chattytea 25. May 2003, 22:15:36
ok, so boards may not be interesting when they are empty, some of us like debates, some dont. BUT why do things have to be repeated so often?

That's what she said, and I totally agree with her every word.
Here endeth the lesson.

ha ha pipilo!!!!

Sorry, just kidding...

What?

ok, so boards may not be interesting when they are empty, some of us like debates, some dont. BUT why do things have to be repeated so often?

For once, I agree with DK! The board IS more interesting with a decent debate. :)

Then again, I agree with everyone that it's time to move on.

And the last word was had by Dmitri King,

Three cheers everyone, HIP HIP HOORAY, HIP HIP HOORAY, HIP HIP HOORAY.

Ok. I agree to disagree and move on.

I should note, on a mostly unrelated point, that prior to this discussion, this message board had an average of about 4 or 5 posts per week. Seems to me that a debate would make the board MORE interesting than when it was rarely used, after all, how interesting can a board be when there are no posts for days on end?

And the last word was had by Dmitri King,

Three cheers everyone, HIP HIP HOORAY, HIP HIP HOORAY, HIP HIP HOORAY.

BBW-- I am sorry if I misconstrued anything you said-- Internet posts often do get misconstrued, often through no fault of the writer or the reader of the post; it isj ust the nature of impersonal internet conversations.

You have, however, made yourself very clear on this point:

"AGAIN, here is the point of the whole thing: A player is limited to 1 tournament at a time. (THIS IS A GOOD RULE). The problem is the one player could be done with all his games in 2 weeks, and he may lose all his games and knows he will not move on. In MY OPINION he is done with that tournament and should be allowed to join a new tournament. (And not have to wait up to 6 months for other players playing in other games) Do you understand this point????????? (IF not, just say so - and quit trying to argue it - I'll try to explain it better, OK??) "

So, yes, I understand you COMPLETELY here. And here is my retort. Any non member who objects to this policy has a SIMPLE way of eliminating the prolbem. BUY A MEMBERSHIP. Problem solved! That si really the only point I was making. All the other tangential converstions stemmed from this one, about the possibility fo a lingering tournament.

I think the reason the conversation often gets steered in that direction (as it has several times over the last few months) is because someone always chips in with "Well, not everyone can afford a membership" when I state "Buy a membership" as a solution to the prolbme of only being able to enter one tournament and having to wait for it to be completely finished.

Dmitri: Now I know why people have a hard time trying to have a discussion with you - you keep pulling things in to a conversation that is ?????

OK, first: Yes, my example was just a "bad scenario" that could happen to a player. It does not have to do with Fencer (Never said it did) - all I said is THINGS LIKE THAT MAKE THE WHOLE SITE LOOK BAD. When a player only has a limited experiance and bad things happen in that limited experiance - do you really think they are just going to pay and hope things get better? (OK, maybe you do - but most others probable won't)

I NEVER said that it was wrong for people to play slow (Where you get this stuff... I have no idea??) - if they are within their time limit, FINE. I'm a slow player - I think I even posted that somewhere recently that I've been playing slow recently. (Mostly because when I do have a few hours, the site always seems to be down or something - but that has NOTHING to do with this!!!) --- but you still feel like bringing things up that has nothing to do with what I posted.

AGAIN, here is the point of the whole thing: A player is limited to 1 tournament at a time. (THIS IS A GOOD RULE). The problem is the one player could be done with all his games in 2 weeks, and he may lose all his games and knows he will not move on. In MY OPINION he is done with that tournament and should be allowed to join a new tournament. (And not have to wait up to 6 months for other players playing in other games) Do you understand this point????????? (IF not, just say so - and quit trying to argue it - I'll try to explain it better, OK??)

