I welcome all pawn here - without them, many knights/rooks would not be here, and there would also be a limited option for people to play games against. Should Pawns get more "extra's"... My answers is no. (I think they should fix the "one tournament at a time" so they don't have to wait for other slow players, but I don't think they should get "more" then they have now - just fixed)

Should Pawn get less then they have now? Well I would not like to see that, but that would be something Fencer would have to decide. If it would help the server & money situation, well I would support what ever he did. IYT had to lower what the non-paid members had, and a lot of people got upset over that... and I'm sure something similar would happen here IF that were to happen here. But it's Fencer's site and he should keep trying whatever he needs to do to make this the site he would like to see! :-)

Someone also mentioned the idea of after 3 months, "downgrade" pawns to less. That's sounds good on paper, but I think many would just start creating new accounts every 3 months to get around it.

As far as I'm aware, there are no plans to give pawn members more or less benefits.
This whole thing started because a few members wanted to let Fencer know that we would be willing to donate more money for a new server.
(A few suggestions about gold stars etc were also thrown in!)
I stand by this, as I'm sure those other members would.
Other people think we shouldn't have to pay any more, instead pawns should have less benefits here because they don't pay. Fair enough, I can see that side of it too.
At the end of the day its fencers decision, and I'm sure he'll do what is right for all the people here.

Pawns are where our future members come from. We should encourage brain pawns to play all they want. But, I agree with BBW. It's all up to Fencer, anyway. I'd just be willing to give a little extra money to get a faster server for us.

"Pawns are where our future members come from. We should encourage brain pawns to play all they want."

I agree, it is simple. Not enough money is ocming in because not enough people are becoming paying members. Supply and demand can be used here. The demand for a membership is too low. This might be due to excess supply. By reducing supply (reducing the benefits extended to brain Pawns), demand will increase, because a membership will be worth more. Right now, it does not appear that a mambership is worth enough for people to become members.

I would guess that the thought process goes something like this: "Hmm. If I become a member, I can join fellowships and play unlimited games. But I can play 20 games for free, and I don't really care about joining fellowships. so I'll continue to be a brain Pawn."

There are more benefits than that for rooks, Dmitri. We get to play in as many tournaments as we like too. We can use the members only board, and also have the satisfaction of knowing we are supporting a great site. That, combined with the unlimited games and ability to join fellowships was more than enough reason for me to become a member. I believe its worth getting, with not a single doubt.

i first joined the site in October/November, but didn't play any games untill around March/April time, within a day of playing i decided to become a member, why? because i felt happy here, everyone was so welcoming, and thats the way it should be :) i will keep renewing my membership, i have also given a donation, and will be happy to give more, as it will not just benefit me but everyone... the better the site, the more members we will get.

Harley: " I believe its worth getting, with not a single doubt."

You and I are in completeagreement here. But apparently we are in the minority, because most people are content with what they get as a brain Pawn.

I have been reading all that is being written about pawns etc..

As someone who does pay towards the site, i try to look at it from both sides.

I get fed up when i can not get on here at certain times & the reason may well be there are too many people online. How can we blame that just on pawns (we were pawns once). I reckon there are about 260 paying members (out of 5900), if all or even half the paying members logged on at the same time the server would overload anyway - how would that be stopped ??? - would we start limiting Knights (i think not !!).

We would not have so many games to play if we started limiting pawns more than they already are. Logging them off when the server gets to a certain level would lead to games timing out & more people getting upset. I think that pawns are happy with the deal they get, we all were before we decided to become paying members. That was our choice as it is theres. We know the benefits we get as paying members, maybe those benefits should be made more clear to pawns to encourage them to join.

At the moment it looks like we are trying to drive them away, which personally i think is wrong. I received a message from a pawn today who is no longer going to be playing here as they don't feel they are welcome & also there is a note on this board from one who is not playing here again - i think it is sad this is what is happening to this site.

All this running people down just because they may not be able to afford to join at the present time is totaly wrong. How do we expect this site to get better & grow when people are being made to feel not wanted here ?????

MadMonkey

The recent posts have alluded to something I have been wondering about for quite some time, that is cheating the system by establishing more than one userid. At almost any given time, less than 2% of the 'registered users' are logged in, yet the site maintains that there is traffic heavy enough to occasionally overload the server. This would seem to indicate that either a lot of pawns with multiple userids are logging in and out or a lot of players have registered and subsequently left the site while still being counted as a user, or some proportionate combination thereof.

