grenv: I agree, or at least I would call it poor sportsmanship, but it's not our call, Fencer has 2 reasons that he does not consider it cheating, 1.) It is a multiplayer game and therefor does not fall under the same guidelines as other games here. 2.) This isn't a reason it is not cheating but rather an excuse for not calling it, there is no way to prove it, even though in your example it is admitted.

Right now, dark ponds are set up so you do not easly see who signs up.... BUT that is not really true because if a person has the time, you can easly look in a persons profile and see if they are playing in a dark pond or not.

What I would like to propose to Fencer is that for dark ponds that we can see who is signing up. (But of course once the dark pond starts, players names and such are hidden to keep it as a dark pond.)

Advantages:

people who want to set up ponds with certain BKR limits will be able to kick out players who do not meet it.

people who want to set up ponds for certain fellowship members will be able to kick out players who are not members.

people can kick out known cheaters (or for those who do not consider it cheating - people who play unfairly)

people can avoid playing in dark ponds with people they do not like

Disadvantage:

I can not really think of once - SINCE right now you can find out who is playing in a dark pond by searching players profiles to see if they are in the pond.

= = = = =

So what do others think? Do you think we should see who is signing up? If not, reasons why not?

VOTE NOW!

BIG BAD WOLF: I'm kind of on the fence on this one.
Does this suggest that you will be playing ponds again soon?

That sounds good to me, BBW

BIG BAD WOLF: What I would like to see is a way to make a game an invitational without having to take the time to copy and past and having to kick people out

It's still cheating. Getting an advantage over the rest of the competition because of advanced notice of another player's move is clearly cheating. Proving it is quite another matter.

I suggest an independent panel. If someone thinks there has been cheating then the panel will adjudicate and eliminate the offending player(s). Proof isn't needed, just a fair hearing. :)

Vikings: I'm going to try to keep active ponds - probable nothing under 4 day moves since there is still a good chance that I will take some time away from the computer upcomming... plus not going to get the 50+ ponds at a time like I did before.

Recently created 3 that I will be playing is:

BBW's Elite Pond I (over 2400 ONLY)

BBW's Elite Dark Pond I (over 1700 ONLY)

BBW's Elite Rain Pond I (over 1700 ONLY)

= = = = =

I agree that if you could make ponds for fellowships, or limits that are enforced - and maybe a "blacklist" of known cheaters & unwanted players would be nice ----- But to show who is signed up is a simple solution. (Since again it is not really hidden - I can search through a lot of profiles and find basicly all who are signed up for a dark pond now.... if I wanted to waste the time to do it.... so it is not really hidden now, just not convenent.

BIG BAD WOLF: your idea is fine, but I would like to creat invitationls without fellowships just like any other tournaments, for other reasons

grenv: your independant panel idea seems good on the surface but I think it would cause more problems than it is worth, I think the accusations would fly all over the place, just look at the animosity towards moderators, think how much that would increase if ratings are at stake, and what about the innocent person that just took a chance that someone would bid zero, some kind of proof or pattern and investigation would be required.
I think that the invitational solution is the best

Vikings: To me it is cheating pure and simple. It is gaining an advantage over everyone else in the pond through a fact that only one person knows. It makes a mockery of the ponds.

I just noticed that the usual suspects are playing in this pond with me...

http://brainking.com/en/Pond?g=1244

wonder when the "team" tactics will kick in?

Goonerg: unfortunatly you are preaching to the choir

I can forsee where this discussion is heading and I think it is a relevent discussion, however, I wan't to remind everybody as this could get a little heated....
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL NICS IN THIS DISCUSSION!!!

The discussion moved to the Ponds Plus FS...

Vikings: If anyone wants..... come on over to the ponds plus fellowship if you want less moderated discussions on this matter.

The Retreat was deleted by the new BB the Pond i formed when i had the F/S is still running.Does it run or what do i do?

Foxy Lady: it should keep runing like normal since all pond games are created in general

Vikings: Wheww thanks i was a tight worried about that.

Foxy Lady:

Vikings:

grenv: It appears that my prediction about this happening again has come true. As I said then, the game is flawed if you view these types of conspiracies as cheating. There's no way to fix it, so it's either put up with it or quit playing the game.

What ever happened to the Team Pond game a lot of us were posting about? If Ponds can be played as a two team game, this would eliminate this problem and should be a very fun game to play. Your teammates could try to bid low and set up a similiar situation but it wouldn't be viewed as cheating since you're all in it together and it is known from the start. In fact, knowing when to do it or not would determine the winning team in a lot of games.

As was guessed, the ratings fix lowered everyones ratings - so I revamped the requirements for the "elite" ponds to a level which should still allow about the same amount to play as before.

BBW's Elite Pond I (over 2100 ONLY)

BBW's Elite Dark Pond I (over 1600 ONLY)

BBW's Elite Rain Pond I (over 1500 ONLY)

is it possible for pawns who were paying members, and are now pawns and have ponds up to be started in a few hours to still have these ponds start?
I dont think that should be so, knowing that they cant play in them.

BerniceC: they will not be able to bid, therefore they will receive a bid of zero which in the first round will drop out along with the lowest bid higher than zero, then the pond rill run like normal from that point.
As far as people who are now pawns who have set up ponds, they will run like normal as long as 16 people or minimum required by that particular pond remain for it to start.
Why not let the rest of the people in the pond play it out?