I'm not "chiming in about slow players" - players can play as slow as they want in my opinion - BUT if those games just happen to be in the same tournament section, it can effect the new pawn player who may get a bad impression of this site. AGAIN, I'm not saying that the other players should be playing any faster - just that if all the games are complete in the tournament section for a player, and he has NO chance to move to the next section - he should be allowed to join a new tournament. (Hopefully you will understand this and stop pulling new things into this) If you don't agree, just say you don't agree - and quit bringing other things into this. ugh!

And about joining non-tournament games - LIKE I ALREADY SAID - Many people play different ways - some do not like playing non-tournament games - I know I do not. ugh.....

This will be my last post on this subject... I should have known better then to try to discuss this with Dmitri...

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

I disagree Harley. working a minimum wage job and having no savings is being "poor" to me. You may disagree, but last time I checked, a minimum wage job would put someone below the poverty line.

Don't get me wrong, when I have been poor, I wasted al ot of money. I gained enjoyment from junk food, movies, and other luxuries. BUt that is just what they were-- luxuries. And if something else came up that I did not have the money for, it wasn't because I could not afford it, it was because UI had chosen to spend them oney on other things.

If you can say this, Dmitri, you have obviously never been poor. Consider yourself fortunate. I'm not discussing anything else because it is getting tedious and I have a headache as it is.

I agree with Chatty wholeheartedly, also, it is so boring and tedious its enough to put people off buying a membership.

We don't have to get into a huge discussion.

If we are talking about those who CAN afford to pay, but Don't, then the vast minority who CANNOT afford to pay are NOT relevant to the discussion, BECAUSE ET DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THOSE WHO CAN PAY BUT DO NOT!

Furthermore, to exempt a small minority from a discussion is not in any way demeaning! By your logic, if Iwas talking about prisoners, and I said "Of course, those small minority who are innocent are IRRELEVANT" you would say that I am demeaning the innocent!

Well, clearly that is not the case, they just are not RELEVANT to the discussion.

As for your point A) Of course we cannot kow how many are truly in that position. But one of the great things about human beings is our ability to reeasn, so I am entitled to use my poewers of reason to try to approximate.

1) I think we coudl all agree that those who cannot afford ten dollars for 6 months are fairly destitute.

2) That being the case, I would estimate that very few of the 4800 brain pawns are in that position.

I think ti is a fair assumption that most brain pawns just choose not to afford it. I have heard people say "Well, I have 8000 dolalrs of college loans, etc. etc. etc." So what? Lots of people have loans, I know many of thme, and all of them easily waste ten dollars over a 6 month period.

If someone really doesn;t spend ten dolalrs in 6 months on any type of luxuries, then that person truly canot afford a memberaship. If there is someone who actually fits that description, I would love to hear from him. BUt until then, people who spend 30 dollars a month on cable TV DO NOT qualify as "not being able to afford a 2 dolalrs a month membership"

I think our societyhas lost its sanity. SOmewhere along thel ine, a sense of entitlement crept in, such that luxuries are now considered necessities.

I think anyone who is in need of shelter, food, clothing, or medical care should havethese needs addressed. I support the existence of government institutions to handle these needs.

BUt I think it is really warped that people who spend money on certain luxuries then claim to not be able to affird other luxuries.

Don't get me wrong, when I have been poor, I wasted al ot of money. I gained enjoyment from junk food, movies, and other luxuries. BUt that is just what they were-- luxuries. And if something else came up that I did not have the money for, it wasn't because I could not afford it, it was because UI had chosen to spend them oney on other things.

You have taken issue with my approximatin the number of people who can and cannot afford an inxpensive membership. Why is one not alllowed to pproximate? Would you take issue with me if I said that "more than 99% of the people in this coutnry can afford to give away a nickle today?"

I don't think anyone would. Well, I seel ittle difference between that statement and my approximation about brain Pawns.

How is it hurtful and demeaning to them? He simply said they were irrelevent to the discussion. What if he said that the millionaires on this site were irrelevent to the discussion (like he said)? Would that be hurtful and demeaning to them to?

i really think this discussion has gone on long enough! i for one and fed up with seeing the same thing repeatedly posted time and time again, and i am sure others are too!
please give it a rest!