I was a pawn for over three months before I joined, mainly because I was hesitant about the prospect of cheating pawns putting a drag on the system and I didn't sense that any corrective action was being taken. I decided to take a chance and join anyhow since I wanted to play in more tournaments and it's money well spent. Some might ask what the difference is between 5,000 or so pawns and maybe several hundred with different accounts. Well, my response would be... PLENTY!! With the 5,000 pawns, many will eventually join; in the latter scenario, none will because they cheat expressly to avoid payment.

Two years ago, I bought an IYT membership which is set to expire due to my disenfranchisement with them and their mistreatment of members. However, I admire their approach to attacking the problem of users with multiple accounts, which they did by tracking the IP addresses of computers logging on, and they even went so far as to tell a family of three using the same computer that two accounts must be closed, by this was an exceptional case.

This site needs an implementation of some such program. BBW astutely suggests that, without this safeguard, limiting pawns to a 3-month trial will do no good. I also agree with BBW that pawns should be permitted to join another tournament if they have concluded their games in one, even if games of other players are ongoing (many of us have experienced the frustration of that).

I suspect that most pawns are honest and complying with the rules, and there is not a problem there, but sadly there are some (even just a few is too many) who will always try to "have their cake and eat it".

As for dormant accounts, maybe the site should have a periodic review of users who have been long absent and move those records off-site to an archive or a storage disc. I'm not sure if such a scheme is workable or would solve more problems that it creates, and it is always possible for users who have been away for weeks or months to return, although the likelihood of that seems remote.

I'd be particularly interested in how members feel about pawns using more than one account, but thanks to anyone who patiently waded through all of this. I pride myself on concise expression, yet this topic is complex and it still turned out to be rather lengthy.

Mad Monkey, I heard someone say "we were all brain pawns once" a few weeks ago. perhaps it was you, I do not remember. I sure wish I knew what that has to do with ANYTHING, because as far as I can tell, it is a meaningless statement, as it is an obvious fact (since one cannot log onto the site without being a brain pawn at some point).

I don't think anyone is trying to drive brain pawns away. WHat is being suggested is that brain pawns have some of their benefits reduced, wihch has two possible consequences:

1) They might feel ti more necessary to become a member, because they obviously do not now (I very much doubt ythat financial woes are the reason people are not becoming members. Did all of the destitute people in this coutnry suddenly become board games players at brain King? I doubt it.)

2) There might be fewer occasions when a paying member cannot gte on the site to make his moves.

of course, you will probably counter that a 3rd consequence is that brain pawns may leave the site altogether. I suppose that somehow this loss of zero revenue is more important than dissatisfied PAYING members, but I don't quite understand how.

whether or not a person can afford a membership is really not relevant to the discussion anyway. I only discuss it because people don't seem to understand the difference between not wanting to pay for something and not being able to afford something.

Dmitri: Good point, i think that point should be made. Is what you are saying is that we don't need Pawns or that they should have a couple of days to decide to join or get kicked out - don't think that attitude will help anyone or the site.

mad monkey, I never said any of that. I was very clear in what I said. But, I'll repeat it anyway. What I said was this: If Brain pawns get LESS then what they have now, they might be more inclined to be paying members.

It is clear that the high number of brain pawns has more to do with their being satisfied with what pawns have than inability to pay for a membership.

to put it another way-- people pay for something when they have enough to gain to make it worthwhile. Perhaps there is not enough to gain by becoming a rook instead of a pawn. There are two solutions: Give rooks more (this would be difficult, if not impossible), or give the pawns less.

So you see, I am not suggesting giving pawns less because I don't give a crap about them or because I think it would be cool to stick it to them. No, I that wasn't what I suggested at all. My suggestion togive them less is to make the gain by becoming a member GREATER than it currently is. Obviosuly the gain right now is not enough because the pawns are NOT becoming rooks!

IT does not take months to decide if the site is worth it or not. After a few weeks, any Brain pawn who has not become a rook or knight is CONTENT being a pawn.

Is what i am saying Dmitri is that Pawns do not really know what they have to gain by becoming a Member.

It is not just about more tournaments & Fellowships, its the others small things like drop boxes etc... that to me make alot of difference as well.

Maybe someone should take the time to write down ALL the advantages of ungrading either to a Knight or Rook as i don't think it is very clear for them and they will never know unless told.

I don't quite know how we can give them less than they have now. They could have games cut from 20 to 10 or only be allowed on at certain times. I don't really think that would help a great deal though.

Well, maybe you have a point there. Perhaps there is so much debate about this because there is no good answer. Flaws have been opinted out in every proposed solution. Of course, I am not sure there is really such a big problem. The site seems to be running most of the time.

I agree, considering i spend most my day (and night) on here lol, i have very few problems & just accept if i cant get on for a while & go to play a few games somewhere else. I suppose the only other thing with pawns is haveing the 20 games, but limiting moves per day, bu would that just lead to more i.d.s being created lol.

