Pedro Martínez: This issue is a day old but I haven't been on site to respond to your post.
IF someone uses calculations based on a theory (what I understood to be Mr. Trice's spreadsheet) I do not see that as cheating. But rather deductions being made by the person playing the game. Really no different than me sitting down at a checker board next to my computer and making moves to determine which would be the best move to make in another game. The calculations are mine. Not those of a computer or another person.

Czuch Chuckers: To say it isn't cheating because there are no ratings points involve...well...With that way of thinking it would be alright for someone to get the answers to a test they are writing because the mark on the test doesn't count towards the grade total.

I would like to be able to write an explaination to someone when I remove them from one of my games.

i'd ask why? but i see you dont want to so i'll drop it....

No. I didn't want to.

why? - is it difficult to do?

No, the "discussion" cannot be changed.

I must admit - I would agree with Thad, but can see Fencer's point of view. Can the game discussion in Pond be changed so that we can enter a comment after making a move? We can edit our bid, but not any posts, or add a post after a move.?

No private conversation is expected in the pond game messages. So it's perfectly okay to make it visible for everyone.

lol - i just knew you would pick up on that

Anyone can now view messages of pond games that are in progress regardless of whether you are in the pond or not. That seems illogical to me. I think only the players involved in the game should be able to read those messages, just like only the players involved in any game on this site can read the game messages. I think they should be called messages too rather than disussions (those go on the boards, i.e. discussions are what we post on boards, messages are what we post in games. They're not really different, but it will make talking about the two different types of posts easier for moderatios and for Fencer in the User Agreement, etc.).

ummmmm should we look the other way Bry? ;oÞ

good man.

Yes.

Fencer - can you add an option so we can see previous round results? like you can click on previous moves in other games....

Stevie (ban | hide) Re: Re: 16. January 2005, 23:02:09
Thad: Yes,
I was just asking
Reply Edit Delete


Thad (ban | hide) Re: 16. January 2005, 22:56:30
Stevie: Does that not make sense?
Reply Edit Delete


Stevie (ban | hide) 16. January 2005, 22:53:04
I take it that you can not see the discussion on a pond you are not in?
Reply Edit Delete

Pedro Martínez: So can I, the other day when I asked..I couldnt

I think Fencer meant we cannot write to such discussion...I can see all the ponds and all the discussions

I definately put in a number over 15000 on that pond cos I dont the comment for discussion..then double checked my bid why did that happen?

Fencer said before that we cant see the discussion of a pond we are not in...how come you guys and gals can???
something is amiss I would say


Chuck..please stop the baiting..what happened to you is in the past

furbster, Pedro Martinez: thanks for your interest

yes, its sounds intersting and i'd imagine pretty fun to play.

Mely - I can imagine this pond working pretty well...:)

BIG BAD WOLF:
Thanks BBW. I would prefer Advanced Pond.
I am not sure, can this game work ?

Names:

Advanced Pond

BrainKing Pond

Unnamed Pond Variant I (UPVI)

grenv:
Thanks for your answer. The name... o.k. Lets give the game another name.

Mely: This is where each of your bids needs to be less than the previous? Sounds interesting, though I'm confused as to why it's called Antiponds since it has the same basic rules. Anti would imply that jumping in the pond is desirable.

Let's call it diminishing Pond or something. And perhaps post to the feature request board?

My good idea (I hope so) to make an Antiponds-Game (posted 10.01. 12:08) become 2 short answers; no test game.
But about the nonsens, to have a solution, to win all pond games, there are 100+ news and testplay. I don`t understand this.

Actually in one I'm in a player bid ZERO and stayed in because someone messed up. This is Lame++

Chuck - I will never ever start or join any pond like this anymore. Like you say, there will always be someone who either can't read or type and screw up the entire pond.

Maxxina: me 2

Pedro Martínez: I know what youy mean about these games. You get people betting 1, just knowing that some fool will mess it all up by betting below the minimum....what the ****

i can read all discussion of ponds , even if im not in that pond

Pedro Martínez: I want to know how you have access to that discussion, since you are not in the game???????

Yeah, really funny! :(

This is funny, LOLOL -
http://brainking.com/game/Pond?p=1&g=122
Discussion: Stevie : good luck ;o)
dont forget 15000 minimum first bid

Bad Bishop: LOL, I think it was both 'ignorant' and 'stupid'.

I guess its ok to call someone 'lame', to me its all just degrees of the same meaning, and at least I never mentioned any one person by name.


For the record... Anyone who bet 1 in that first round is lame!! :)

Thanks, but doubt he will..cos we asked this to be done to others before LOL

Stevie - I asked Fencer to remove you from the pond...I don't want anyone to feel cheated.

