Help
It makes my blood boil when I see a topic of kibs being related to the frequency of cheating. Do we really have such a low opinion of players and kibs alike to bring this up like a bad meal? Some will point to my post re: kibs; different situation, that was personal. So please lighten up and stop with the paranoia, cause I assure you that out of 800 kibs you might find 1 who is logged in for another person to shine. And if I'm right, then let's get on with our lives and leave this topic alone.
Kibitzing OK if kibitzers comply with the Laws
#42
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 131
- Joined: 2003-August-03
- Location:Sydney
Posted 2004-April-07, 07:50
Imagine banning all the spectators from Wimbledon because a member of the crowd may be illegally coaching a player which under the rules of tennis would be cheating. People would regard it as a huge joke and a monstrous, illogical and inappropriate response to a problem that has other solutions.
Because of my job Im often on call and cant commit to play an event so will often watch instead. Bridge authorities around the world have policies which attempt to encourage spectating. Look how popular BBO is when big events are on vugraph.
There are other solutions to cheating that need to be implemented independent of a blanket ban on kibitzers.
Because of my job Im often on call and cant commit to play an event so will often watch instead. Bridge authorities around the world have policies which attempt to encourage spectating. Look how popular BBO is when big events are on vugraph.
There are other solutions to cheating that need to be implemented independent of a blanket ban on kibitzers.
#43
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,143
- Joined: 2003-May-02
- Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posted 2004-April-07, 08:04
Maybe there's a partial solution to this problem, not eberything is black or white. You can present the host/director an option to ban/forbid kibitzers using the same IP as a player playing. If someone wants to cheat it is very likely he will do it from the same IP sharing the internet connection at his home/office, wherever.
This will cause trouble in some innocent situations, for example here at a local club we have some computers sharing the same IP and players play/kibitz from different rooms using the same connection. Some housband-wife pairs play from different rooms in a perfectly legal situation, etc. But it won't cause a problem to all the kibitzers or make a TD forbid all the kibitzers. As many of you said forbidding kibitzers kills a lot of the magic of online bridge.
If a director/player allows all kibitzers then kibs using the same IP as a player should be marked in red or in some way. So if strange things happen AND there is a suspect kibitzer a host/director can take measures.
Luis
This will cause trouble in some innocent situations, for example here at a local club we have some computers sharing the same IP and players play/kibitz from different rooms using the same connection. Some housband-wife pairs play from different rooms in a perfectly legal situation, etc. But it won't cause a problem to all the kibitzers or make a TD forbid all the kibitzers. As many of you said forbidding kibitzers kills a lot of the magic of online bridge.
If a director/player allows all kibitzers then kibs using the same IP as a player should be marked in red or in some way. So if strange things happen AND there is a suspect kibitzer a host/director can take measures.
Luis
The legend of the black octogon.
#44
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2004-April-07, 08:08
luis, on Apr 7 2004, 09:04 AM, said:
Maybe there's a partial solution to this problem, not eberything is black or white. You can present the host/director an option to ban/forbid kibitzers using the same IP as a player playing. If someone wants to cheat it is very likely he will do it from the same IP sharing the internet connection at his home/office, wherever.
This will cause trouble in some innocent situations, for example here at a local club we have some computers sharing the same IP and players play/kibitz from different rooms using the same connection. Some housband-wife pairs play from different rooms in a perfectly legal situation, etc. But it won't cause a problem to all the kibitzers or make a TD forbid all the kibitzers. As many of you said forbidding kibitzers kills a lot of the magic of online bridge.
If a director/player allows all kibitzers then kibs using the same IP as a player should be marked in red or in some way. So if strange things happen AND there is a suspect kibitzer a host/director can take measures.
Luis
This will cause trouble in some innocent situations, for example here at a local club we have some computers sharing the same IP and players play/kibitz from different rooms using the same connection. Some housband-wife pairs play from different rooms in a perfectly legal situation, etc. But it won't cause a problem to all the kibitzers or make a TD forbid all the kibitzers. As many of you said forbidding kibitzers kills a lot of the magic of online bridge.