I have just read your updated "Tech Info" and you are quite right...a few who keep complaining should read it and look at the link you left there....WOW...

where is the TECH INFO ???

Tech Info HERE

tech info , who is this aimed at ??? the majority of us on this board was trying to help you fencer !!! come up with ideas for helping you out , yes the site doesnt always work as it should , but i think that aproacch you took with the tech info will just upset the people who are already paying members ........
as for pawns they will now read that and think why get a membership the site isnt stable enough to spend my money on the could go elsewhere and spend there money .

i will most likely have upset people with this post but tuff . (i wouldnt buy buy a dozen eggs to be told i could have only 8 untill the hens was laying properly )
sorry everyone but im in a mood now !

I think the tech info is aimed mostly for the people who post every once and awhile about how the site always seems to be down. (And I'm sure there are plenty of e-mails also)

... and I know that I don't need the tech info to know the site has troubles. Would I have paid if I knew this site was going to have trouble? Well yes - heck when we were talking about this site on IYT a few months ago, I even said "Wait a few months, BrainKing will start growing too big and have problems also!" People did not believe me, but I knew it was going to happen. :-) Now, will others pay if they know the site might have troubles? Well I'm not sure - but it's better to let them know now then to just find out later.

if brainking only allowed one account for an ip then im sure he would lose members i for one pay for myself and my brothers account we both live at the same address and im sure there are lots of other people here who have a partner ect that use the same pc for thier games

shut up....give up...god ....some of you people are sounding like the knowit all KIDS that get ontp yahoo IT chat boards....if you can do better....do it and shut UP....all I did was post a thanks to Fencer...POOET
now figure that out

bernice , what was you thanking fencer for exactly ?? if you read my post correctly i never said anything about you or your post . so dont please tell me to shut up !!!!

Could we calm things down a little please? We all agree this is a great site, Fencer is doing his best under difficult circmstances and we would all like to help. Agreed?
The niggly details that are being argued about really aren't that important since most are hypothetical anyway.

i agree harley , but i dont like people telling me to shut up when i think i have a valid point to make , i was the one that started the ideas of on this page for extra income for fencer , (was this a good idea or not , im not sure now ) so i think i will just "shut up and give up now" .

Everyone: I am somewhat new to this site. I think it is the coolest and most oppurtunistic on the web! I realize that Fencer is doing his best to keep this site up to speed and I appreciate that very much. Thank you Fencer. About not being able to get on, I am a pawn myself and there have been times where I ran into a "technical problem" and couldn't get through. My feeling is that most pawns, when confronted with a problem such as this, will leave and find another site. I have stayed because I know people like Fencer are trying and as a pawn, I am an equal. MadMonkey is right, limiting moves increases accounts and slows even more. It will get better, just give it time.

Appreciative Pawn,

-cm5127

Clearly, two PAYING MEMBERS who use the same computer (and therefore submit the same IP address) do not fall into the category of pawns (who, of course, do NOT pay) with multiple accounts.

A policy of one pawn account per IP address would be appropriate and weed out those who are breaking the rules. And yes, a few users who happen to share a computer due to same household or friendship would be alienated, although I suspect they are outnumbered by the cheats.

I appreciate that the tournaments are largely unfettered because of the "one per pawn at a time" rule, and perhaps Fencer is content to let it go at that. So be it, but as for casual games, the 20-game limit (or ANY limit) is virtually meaningless as long as any user may create more than one account.

thanks for the moderate tune ...

harrassing of the bernice-type should not be granted to come up here. ~*~

what the heck started this nonsense? Bernice, I am not sure hwat it is that Jason did that bothered you so much. Your reaction was somewhat childish. Jason-- I am not sure hwy you are so bent out of shape about the tehc info page. I found it quite interesting and informative. It is there to provide information. If you don't care about the technical aspects of the site and its probklems, I understand, but why are you so annoyed that the info is there fior those who want it?

Pioneer54-- I agree with you on all points. Multiple panw IDs should not be allowed from the same IP address. If there really are tow different pawns using the same computer, oh well.

I am sure I will sound like a broken record, but one of them can buy a membership to solve that problem.

A lot of suggestions, stirred and shaken brings me to one nightly-build yet ... :D

Pawns could have a one-month trial time as it is now.
Then a moves-restriction to (let's say) 40 pd would become effective.

During that month also visiting one fellowship could be possible.
That way all the features are easily to be prospected before deciding.