IMHO there is no cheating in this game, as long as nobody can see the real bids of the other players befor he/she bids. If somebody wants to use some computer programms, spreadsheeds, external advisers, Nostradamus' Prophecy or whatever, he/she should feel free to do it. Personally I can't imagine that it really guarantee a win. -- In the runs on the server where I played it initially, we didn't forbid even agreements between players - they didn't work anyway. :-)

Pedro Martínez: I have

especially as i only stayed in the pond because Trice left. Then as I mentioned before...you only told us there was a person playing with his instructions, AFTER it started... I feel cheated already

Stardust: To have a shill make moves in my pond is not cheating. Period. If you say somebody's cheating, you also have to say who is cheated. NOBODY's being cheated in this game as everybody KNOW (or can know) what's going on. Period. None of the players involved have complained about this fact so far. Contrariwise, many of them signed up BECAUSE of it. Period. Moreoover, you say that to have a shill make moves in a game is cheating. Then, several sentences further in your post, you say that the best thing would have been if EdTice had not said anyone he was going to use his spreadsheet. I don't understand the way you think. It would not be cheating if he used a computer and didn't tell anyone but it is cheating when everybody have access to this information? I don't get it. And another PERIOD.

revisionism?

Chuck: If I'm not wrong, "your word" wasn't "ignorant", it was rather "idiot". :-)

How is this any better than me calling someone who bet 1 in the first round 'ignorant'?

Please, whats good for the goose, is good for the gander, right?

It is hardly cheating in this instance, it is no different than if he changed his name and then played, there are no ratings to be affected, so whats the dfference?

To have a shill make moves in a game...any game is cheating. Period. The purpose of a game is to have fun,do your best and try to win. Not do someone else's best.
Steve was right about the analogy to Nomad and checkers. As with ANY game here on BK to make moves that are not your own whether by using an operative,a program or a friend....is simply cheating.
This could all have been avoided had Mr. Trice not said he could win by using his spreadsheet. If he had just played and then remarked on the use of the spreadsheet after the game had ended,there wouldn't be the problem of his paranoia that there would be collusion.

grenv: I hadnt thought of that LOL

The only way to cheat in this game is through collusion. Using charts, computers, and graphs isn't cheating at this game, not like it might be in another game such as Gothic Chess. I have a chart that shows every possible roll of two dice. Would I be cheating if I used it to play Backgammon? Same thing, so you have a chart showing every possible bet. You still have to make a bet. In gothic Chess such a chart, though theoritically impossible since there's more moves possible than there are atoms in the known universe, would be cheating, since you'd know the outcome of the game in advance. Even though all moves can't be charted in Gothic Chess, using a computer to find them and chart the moves is a type of cheating to some, since the moves are known in advance. Whatever formula you come up with for Pond, isn't going to be foolproof since you don't have perfect information. Namely, you don't know the opponent's bet until after the round is done. Our identities should nave no bearing on the play. Since our identities are known though, it becomes possible to learn an opponent's style of play and adjust one's tactics accordingly. Nothing wrong with that. I play Dark Chess differently against certain players than others. As long as Ed or his shill play alone without messages between other players, it can't be cheating. It might seem rather chicken of him, but it's not cheating. In certain ways he has a legitmate fear. I've seen enough people that have a genuine animosity towards him. What better way to pay him back someone might think than to purposely sabotage his game even if it ruins one's own chance of winning. Obviously two or more people could conspire to cheat by playing safe, staying in the game as long as they can, and then purposely have one of them make a bet that the other knows about that none of the other players would think of making and then it might be possible to win in this manner. Same thing is true in another game where everybody is suppose to play as individuals: Poker. That's why casinos will not let married couples play together at Poker at the same table. It sure doesn't stop two or more friends from doing it though. One keeps the pot open by raising with a bad hand, the other keeps raising with a good hand. Finally the hapless wretch in the middle with a decent hand is all in and it's showdown time. After the game, away from the table, the team divides up the winnings. The game Risk is another game with this problem. The only fair way to play with four people is to play with teams. I no longer play Risk because there always seems to be bad feelings during and after the game that have led to blows being thrown. Half the skill to that game is playing politics, standing back letting the others duke it out, and then swooping in and getting all the spoils for yourself. Teams with seperate armies forces compromise with your partner and eliminates the third and fourth party crazy suicide guy that's tired of playing.

Pedro's chart tracking the game won't show much at the end of it, I bet. And even if it did, it won't be repeatable even in the unlikely event you were to get exactly the same people to play another game with the same rules. A system for this game might increase your chances of winning, but the very nature of the game guarantees that there's no guarantee to winning.
A solution to the "knowing who your opponent is and going after him" problem would be an anonymous game. After the game is closed all the players entered would be shown a list with scores just like they are now. The only difference would be that none of the other player's names would appear on the list. Just their own name. You might know who you are playing against, but you wouldn't know who had which score on the list. That should eliminate all bias towards any particular indivdual and yet the game would play exactly as it does now. No need for a Dark version if this is done. So here's a request for the game creator to have a choice for making the game anonymous or not. Along with choices for the starting amount and bonus award.

Stevie: Perhaps on this board we should refer to it as "Having your head held under the pond's surface for 24 hours"

Ed you are now on hide for 24 hrs for not complying. I would have pm'd you..had you not got me on enemy list. maybe you should have done as Walter did...and done as requested.

Pedro Martínez: Pedro, as far as we knew...Ed removed himself
Then AFTER the pond started..you anounced this
Pedro Martínez (ban | hide) 20. January 2005, 13:18:57
So, the Run around the Jacuzzi is up and running. I received a PM from EdTrice saying he found a person who will place bets for him.
Reply Edit Delete