Dmitri, here... "YEs. We agree, but probably not in terms of degree. I tihnk that the people we have discussed (those who truly cannot afford a membership) are veyr few and far between, so few that they are irrelevant to the discussion."

I' not going to get into a huge discussion about this, I think its enough to say that a) you cannot know how many people really are in this position and b) it wouldn't matter if it was 1 person or 1000 people. That statement is hurtful and demeaning to those people.

BBW-- you are citing coincidental factors as reasons. You presented every possible bad scenario that oculd happen to a player in a tournament. NOen of it has to do with Fencer, Brain King, or the site, but rather, a few rude people and a couple of slow players.

A person can sign up for a small tournament with a fast move limit.

Thisb rings me to another point. You and a few others seem to think ti is objectionable when a player who is slow holds up a tournament. I for one have little to complain about in this regard. A person is entitled to use the time given to him.

BUt, I was a bit surprised to see you chiming in about slow players, given that you play veyr slowly, taking a long time for each move, regardless of the game situation, which is in fact, holding up a tournament.

Anyhow, perhaps you weren't compaining about that act, but just opitning out that it may screw up a brain Pawn who cannot enter any more tournaments.

That was my whole point though-- a paying member need not worry about that.

You said a player might not be able to fins chatting partners in his one tournament? SO WHAT? he can enter 20 non tournamnet games and find chat partners. that portion of your argument is very weak because a player need not play tournament games to chat with opponents. In fact, if one was interested in chat, Why would he play tournamnets games instead of casual personal invite games?

<But please, Dmitri, dont say that people who truly cannot afford membership are irrelevant to ANY discussion. >>>>>

I am confused by your statement Harley. TTJazzberry and I were discussing ability to pay as a sidebar to one of our discussions. I do not believe EITHER of us said that thye are irrelevant to anything.

What we both probably said at some opitn is that the debate is not relevant to the other issues we were debating. If that was not ewhat was said, that was what was implied. I think I may have said that those who treuly cannot afford to pay make up a small percentage of those who are brain Pawns. That is not to say that they are irrelevant, just that they have little statiscital effect on the debate.

There is nothing demaaning about that. If there are 5 millionaires who play here, then those 5 peopel are also statistically insignificant (out of 4800 non paying memberas).

ANyway, my diatribe was actually EXEMPTING those people (who truly cannot afford) from my scorn. I am taking issue with those who CAN pay but don't, then complain. The only thing I said about those who truly cannot pay is that maybe time would be better spent doing something other than playing online games. Of course, if said person is disabled in some way, that might not be possible.

BUT this is all off on a tangent. The real issue is that most brain Pawns can afford to buy a membership, and for whatever reason, do not. I don't think it is because they are dissatisfied with the site, but rather, because they don't feel like getting sometihng for something when htey can get something for NOTHING instread.

And that is theuir choice! I do not object. One of my veyr best friends is a Brain Pawn. But, I guarantee you that never in a million years would he actually complain to Fencer that he isnl;t getting enough. He realizes (unlike some of the loufder brain Pawns) that he is not paying anything, and he is happy with what he has.

[Dmitri King - 25. May 2003, 07:08:56] "If one tournamnet is not enouhg, then I would gather that means you would still have unanswered questions after playig in one tournamnet."

... It is not necessarly that you would still have unanswered questions about how the site works - but if you are limited to just one tournament (which how it is now - you might be "stuck" in only 1 tournament for up to 6 months after you finish your games) - your experiance in the tournament might be bad which will give you the impression that this site is bad - which it is not.

Some people do not play many non-tournament games, just tournament games. That is how I was, and I'm sure I'm not the only person. So take this example:

New person to the site, does not know many people but wants to try things out. Joins a tournament, plays all his games in the tournament within 2 weeks. Now because of other slow players in the tournament, he has to wait to join his next tournament. Even though it says he can only join 1 tournament at a time, and he is done with his 1 tournament - he is upset with BrainKing because he is signing on every day for 2-4 months just to find out that he STILL can not join a new tournament. Not only that, but he likes to chat during the games he played. In all this tournament games he played, he did not find anyone that wanted to chat with him. Not only that, during one of this games, he found someone that was really rude to him.

