[Echognome]

I do not think that there is currently a solution within BBO that will keep all sides happy. It's easy for me to say what I think the solution is, but I do not have to be the one to program it. I think having an augmented chat function with multiple channels would solve a lot of these problems. I also think that would make VuGraph watching more enjoyable as you would not have to sit there as a passive listener. You could have access to channels where you could interact. I believe this could obviate a lot of the problems with people having different preferences over their kibbitzing environment.

[Bbradley62]

So, the host sets up rules of his domain which you do not like, so you decide you will go to his domain and deliberately break those rules? He should ban you. If you think BBO should encourage/require the host to lighten up, that's a good topic for this forum, but your behavior put you in the wrong before you even started this thread. And your "Give me liberty or give me death" attitude just makes you look like a raging lunatic.

[billw55]

MrAce, on 2010-October-31, 21:46, said:

Madame De Stael "Scientific progress makes moral progress a necessity; for if man's power is increased, the checks that restrain him from abusing it must be strengthened"

James Madison "Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power."

lmao.

2over1, on 2010-November-01, 10:15, said:

By allowing a few individuals the right to have additional influence WITHOUT REGARD TO how they use that influence is allowing totalitarianism. And if you, or paulg, or anyone else, thinks that's a good idea, well I disagree. So do 40 million people in France..

lmao.

You guys crack me up with your high and mighty moral/ethical baloney. This is a private server. lol.

At a table that draws many observers for the bridge, I fully support whatever actions by the admins are necessary to prevent chat that is not directly related to the game in progress. It clogs up the real bridge comments that the real bridge observers want to see. You want idle chit-chat? Use PMs in BBO, or make your own table, or use an IM service, or whatever. But like so many I have seen at other game servers, you stubbornly insist on spouting this chat in one of the very few places that is restricted, because it is a nuissance to others. Then when somebody rightly puts a stop to it, you come running to the forums to cry about censorship. Get a grip.

[aaronh]

I would have more sympathy for the complaints if they were not couched in such inflammatory terms. When Acton remarked on power corrupting he assuredly did not have moderation of private forums in mind. It is hard to imagine how "chaos ensues" when a moderator gags the entire table; the plaintiffs here are advocating more chaos, not less. And anyone who regards the moderation at Cayne's table as "totalitarianism" ought to acquaint himself with the real thing.

The moderators, to be sure, are imperfect. First, they lay down a policy that they cannot enforce. If you can't throw out violators then you resort to coarse measures like gagging the table or disallowing kibs, punishing all for the sins of a few. Alternatively you invite in a yellow who does have the requisite powers but is unfamiliar with the usual limits of the discussion, which are a question of custom, not rules. This happened the other day and it led to absurdities: one useful spec was thrown out for using the term "mental masturbation" in a bridge-related comment, and another for making an innocuous (and witty) joke about it.

More important, they are attempting to solve a mostly non-existent problem. As Helene points out, you can easily enemy anyone you don't want to listen to. Everyone can be his own moderator, and everyone should.

Ultimately the chat can be no better than the participants. But the current moderation policy ensures that it will be worse.

[matmat]

billw55, on 2010-November-01, 11:50, said:

At a table that draws many observers for the bridge, I fully support whatever actions by the admins are necessary to prevent chat that is not directly related to the game in progress.

While we're at it, if we could also eliminate the bridge mis-analysis by people who fancy themselves commentators, despite their total lack of knowledge or ability, that would be great!

[hrothgar]

Echognome, on 2010-November-01, 11:07, said:

I do not think that there is currently a solution within BBO that will keep all sides happy. It's easy for me to say what I think the solution is, but I do not have to be the one to program it. I think having an augmented chat function with multiple channels would solve a lot of these problems. I also think that would make VuGraph watching more enjoyable as you would not have to sit there as a passive listener. You could have access to channels where you could interact. I believe this could obviate a lot of the problems with people having different preferences over their kibbitzing environment.

Let a thousand flowers bloom

[BillHiggin]

The oft repeated chat rules for the JEC tables:
1) No politics
2) No religion
3) Be nice

One person seems to think that "Bite me" is nice. The appointed agent of the table sponsor disagrees. Guess who wins this argument.

[MrAce]

Lol the more i read the more i laugh

Someone mentioned that the host asks for people to reduce their speech so it wont create a massive spam on everyone's screen....

