playBunny: Scarlet Rose, mabe you she read all the entires properly so u will understand what is going on here before u accuse people of "skimping" I was not skimping at all, so get your facts right please.

playBunny: Or who have money, but cannot pay online!

Princess Alison, ScarletRose: I'll second that. It's not cool to make fun of people who lack money.

ScarletRose: Excuse me its not a case of skimping.

Purple: But u shouldnt have to do that, i should have got the brains, end of story. But thanks anyway , you r one of a few nice people on here that support one other

Fencer: Perhaps the Knights could be allowed to enter up to 10 tournaments of any type or just remove the tournament game type restriction completely instead of limiting them to 1 of each type. Seeing how they are limited to 50 going games total, that should be plenty of tournament admissions. I also fail to see why a Knight is limited by what type of game the tournament is. The total number of games going should be the limiting factor. If someone only wants to play Backgammon, why not let them?

Another thing that can be done, would be to lower the fee for a Knight membership while leaving the restrictions in place and the create a new membership category priced at or near the current Knight membership that would have the restrictions removed and increase the number of going games to 80 or 100. It could be called a Bishop membership and would fit right into the scheme of things. This would give people an extra choice to choose the membership that best suits their needs.

playBunny: I believe that a member is allowed to pay the difference of the price of a Knight member to a Rook membership prorated for the remainder of the Knight membership and get the upgrade in membership. The difference between the two is about 10 euros for a whole year, isn't it? Maybe you can check into that. It doesn't seem like it would cost you much more and your friend's gift would still bare most of the cost.

eagle eye: True.. haha

ScarletRose: ... or pay nothing and enjoy whatever is free :-)

Fencer: I think he should be your spokesman Fencer.. seriously.. then you can tend to the brains thingy..

BIG BAD WOLF: Yep, I understand that, BBW, but I have to wonder whether it's working. Another possibilty is that a Knight realises that they're so little better off than a Pawn that they might as well be one - and doesn't bother renewing. So Fencer loses the 60% rather than gaining the 40%.

My own subscription was a gift from a friend. I could not even afford to pay for my Knighthood, let alone a Rookhood. And the Sponsor a Pawn schemes (when done out of legitimate motives) are a recognition that money is not an abundant resource for some of the BrainKing customer base.

In the end the answer can only come out of Fencer's records. What are the renewal rates, and the conversion rate of Knights to Rooks, Rooks back to Knights and the like? I suspect that it's too early and the numbers are too low for any reliable conclusion.

In the meantime I make a plea for those who are Knights out of necessity but getting a deal that's out of proportion. Personally I don't care so much about the limits on number of games; as a speed player I only want a few active at a time anyway (thus I get many games completed within a day or so) but the tournament restriction is ridiculous if it means that I can only play one or two per year!

And I would love to be able to create tournaments for other speed players. As a Knight I can't create them myself but I can do it indirectly by asking a Rook to handle the admin. The restriction is thus not a real one, it's just an arbitrary hindrance. Given that creating a popular tournament series (and it would be likely to become so) is a benefit to the site, it could also be seen as a case of "cutting off the Knight in order to spite the site", as it were.


Fencer: I don't want you discussing it at all! It's not complicated, though it may seem that way if you're busy working. I'd like this certainly not minor matter to be given some thought at a later time. If it seems complicated then you don't understand what I'm saying and why. So only when you do, would I care for a response.

For Princess Alison it's simple: Just tell her that she will retrospectively be awarded her Brains when you make the change to the new system.

[Search key added: #Membership Levels#]

Fencer: I will pay to upgrade her to Rook if that will get her the brains retroactively.

Fencer: Yes but i didnt know that they were going to subscribe to a ROOK did i, so, i shouldnt be penalised for that, and no its not obvious why u dont go into details.

Princess Alison: All right, let's have it justified. Now, you don't get any Brains for a player above your own level. Later, you'll get them but not always (and for an obvious reason, I don't go to details).

Fencer: But i am not making it complicated i think i have a very FAIR argument, but u can not seem to be able or to want to be able to justify it

playBunny: No, no and once more no. Please don't make it complicated, I don't want to spend the rest of the day discussing this minor issue. BBW is right, I should make him my spokesman.