If a director/player allows all kibitzers then kibs using the same IP as a player should be marked in red or in some way. So if strange things happen AND there is a suspect kibitzer a host/director can take measures.
Luis
Luis, as nearly always, is a voice of reason. But as a general rule, two log in's from the same IP address are not allowed (uday has to approve it I believe), and sadly there are technical ways around using same IP address from the same computer anyway, as illustrated to me by one of my partners who choose to use one such trick. I believe he emailed uday on that one, but that trick can not be eaisily stopped.
Ben
--Ben--
#45
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,808
- Joined: 2003-January-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:USA
Posted 2004-April-07, 09:51
We do not prohibit multiple logins from the same IP address ( Internet cafes, home networks, AOL all use one IP address for more than one user).
We attempt to block one PC from logging in more than once. We allow it for some users who have a need for the ability.
What I'm not getting from all this is two things
a) I don't understand why people are sounding irritated at McBruce. He is working around some perceived limitations of the software as best he can.
It is only by experimentation that we learn. I am sure that his customers who worry about cheating (or of being falsely accused of cheating each time they make a good lead) appreciate the small comfort of knowing there are no specs.
If I were concerned about cheating in one of my tourneys, I would almost certainly bar specs as well.
c) It would be good if the software could help a a little. Right now the only option we offer is to bar specs or open it up completely to specs.
What options do we see?
- restricting specs to one hand - boring for the honest specs, and a bad apple will spec his "special friend's" partner.
- Forcing spec to stay at table - boring for honest specs ,and a bad apple will be able to xmit info about the (same) hand to his "special friend"
- Allow TD to specify who is allowed to spec and who is not. Seems ok to me. Allow TDs to see more info about the specs applying to watch ( same IP as someone else in the tourney? etc)
Over time we'll come up with something. I think that when we run tourneys with something tangible at stake we'll need even more in the way of precautions than disallowing specs.
We attempt to block one PC from logging in more than once. We allow it for some users who have a need for the ability.
What I'm not getting from all this is two things
a) I don't understand why people are sounding irritated at McBruce. He is working around some perceived limitations of the software as best he can.
It is only by experimentation that we learn. I am sure that his customers who worry about cheating (or of being falsely accused of cheating each time they make a good lead) appreciate the small comfort of knowing there are no specs.
If I were concerned about cheating in one of my tourneys, I would almost certainly bar specs as well.c) It would be good if the software could help a a little. Right now the only option we offer is to bar specs or open it up completely to specs.
What options do we see?
- restricting specs to one hand - boring for the honest specs, and a bad apple will spec his "special friend's" partner.
- Forcing spec to stay at table - boring for honest specs ,and a bad apple will be able to xmit info about the (same) hand to his "special friend"
- Allow TD to specify who is allowed to spec and who is not. Seems ok to me. Allow TDs to see more info about the specs applying to watch ( same IP as someone else in the tourney? etc)
Over time we'll come up with something. I think that when we run tourneys with something tangible at stake we'll need even more in the way of precautions than disallowing specs.
#46
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,143
- Joined: 2003-May-02
- Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posted 2004-April-07, 09:59
uday, on Apr 7 2004, 03:51 PM, said:
We do not prohibit multiple logins from the same IP address ( Internet cafes, home networks, AOL all use one IP address for more than one user).
We attempt to block one PC from logging in more than once. We allow it for some users who have a need for the ability.
What I'm not getting from all this is two things
a) I don't understand why people are sounding irritated at McBruce. He is working around some perceived limitations of the software as best he can.
It is only by experimentation that we learn. I am sure that his customers who worry about cheating (or of being falsely accused of cheating each time they make a good lead) appreciate the small comfort of knowing there are no specs.
