playBunny: In defense of MAX regarding having a friend or other player making moves while they are on holiday, I think that's a sensible solution to the problem of timeouts. I hate winning by timeouts (in stark contrast to those who positive seek to boost themselves that way, and while I won't mention a name, I must express the utmost contempt for the fellow countryman who knows who he is) and so I'd much prefer a match to comtinue with a babysitter making moves. It's standard practice at DailyGammon, where I also play, and efforts are usually made to find a babysitter with about the same rating. They would also move as infrequently as possible. And I've just finished babysitting a set of games at IYT for a friend who was away and unsure whether they'd be able to get online before timing out.

But babysitting games is a very different thing to having a team of players working through one account in this competition. If Fencer said that was okay I'd go with it because it then becomes another competition resource (though not one that I have any advantage in). Without his explicit say so, though, my assumption is that it's to be only one person making all the moves.

yoyudax: No problem. [shakes hands]

Yes, it was King of the Dust Bunnies, who shows his sense of fair play again. I'd like to have found the trick - in the sense that I consider it clever. ;-)

yoyudax: LOL. You should be careful with your memory, your assumptions and your accusations. You lose respect when you use those clumsily. When did I ever say I'd found a loophole? I've talked about the Discussion Board points loophole that was previously being exploited by a few players (and exposed by others, thanks go to them) and said that I didn't know how it works.

I also talked to the Party Pooper about competition resources and fairness/unfairness. Did you read that post? You ought to. Competitions are unfair by definition if there's to be any competing!

In fact I left out two resources from that list that I have a clear advantage on. I have those 18 free slots that I mentioned. Pawns with only 4 or 5 are at a disadvantage. Of course they can resign some games and free up slots if they want to increase their competitiveness. Another resource, one that I didn't think of at the time but which has proved decisive, is connection speed. Someone on dialup has absolutely no chance against broadband users and the faster the broadband the better - provided you have sufficient speed in your opponents so that you're not staring at your game sheet most of the time.

Edit:
Grouchy, the "party pooper" has removed his "I don't want to be a party pooper but, .." mouthing off post, so the first link above no longer works.

yoyudax: As the current leader and a Pawn with only 18 available slots (2 being reserved for a tourney), I can say that it's not an impossible limitation. ;-)

Cluch Cluckers: You should read the board, Cluck. It says why.

Vikings: Interesting, so something kept America out 2 hours longer than Europe. (He says, generalising wildly from our flags, lol).

Not quite that long. It was down for about 20 mins at 5pm yesterday and then 4 hours from about 2:45am to 6:45am last night (server times).

Dolittle: Thy're talking about fellowship tournaments which are not on the Tournaments pages and shouldn't be posted to the Tournaments board. ;-)

The question then is whether, for a fellowship tournament, to post the announcemeny to the fellowship board (main or one just for tournaments), as a broadcast message to all members, or both.

The most active users list only shows Knights and Rooks and yesterday's champ was Erinity with a spendid 2479 moves.

But in the Pawns camp, spurred on by the competition, it was SafariGal who had far and away the most moves.

9. July 2006 .. 4600

Enough to put her, if she was a paid member, into the top 5 most active players of all times:

.1 francescolr ... 7621
.2 imsoaddicted ... 7227
.3 FOTBALISTA .... 5367
.4 beaupol ....... 5250
(5 SafariGal ...... 4600)
.5 Rainbow Days ... 4544

Groucho: What, precisely, is your proposal. I'd like you to demonstrate how it will affect the current structure.

Foxy Lady: "Not to someone who has been on here under 6 months and who is a problem.IMO thats rewarding for unruly behavior."

You obviously have someone specific in mind for such a statement Foxy Lady. If that's not baiting them then what is this baiting thing that you are on about?

Foxy Lady: Are you insinuating that *** names removed ****, all of whom have been here less than 6 months and are currently strong contenders for a membership prize, are a problem, people who have exhibited unruly behavior? Are you suggesting that these persons are cheating multi-nicks?

Please be clear about what you are saying. Innuendo does not make worthy postings.

Which is why a Per Opinionated Post Limit (POPL) is a good idea. ;-)


edit by Eriisa. Names removed

Groucho: It sounds like you have personal issues with someone. Someone pooped your party and you want to poop back.

TheLamer: What's the Stairs loophole?

TheLamer: yes, I forgot free slots is a resource specifically for Pawns, and to an extent for Knights too. Those who wish to compete next month (assuming th same format) would do well to plan for plenty of free slots at that time.

As a competition it will, like all competitions favour the set of people with more of the right resources. that's what competitions do.

