Congrats to Matarilevich for winning the Joust!!
Well done! Thanks for everyone else for playing in the Tournament!
Joust at the Realm #3

as a rook,they can form fellowships...if they lapse after 3 monthes,there would be an open fellowship.I would think that with the existing numer of fellowships(some members have more than 2) the fellowship increase and subsequent abuse,would defeat the purpose.

Hrqls - yes - but ideally it would be better if people were Rooks in my eyes. That would quell all the discussions re Knights in Fellowships and numbers of games allowed etc (see posts at the bottom of this page and just before...)

bwild - why?

Red Squirrel Anti Nuts

Open to anyone who wants to play!

what would the price have to be ?
you can already have a half year knight membership for only 10 euro .. isnt that cheap enough ?

I think this would be disasterous to the fellowships.

ROFL, I swore I wouldnt start any more tourneys for a while, but I cannot pass up that name! LOL@sLaMz

sLaM'z " oH mAn! i'Ve bEEn bAnNed... aGaiN."

jOIn My dAMn bG tOuRnEy.

Fencer might reconsider now that the methods of payment have changed a bit.

ahh, right. Cheers Bumble. Bleedin good idea though!! lol

I believe something similar was suggested months ago but I think Fencer stated it was not economically viable at that time due to PayPal's charges.

Dont know if this has been suggested before, but how about an "Introductory Level" 3 month Rook membership? (Available to a pawn upgrading for the first time only) with the benefits of a Rook - i.e. number of games/tournaments etc but without the creation of a Fellowship facility (incase they dont renew).

A smaller price (and time period) may tempt would-be pawns and once they get the benefits and see how good the site is, any subsequent renewal should be a minimum 6 months as usual....? It wouldnt cost the site any loss of revenue but potentially gives an affordable taster to those who dont want to commit to a full 6 months....

Filip - I think you should offer first - set an example ;0)

No, I said 1/10th of a cent.

That would be 5c, or $18 per year.

:)

All right, who wants to be the first volunteer of this system? :-)

Even playing only 50 moves a day is $0.50. Over a year that's about $180...

Nooks and Crannies Box of Delights

join in.

How about charging per move. I suggest about .10c per move.

(That's 1/10th of a cent)

:)

hehe....we'd have to find another programming gnu! LOL:)

... but then who would keep improving this site??? :-)

LOL:)
your English expressions are getting better!!

Over my dead body.

how about if the memebership was the price that a knight is now, but with rook priveleges? Maybe then a lot of pawns would join?

???
what was that???

Big Bad Wolf makes pefect sence on his part of having a choice of membership its like taking away the freedom of speech as long as its negotable which fencer has allowed for everyone in the world to make the choice seeing how some people can not afford or have the time to be a rook.So it comes to there choice without that there would alot more pawns rather then knight and the pawn issue with nicks is out of control to point that nobody knows who is who.thanks Big Bad Wolf and Kevin.

CHRISTELLESHEN: It's not your turn now, you must wait until Smoulicek is online and makes his first move. Meanwhile you can accept challenges for more games - you can find them by clicking on the third line of the column on the left. Welcome to BK !

i like to play please now in backgammon my number is 11654

Every person here has different needs and wants from somebody else. I dont need or want the ability to play 600 games (or1600 or whatever) But I like running fellowships. You may want to play 600 games, but dont care at all about discussion boards, or whether you can show a picture of yourself. Most of us already get more than we need when paying for a knight anyway.

Why should it be cheaper for you to play 600 games and not use fellowships, than it is for me to play 30 games and use fellowships?

One price one membership, and everyone can do whatever they want to do. Some people save 42 cents a day, other people pay an extra 42 cents a day, all the new people never know any different.

Many people only want to play games here, so it makes sense to have one paying level that gives a player the ability to play more games and a higher level that gives a player the ability to start fellowships & tournaments, etc.

I see what you are saying Green.
You are either a pawn, with limited features. (which makes sense, to give people a chance to enjoy the site enough to determine if they want to join) Or a full membership, where you get all the benefits available (except access to the dice rolling codes) on the web site.

There wouldnt be another choice, so no one would feel like they only use such and such, like BBW said. It wouldnt even be an issue.

Maybe you could make the cost somewhere between what the two prices are right now, and Fencer would not lose any money?

This all started because there are not enough members to have good team tournaments. If you can just squeeze another 42 cents per day out of the rooks, you could give the knights a discount by 42 cents per day, and you would have plenty of members who are allowed to play in more than one tournament... without losing money.

yea.. and if you don't offer a choice, or take away something that is already here - you will also upset many knights who would not upgrade at all.

Why should Fencer put in extra effort to remove the Knight membership?
And besides, if the knight membership is just what someone wants, why take it away from them?

my proposition was to not give the choice, just get rid of the knigh memebership. Who cares how many features you use? The main thing you pay for is to play the games whenever you want.

Buy why? Many knights barley even use more then what they get as Pawns, and don't need the features of a rook. If they had a choice of either paying more, or just droping a few games - many would probable just drop a few games.

really? People would choose not to join because of paying 83c a month extra?

How about a poll to test that theory. Personally I think the rook membership is extremely cheap as it is.

I think it would end up losing money for BrainKing.

If the price is the same as the rook for everything, some knights would not pay since they barley use what they have now. If the price was the same as a knight, with the option to donate more - well then many users like myself will spend just what we need to get the membership, and not donate anything more.

It would certainly solve some problems..
Just make shorter rook memberships for those who do not want to spend as much money..

i know, i was just being all inclusive in the description. Just one level of membership (equal to rooks) is really needed, and lift all the restrictions. In fact I can't really understand why people choose knights when they can be rooks for an additional 83c per month.

You already are able to donate as much as you wish to.

Personally I think there should be memebers and non-members, along with an option to donate more for those that wish to. I'm not sure why we need all these levels of membership.

Agreed BBW, as at first Knights were not going to be allowed to play in any team tournaments. Then Fencer decided to let them play in just the one.

I think the main problem is now the Knights can only play one team tournament, that Rook members are joining ones they would not normaly play.
This is giving alot of them alot more games than they would normaly play. After playing in quite a few team tournaments you seem to notice you come across alot of the same players again & again as it is often the same Rooks playing in them.
I know that the idea is to try to get members to upgrade to Rooks.

Is this reason really working do we know ?

We would certainly get alot more teams entering tournaments if Knights were allowed to enter more than one, but of course there is that magic 50 game limit to be kept to.

promise?

I would like to see the rule of having to have a higher then a knight membership to join team tournaments and also have the ability to let my tournaments run out of time, when they get deleted for not enough players, i find that as a double jepardy effect,what goes for one goes for all.DONE!!!

You know I liked the idea at first of having a limit of 1 team tournament for knights, but I would like to see that rules lifted.

The only problem I would see is if a team signed up a knight member, then when the tournament is about to start and that knight is over the 50 game limit, it would cause problems for the whole team.

But again, think it would be a good idea to find a way so knights can enter more team tournaments.