tenuki has responded to the acusations brought up about him, I have moved it over to the Run Around The Pond Board for those that are interested http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=77

any further post on the subject should be made on that board

rabbitoid: Perfect example....IMO, it's cheating, simple as that!

collaboration is : to work jointly with others.....both ponds & poker should be an individual strategy, not a partnership with another player.

Would you consider it OK if applied to poker too? allied players telling each other what their cards are? it's exactly the same principle.

alexlee: I think this is not about ponds, but about BK politics.

Hrqls:
Thank you for seeing my point about "losing on purpose for the goal of boosting ratings." I really have a hard time thinking of this as team play? A game where 2 players sign up as a team and they know who all the teams are is fine. Ponds you sign up as a single player. If teams are allowed then create a pond for teams and that would be fair play for all.

There is a discussion board for ponds and that might be a better place for this? Members who do not play in ponds must be slightly bored with this by now.

Hrqls: Both tenuki and Pedro Martínez are strong players, and I want to be able to respect them both. What they have achieved on this site has taken a lot of effort and deserves respect. And when one of them accuses the other of cheating, I still want to respect them both. Apparently, tenuki hasn't broken any rules even if there was team play - but the current discussion has shown that nobody (perhaps except Fencer) is really happy with this interpretation of the rules.

personally i always think games should be played without help from anyone else ... ponds included .. i like the invidual acclompishment :)

but calling someone a cheater while he is just making use of the rules is too much

the issue with team play in ponds might be brought up in a discussion about ponds .. that has my full support

personally i think team play should not be allowed, and i think to remember from the earlier discussion that most players think about it that way

i fully respect tenuki and i dont think he has done anything wrong personally .. (although i didnt think about the rules about losing on purpose of bootsting ratings .. that indeed conflicts with the outcome of the former discussion (in which team play was not forbidden))

Bwild wrote "I agree, and feel sorry for those who have purchased lifetime
memberships. it has to be discouraging,to say the least, to find out the
sites owner could care less if cheating goes on,or if long time members
leave because of the lack of interest provided by the owner. "

Thanks.  But mostly I have myself to blame.  My love of variants got the better of my judgment.  Live and learn: in the future, support responsive individuals and organizations.

Bwild: KM story was never properly solved. I left this site for a while because of that. Purple let me (still) blocked because I asked what happened, and asked why should only KM members moderate checkers board. I was an active player than, and stopped playing it (and writting in that board) because of that. That's why I say: Brainking really "don't give a sh..." (as Fencer said) about cheating. That's what I said in PM to Martinez: we should play according to this rules. I don't like them, but I play only against who I want (who I trust). But it's wrong, in my opinion. Wrong and bad for the site. Other sites "died" because of that. Km group made the same (and still cheat) in IYT, for example. Giving up to fight this is a way to give a "slow death" to the site. I'm not criticizing, I repeat. I'm giving you (and Fencer) my opinion, in order to make (keep) brainking as a great games site, maybe the best of the world!

alexlee I already said it.

Read the rules of Ponds. Where does it say it's cheating. It was even brought up at the beginning of Ponds that it would NOT be considered cheating.

Unfair? Possibly, to many people. Again, I would NOT want to play in a pond where I knew people played like that.

Gabriel Almeida: "However, BK stays much poorer without Pedro Martinez."
I agree, and feel sorry for those who have purchased lifetime memberships. it has to be discouraging,to say the least, to find out the sites owner could care less if cheating goes on,or if long time members leave because of the lack of interest provided by the owner.
when the KM members were finally exposed for being cheaters and thieves...it took a lot to get any action from the owner, and they are right back in our midst.
IF...and I say IF...bk3 ever evolves,its my understanding there will be no more fellowships.
well..imo...if theres no fellowships, and cheating is allowed...why pay to play?

rod03801:
User agreement >>Game Guidelines:

NO CHEATING. This includes using outside programs to help play and losing on purpose for the goal of boosting ratings. Your account may be banned, and ratings will be removed.

Why wouldn't ponds be like any other game at BK? It says "losing on purpose for the goal of boosting ratings."

Gabriel Almeida: Yes, I DO agree completely. I wouldn't personally play that way.