Think of any competition that has an even chance for everyone and you've got yourself a random draw. Are you saying you want this to be more like a lottery? I'd say that's not your intention but it's the reason I suggested that you haven't given enough consideration to the nature of "competition".

In motor sports the team that wins has the money and brainpower to create the fastest cars and put in the best drivers. in sports it's the ones with the best coaches, players, diet, etc, etc.

Here money, technology and expertise are not resources but there are others. This competition will be won by someone who invests a considerable amount if their time into playing games. To amass points you need a fast turnover of moves plus time.

For a Rook one possibility is having hundreds of games. One move per day in 1000 games is, say, 1500 points (assuming some percentage of tourney matches). The players whose BK style is to have hundreds of games will thus have an advantage. How is a 50-match Rook supposed to compete against that? Is this fair? No, the 50-match Rook doesn't stand a chance because they lack one resource that this competition requires.

So, would you eliminate or penalise the Rooks with 100s of matches to make it fairer to the others?

But Rooks with 100s of games are still only competitive if they spend a lot of time making moves in those games. How is a working Joe who has family and social commitments on several nights a week supposed to compete with those who are home-based or otherwise have plenty of time on their hands? Is this fair? No. These time-restricted people don't stand a chance. They lack another resource that this competition requires.

So, would you eliminate or penalise the Rooks with time to play to make it fairer to the others?

Rooks without 100s of games can still compete if they have a smaller number of games with high-turnover opponents. In fact it's the only way that they can compete against the 100s-gamers. Fast-playing opponents is another resource in the competition. How can someone with mainly sloth-like opponents compete? Unfair again, surely. Speedy opponents is a resource.

So, would you eliminate or penalise the Rooks with fast opponents to make it fairer to the others?

Now, if these are the resources and some competitors are resourceful enough to gather more of what's needed, is that anti-competitive?

Is it wrong to find and play speedy opponents? What if it's a friend? Does that make it wrong? Friends who are willing to help are another resource. That's unfair to those who canot gather similar support.

So, would you eliminate or penalise those with friends capable of making a contribution, to make it fairer to the others?

If, in finding that speedy opponent, they happens to be another competitor, is that morally out of the spirit of the competition? In the absence of people online who are willing to play fast, what is more natural than to harness a competitor for some mutual points raising?

Notice that this argument has been applied only to Rooks. You want to attack Pawns for some reason but Pawns are essentially Rooks who lack the multiple-games resource that Rooks have. If you're against Pawns then you must be against Rooks, too, for their competition is the same but with one extra resource.

You seem to be saying that the competition's resources are loopholes and you want to close them.

And that's why I say you haven't thought this through.

Please explain *why* it is "abuse".

Groucho: Lol. Of course the "grouchy" isn't warrented given how you explained, right from the start, your concerns about slow players being encouraged to play faster and didn't simply launch into an attack on the competitive spirit of those who are ... competing! I stand corrected.

Think about the word "competition", Groucho. You don't appear to have grasped it. (And that's not a dig, though it likely sounds like one, but a sincere observation.)

Now, I'm playing, so .. laters, dude.

Why assume multi-nic? What about friends. You have those, Grouchy? People who will help you out in a copmpetition? Make a team effort of it? The player's win is the team's win? Ah, you probably don't know what I'm talking about... ;-P

play all day"

playing - that's the key word. Well done, man, now you're geting the picture. ;-)

Begrudge me not. I'm playing to win. Every game. And I'm having a lot of fun as well. ;-)

Aye, you're right. And only playing fast games is bad, too. Everybody should play chess and halma.

What's wrong with teamwork, alliances and partnerships?

Matarilevich: It's simple to me. Translators should get life membership.

yoyudax: Have a good day too, yoyudax, but I have to say your two cents aren't worth two grains of sand 'cos you show no understanding of the issue. ;-)

ps. Bunnies don't eat meat. Is yoyudax a vegetable? ;o)

KotDB: Lol. Cool, O Dust-bunny King. But I have to disagree... Mixing two boards in one url gets my Exotic Trick of the Month vote! ;o))

Lol. Good luck Sid. :-))

sidpatel: Gambler means that we get credited for the wins since the competition started. It's so soon into it that they might not make much difference; I guess it depends how many points Fencer's going to award for a win. :-)

gambler104: Haven't a clue, mate. ;-)

The board points have been wiped! :-D

Zero win-points for me then as Pawns only have one tournament and I'm playing the slowest player on BK! LOL

sidpatel: LOL

gambler104, sidpatel: Indeed. Well, I'm rather relying on what I think Fencer means when he says "New users: 50 for each unique user who registers on BrainKing through your referral link". I'm assuming that "unique" means not originating from the same IP address. (But with shared-IP networks that could be tricky to police.

