cariad: Huggs to you and yours, i wish i could do more!

I'll miss bumble

Yes in these moments there isn't anything to say.....
Let's hope they will get over it....

Czuch: Watch the Backgammon tournaments at VogClub and you'll see average players win 4, 5 and 6 round single elimination tournaments - even though they may come up against players better than the best here. The Dice Gods rule! The players simply follow as best they can.

Czuch Chuckers: And that is one of the things that I think my suggestion will do. Allow people that are lower rated a chance to win some BK Brains in a tournament that has stronger players. Some games will get more players simply because a weaker player has a chance against the stronger players. Chess versus Backgammon shows this quite well. If it was more widely played Dark Chess would tend to draw as Backgammon since a newer player can actually defeat an experienced player such as myself. That never happens in regular Chess. Regular Chess at least has a lot of players. It's main drawback is the use of machines to make the moves. Again Backgammon and Dark Chess will not have the same problem as regular Chess in this regard either. Though it appears that there are very good Backgammon playing machines, it still gets down to a little luck each game and this can help the lower rated player have a chance. With the rake so high a lower rated player might figure he can't take first or second place but has a shot at third, fourth, or fifth. The lower positions don't pay as much, but they are easier to win. If there's more money to go around the creator can add more places to pay winners if his tournament gets enough players to enter.

I think that shows the 20 people with the most brains, but isnt a complete list?

Unless you are a dominant player in some game played here, I dont see any reason to purchase brains to use in a tournament?

Walter Montego: Click the Brains link on the Main Menu to see who has brains and how many they have.

Modified: OOPS.. this list is only the TOP brain holders... not all of them..

Fencer: Sure, a test never hurts as this is my hope that it is being tested. We want the best for it and feel we need to speak up when something doesn't look right. I have no way of knowing how well it is working since I'm on this end of the operation. Just acquiring the BK Brains to use for the entry fee alone is a major hurdle and will keep the tournaments from having very many participants. If we all have a 100 or more BK BRains it'd make it work lots better. As I asked earlier, just how many people on the whole site even have any BK Brains? I also noted that Pawn members will not very often have any BK Brains either. If only us paying members have the BK Brains this is a very small pool out of the whole membership. It will take a fairly high percentage of members to make it work.

If you're fairly sure that you don't want to make any change to the set up as you now have it, you still need to get BK Brains into every member's hands. One way might be to give free Brains to a member upon joining the site or renewing a paid membership and having no restrictions on the tournaments entered if a fee is charged. You might keep the free tournaments and sponsored tournaments without a fee restricted as now by membership level. Just 50 BK Brains would probably be enough to get everyone started, or maybe 100 of them. Since these BK Brains are free and members could always buy more of then after using them up, a lot of the objections about the 30% cut would go away. Everyone would at least get to join one entry fee tournament for free and have a chance to win more BK Brains. If BK Brains can be transfered to other members and you do adopt this proposal, I would restrict the transfer of BK Brains to those that are purchased, earned through the referal program, or won in a tournament. I could imagine all sorts of shenanigans if free BK Brains were able to be transfered.

Even if you were to adopt some or all of the other things I and others have talked about, it isn't going to work well until most of the members have the unit of money to spend. I have 50 BK Brains. How many others have just that many? More? How many people have none at all?

My original post on this subject yesterday has the idea that the creator of the tournament get a piece of the action and you getting a cut of it instead of all it. It also has the creator being able to have more range in the percentage payback of prize awards. I think this is a better system for encouraging more prize tournaments. If the creator doesn't take any rake off the top (Sets it at 100% payback) you could charge him a few hundred BK Brains or require him to offer a prize of a paid membership. Then you'd have a sponsored tournament and those usually are well attended.

One way to understand the whole brouhaha is to compare charging your BK Brains fee up front. For your 30% cut on the entry fee, this would be like charging 71.5 BK Brains with a 100% percent payback of 50 BK Brains per entry. This example should show you why many people have objections to how it is right now. With 50 BK Brains as an entry fee, it breaks down to everyone paying 15 BK Brains to enter and leaving 35 BK Brains for the winner's payback pool. Since only three people can win any prize at the end it takes a minimum of of 10 people to enter a tournament and have third place, if paid 10%, to get their enter fee back. What Czuch Chuckers says about the payback is what happens when only a few people enter a tournament. With 20 people entered and a 40-20-10 payback on the initial 50 BK Brains entry fee you have 400-200-100. Which seems OK, but with twenty people it'd be nice to have some lower places get some prize Brains too. If the cut is lowered it would be possible to have fourth and lower places get a prize too. 5% of 20 is 1 and that would get someone their entry fee back in a 20 player tournament. Perhaps a place could be added for each ten or so entries?