So now a new player that does not know anyone, finds a rude person and people who don't like to chat. He is also being "punished" by waiting for slow players to play OTHER games that's not even his just so he can join a new tournament. His experince with BrainKing is very bad at this point - which means he probable will not keep loggin on to this site to play, let alone pay for this site. If he was allowed to start playing in his next tournament (AFTER he finishes all his games in the first AND has no chance of winning) - it is possible that he will then find that very friendly person who will chat and help the person out..... hopefully enough to stay around and possible pay to play!

So I guess if you can ensure that each players 1 tournament is a good experiance, well we would not need more then 1. But all it takes is something bad (like wait 6 months for slow players to finish games which your not even playing in, rude players, etc...) and if they are unable to play in new games (because they only like to play in tournaments) - well then the answer is NO, 1 tournament is not enough.

You have to rememeber, not everyone come to a games site for the same things. Some people like to play only non-tournament games. Some people like to play only tournament games. Some people visit the discussion boards, while others never have visited any of the discussions boards.

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

I have been desperately trying to stay out of this because I know from experience that debating with Dmitri and TT can go on for days and round in never-ending circles.

But please, Dmitri, dont say that people who truly cannot afford membership are irrelevant to ANY discussion.
I should imagine these people feel worthless enough without being tossed aside as 'irrelevant'. Not to mention being in the category of 'such a low number it has little to no impact on relevent issues'.

This is partly what I believe TT was saying, you are looking down on people who do not have what you have.

" He/she doesn't have membership? Why not? Unbelievable! Freeloaders! "

" He/she canot afford it?? Why not? Lazy scoundrels!! "

Sound familiar?! It reminds me of Scrooge! "If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population"!!

<"If they are, WHY? couldn't that time be spent working instead? There are jobs out there, people just don't want them."

Some people are disabled, or caring for elderly people and or children. There are many reasons a person may not be able to work.

P.S. I'm glad you now agree "there are indeedp eople in this country or maybe others who canot afford a membership" as it settles another disagreement we had earlier. >>>>>>>>

YEs. We agree, but probably not in terms of degree. I tihnk that the people we have discussed (those who truly cannot afford a membership) are veyr few and far between, so few that they are irrelevant to the discussion. Just to pull some numbers out of thin air-- suppose ten of the brain Pawns are in a financial situation such that a membership is unaffordable--that is suhc a low number that is has little to no impact on any of the relevant issues. NOw, is the number more or less than ten? Who knows.

Perhaps I am just a bit jaded from my years of experiencing seeing pewople who havea very warped sense of "not being able to aford something."

To adddressd what Bid Bad Wolf said, about one tournamnet not being enough todetermine if he likes the site:

If one tournamnet is not enouhg, then I would gather that means you would still have unanswered questions after playig in one tournamnet. I cannot imagine for thel ife of me what these questions might be, but, there are ober 200 paying members who would probably help out in answering any questions that a brain Pawn had (that were not answered by being able to play tewnety games and one tournament).

"If they are, WHY? couldn't that time be spent working instead? There are jobs out there, people just don't want them."

Some people are disabled, or caring for elderly people and or children. There are many reasons a person may not be able to work.

I know there are those issues we DO agree on, and thats not whats this was all about. I merely didnt like any self rightious attitude toward people who cant afford to become members, for whatever reason.

P.S. I'm glad you now agree "there are indeedp eople in this country or maybe others who canot afford a membership" as it settles another disagreement we had earlier.

BBW. I have to beat a dead horase here. I agree with you, somewhat-- there are indeedp eople in this country or maybe others who canot afford a membership, BUT, I donlt think thosep eople are messing around on a site like Brain King!