If I were concerned about cheating in one of my tourneys, I would almost certainly bar specs as well.
c) It would be good if the software could help a a little. Right now the only option we offer is to bar specs or open it up completely to specs.
What options do we see?
- restricting specs to one hand - boring for the honest specs, and a bad apple will spec his "special friend's" partner.
- Forcing spec to stay at table - boring for honest specs ,and a bad apple will be able to xmit info about the (same) hand to his "special friend"
- Allow TD to specify who is allowed to spec and who is not. Seems ok to me. Allow TDs to see more info about the specs applying to watch ( same IP as someone else in the tourney? etc)
Over time we'll come up with something. I think that when we run tourneys with something tangible at stake we'll need even more in the way of precautions than disallowing specs.
We attempt to block one PC from logging in more than once. We allow it for some users who have a need for the ability.
What I'm not getting from all this is two things
a) I don't understand why people are sounding irritated at McBruce. He is working around some perceived limitations of the software as best he can.
It is only by experimentation that we learn. I am sure that his customers who worry about cheating (or of being falsely accused of cheating each time they make a good lead) appreciate the small comfort of knowing there are no specs.
If I were concerned about cheating in one of my tourneys, I would almost certainly bar specs as well.c) It would be good if the software could help a a little. Right now the only option we offer is to bar specs or open it up completely to specs.
What options do we see?
- restricting specs to one hand - boring for the honest specs, and a bad apple will spec his "special friend's" partner.
- Forcing spec to stay at table - boring for honest specs ,and a bad apple will be able to xmit info about the (same) hand to his "special friend"
- Allow TD to specify who is allowed to spec and who is not. Seems ok to me. Allow TDs to see more info about the specs applying to watch ( same IP as someone else in the tourney? etc)
Over time we'll come up with something. I think that when we run tourneys with something tangible at stake we'll need even more in the way of precautions than disallowing specs.
Uday,
What about marking in red specs with the same IP as a player playing? What about letting the TD forbid kibitzers with the same IP as a player?
The legend of the black octogon.
#47
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,808
- Joined: 2003-January-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:USA
Posted 2004-April-07, 10:13
That would block 2 AOLers from playing with each other.
However, the server can certainly make an educated guess that two players are "close" to each other and offer this information.
However, the server can certainly make an educated guess that two players are "close" to each other and offer this information.
#48
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 114
- Joined: 2003-February-14
- Location:Norway
Posted 2004-April-07, 11:57
Maybe I shot some overhead here, but I will agein try to give my feelings 
1) how many players attend BBO each hours of the day? from 750 - 4000
2) How many cheaters do you think there are logged on?
how great odds is't to run into a cheater?
3) If you play with a cheater and loose, how much must you pay, or what do you not recive? Is this loss enough for you to ban kib, when you know that you then also ban yourself?
4) When do we play with a "cheater"? In my opinion if you play ageinst Op that never can learn you anything, but still win over you all the time.
If you play ageinst such O, mark him, and make comments "can't learn me anything, just a vaste of time, no fun either
"
Now when you have mark him, how great odds is to get a new one in the near future?
I think the way to go is not to ban Kib...we all know there are shop lifters, but we don't close our shop in order to get rid of that.
On the other hand, if you start to ban kib because of cheating, you make the problem much bigger, because we will belive that it is a real problem with BBO, and many will leave because there are so many cheatres there.
I have also start to notice that more and more tables are locked for kib in main brigdeclub. Normaly I would never kib them, but now the suddently are more interesting
What do you feel?
We must all have an eye on the "small problem". Mark it yourself, but never accuse one before you are 150% secure that you are right.
Hopfully Uday and Fred still improve the programs abillity to catch cheaters, in the meantime have fun
Have a nice day
Edvin
1) how many players attend BBO each hours of the day? from 750 - 4000
2) How many cheaters do you think there are logged on?
how great odds is't to run into a cheater?
3) If you play with a cheater and loose, how much must you pay, or what do you not recive? Is this loss enough for you to ban kib, when you know that you then also ban yourself?