If you're going to keep this present set up you should have a chart showing the payback for the tournament in BK Brains on the sign up page. A chart with the current signees and maybe a couple of example charts to illustrate how the prizes increase as more people join in. In fact I'd make such a chart for the tournament payback no matter what set up you finally adopt.

Good luck on your test.

I have heard of a winner takes all type tournament, but never one where the top 3 places are paid out but where 2nd place doesnt even get their entry fee back? Not only that, but with no way to detect cheating, why would entry fee tournaments even be fair?

Walter Montego: Couldn't we just give it more time and observe? I have my own theory about this system and until I can see it in action, we can only speculate. It wouldn't be wise to make big changes only 2 weeks after the release.

Fencer: I think the problem is the preception of fairness. It doesn't look fair, even if the numbers don't matter. Then why not just have it at 100%? Or do as I've suggested and let the tournament creator decide and you take you cut from what he gets? If he sets it too high, he'll get no players. If anyone gives it all back, then it doesn't matter, and you can charge a couple of bucks for the privilege or have them sponsor part of the prize in addition to having all the entry fees paid out. I have freely given up money to sponsor a tournament. I get little out of it, but it makes for added interest and a well attended tournament. You should at least let the creator of a tournament that sponsors a prize of a six month membership or its equivalent in BK Brains be allowed to award a higher percentage of the BK Brains collected from the entries to be given out to the participants. I would also like have more positions than first, second, and third place, for when there's a lot of people entered into the tournament.

diogenes: Right, I am in a big stress now and I admit the word "babbling" was inappropriate. Sorry. But your "the way youre behaving towards your supporters seems to get worse each day" is simply too much, don't you think?

diogenes: In my opinion madPhilip's behaviour is NOT getting worse every day and it stays the same.... I haven't noticed anything you say about his behaviour. But that's only me.....

diogenes: It wasn't me who started to write with exclamation marks, capitalized words and similar unfriendly attributes. I always try to explain everything in peace but when I see someone could ruin my work for no logical reason (and I'll be glad to know I was wrong), I have my right to protect myself.
Btw, if the site would be to money oriented, I would never respond.
There are many things which I have to see from much more complicated point of view than a normal user can see. And since a day has only 24 hours, there are many situations where I prefer to say "no" shortly, instead of starting a complicated discussion.

"Any other babbling about a percentage is simply ridiculous"

and - btw.: do you feel right to babble in this way towards definite (and "no-cost") supporters of your site? i feel this is ridiculous!

you have your site now in 15 languages and this appears to be a good way to earn money! and, as you already know, many supporters feel you are getting more and more money-orientated and forget - as in this discussion - how people pay and support you personally!

dont make this site too money-orientated! you may have to live with the money you are earning but youre still in a community of supporters and even friends who always felt on your side, like me!

sorry to write this now in public, but the way youre behaving towards your supporters seems to get worse each day and this last statement of yours confirms this in my humble opinion!

fencer - i know that - i just compare and realize that 30% are a lot! it would encourage more of us to take part in this kind of tourneys if we knew it was more "fair". and at the end, you could take even more profit out of this nice idea if more of us were participating!

Pythagoras: Right.

Fencer: Yes of course, whoever wants not to participate in a specific tournament or something, has the right and the option not to participate on it!
But i think that doesn't mean we can't suggest better(in our opinion) ways of handling some situations right?

diogenes: I've said it many times but I'll do it once more:

• What you buy is what you get. Nobody forces you to spend the Brains in tournaments. Use them to extend your membership and you don't have to feel any loss.
• There is nothing like 30%. A tournament is defined with an entry fee and who wants to participate, pays the entry fee. The tournament is defined with a prize and who wins, gets the prize. Any other babbling about a percentage is simply ridiculous.
• And, of course, it's just an option. Who wants to ingore these tournaments, it's his right. BrainKing is full of other features which can be used without any Brains. If you liked it before, there is no point to stop it now.