pauloaguia: Ah, thank you, that's interesting. I can't try it as I've got no unread posts anywhere. ;o)

But it means that there's a natural limit to the exploitation. One thing that could be done is to level the playing field on the boards points by setting everyone to all-read on every board. No more (4901 new) on any board. It's not as if people will be missing out on boards that they've never read anyway. (For legitimate board readers, those with, say, 10 or fewer new posts on a board, those particular boards wouldn't be flagged as all-read.)

gambler104: I could perhaps go to a couple of other sites where I'm known and liked and get 20 or so new accounts in one go. But the point of Fencer encouraging new users is so that people will come and play - and stay. And who kows how many of that 20 would do just that! That's a win for Fencer and the competition points should be allowed.

gambler104: That wouldn't be a problem. If someone sabotages you then you simply don't play them again.

Fencer: "It's not possible to get more than one (two) point from the same posts."

I reckon I could proves that by simply listing the times of posts made to the boards in 24 hours, chopping the list up into hours and counting. It'll be easily less than the 700 board-hours (1400 points) that Sahar has clocked up since the last server midnight.

For now, I'll take it as a yes on the board points and I'll plead with KotDB to publish the method so that everyone can exploit it. ;-)

But I much prefer your offer to kill the board points and replace it with something. I think gambler104 suggested using wins a while back.

Whether that's games won or whole matches could be an interesting debate but I don't mind myself. If it's games then playing anything goes.. If it's matches then (serious) competitors would simply stop playing multi-pointers. ;-)

Resigned games ought to be discounted from such a scheme.

Fencer: Just so that I'm clear on this..

There's a trick which people can use to get more than one point from the same posts on a board and this isn't cheating. It's okay to use the trick.

Everyone knows how to make moves in games. Everyone knows how to visit a board to read a post. This is knowledge that the site provides.

Not everybody knows this multiple-points-from-boards trick (perhaps involving different browsers, multiple windows, cookie files, or who knows what - and I'm not one of them yet).

If I and sid and everyone else knew this trick we could make 1000s of board-reading points with it. But we don't know it. You say it's a legitimate tactic yet we don't know how to do it.

Would you be willingly to let us all know how to gain these multiple points, please, so that the competition can be fair?

And, just to confirm .. If I or sid discover how to use this trick and stop trying to win by making moves and simply make 4000 points per day from this trick, you'll be happy to let the points stand?

Fencer: How can that be correct? The vast majority of the boards haven't been posted to and you can only get 2 points per board per hour. GC, BK, Birthdays, Music, Jokes, and a small handful of others have been posted to. I'd guess 15, maybe 20 boards at a maximum, but some of these have only been posted to one or twice all day, though others like GC and BK usually get something per hour. In 9 hours there's no way that these few boards can provide 1200 points.

Fencer: Yet since then he's gone on to reach a whopping 1204 points just from board posts. How many posted-to-board-hours have there been since server midnight? *4*

O2i: I don't know what you mean by multiple windows being open (ie. for what and how?), but I made a mistake about the accounts. I've just reread the rules page and seen that you can get referrals for new guest accounts, in which case, yes, someone could register 100 a day... My bad.

02i: Guest accounts are not memberships. You don't get anything for referring a new guest account. That would make no sense.

02i: Then I'm not sure I understand what the problem is with someone creating 100 accounts and referring to themself - 100 subscriptions is a lot of money to pay for some points in a competition! Or are you talking about something else?

playBunny: Ghostie postie

02i: Points for referrals work in the same way as Brains - only for new Members, not guest accounts.

02i: You're right. Whatever Luisifer's trick was he was doing it with this board, which has only 20 messages! ;-)

Luisifer: Lol. We say "get out of bed on the wrong side". ;-) I reckon you've sounded so serious that BBW hasn't realised that you're having fun with this trick that you've found. ;o) 10,000 points?!! Wow, that's a lot of "reading", lolol.

playBunny: Mistyped the name. It's Luisifer

Lucifer has found a loophole

As I started to write this he had 4140. Now he has 4350.. Oops, no, it's 4428...

And all from reading board posts. As a Pawn this cannot be from fellowship posts, so what's the scam?

furbster: I've been wondering about that ever since, lol. I wonder what the details of the change are..

Fencer How come you didn't announce the Knight tournament allocation change in News? Seems to me it's the removal of a major restriction. Surely all Knights would welcome hearing that?