If they are, WHY? couldn't that time be spent working instead? There are jobs out there, people just don't want them.

TTJazzberry, you said "BBW, you have a good suggestion about letting them opt out of the tournament if no chance of getting to the next round, after all they done that tournament for all intensive purposes. I am all for keeping the limit at 1 tournament as well, there has to be incentive to become a member."

I agre with this! And it seems that we obth agree that then on paying mmebers are already getting good service. so I am not sure what we are arguing about. Perhaps we just misunderstood each other.

As for the "cheapskates" and "freeloaders," I may not have made myself clear on this. Not all Pawns are cheapskates or freeloaders-- some are perfectly content with being a pawn and having limitations on their games and tournaments. This si fine with me-- they realize thay are not paying anything and soo they do not ask for more. Thep eople I cma calling cheapskates and freeloaders are those who are pawns, paying nothing, yet want more than what they are already getting. To me, that is the definition of a free loader. SOme will disagree, but I stand by that definition.

BBW thats very well put and something I was trying to explain myself when I objected to putting ALL unpaid members into one pot and labelling them as a bunch of "cheapskates" and "freeloaders".

Before this gets conveniently misinterpreted, I realise a parcentage of the pawns may indeed be out to get something for nothing, after all its offered to them. What the percentage is I dont know and dont care, as it would be irrevelent.

BIG BAD WOLF:thank your for a clear answer.
please people note,as I said B4.I am not bitching about wanting more service.I too think we pawns are getting good service.I think yoou ideas posted are good.I see no reason why ANY member cant leave a tourny,if all there games are finished.unless it would screw up the mechanics of a tourny.maybe that could be changed so no one has to wait for the tourny to end.but it is up to fencer to decide.I was not questioning the rules,just seeking to know them.perhaps there are things the FAQ's could be expanded on.
I know there is a good reason for allowing pawns to try a tourny.I have spoke to several people to like to see how a site runs its tournys.besides,without the pawns to prey on in tournies,the game sharks in here would have to cannibalize each other.

Good points all BBW.

You are probably right that quite a few people's main reason for being here is the tournaments - my problem was that it sounded like you were assuming that was the #1 reason for everyone.

But the thing is we can argue about this all we want and all we can really do is give our opinion so Fencer can better make a decision. And I think we have all given our opinion. :-)

Exactly - each person has different reasons to be on a game site. One of the more important things for me is tournaments. For others, it is something else.

Again, I'm not saying to give pawns any more then they already have - All I'm saying is to somehow fix it so they can really just join 1 tournament at a time.

As it is now, they can join 1 tournament at at time BUT they may have to wait up to 6 months for slow players!

So basicly all I'm saying is if a player is done with 1 tournament (done with all his games and he can not win his section to move on to the next section) - let the pawn joing his next tournament. It's not giving the pawns any more, it's just helping the pawns who may get "screwed" by other slow players.

... and when they feel like they are getting "screwed" because they have the bad luck to join a tournament that has a player that is going to hold things up for months after they are done - well that might just give the pawn a bad impression of the whole site - which basicly means they will probable never pay to play. (Which most will agree one of the reasons for a pawn account is to get users to pay for a membership)

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

Yes, things like that certainly could happen. But that would only happen if a player views tournaments as the only reason they are staying - because they left due to not being able to join another tournament. That could be i guess, but since they can only join one at a time (and i'm assuming it would this player's first tournament) why would they leave just because they cannot join another tournament? None of this affected me because i was a rook before tournaments or fellowships got introduced, so i guess i don't really know - maybe you would have a better idea than me.

Kevin: ... OK, it should say in the 2nd sentence: "the FINISHED games would still be there and count TOWARDS the other players win/loss" So in "quiting the tournament", it does not remove there already finished games - and the finished games still count toward the win/loss of the other players that are still in that section of the tournament that that player and the other players are player - which the first player decided to just remove himself from the possiblility of winning the section. The games of that person needs to be finished BEFORE he is allowed to remove himself from the possiblility of winning the section and "removing" himself. OK, I hope that will explain it beter. (I'm really not trying to make it difficult - hopefully you will understand what I'm trying to say this time!)

