Dev Site update

20 players sound about right. I was on a team that had players I never saw and who never played. If you looked at the roster we appeared to be a very large team, but we weren't. Carrying people who quit the site, but never quit the team, is not wise. Better to let rosters consist only of active players.

Hi KY! the original limit...to get a team n forum....was 15 I believe
I will surely agree to start all over again..regarding accts.
....my 2c.....I think we need to get running (joe n muf need donations) way before we will have to resolve the the size of teams n such........ya can put a limit on it.....but I fail to see....how we continue........without monetary support.i send what I can n that's not a lot,,,,,,,,,,,,but I'm doin my best
TY Screwy

Sharron123 wrote:

Coach

With regards to team size......can understand your point and I too would not like to see or be forced to choose...teams meant so much more than being a number ...they were family... and all teams did not have 20 active members---so I don't see importance of such a limit.....true a bigger team has the ability to make a difference but in actual effect it often hinders them moreso than a small team....besides if the point system was adopted there could be a way of it not matter what size team you have...all you need to do is drop the points of the lowest players and only take into account the top 20 scores of each team...reducing or limiting team size will have no benefits IMO as you are always going to get inequalities....so why force this issue...teams are families not numbers...if you change this  it changes the dynamics that made this site what it is...a second home

Also agree that this site biggest hinderance for getting new players is its ability to join the site...it has always been complicated and not explained very well at the point of joining...I have actually had to spend a lot of time showing and explaining to those joining as well as current members how to do things or the rules and in fact many of the players needed step by step help...this needs to be made easier and if it can't it at least needs to be explained with clarity at time of joining as I know many that have given up before they have even started

I know Mufusa said Roy was going to do a mass email (newsletter)...as yet has this been done as I have not seen one.  Joe you are creating a new forum...it should have the ability to do a newsletter...many sites are now sending newsletters out to their members notifying them of special upcoming events weekly to keep players interested. When people join site they have to use an email addy......you need to make sure that the new site has the ability to be able to send a mass email(newsletter) to its members as it is a way for those not wanting to join forums etc to keep up with progress and keeping them informed...it is also great publicity that it is free at a single click of the button

a newsletter has been sent to every offsite forum member to the email address used when signing up here.

my opinion:
when re-creating each of the teams, it should be up to each and every member to sign up for a team.
not for a chief to just fill up hers or his team. that way the people who have not played in years (not
including those that are passed, most of us have one or two that we keep forever) will not be just
brought forward to hold a space.
twenty is a good size team, i am hoping that when we get to the point of getting the teams back that
all the members do go back to their teams.

a newsletter has been sent to every offsite forum member to the email address used when signing up here.

Apologies Roy.....I never received it, but just checked my preferences here, and it seems my profile was set to "no" for receiving newsletters...have never reset this so I am guessing that is reason...cheers

Thank you Everyone

MissMousse wrote:

my opinion:
when re-creating each of the teams, it should be up to each and every member to sign up for a team.
not for a chief to just fill up hers or his team. that way the people who have not played in years (not
including those that are passed, most of us have one or two that we keep forever) will not be just
brought forward to hold a space.
twenty is a good size team, i am hoping that when we get to the point of getting the teams back that
all the members do go back to their teams.  

AS a  chief I would never just 'add "players simply because they were there before the crash , I would hope they want to return and ask to do so ... and I also hope all other chiefs  would feel the same way..
Also speaking for myself I have never once  said  20 players for a team was a bad number... my complaint always was and is  I would not remove players  to reach the 20 player  imposed limit  for any other reason than   thats what people want.... you have done nothing wrong,,.. BUT  because they say  we have  too many  i have  to remove  you from the team. Hows that  for  have a good  day????
Those players  wanted to be on a team  and until they say they wish to leave they should stay on that team  unless the chief decides to remove them  due to inactivity plain and simple.  However Since we are now starting over  and  I nor any chief  removed any players  to reach the 20 player  limit  so it is a whole different   thing..