BIG BAD WOLF: This all stems from my previous argument of allowing my referral to give their brains to somebody who is already a ROOK and not to me being the referrer. Can you or Fencer justify that, no you cant

playBunny: I think the purpose for the limits on the Knight membership is to encourage users to buy a full Rook Membership.

But at the same time, for someone who does not want a lot of games and does not need the extras, then a knight membership is a good thing to have.

To increase the knight membership privledges would only decrease the rook membership. The limits are in place so when a user does want more, they will upgrade to a full rook membership.

Which of course all of this is my opinion. :-)

playBunny: Your one fair

Fencer: LOL. Nobody says it's fair. I'm saying the opposite - that it's not fair.

Okay, so you put it in place three years ago when you were first considering the idea. The length of time doesn't mean that you got it right and it doesn't mean that it has to stay that way either.

So I am saying that it should be fair. If you don't like the word 'fair' then how about 'reasonable'. Is it reasonable that a Knight should be unable to play in tournaments because they are stuck in one that is edging along at the speed of treacle on a cold day?

Saying that "if someone doesn't like it they don't have to use it" comes across as disrespectful. If I were a pain in the bum to you and other Knights too, and you wanted to get rid of us, then that's a useful comment as it's likely to make people see you as thoughtless or uncaring and they'd be more likely to leave. But I don't believe it's your intention to discourage people. So to express it as a response to a legitimate issue is disappointing. I'd rather you thought about the issue than posted an immediate gut response.

The fact is that I do have to use the system that you created. Or leave the site. Again, surely that's not what you're suggesting!??

Why did you create the Knight level? Presumably because you recognise that some people are on low incomes, some people are unwilling to commit much money to something until they are sure of it, and yet others recognise that they'll only make limited use of what's on offer and needn't pay for unlimited use. Plenty of reasons, and it's great that there's a more affordable way to be active than having to be a Rook.

Yet I say again - why does the Knight have to be only so little above the Pawn and so crippled compared to the Rook. Pawns may come and go, they may convert to paying members. A Knight, however, is already a paying member and keeping them paying is a good thing. You may see it that a Knight with crippled facilities is more likely to pay for Rookhood on their next update, and that will be true for some. But there are also those who cannot afford that difference - small as it may seem to many people. I believe that if a person can only afford to be a Knight then they're likely to stay as a Knight, yet continue to feel dissatisfied at the perceived value for money.

Finaly, you mentioned to Walter about having limited time to respond. Remember Filip. Today's customers are tomorrow's customers - if you treat them properly. So can I suggest, then, that you make a reply like "You've made some good points and I intend to get back to you as soon as possible" (and mean it) - rather than appearing to throw cold water in people's faces and walking away!

[Search key added: #Membership Levels#]

BIG BAD WOLF:

Fencer: You're probably right about the endless discussion, but I think you could've chosen your words a little better to help alleviate their concerns. There's often times unintended consequnces caused from even the best of intentions.
May your work go well.

Princess Alison: you are welcome

playBunny: "Yet the fee for a Knight is over 60% of the Rook's"

What could be a better reason to upgrade to a rook!

Walter Montego: No, I perfectly understand the point of complaints. But I am working now and I don't want to raise more and more questions at the moment. No matter what I answer, if it's longer than 2 words, it will always start a new discussion and I don't have time to participate in it now.

lukulus: Oh ok, i apologise.

Thank you for your support though

Walter Montego: Thank you Walter, fancy a game of backgammon

Princess Alison: No its not strange, I deleted it myself. I wrote it, and accidentaly posted before considering my words. When I saw Fencer's replay I deleted it. But is true, I think you are right:) Hope itll be solved soon.