... and for the second part, I guess I will argure it with you. Only 1 tournament would not be enough for me to figure out if I like a site or not - that is enough to decided wether I wanted to pay or not since I don't play that many non-tournament games. If I was a new pawn, and then I joined a tournament. (Which says I'm only allowed to join 1 at a time). I then finish all my games in that tournament in say 2 weeks. Well then I find out I have to wait for other slow players to finish their games in the section to start my next tournament (which I lost all my games so I know I'm not moving on) - so I wait....1 month.... 2 months..... 3 months.... (and by this time, I stop visiting this site - which I like, but stoped playing because I could not join my next tournament - which is the tournament I would have playing with a new friend which would have kept me playing on this site, and paying so I can play more games with my new friend! Now I have so many friends, and I'm a rich person - so I even pay the $1,000 for a awsome Maharajah account! O'wait - I forgot I left after 2 months of not being able to join my next tournament - the site never got my money. :-(

Anyway, that is just an "extreme" example - but things like that do happen - and when you first join, you do not know to join a small 4 player, fast tournament - you don't know that until it is too late and your stuck waiting.... and waiting... and waiting....

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

BBW: If it will remove the person from the tournament, and even if they win they will actually not, it will not really be necessary to wait until all the games are finished (even though later in your post you said "The person and his games would still "be there" and count" which kind of contradicts your 2nd sentence) ;-)

Why would you need more than one tournament to figure out? And even so, pawns can join more than one tournament - just not at a time. If they are worried about it taking a long time, they always have the choice to join one of the small tournaments (4 player max, for example). But that's kind of beside the point.

Kevin: OK, here is what I meant to say: When a person is done with all his games in a tournament, give that person an option to "remove himself" from any chance of winning and moving on to the next section. The person and his games would still "be there" and count, but even if that person does win the section but already "removed himself" - it would go to the next person down the list. In thery, you would not remove yourself if you still have a chance to win the section, but since the game site can not decided it for you at this time - this would let the user decide. (I hope I explained that better this time) :-)

I disagree that only 1 tournament is enough to determin whether a site is good enough or not - but we can disagree about that! :-)

Well I know this was discussed many time before, with many different opinions (OK, just 2 opinions - 1. Everyone can afford membership and 2. Not everyone can afford membership) - and I have stayed out of it until now.

Anyway, I do know people who can not afford to pay for memberships. While I was still working as a network administartor (before being laid off in Sept 2001), we donated computers to a local "free net" - which then donated those computers to libraries and to low income families. They also offer free internet access to people who could not afford it also. Now if you don't have an income, and stay at home mom/dad - and you have to priorities between food and game site - I believe most would choose food. I'm sure EVERYONE could scrape up enough for a membership, but if you are already on a low income - that extra money you scraped up could be used other places other then a game site.

Anyway, the point is some people put their priorities of their family ahead of game playing. Could everyone possible find an extra $10-20? Sure, but if they are that bad off - unable to find a job - and sitting at home with kids and can't get out of the house - a free game site is a great way to just site down and relax to get away from things for awhile.

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

BBW: Yes, it would likely also be able to determine when a player is eliminated (cannot possibly move on). But you said:

"And yes, when I say "quit" a tournament - not really quit, but let a player deterime for themselfs that they "can not win the section to move on" and then let them joing their next tournament."

So you mean I could go into one of my tournaments and "remove" myself from this tournament (decide i cannot possibly win)? I'm assuming any remaining games i have would remain in progress. But then what if i did happen to win the tournament? Wouldn't that create a problem?