I have removed players in the past that returned to play quite a while  later  who were confused as  to why they were off the team and wanted back on the team....for that reason  i stopped removing players  due to inactivity as long as Rush stayed  within the rules of  40 members maximum  , which we always  did...  They were not playing   so while they did not help us in the standings , they also did not hurt any other team in the round scores  either  so i never really understood all the hullaballoo about having them there... they  affected   absolutely  nothing...they were just   names   not  chip counts. On the other hand a couple came back after long  intermissions and wanted off the team  for  different reasons... and  they were allowed  to leave as  per their  wishes,  they were never being held on rush against their  will in the least, but the decision to leave was theirs  not imposed on them by a mandated  rule  or  by myself just to clear space...  stay or leave  it  always was and is   the teamies  decision as long as they were  good teamies  The only exception was  always if they done something to warrant  removal from the team plain and simple.

I state again  if there is a new  rule of  20 players per  team I will allow  Rushies back on the team   until the 21st  player asks  to return,   and that player  will get my spot and I will bid  fatcat adieu....      I will never   say no  to a player  coming back to the team they were on and  wish to return to   and i definitely will not choose between teamies as  to  who can and  who cannot be  apart of the team they were all on prior  to all this..  that to me is just  wrong  and  selfish  thinking by  a few on the site being narrow minded over this  whole  thing

There also is a good chance that more than 20 will not ask to return since we only had less than 20 active players at the end... but the point is still the same..

Well this is my feedback/opinion.....
I had over 10 yrs with fatcat and was knocking on 40 mil..More then that not counting the games set up and donating chips for big games..
Those big games got filled majority of the site played them...Teams and ppl showed up in droves and they were awesome games.. The Big game,Cancer games,remembrance games and those games set up by other teams & individuals seemed to be fun and you would see 50 to 60 players register for them..

As for the rings i see your point nobody was losing any chips because nobody played the rings until they had a sizable bank to play and suffer the loss...Most games i seen on rings were allin fests...

If ppl are willing to sit a few hours to play a big game/tourney to me that says volumes.....The tourney games are part of the poker grind and more incentive to play, to see how you can win the big chips..

As for the 20 ppl on a team,well we (RoyalRUSH) only had maybe 12 to 15 active players with major chip counts...I see it's benefits but i also see coaches point of view...I just don't understand why the teams cant stay as they were..How was that hurting fatcat??? The number/limit on a team was set @ 40 some had that many but for those that didn't play over long periods always had a spot on a team to come back to..

Now take away those chips gathered over ten years and i'm not alone we have many many millionaires,We have no rank,no chips to even have big games..All back to ground zero in chips..
I like change but if it isn't broke don't fix it....We need individual scores to be kept and team scores...

It just sux to try to gather those chips over a 10 yr period just to go back to zero..
Makes me feel i wasted my time...

I can some what agree with "if it isn't broke don't fix it." But there is a point where change is needed even if it isn't broke. If you have a car, It doesn't mean you should never do an oil change or get new tires from time to time. Regardless what it is, almost everything requires maintenance, updates, and changes. It is needed to prevent problems. Look at the site for example, it was vulnerable due to outdated stuff. An attack finally caught up with it and went down. Made the server 100% useless. We were lucky to be able to recover the data that we did. It wasn't "broke" until the attack but could have been prevented if there was updates at minimum.

IMO, The site was going down hill long before Mufasa ended up with it and the server attack. I mean, there is a reason why DB was gonna let it go. You can argue nothing was broke, but to me, If a site is losing players and not growing in one way or another then there is an/are  issue(s) that needs fixed or changed. Buy hey, that's just me... Maybe it was due to "Bingo", I don't know. I can only go by what I'm told. But what i don't understand is, if people that didn't like that game play (Bingo), there was always pot limit, not as many as no limit, but its an option. So it don't make sense to me personally, but what do I know, I wasn't there to witness it. I can only make an educated guess based on what I can observe now.

I said it once and ill say it again. We did not know there was a problem with making fresh accounts. I did not know because no one brought it up when I mentioned it. So I was moving forward with that idea. Now a month later I have to take a step back and figure out if and how I'm going to use the old database. Once done, everyone will have to recover accounts again as no 2 encryption encoding are the same. It's near impossible to decode.

I wasn't expecting to bring all that over to the new site. So if we do keep the old database, where do we draw the line? With around 50,000 accounts, its a bit much. Do we keep the last 200 people that signed in? the last 2 years worth of users that signed in. There are a lot of accounts that signed in once and never came back, or some people had multiple accounts to cheat, and a lot just flat out quit. Obviously there will be an exception made for loved ones that are no longer with us. But any suggestions where the line is? If someone new see the site and the member count and only 5-15 people online at any given time. They'll wonder what happened to drive people away... Least I would

The site now that is using the old database was and I'll admit it, it is a "hack job." As you may notice the "Account" balance do not show up anywhere. Its there, so don't worry... But that site was something thrown together as quick as possible for the sake of poker. That is why it is so basic.