Vikings: thanks :)

Did you manage to get the low BKR's out of your elite dark pond? Specifically a certain somebody that always tends to lose in the 3rd or 4th round. I ask this publicaly so everyone will have this information

never mind, I figured it out

Vikings: I removed everyone I could find, about 3-4 players I found was below the limit that I removed. But some unrated players might have snuck by.

.... but of course I just fell in that pond, so I don't care anymore!

BIG BAD WOLF: I used your trick to find out about the person that I was thinking of, good thing because I might have gone next had I not have known because of one of the bids

so now people have a secret way to know who is in dark ponds????? thats seems really fair...

Czuch Chuckers: It's not a secret, if you suspect someone is in a dark pond, go to their profile, click tournaments, and look for the name in the pond in signed or started section depending on the situation, you won't neccessaraly know everyone that is in it but just the ones that you look for

Vikings: OMG!!! hahaha,...

I guess.... its just a shame that these games arent played the way they are intended just because we are online and people can get away with it. But I know it is stupid not to take advantage if someone else might anyway.

BBW gets the credit for this one, he discussed it on one of the boards a couple of weeks ago

Czuch Chuckers: I understand what you are saying, but the game is still dark, and who would want to go through enough profiles to find everyone? Heck I'll save everyone the trouble I play every dark pond that is at least 2 days time limit, and that I am welcomed to play

Vikings: you dont need to know all players but I can think of one who wil always make you not want to go for the bonus because they always go really high, and I know one who is nototious for playing really low bids at really weird times, so if you just check out those two you are ahead of everyone who doesnt know the same.

Czuch Chuckers: exactly, there is only 2 or 3 people that I would care to know if they are in it. thats easy to look up and anybody can. That doesn't give me a huge advantage, maybe 100-150 total, and I have always said that it is unwise to go for the bonus early imo. I know there are some players that have gone all out looking for vacation days and making charts etc. And if its public information, I can't begrudge anyone spending the time. I don't like to spend that much time myself, I'd rather use my formulas, mostly

it is obvious that none of you play cricket.

WhisperzQ: lol. Very clear indeed.

WhisperzQ: HAHAHAHA

WhisperzQ: I don't get it, enlighten me

Vikings: Cricket is a sophisticated, and perhaps today antiquated, bat and ball game where there are a limited set of rules. Each player plays by those rules and only those rules. If an action is not covered by the rules then they do not do it, rather than doing it until someone says, "hey you can't do that" and changes the rules accordingly.

In cricket playing societies the phrase "It is not cricket" or the like are used to refer to people or actions which try to gain an advantage, not by breaking the rules but going outside the intent of the rules.

The game is enjoyable because it is played so that excellence may triumph, not deviousness.

In my opinion, and I think others, the actions descibed below and in this pond are "just not cricket".

WhisperzQ: Thats an awesome analysis! Maybe you could start a series of :cricket ponds" where all participants agree to only play their moves to the best of their ability, with out profit by "looking to see who has been online" or 'finding out who is in a dark pond".... just an honour type of thing, where everyone just plays by the intent of the rules.

WhisperzQ: I agree with Czuch, I really like that, and I like the Idea of an cricket (honor) pond, it wouldn't work as a dark pond I fear as someone would slip through. I wish Fencer would make these ponds invitational, as I think you could easily find a core group that would abide by your "cricket" analogy

WhisperzQ: I think golf applies here also

The point is that, IMHO, all ponds should be played this way.

Perhaps ponds should be for us ordinary folk and septic tanks who those who wish be caniving (sp?) and devious. It is not us ordinary folk who have stuffed a fun game, but the cat is out of the bag now, the idea would never work as how would you ever know if someone was not playing cricket no matter how much they protest.

WhisperzQ: I could come up with 16 people I could trust, you would be 1

Vikings: Thanks for your vote of confidence. I could proabably come up with a couple of names myself, but I will not be playing this game again ... except maybe in a fellowhip where I don't give a toss about winning or losing, just enjoy the comraderie.

I am essentially competative (my wife would say essentially is an understatement LOL) by nature. I do not enjoy playing in games which rely mainly on chance or where some competitors are at a disadvantage because of unshared knowledge.

WhisperzQ: You've decided to do what I have already done and that is stop playing Ponds. We had plenty of this kind of thing way before your little mishap, which after looking at the link to your game isn't nearly as bad as a Pond I was involved in where three people out of the blue bid 1, 2, and 10 while everyone else is bidding in the thousands. The problem with Ponds, and your game is good example of it, is that those bids might actually have not involved any conspiracy at all.

As for quoting the user agreement, I have to assume you just started playing Ponds because this very behavior is allowed by Fencer.

I requested a version of Ponds that would have two teams to play against each other with the game ending when only the players of one team are left in the game. Purposely bidding low to help your teammate would then be part of the accepted strategy. Team Run Around the Pond should be a workable and fun game.

Walter Montego: No, I have played ponds from the beginning ... my first and probably only win was the very first pond ... before all the funny business started. I had seen some of the discussion previously, in particular Basplund's open admittal that he conspired with others to rort the result ... as the cricket comment implies, being legal does not make it right. The debate in the pond kicked off because he scored a bonus in "unusual" circumstances.

I like the idea of team ponds and would consider playing in one, but tehr wsould be a few players that cause me to withdraw from even a team pond, who know what sort of deviousness they might be able to think up to stuff those too.