Fencer: I think that you're missing the point of their complaints. The system appears to have logical inconsistancies and is applied in an abitrary way. Even you say that you're going to change it, so that would appear to me that you have problems with how it is set up also. You are being rather secretive about how you'll change it. I, for one, will take it on faith that you'll improve this Brains business, but I think Princess Alison would just like a reassurance that when the new system is in place she'll get something for helping to recruit some new members that she got to sign up recently. After reading her posts, it doesn't make much sense to me that a refered member if they join as a Knight will earn someone some Brains, but won't earn them any Brains if the referal pays more and joins as a Rook? This doesn't seem logical to me and I'm sure that's all she's talking about.

playBunny: And who says it's fair? It's the system I created 3 years ago and who doesn't like it, doesn't have to use it.

playBunny: LMFAO , HERE!! HERE!!

Pawns get to play upto 20 games. They can play in only a single tournament at a time.

Rooks get to create fellowships and start tournaments.
They get to play 1,000,000 games and join 1,000,000 tournaments.

The Knight cannot create even a single fellowship or tournament.
The Knight can play upto 50 games - only 2½ times as many games as a Pawn.
The Knight can participate in only ONE tournament at a time per game type. [In theory that's over 70 tournaments but for a Knight who only plays one type of game that means only one tournament - same as a Pawn. Or if they play two games types, only twice what a Pawn is allowed]

Yet the fee for a Knight is over 60% of the Rook's.
Is this fair?

I'm going to join a tournament to see if I can win a Rook membership. With 125 players it so far and another month before it starts, the chance of several snails and turtles playing is extremely high. So this tournament could last, what, a year?

That means that for the next year, perhaps, I will be unable to play games in any another tournament because I'll mostly be waiting for others to play their games.

The Knight gets on the order of twice what a Pawn gets.
The Rook gets everything possible.

The Pawn pays nothing.
Yet the fee for a Knight is over 60% of the Rook's.
How can this be fair?

I suggest, at the least, that Knights should have a higher limit on games and tournaments. And not per game type but overall. A player who wishes only to play chess variations, or line games, or backgammon types should not be penalised because of that choice.

Thats strange, where has that last persons message gone, the one that was agreeing with me.........was it just DELETED by someone????

Fencer: I think what Alison would like to hear (explicitly) is that her existing Knightly referalls will be taken care of when you change the system.

And now on to my own Knightly gripes, lol....

Fencer: Just but i still lose 100 brains regardless of whether you are changing your referral programme or not, im not going to get those 100 brains am i?

Princess Alison: Of course it doesn't. But since I want to replace it soon, it makes no sense to change it now.

Fencer: Yes, but that doesnt sort the current brain referral problem out does it

Princess Alison: Cannot you be just a little more patient and wait for the new system which I am talking about?

Fencer: Im sorry Fencer but i still think it is wrong. Somebody has been awarded 100 brains without doing anything. I have quite a few people on my friends list who are looking to become paying members,, but if they go for Rook i wont get anything, nothing tiddly poop, but YOU get your money, so i am not asking for much am i????

Maxxina: No.

Maxxina: Its a farce if u ask me

Princess Alison: Once again - the new system will reveal much more options.

If you bought a horse again , you can add a brain to yourself Alison

Referrign to recent comment about the brain referral programme. Is it really right, that a person who didnt make a referral is allowed to receive the BRAINS that i wasnt allowed to have??????????????????

My head turned red when i realised that pretty soon after i wrote that. I will became soon brain rook. Why i use that way, one might ask. That why that my dad is little bit paranoid maybe with his credit card.

Salkkuman: Why do you think it wouldn't work from Finland? The listed countries are only examples :-)

" 1) After some experiments and successful transactions from several countries (United States, Germany, Slovakia, South Africa) I am glad to announce a new way of payments on BrainKing which can be used especially by people who don't have a credit card or a PayPal account. Please read the Section 4 - Wire Transfer (International) for details. "
Does this mean that from finland you can not pay like this. If mean it truly mean that from bank from finland? Why so it should be pretty same which bank the money comes from, should't it?

Grim Reaper: Thank you

I would just like to say thank you to Wellywales for his kind words. He did not have to write or should i say type them, he did because he feels just as strongly about the naff brainking referral programme as i , and many others do. I really think it should be reviewed.

Andre Faria: WellyWales and to remind Fencer to add the brains to my account, they werent automatically added.