All I want to do is bring the site alive to the point where the server payment isn't the primary issue. I know we're in a hard spot right now, but I can only do so much by my self. Could always hire a freelancer to have everything done in 1, 2 weeks tops. But I do not know what that would cost or if it is even an option, considering the circumstances...  but, yea...

We'll use the old database some how, I'll add it to my to-do list.

-----------------------

Just a fun fact, so don't hate... Just to give an idea how much data there is for the users only. The novel Moby Dick contains 206,052 words. Assuming the average word is 5 (Google says 5.1 for the English language) characters in length. That is 1,030,260 characters (a rough estimate, who's gonna count). The user database alone is approximately 50,000 accounts, when I downloaded it to a YML format (for easy reading and understanding) it has exactly 62,039,652 Letters and numbers (a program counted it). That is equivalent to stacking 60 Moby Dick novels. Assuming the novels used are paperback, at one inch thick. That would stand around 5 feet tall.

Luckily there is a search/find feature in computers and software.

-Joe

How about the last two years. That should account for the active players.

Joe ...yall have done a heckuva job, in my view!..thanx soooo much
ive been on FC since 05 ive never been a "ring player" only cuz it looked like an alli contest to me
I realize a bunch of folks enjoy the rings.........im guessing that it gives a player a good rush.....but far as poker skill goes......jus my opinion....it doesn't help me win a buy in tourney.....at my local casino
in ant event....no matter how yall gotta fix it....im for you doing it the easiest way......as ya mentioned pretty tuff for just yall to fix...everyon have a great day....n....enjoy..what God has provided for us

Screwy

Take the accounts that have played the last 5 yrs...
I'm willing to bet it's no more then 300 ppl/accounts or less..
Or accounts in the last 2 yrs, like bookworm posted....
Those that have been playing last few yrs are the regular/active players anyways....

I liked that idea bookworm......A lot less data to recover then the 50k you mentioned

I think 2 years was around 950-1,000 accounts (like 985 or something close, last I checked), that is accounts that signed in at least once since Jan 1st, 2015 (little over 2 years).

I'm trying to find away to filter out account length. Not like oldest or newest account, but more how long the account was used. Mainly to delete accounts that was only used for a day or so, to see how much that narrows things down... But when ever I try and do calculations, the program I'm using crashes. I'll work something out.

joezilla wrote:

I think 2 years was around 950-1,000 accounts (like 985 or something close, last I checked), that is accounts that signed in at least once since Jan 1st, 2015 (little over 2 years).

I'm trying to find away to filter out account length. Not like oldest or newest account, but more how long the account was used. Mainly to delete accounts that was only used for a day or so, to see how much that narrows things down... But when ever I try and do calculations, the program I'm using crashes. I'll work something out.

Joe  not sure if this will help or make it easier...try doing the top 100 players for the last six rounds or from 2015...most that have played regularly will be in the top 100 (end of round scores) at some stage...hope that narrows it a bit

Great idea

Sharron, good information here for Joe to use.

I can make it one less Joe , Delete RichardB , I don't have any problem with former chip count / status.
I'm all for just starting over fresh.

It may be some others feel the same way?
Anyone want to chime in to shorten the list ?

nice Richard and a great suggestion.

i think starting afresh would be best all round.

1k accounts isn't bad. 50k is however too much In my opinion. When I was looking at the past 2 years "active" accounts, 1/3 of them didn't have a team. Quite few of them was one day accounts to a few days.

I spent little time today looking at newly created accounts. Out of the 196 new accounts created since Jan 1st, 2016, 57 accounts was created but never verified, 86 accounts signed in once and never returned, and 29 played longer than a month. Out of 139 accounts that did sign in, 15 joined a team.

-Joe

There you go zilla dude sounds like your getting a grip on it...lol

I also agree with starting fresh, whatever you decide is fine with me.....HK

some will be pleased,some will be pissed.. with the chip count,with the new site,with the whatever....that's human nature.    personally I couldn't give a flying Peso one way or the other....just get the darn site,Team Fat Cat,up and running at full tilt....one game per hour(with 3 players and 2 no shows_) is getting (yawn) boring and uninteresting.