:D a veteran-pawn who just wants to make one quick chess game
would get along as well as everybody just spending an hour average here ...

the 20-games-restrictions should be handled tolerantly
in cases of someone qualifying for an additional round or, final ...

a thought I have had for long is to decrease the monthly fee
for Africa, India and perhaps even Russia aware of the clearly
lower income there ... Increasing the price for North-America,
the European Union and, Australia to let's say 18$
per semester would be tolerable then imho ... ~*~

Well Bernice you got one one of your friends last night to talk me into accepting your apology labelled OOPS. On reflection I don't owe you or anybody else an explanation of my situation or the sacrifices I make in order to have a computer or to pay for the internet. Congratulations you have sucked all the fun for me out of this site. Goodbye to all my friends and fellow players.

to speak to you on my behalf.
Im capable of speaking for my self.
Below is the message I sent and her answer...subject closed

Thank you for your apology.


You are reading a reply to this message:
please accept my deepest apologies....I misunderstood what you were saying....Please forgive me :(

Danoschek, agree with all you say, except perhaps Russia!! They had vast wealth in the early part of last century and squandered it. they also had the best chess players in the world, until Bobby came along.

fencer i dont know if its at all possible but is there a way that people with a powerfull connection and a good system could help boost the sites performance when the site is struggling at say peak times ,i dont know if this is even a possible thing just an idea im sure there would be people willing to help out if it was possible

also posted on feature requests

I don't usually post on these boards. For the reason of offending someone or stepping out of place. But I have to now. Can't we all just play? Not worry about who's paying for what or how? Or what fencer is doing? Or what being a pawn or knight or anything else is? There are lots of other things that could be and are worse. Like if this site wasn't here at all..maybe we should just appreciate that it is. I think everyone should just throw your arms up in the air..smile..say I'm alive!! If we all work together and just play the games and have fun then the site will be what fencer wanted!

Thanks Jason for asking this question. It`s something that i was thinking about.!
With myself just being able to "Work" a PC, let have any knowledge of coding i have no idea if it`s at all feasible but i would hazzard a guess that it would involve re-coding the entire programming software.!
I would be interested to know from players with a background in programming what it would indeed require.:)

Fencer; is the Site activity increasing, decreasing or staying much the same? Also, are there times of the day when it is much less used?

tonyh: I have come to a conclusion that the site activity error message doesnt seem to make sence lol.
I was here yesterday with over 120 people on line & the game were flying by, BUT other times yesterday there were only been between 50 & 60 & still got that message - odd eh :)

MM - perhaps the 120 guys weren't doing too much (a lot of them appear just to browse the Main Page!!). We are at 115 now and it's creaking.

It's just occurred to me; perhaps the guys 'browsing' are waiting for a game to turn up!! Wow! How much capacity do they take, just waiting, like basking sharks.

I agree tony, there are alot of people just sitting there (people at work maybe lol) I wonder if some sort of Auto-Logout may stop people from just hanging here :-)

I know who they remind me of, surfers lying on their boards off Fistral Bay, Newquay, waiting for the next big wave. And then they stay on it for 5 seconds!!

I must bit get even more Crazy than i am, if you look at a pawn profile - it has Brain Rook beside there name - one way to get more Rooks i guess LOL

And Knights too :-)

By the way, like has sort of been mentioned, it really has nothing to do with how many people are logged on. It is completely dependent on how active they are at the time, aka how many requests are being sent.

I never noticed that with Knights as well, thats quite funny :-)

Does auto refresh count as a request being sent then, if you have 100 people just letting the screens refresh every minute that must have an effect - maybe not.......

Yes, those are requests too :-)

Although, the listing as "Brain Rook" might just be because we're rooks (so it says rook for everyone). Has a pawn or knight checked other levels to see if it does that too?

I will ask a friend Kevin.
So maybe if someone was to leave there pc logged in & not do anything but refresh every minute or whenever it will slow down the server - maybe an auto-logout is not such a bad idea then ???

Yep, it would slow it down. But definately not as much as a player actively playing. It might even be good enough to turn auto-refresh off by default, and players can turn it on if they want to.

This has to go. what is the point iof having auto refresh? If it slows down the server AT ALL, GTE RID OF IT! IT is NOT neeeded! I have heard only one person give a reaosn for having it, and it was a TERRILBE one. The reason was "I can sit on the couhc and watch TV and not have to gte up to see if it is my turn."

A statement of such extreme laziness should come as no surprise in a nation where 50% or more of the people are overweight and 20% are obese.

BUt it is hardly a reason for hacing auto refresh and I tihnk it is time to get rid of it.

I disagree! I find 'auto refresh' very handy at times, and would hate to see it taken off the site. Admittedly, there are those who will abuse or take it to excess, but this does not validate the negation of it for everybody.