I guess my point is that it isn't fair to publicly crucify someone for something that isn't TECHNICALLY cheating.

Gabriel Almeida: there are always 2 sides to every story and
im waiting on hearing what the accused says on the subject

Gabriel Almeida: But it's NOT the rules. Where in the rules do you read that? And it has been stated in the past that there was not going to be restrictions on "team play".

Hrqls: Rules are rules, but... this is OBVIOUSLY cheating (latu sensu), as some players as MORE CHANCES to win than others, not because of their inteligence/strategy/luck, but because of their "connections". As a game, it's absolutelly unnacceptable!

Brainking never cared about it. It's a "political business".  As brainking's owner, Fencer is free to do whatever he wants. However, BK stays much poorer without Pedro Martinez. Couldn't this be solved more peacefully, Fencer? That "Fine,..." it's a "I want you to leave", and it's not honourable for you and the site.

the whole issue about ponds is :

is team play allowed ?

this topic has been discussed before (i think on the ponds board)
if i remember correctly the outcome was that team play was allowed, although many players didnt like it

this means that its not cheating to have someone tell you your bid for the next round .. so that he can bid 1 higher

Hey, the Phillies won tonight! just saying

Bernice: Once wasn't enough? If there is an answer, it will come. It has been brought up.

How come Redfrog can be a global mod when he isnt even a paying member..

can't anybody do anything about this?

alilsassy: In a fellowship? Sure why not? It was theirs. There have been plenty of times though when Fencer has made adjustments for people in fellowships when this was the case. If someone bothered to ask, I'll bet something would be done.

Lets be realistic, there really are times, when things really aren't pressing or an emergency. They only get brought up when someone has a reason for doing it.

If you really want me to spend time going through all the boards that haven't had posts in months, deleting those mods, I'll be happy to do it. Didn't seem that important at the time. If it is a concern, it can certainly be done though. I suppose perhaps you are interested in helping to moderate those boards with pawn moderators? It can certainly be brought up, if so. We are always looking for "fresh ones" who want to help out.

alilsassy: yes as long as it is the same account

rod03801:Thanks for updating your board Rod, but I was only using that as an example....this is an issue over many boards, as well as a few fellowships. Just curious how long a fellowship (with no LB) stays active after the BB becomes a pawn? Can this account return to BK a year later and resume the position as if they were never gone?
 

alilsassy: Well yes, at the time, I thought she would come back as a paid member. But do you notice when the last posts were before tonight? It hasn't exactly been a pressing issue. I have removed her now, I hope that is satisfactory.

Bernice: I would think positions such as Moderator's would be held for paying members. If Fencer felt redfrog was suitable for the position then maybe he should donate a membership to him. lol
I see there's a lot of that going on here with pawns holding moderator positions, for example:  Members only board. Kind of ironic to see a non-member holding the power. "This discussion board is available for paying members only - anybody with the membership level Brain Bishop or higher." (no offense against this individual...I just think it's time for an update)

rod03801: I agree with Rod, I will also be deleting further post (without warning or notice to anyone that has been warned in the past) on any board that is inappropriate.

And any further silly BICKERING will be deleted as well, and will result in bans if necessary. If there is intelligent conversation that can be had on the topic, without fighting, then that is fine. This IS NOT going to be a free for all.

Bernice: No, enough is enough. I WILL be deleting further posts containing items that have always been considered against the rules, regardless of what Fencer posted. PERIOD.

rod03801: calm down little fella...you will have a heart attack....if what you say is correct then Fencer is an idiot.....**** we can all take his example and post whatever......calm down now, take it gently wee one.

Bernice: Too frightened? You are commenting on something you know nothing about. Globals/Mods have ZERO ability to edit or delete Fencer's posts. I would hope you have seen me enough on this site to know that I take it all VERY seriously, and have privately stated my opinion to Fencer on how I feel about his post. I can do NO more than that, whether YOU choose to believe it or not.

How come Redfrog can be a global mod when he isnt even a paying member?

MadMonkey: Gone but not forgotten.

MadMonkey: Some of us spend alot of money here, unlike you begging and it does bother me....but its ok my days are done as well.