BBO actually has a magic tool, that actually covers almost % 100 of the speech related problems. Of course thats if people really complain about what they say . But if u wanna create job for people, and call it " professional table host" its another story.

Seriously, i heard this from LL, Uday, thats its only a few bad apples. If thats the case, right click on their name and mute them by enemy button. And whoever complains about them to you, tell them to do the same thing, they will never hear again from the people that they think talks to much or inapopriate. That would solve all speech related problems and let the yellows deal with their primary job, which is to help people with technical, financial, bridge related questions.

Othervise BBO or table hosts will have to deal with " HEY Mr Yella/LL/UDAY, that player A said POO to me, can u please keep him away from me, or can u please discipline him/her ? Can u please yell at him in front of public so i feel better ? Can u please bann this person ?"

Comeon guys....

[onoway]

It has to be difficult to monitor a group as large as that which kibs the Jec matches and my sympathy lies with LL for having to deal with a bunch occasionally resembling clever preschoolers. OTOH frequently the conversation is highly entertaining and often usefully enlightening. Honest questions are generally immediately addressed by a number of kibs. Although I am only there from time to time, what I have seen there is if anything a degree of tolerance and patience that many people would be glad to possess. It's sad to think that this might become a thing of the past, and have to wonder if the new "powers" happened because of a feeling of having the responsibility without the means to live up to the obligations. Hopefully, if this is now rectified, things can go back to the way they were with the understanding that if really needed then the tools are there ..not everyone is ready to shoot anything that moves just because he is suddenly given a rifle, but perhaps he might fire one or two salvos at some unfortunate bird just to make sure it works.

If the moderator is having an occasional bad day, and isn't in the mood to put up with nonsense, perhaps it would be useful to warn people that it is a "short fuse day" but still make an effort to stick to the principles of dealing with people who offend in the 4 restricted areas. It's helpful to have mutual respect and communication.

I dont understand why people who don't wish to hear any conversation simply don't mute it, rather than expecting the moderator to mute everyone for their benefit. If they wish to hear only bridge related discussion there are innumerable vugraphs offered. Most of us are here because bridge is a favorite form of entertainment and a place to socialize to some degree.Of course there has to be some gatekeeping (and a thankless job it is, too) because there will always be a few people whose main joy in life is distressing other people and they should not be allowed to do so. However, that said, the efforts of a few to shadow bridge on BBO with the heavy cloud of unrelenting seriousness is unfortunate.

[1eyedjack]

I move that whatever tools are available to the JEC table host should be rolled out to all table hosts. Not that it is entirely clear to me from this thread precisely what those tools are, but BBO is principally in the business of enabling and empowering its users, and it is up to those users to use them responsibility or they will pay in popularity. Clearly the tools are written and available, so I cannot see any justification for restricting the power of table hosts over their own tables.

[uday]

Quote

I move that whatever tools are available to the JEC table host should be rolled out to all

They are. I sometimes experiment with features that can only be activated in a weird non-standard way (rather than bother Fred to make changes to the client programs for an experiment ). I'm not proud of how this feature ("Gag all specs such that chat->kibs is forbidden except for vugraph commentators, TDs, and yellow") is activated.

Still - a string of +silentspecs+ anywhere in the description will activate this. Fred will doubtless merge this capability into a future version along with a new set of table options and filters.

U

[2over1]

It is a sad commentary that BBO has been forced to build so many filters into the system.

When the software first came to fruition, one of Fred's stated goals was to bring the bridge community together. He and Uday were adamant in their stance that BBO should be a place for people to play and socialize together freely-- perhaps a Utopian hope, but nevertheless a noble one. I was here at the very beginning, one of, perhaps, six original members still around (I actually got here about 6 weeks after BBO opened, but at that time even getting 2 tables together was near-impossible!).

Of course, it didn't really happen as planned. People of various nations or different languages or skill levels didn't want to play with one another and, asked Fred and Uday to build filters into the system to help them avoid it. Despite their better judgment, Uday and Fred implemented these things into the software. If you go back through old, old posts on this forum (assuming they are still there), you will see time and again Uday posting that he was against limiting things in such manner, then acceding to the wishes of the masses. He knew he was opening a can of worms.. and those worms continue to propagate. I imagine that trend will never stop.

