was hoping he would have problems with his laptop! <evil grin>

Oh, I know what went wrong earlier to mess up this site.

"Yesterday's most active player: Erinity (666 moves)"

The top player made 666 moves!

It's part of Fencer's plan - make 1.0 performance look bad... which will hopefully make 2.0 look that much better! <grin>

The Moderators of all public boards should have the BAN/HIDE option. (I believe)

No, Pawns would (should) never have any of the privledges of a Fellowship.

(The only thing that would happen is their "name" might still be in the list.)

Currently if a pawn is in a fellowship (because of membership gone), I was thinking that they could not read the Fellowship discussion board - and really the only thing was they they could enter a fellowship tournament if they had room... but I'm not sure.

Yes, I agree they should be removed from the fellowships they belong to. (But that would stink if say your membership is late by a couple of days, and then you have to re-join all the fellowship you were just removed from. Maybe they should be left in the list, but make sure they can't read the boards or join the tournaments.)

ALSO, in BK2.0, the BIG BOSS will be able to remove any user they want - so maybe it would be better to just let the BIG BOSS do that type of cleaning?

Here is a good site for rules

- - - - -

"A player must use both numbers of a roll if this is legally possible (or all four numbers of a double). When only one number can be played, the player must play that number. Or if either number can be played but not both, the player must play the larger one. When neither number can be used, the player loses his turn. In the case of doubles, when all four numbers cannot be played, the player must play as many numbers as he can."

Plus the site also talks about the doubling cube! <HINT HINT> :-)

(I'm sure someone will find the exact rules, or I'll search for them tomorrow just to make sure)

But I think there is also a rule like this:

If only 1 move can be made, it has to be made with the higher of the 2 dice.

Again, I'll search tomorrow for the exact rules, I remember seeing them somewhere. (Or someone else can jump in if they know them!) :-)

Yea, in Backgammon, there are a couple of rules that are not programmed here correct. Fencer does now about the flaws, and like Kevin says, it is on the list of things to do - but unfornatly - not everything on the list can be #1. (And as a big Gammon players, I would also like the known problems fixed - but will have to wait until Fencer has more time.) :-)

Well Fencer, if you would quit reading this post and go work on the tournament BK2.0 code, we would be that much closer! :-)

New Poll ideas:

What new features should be moved toward the top of the list:
1) Inter-Fellowship Tournaments
2) Backgammon games with Cube
3) Battleboat Plus
4) ... other stuff

-OR-

"Should AD be President?"
1) Yes
2) No
3) Who is AD, and what does he want to be president of?

no... but you can make enemies with that many games..... if you don't play them very fast. :-)

... if you hurry, you can make it 1000 games! <grin>

Stevie - Actually you should join everything you can before your membership runs out - then once you are a pawn, you will be able to play out your 500+ games that you can get! :-)

(just can't start any new tournaments)

IP Address - Actually what should happen is when 2 players do connect from the same IP address, AND they do play each other, those names should be "flaged". Then possible when Fencer, or other Admin's have time - they should occasionally check to see that those games are truly being played, and not an excess of games (just to boost ratings) are happening.

IPv6 - Can't wait for that. Enough IP's that every pair of socks & underware in my house can have it's own IP address! <grin>

Ok, so we can add:

3) Raise minimum number of moves to be counted as a rated game.

4) Don't change nothing, and look at each case by hand when the need arises.

5) And punishment for anyone trying to cheat the system and other players here are to lower their BKR's to 1000 and make them start from a low account. (Or removed them completely from the BKR tables.)

Maybe some extra rules are needed to keep people from cheating (play same person or "dummy" accounts to improve ratings.)

Only ideas:

1) Only make tournament games count towards ratings. (Probable too drastic)

2) Have a limit of 1 game against the same player in 1 month time count towards BKR rating points. (So if I play (Player X) on May 15th, it will count towards the ratings. If I again play that same person on May 20th, then that would not count towards the ratings.

Sounds like a new poll question - Should AD be President. Yes or No. :-)

President of what? The "AD Fellowship"? :-)

I'll pick "what?!!"

space is space - What space? A name and an account take up very little space. I still have not heard a good reason on why inactive accounts should be removed - other then you think they should.

A few reasons they should not be:

1 - more work for Fencer to code and remove account

2 - Have to make sure old games, and game results, and tournament results don't get deleted.

3 - If an account is removed, and their games/results are left, then you have to put some kind of "name" in there - and I would hate to see it like IYT - where they have something like ID11782718 as names for players that were removed from the site.

4 - Having an inactive account takes up very little disk space.