Marshmud: Well that is sort of what you told me, i was working it slightly different, BUT there are thousands of different methods players could use as you say. For them to be 1 point off i do not know, let them explain NOT that they should have to. Fencer did make a striking point early (jokingly or not) with his "Yes, I am a loser and I cannot stand anyone else being successful" point of view. It does seem there is a lot of that going on here lately. Maybe i should do that every Spider Line4 game i lose

Exactly as you say, there is no need for a player as good as him to cheat. So why would he ??? He is a life member anyway, not as if he needs membership.

Have all these people accusing him bothered to ask him ? of course not, its much more fun, and stirs up more crap, and upset more people to plaster it on the Discussion boards. That is what i call stooping low !!

Guilty without and trial or any proof.

Fencer is not interested, and the only reason i am is i hate players ganging up on others from my own experience, and times like when we had the KM here etc... It seems something has to happen every few years here, as i said, VERY sad

MadMonkey: That formula you speak of, or the 150% increase per move....150 bid after a bid of 100 has many variables. It depends on the size of the group, the bkr of the players involved...etc... and only works on the 16/16 ponds. Actually as the players now bid higher its obsolete and doesn't work. Many have asked me (or I asked them) to help them in ponds as I was trying to get more players involved ....and many currently play..

C'mon mate. we have known each other for over 5 years and we both have great respect for tenuki. He has won all my prize ponds and over 50% of all my prizes. My point is, that a player with his unbelievable gaming skills doesn't have to stoop this low....there is no formula for two players to be 1 point off an entire game. Can you at least agree to that point even if its not a game you like?

Marshmud: eh I never had a problem with Pedro......

I give up....it was YOU that told me the formula to use to improve my Pond play..... if 2 people used that method in the same game, there scores would be the same all the way through. Not this game in question, TRUE, but who knows what method was used.

There seems to be a tight little group of players here now trying to get players off BrainKng, hopefully Fencer will see through it and sort them out first !!

MadMonkey: What kind of proof you need? A whole game with a one point difference needs no formula. If not for tenuki being your friend, and pedro not I think you would see it different.

It may not be a game to some, but I have always enjoyed the ponds. Even ran prizes with the ponds, and guess who won them?

Like tenuki needs to cheat....and he has always gained my respect....but he is history now.

I would hate to think how many times people have been *ostracised* for swearing on public boards, but it appears to me to be OK seeing the top dog can say shit whenever he feels like, or is it a case of the GLOBS/MODS are too frightened to pull him up on his language for fear of a backlash in the future???.

I have to say that this 865 bet seems a bit odd - nauars played 865 in the previous round too, but there's no * next to the number like there usually is to indicate that a player was offline and his/her last bet was automatically repeated. I don't see how somebody would guess that it was safe to bet 866 in this case.

Pedro..... i stated that i know of at least one formula that can easily improve a players standing in Ponds (as i proved), i never said the players you mentioned were using it, and also Hrqls has given you a rough idea of one that works.

Is all you have done is slated 2 members and given no proof, just how you see it and that is definitely the wrong way to do it as you well know

One last post from my part.

MadMonkey, Hrqls, cd power: In this case in question, there is no way to speak about using a formula. Take a look at Rounds 22 and 21 in this pond. What kind of formula would you have to have to find out that nauars was going to bet 865? Those two simply cheat. Nauars tells tenuki what she is going to bet and tenuki gains an unfair advantage. It's as clear as anything can be.

I am not going to spend one more bit of my time on a site where cheating is not only allowed, but also supported and promoted, where the User Agreement is not enforced, and where the management seems not to give an excrement about the proper working of all kinds of games on this site.

pedestrian: This is a private joke between Pedro and me. Don't take me too seriously.

Fencer: "Fine.  The problem is solved."

Personally, formulas for ponds maybe slightly help, so I don't really care if someone uses a formula or is in collusion with others. I have only began playing ponds this year, without any formula, and have won 17 of them in a very short time, and even achieved a # 1 ranking for a little bit. So, this shows me I can beat others no matter what they do.

Pedro Martínez: Fine. The problem is solved.

Fencer: You don't give a shit. OK. I'm out of here.