The original "Utopian" bridge society envisioned by Fred Gitelman for BBO is long gone. But if people are going to be given special powers, then the least Fred and Uday should do is to set some limits on those powers.

I would strongly argue that someone who takes the phrase "don't be afraid.. the water's fine" is abusive is someone who should not be afforded such power. This is so obvious it is, literally, scary.

[peachy]

I would consider kibitzers in a team match the same as guests in a house. The table hosts have expressed a preference of what they expect from kibs and they have an absolute right to have expectations in their "own party". I see no problem if those individuals who do not agree or do not respect the expectations, are asked to comply, or to leave.

[matmat]

peachy, on 2010-November-03, 12:16, said:

I would consider kibitzers in a team match the same as guests in a house. The table hosts have expressed a preference of what they expect from kibs and they have an absolute right to have expectations in their "own party". I see no problem if those individuals who do not agree or do not respect the expectations, are asked to comply, or to leave.

You are not much of a host if one of your guests is more of a guest than another. I would expect the reaction to be the same, regardless of who drops the F-Bomb, or makes an off-colour comment. I would also prefer that the host have some ability to understand context and attempts (good or bad) at humor that are not offensive. A 'bite me' comment should not trigger a decency filter, if it does, perhaps the filter should be removed or replaced.

[BillHiggin]

2over1, on 2010-November-03, 11:44, said:

I would strongly argue that someone who takes the phrase "don't be afraid.. the water's fine" is abusive is someone who should not be afforded such power. This is so obvious it is, literally, scary.

Perceptions as to what is happening may vary. I had just arrived at the table when the chat series from the OP occurred. My impression was that Larry was acknowledging that he had re-enabled kib chat and making a general warning to all. It was clear that Steve thought the general warning was aimed specifically at him. I still do not see it that way. I.e. the phrase above just happened to occur prior to the warning rather than triggering it.

Clearly, Steve sees it the other way.

[peachy]

matmat, on 2010-November-03, 12:35, said:

You are not much of a host if one of your guests is more of a guest than another. I would expect the reaction to be the same, regardless of who drops the F-Bomb, or makes an off-colour comment. I would also prefer that the host have some ability to understand context and attempts (good or bad) at humor that are not offensive. A 'bite me' comment should not trigger a decency filter, if it does, perhaps the filter should be removed or replaced.

The solution is not to invite the guest that I didn't like the last time I had a party.
I agree "Bite me" would not trigger "MY" personal imaginary filter if sent in private. In public, it can easily be misunderstood and it really might not sound nice to those who miss the context. But I respect the table hosts' rights to have their own standards and I have the right to disagree with them, away from the party. It is not a public forum there.

[2over1]

Oh it was most definitely aimed at me-- ask the moderator. He was attempting to punish me for a perceived transgression from months ago (I learned this through a mutual friend).

It was, indeed, as I've posted-- someone who was given some extra special power and that person abusing that power-- and then essentially mocking me in private. Trust me, I know not to swear even in private on BBO (since I've actually been banned for it once!). So I chose the word "pissant" instead to describe my feelings to this person. (And, I was aware at the time of my original posting of his intent to punish BTW).

People have complained loudly and often of being treated like children by this individual. Lord knows, most of us are in our 50s or 60s or even seventies! Yet this individual treats many of us as if we were children-- because he's had the power of threat. (To be clear, I was never one of the "bad" guys, but I'd certainly been talked down to by this individual several times-- I'm almost 60 years old). Now, maybe SOME people deserve to be treated that way... but way too many people are treated that way at JEC and lots of people have been complaining for YEARS.

Since the advent of the new extra powers, he had only gotten worse, since he had a new toy.

Did this come to being because he had a new toy and wanted to show off how big and strong he was now?? The consensus amongst many who have discussed this is, indeed, that's all it was and the novelty would pass.

This individual was given a chance to apologize to me privately before I went public with this. I did so as a preemptive strike because, instead he said he was going to report me to abuse.

I figured if I posted the ABSURDITY of what brought about his threat it would (1). prod Uday to warn this guy to be a little more selective with his threats (cuz GAWD this is as stupid a reason to make a threat as I've ever seen)... and (2) maybe that individual would apologize to me (and to others who he'd made similar threats to recently)... and then I would have GLADLY apologized for whatever things I said in private to him.