4) When do we play with a "cheater"? In my opinion if you play ageinst Op that never can learn you anything, but still win over you all the time.
If you play ageinst such O, mark him, and make comments "can't learn me anything, just a vaste of time, no fun either
"Now when you have mark him, how great odds is to get a new one in the near future?
I think the way to go is not to ban Kib...we all know there are shop lifters, but we don't close our shop in order to get rid of that.
On the other hand, if you start to ban kib because of cheating, you make the problem much bigger, because we will belive that it is a real problem with BBO, and many will leave because there are so many cheatres there.
I have also start to notice that more and more tables are locked for kib in main brigdeclub. Normaly I would never kib them, but now the suddently are more interesting
What do you feel?We must all have an eye on the "small problem". Mark it yourself, but never accuse one before you are 150% secure that you are right.
Hopfully Uday and Fred still improve the programs abillity to catch cheaters, in the meantime have fun
Have a nice day
Edvin
Edvin say "a smile a day keep the doctor away"
#49
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 131
- Joined: 2003-August-03
- Location:Sydney
Posted 2004-April-07, 13:54
Good post Edvin
I'm certainly aware that 2 logons from the same physical location is a way of cheating. I know numbers of people banned for this method of cheating from the site I play tournaments. They were banned because the evidence was collected.
There have been a number of people banned at this site for using some form of illegal communication. The telltale sign with this method of cheating is often 'telling pauses'. The most frequent ways this was identified was by people kibtzing. Unsurprisingly some of these people who were subsequently banned were the most vociferous in support of a no kibitzers policy (this is not to say most people who want to ban all kibtzers or some kibtzers dont have good intentions).
I'm certainly aware that 2 logons from the same physical location is a way of cheating. I know numbers of people banned for this method of cheating from the site I play tournaments. They were banned because the evidence was collected.
There have been a number of people banned at this site for using some form of illegal communication. The telltale sign with this method of cheating is often 'telling pauses'. The most frequent ways this was identified was by people kibtzing. Unsurprisingly some of these people who were subsequently banned were the most vociferous in support of a no kibitzers policy (this is not to say most people who want to ban all kibtzers or some kibtzers dont have good intentions).
#50
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 769
- Joined: 2003-February-14
- Location:Bulgaria, Varna
- Interests:Bridge - new bidding systems, psyches; Computers - education, service, program; Computer games great fan :-)
Posted 2004-April-07, 14:30
uday, on Apr 7 2004, 05:51 PM, said:
We do not prohibit multiple logins from the same IP address ( Internet cafes, home networks, AOL all use one IP address for more than one user).
We attempt to block one PC from logging in more than once. We allow it for some users who have a need for the ability.
What I'm not getting from all this is two things
a) I don't understand why people are sounding irritated at McBruce. He is working around some perceived limitations of the software as best he can.
It is only by experimentation that we learn. I am sure that his customers who worry about cheating (or of being falsely accused of cheating each time they make a good lead) appreciate the small comfort of knowing there are no specs.
If I were concerned about cheating in one of my tourneys, I would almost certainly bar specs as well.
c) It would be good if the software could help a a little. Right now the only option we offer is to bar specs or open it up completely to specs.
What options do we see?
- restricting specs to one hand - boring for the honest specs, and a bad apple will spec his "special friend's" partner.
- Forcing spec to stay at table - boring for honest specs ,and a bad apple will be able to xmit info about the (same) hand to his "special friend"
- Allow TD to specify who is allowed to spec and who is not. Seems ok to me. Allow TDs to see more info about the specs applying to watch ( same IP as someone else in the tourney? etc)
Over time we'll come up with something. I think that when we run tourneys with something tangible at stake we'll need even more in the way of precautions than disallowing specs.
We attempt to block one PC from logging in more than once. We allow it for some users who have a need for the ability.
What I'm not getting from all this is two things
a) I don't understand why people are sounding irritated at McBruce. He is working around some perceived limitations of the software as best he can.