And about your comment that tournaments can last 6 months - they sure can! But like I've said before - having the ability to join tournaments is a privelege for everyone on the site, especially pawns. I definately agree that pawns should be allowed to try out the tournaments. And that's what they are allowed to do - try them out! You don't need to join very many tournaments (one should be plenty) to realize what they are like: goal accomplished. If they want to join another tournament before theirs finishes, they can purchase a membership or simply not join another tournament.

Basically a free membership is designed to try out the site. It's not too much to ask for nonmembers to pay the measly 28 bucks for Rook or 18 for Knight for a year. That's basically a couple of dinners out, or 7 packs of smokes, or 9 Northwest lattes...and it lasts a year. Can't afford it? Buy the 1/2 year. Ten bucks for 6 months...that's all. Try it out, if you like it, support it. The idea that someone might not be able to "afford" a paying membership makes me wonder how they can afford their online service? It's a matter of priorities IMO.

Yes, I indeed meant if they have played all they can play and stand no chance of getting any further, but I dont feel real strong about that aspect of it. I think if its an issue to them and if its within their means, they should consider a membership to alleviate this problem.

Once it is implemented that the system can determin a section winner as early as possible (or at least determine when a person has no chance to move on to the next section as early as possible) - as long as the player is done with their games in the section, I believe they should be allowed to join the next tournament. (since it would still be within the rule of "1 tournament at a time)

And yes, when I say "quit" a tournament - not really quit, but let a player deterime for themselfs that they "can not win the section to move on" and then let them joing their next tournament.

In a way I also think that it is good to make pawns wait for a section to finish before moving to the next tournament, BUT when a section can take up to 6 months - that could mean a pawn could only join 2 tournament a year - which I know for myself would not give me a very good impression of this site, and in turn probable not get my money.

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

TTjazzberry kind of mentioned this at the end of his post - I think making the pawns wait for the section to finish is a good idea. If they don't want to wait for it to finish, they can become a member and join all the tournaments they want. And I don't think letting people "quit" tournaments is a good idea! If you mean only when they have finished all their games and can't move on, then maybe. Except there is one itty bitty problem with that - Fencer told me he will eventually implement a system where the tournament section winner could be determined early if possible, except this is not done yet. Therefore, it is unknown to the server when a player has no chance to move on.

Yes I agree alot of repeating gets going on here. It all started because I disagreed with this part of his posting.. Yet, for whatever reason, non-paying members are under some delusion that all their inconviences should be alleviated. I felt it was unfair to assume ALL non members think that way.

Somehow it got twisted, the original point I made got lost, and suddenly I'm accused of saying non members dont get good enough service and that they should get as good service as the paying members. After I FINALLY got my point across that I DIDNT say that, he comes back saying "OK, fine! Then, if nothing is lacking, WE AGREE! That si what I ahve been saying all along! ...lol, go figure.

BBW, you have a good suggestion about letting them opt out of the tournament if no chance of getting to the next round, after all they done that tournament for all intensive purposes. I am all for keeping the limit at 1 tournament as well, there has to be incentive to become a member.

CleverHunk: I'm not sure if you got the answers or not, but here they are.

No, neither paid or non-paid members can "quit" a tournament. It's not a big deal for rooks because they do not have a tournament limit.

As of right now, you have to wait for the SECTION you are in to be complete (not the tournament) - in case there are more then 1 sections.

WOW - I leave for a few hours, and I miss a lot.

[Dmitri King May 2003, 22:00:01] "Remember, we're not talking about making extra features for the MEMBERS, this discussion is about giving the NON members more."

... actually, this never started about a non paid member wanting more features. It is not about giving non-paid members more tournaments.

HERE IS THE PROBLEM: non-paid members are limited to 1 tournament at a time. (This is a good rule in my opinoin) They can play all their games and finish the 1 tournament - the problem is that even though they are done with all their games in the 1 tournament, they can wait many weeks/months for other people to finish their tournament - up to 6 months if a paid member uses their vacations / weekends / and move limits! Even though the non-paid member is following all rules, THEY finish their 1 tournament BUT since OTHERS do not finish their tournament, they have to wait. - it's like they are being punished by other slow players - which in turns makes this site and it's players look bad - which in turns might turn away this player from enjoying this site and possible paying for a membership. If you can get a non-paid member to enjoy the site, you might get them to pay - and having them wait up to 6 months to enter their next tournament might just turn people away from this site.