That's my final word to the subject.

there is no reason for taking away those 30%! there is no reason giving'em to the site-creator. this method simply means (to me) that our "BRAINS" ARE WORTH A 30% LESS! its difficult enough to win one tourney with a prize. so why playingém in order to give the creator a guaranteed extra amount of -virtual but real- money?

I just ain't playin

Czuch Chuckers: I see a lot of potential in these fee tournaments. I only just started doing tournaments again. I had stopped in 2004. I don't have too many and so far I've only sponsored one of those. 2004 Third Quarter Number 3 Dark Chess. This was the first time I ever lost a tournament of Dark Chess, so maybe I grew disheartened? Anyways, I'm over it and I have started creating a few tournaments again. I'm planning on sponsoring the third quarter Dark Chess one again, but now there's new options. Not all change is an improvement from the start, if ever, though most things on this site always seem to tend toward getting better. Fencer might be a great programmer and he is certainly a responsive site owner, but he might not understand human nature or how to sell products as well as some sales type people do. Most people don't mind paying a cut if they think they're getting a fair shake or if they believe no one is taking advantage of them. Obviously if he put into effect what I said to do it would greatly lower his take of the action. But if it increased the number of tournaments with fees by five times he'd come out way ahead in the long run and people would be happpy or they'd not participate in those types of tournaments as BIG BAD WOLF has pointed out.

Walter Montego: LOL, I was looking for some support in this venture a few days hence, and it seemed like my concerns fell on deaf ears. I was just happy to see that I am not the only one with those concerns!

Czuch Chuckers: I guess I've been a derelict in my duties as ombudsman, eh?

making a mountain out of a mole hill comes to mind peeps

Walter Montego: Sorry for the confusion Walter, it was emmett's post after yours that mentioned a boycott. I think your message is very well writen and I agree with many of the points. Just disagreed with the now deleted post about enouraging others to boycott, which I think is over the line of what is needed.

Czuch Chuckers: The post in question is now gone so I don't feel I have anything else to add to this conversation. I think what Walter said below was good enough to stand on it's own. If you want to continue or have questions, feel free to send me a PM.

BIG BAD WOLF: I did not say boycott, nor did I advocate such an action. I think Fencer created this entry business without thoroughly checking out how to implement it for greatest acceptance. I put some ideas into my previous post that I thought would make it a lot better for him and everyone else. Who doesn't like winning a prize for finishing in the money? I don't mind paying a fee if I think I'm getting my money's worth, win or lose. I think if what I recommend was to be put into place, lots more tournaments of the "Entry fee" type would be created. After all, the tournament creator would have a chance to get some BK Brains if he didn't award all the entry fees back into it and Fencer could take a cut out of that, say 30%. In the case of a tournament creator deciding to award all the fees collected, it would be a simple thing for Fencer to charge a nominal tournament creation fee to the creator, wouldn't it?

BIG BAD WOLF: I know this is not a debate board....but just by stating ones intent to boycott and give their reasons why, is in itself an encouragement for others to follow for the same reasons, hence encouraging them to boycott themselves.

Czuch Chuckers: If a person wants to boycott by not playing in it is a great idea. Like I said, if you do not like it - don't play them.

To offer your opinion like Walter did below is also good - I'm sure Fencer is glad to hear everyones opinion (he just may not necessarly agree with them all)

But to encourage others is the part that I disagree with. The new system takes nothing away from what people were playing on this site, so I don't see why anyone would want to encourage other to not use the system just because they do not like it.

Added note: there was a message from emmett saying he was going to encourage others to boycott which is now not on the board - sorry if what I'm saying now does not make too much sense.

emmett: Amen....

Czuch Chuckers: I know that Fencer means well, and I love this site. I agree that the premise of this new idea is sound, but its terms exceed polite decorum.

BIG BAD WOLF: I think boycotting is a good way to tell fencer that although we like the idea of entry fee tournaments, that we do not particularly like the way it is currently set up, and maybe a botcott will encourage him to modify them a bit?

I would guess that in a "real world" situation that you would support, end even encourage, the free expression of dissent in order to bring about change?