It is only by experimentation that we learn. I am sure that his customers who worry about cheating (or of being falsely accused of cheating each time they make a good lead) appreciate the small comfort of knowing there are no specs.
If I were concerned about cheating in one of my tourneys, I would almost certainly bar specs as well.c) It would be good if the software could help a a little. Right now the only option we offer is to bar specs or open it up completely to specs.
What options do we see?
- restricting specs to one hand - boring for the honest specs, and a bad apple will spec his "special friend's" partner.
- Forcing spec to stay at table - boring for honest specs ,and a bad apple will be able to xmit info about the (same) hand to his "special friend"
- Allow TD to specify who is allowed to spec and who is not. Seems ok to me. Allow TDs to see more info about the specs applying to watch ( same IP as someone else in the tourney? etc)
Over time we'll come up with something. I think that when we run tourneys with something tangible at stake we'll need even more in the way of precautions than disallowing specs.
Spoiler
Hi Uday!
Spoiler
I really don't like what I will do, because I had bad experience and was punished many time and probably is time to learn something... I didn't meet yet people, who like criticism and if you do it with the Boss, like you in BBO, it can lead to very unwanted effects for that person, in this particular case - me. But I really like BBO and people here and will try to help them, despite my bad experience with tries to say "bad news" to Boss .
Spoiler
Uday, are you programmer who works to improve BBO software or you are also BBO community menager? If you are menager, have you need education&experience how to menage large mass of people? Leader of how many people you was and did you enjoy of success there?
Spoiler
I am really sorry about above questions, but need to know I will really try to prevent any future cat&dog stories with only weapon I have - words. I am really worried, if you can't see what can follow, if people like some of TD's who participate here will be allowed to continue... The directors are volunteers in BBO, but they can have different reasons to do this job... I will quote here some of arguments that I really don't like and same position can lead to unwanted by me situations in my beloved BBO, thank you for your great work Uday!Quotes:
"I'm not spending my time to create a kibitzing environment."
-> Because of such people existing, will pass many time before we can ever dream about money for bridge, at least like theese for chess...
"TDs reading this: a lot of you work harder than I do even. Do any kibitzers ever thank you for your work?"
->Warning! Cats and dogs, dogs and cats...
Spoiler
Misho
MishoVnBg
#51
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,808
- Joined: 2003-January-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:USA
Posted 2004-April-07, 15:08
We don't have anyone who is the "community manager"
My primary work is development, then abuse, etc.
This is not the first online system I've developed, managed, or helped run.
This is the most unruly of the three that I've worked on (i'm guessing because we come from different countries, and we dont charge, and we are very passionate about bridge) , but it is not the largest.
But, don't let that stop someone from volunteering Prove that you are not a crazy person, show me that you are even tempered, demonstrate that you care about BBO and its users, confirm that you will work for no pay, give me some reason to think you know what you are talking about; maybe we do need a person in charge of managing the community. both here in the forums and on BBO itself. In exchange, we might be able to give you any reasonable software changes.
My primary work is development, then abuse, etc.
This is not the first online system I've developed, managed, or helped run.
This is the most unruly of the three that I've worked on (i'm guessing because we come from different countries, and we dont charge, and we are very passionate about bridge) , but it is not the largest.
But, don't let that stop someone from volunteering
Prove that you are not a crazy person, show me that you are even tempered, demonstrate that you care about BBO and its users, confirm that you will work for no pay, give me some reason to think you know what you are talking about; maybe we do need a person in charge of managing the community. both here in the forums and on BBO itself. In exchange, we might be able to give you any reasonable software changes.
#52
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 769
- Joined: 2003-February-14
- Location:Bulgaria, Varna
- Interests:Bridge - new bidding systems, psyches; Computers - education, service, program; Computer games great fan :-)
Posted 2004-April-07, 15:41
uday, on Apr 7 2004, 11:08 PM, said:
We don't have anyone who is the "community manager"
My primary work is development, then abuse, etc.