My suggestion is to either re-work it so when a player plays all his games in a tournament, and there is no way to move to the next round, let them join their next tournamenet - OR EVEN BETTER - as the very first person kind of suggested, let a person "quit" a tournamenet after they complete their games if they know they can not move to the next round.

I know some people really want to limit non-paid players, and even take away tournament all together - and I know for myself, I do not play many non-tournament games, and if I could not even try out tournaments here, I probable would not have stayed around. What you have to remember is different people have different needs and enjoy different things. And if you don't show non-paid members what this site can offer - you will not get very many people to join. (Very few people will join a site if the service they get as non-paid players is bad!)

BBW (BIG BAD WOLF)

LOL.. whenever u 2 get debating stuff you both start repeating the same things over and over again...
OVERALL, i agree with DmitriKing.. though both of you certainly have valid points. Is it necessary to say them over and over again though???

I TOO became a member after a short period of time, because I am a total game addict, and I like the way this site is set up and the way Fencer takes such good care of it. And I too must say I resent when non-members complain about certain things. But, I'm not sure the thing that started this whole debate was that much of a complaint, but merely questions...

Non-paying players who have complaints about things that would be alleviated by becoming a member, SHOULD NOT COMPLAIN. That much I agree on.

ok, it looks like we are on the same page now. I thought that TTJazzberry has disasgreed with me when I stated that brain pawns should not be complaining about being stuck entering only one tournament and thus not being able to enter another one.

I agree that brain Pawns are not complaining about much, but that one complaint has ben made quite a few times.

Obviously Fencer is oging to make his own decision, I just thought that people were asking a bit much, since thye already get good service (which the three of us apparently also agree on).

DK, I didn't think either one of us (TTJazz or I) were saying there should be more features for pawns, only that we provide them with the best service possible. I think we all agree that Fencer is already doing that.

Also, I haven't really noticed many nonmembers complaining about the lack of features. They (and I, when I was a pawn) certainly have the right to make suggestions for new features and services. It's up to Fencer what he wants to do in response. In this country, the majority of people don't vote in our elections. That doesn't mean they don't have the right to complain about our government. I'd prefer that more of them vote, but that's not about to happen, unfortunately.

TTJazz's opposition to your statements didn't, in my opinion, constitute a call for more to be offered the nonmembers on this site, only that they be given the best service possible. I still agree with that, because it is just that which enticed me to become a brain rook. I don't normally speak between the lines, so I advise you not try to read between them.

oops.. I messed up your nickname again-- I hear it in my head and then I type it out. I meant to write to Pipilo, but I wrote to pipolo instead.

Here is what pipilo said:

"TTJazz, I don't see why anyone wouldn't see what you meant. Seemed obvious to me! The more superlative service this site offers to nonmembers, the more members we can expect to get onboard. "

on its own, that statement would not be construed as meaning that the non members are not getting enough features (or "superlative service" as Pipilo put it).

But, Pipilo stated this in the ciontext of lending support to TTJazzberry's argumeent and in opposition to mine, which indicated to me that Pipilo thought that what the non members now receive is something short of what they should be getting.

Pipilo, if you do NOT feel that way, then why did you chime in the way you did? It certainly looked to me as if you were implying that, otherwise I am not sure why you clarified TTJazzberry's statement.

Again, if I am misunderstanding either one of you, I apologize. BUt if you obth think that the non members are getting enough services, then what are we arguing about?

I think he meant pipolo. It must have been on another board...

WHERE did pipilo say non members arnt getting enough??? Your latest distraction really threw me this time.

I think when Dmitri gets frothing at the mouth he starts imagining things.