This is not the first online system I've developed, managed, or helped run.
This is the most unruly of the three that I've worked on (i'm guessing because we come from different countries, and we dont charge, and we are very passionate about bridge) , but it is not the largest.
But, don't let that stop someone from volunteering Prove that you are not a crazy person, show me that you are even tempered, demonstrate that you care about BBO and its users, confirm that you will work for no pay, give me some reason to think you know what you are talking about; maybe we do need a person in charge of managing the community. both here in the forums and on BBO itself. In exchange, we might be able to give you any reasonable software changes.
My primary work is development, then abuse, etc.
This is not the first online system I've developed, managed, or helped run.
This is the most unruly of the three that I've worked on (i'm guessing because we come from different countries, and we dont charge, and we are very passionate about bridge) , but it is not the largest.
But, don't let that stop someone from volunteering
Prove that you are not a crazy person, show me that you are even tempered, demonstrate that you care about BBO and its users, confirm that you will work for no pay, give me some reason to think you know what you are talking about; maybe we do need a person in charge of managing the community. both here in the forums and on BBO itself. In exchange, we might be able to give you any reasonable software changes.
Spoiler
Hi Uday!1. I am not crazy and can send you needed documents about
2. If you take my words as willing to menage BBO community, sorry about my bad english
I only want BBO to continue to be same friendly environment, how I found it when I join here and thanks to great Fred's ideas about BBO. 3. You really need "community menager" with full rights and diplomatic talant, who love BBO enough to sacrifice his time to do this job. Probably same person is not so hard to find, if you look menagment of previous conflict... Abilty to menage large mass of unruly people is part of his job, hehe And he is already volunteer too
4. I will help without payment and I don't need any "software cahnges", but I can't be regular, because hard working to survive in my "banana country".
Thanks again for your great work here Uday! Misho
MishoVnBg
#53
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 114
- Joined: 2003-February-14
- Location:Norway
Posted 2004-April-08, 01:36
Hey all, for the last two post I have some comment
1)
You really need "community menager" with full rights and diplomatic talant, who love BBO enough to sacrifice his time to do this job. Probably same person is not so hard to find, if you look menagment of previous conflict... Abilty to menage large mass of unruly people is part of his job, hehe And he is already volunteer too
A nice thought, but don't ask for it
As soon as this manager is employed, he/she will get every little quarrel on his/her table. The manager and his helper will soon be burned out. The cry for a new manager will start. No one willing on a free basis. What next.....
2)
From Uday
We don't have anyone who is the "community manager"
My primary work is development, then abuse, etc.
Here I will say development is enough, both for Fred and Uday!
So if we want to help, I suggest that we ask them if they want us to form a commite, 3-5 people from different countrys, that try to solve missunderstandings, abuse, quarrels and so on, on a free basis, and after rules given from BBO.
This is just thoughts, but I am sure some of us will help out if asked
Have a nice day
Edvin
1)
You really need "community menager" with full rights and diplomatic talant, who love BBO enough to sacrifice his time to do this job. Probably same person is not so hard to find, if you look menagment of previous conflict... Abilty to menage large mass of unruly people is part of his job, hehe And he is already volunteer too
A nice thought, but don't ask for it
As soon as this manager is employed, he/she will get every little quarrel on his/her table. The manager and his helper will soon be burned out. The cry for a new manager will start. No one willing on a free basis. What next.....
2)
From Uday
We don't have anyone who is the "community manager"
My primary work is development, then abuse, etc.
Here I will say development is enough, both for Fred and Uday!
So if we want to help, I suggest that we ask them if they want us to form a commite, 3-5 people from different countrys, that try to solve missunderstandings, abuse, quarrels and so on, on a free basis, and after rules given from BBO.
This is just thoughts, but I am sure some of us will help out if asked
Have a nice day
Edvin
Edvin say "a smile a day keep the doctor away"