But, nothing. I will never refer to this person as anything but a little pissant again.

[fred]

2over1, on 2010-November-03, 11:44, said:

It is a sad commentary that BBO has been forced to build so many filters into the system.

When the software first came to fruition, one of Fred's stated goals was to bring the bridge community together. He and Uday were adamant in their stance that BBO should be a place for people to play and socialize together freely-- perhaps a Utopian hope, but nevertheless a noble one. I was here at the very beginning, one of, perhaps, six original members still around (I actually got here about 6 weeks after BBO opened, but at that time even getting 2 tables together was near-impossible!).

Of course, it didn't really happen as planned. People of various nations or different languages or skill levels didn't want to play with one another and, asked Fred and Uday to build filters into the system to help them avoid it. Despite their better judgment, Uday and Fred implemented these things into the software. If you go back through old, old posts on this forum (assuming they are still there), you will see time and again Uday posting that he was against limiting things in such manner, then acceding to the wishes of the masses. He knew he was opening a can of worms.. and those worms continue to propagate. I imagine that trend will never stop.

The original "Utopian" bridge society envisioned by Fred Gitelman for BBO is long gone. But if people are going to be given special powers, then the least Fred and Uday should do is to set some limits on those powers.

I would strongly argue that someone who takes the phrase "don't be afraid.. the water's fine" is abusive is someone who should not be afforded such power. This is so obvious it is, literally, scary.

You are spewing utter nonsense and you know it.

Since the very first version of the BBO software, these options have existed:

- Allow kibitzers (or not)
- Allow kibitzers to chat with players (or not)
- Permission required to kibitz (or not)
- Permission required to play (or not)
- Invisible tables (or not)
- Invisible logins (or not)

I don't hear you complaining about any of these options. I suspect you use some of them yourself from time to time even though they compromise the noble Utopian ideals that you speak of so passionately.

A year or so later, when vugraph became an important part of BBO we made it a policy that only specified users were allowed to chat. We gave tournament organizers a choice between specifying these people themselves or allowing us (ie Roland) to do it for them.

A year or so later, when we first introduced tournaments and team matches, we included options like:

- Allow players to chat->tournament (or not)
- Allow kibitzers (or not)
- Allow kibitzers to chat with players (or not)
- Only allow players from the host's country
- Only allow players of certain skill levels
- Only allow players from a list specified by the host
- Do not allow players from a list specified by the host

More recently, largely in response to our inability to control or stop the bad behavior of a small percentage of our members (which due to the large number of total members amounts to enough people that it is possible for them to collectively inflict a significant amount of damage), we introduced features and options like:

- Table hosts who boot players "too frequently" lose the right to host tables
- No new members allowed in this tournament (to prevent abusers from hiding behind new IDs that they create)
- No players allowed who constantly leave in the middle of a tournament
- Kibitzers cannot chat at all (the option that you happen to care about)

Expect to see more features and options like these appear in the months to come. Expect that the vast majority of our members will continue to be grateful when we introduce such features that empower them to control the environments that our software allows them to create and which result in a more civil online bridge experience for those who care about such things (ie almost everyone).

You are correct that one of initial goals for BBO was to create a free high-quality bridge site for all of the world's bridge players. But another goal that you conveniently ignore was to give our members the ability to customize THEIR tables, team matches, and tournaments in a manner that THEY want.

We have always seen team matches as private tournaments. As far as BBO is concerned, team matches are owned by the people who create them. We have no more business telling these people what their policies toward kibitzers should be than we would have in dictating options like whether or not they should use barometer scoring. It is our job as programmers to give these people the options that they want. It is their job as team match hosts to decide which of these options are best for THEIR team matches.

If you don't like the options that a given team match host has selected, then go find another team match to kibitz or go and create your own team match. If you don't like the fact that BBO has created an option that impairs your ability to seek attention, then go find another site to play and watch bridge. If you think that Fred and Uday have failed you and the rest of world's bridge players while betraying our original noble vision, then go and make your own online bridge Utopia. Good luck with that.

But we both know that you don't really believe any of this so please just cut the crap. Your tirade is not about free speech, Utopia, or anything else other than 2over1 not getting exactly what he wants in a setting in which he should consider himself fortunate to be welcome as a guest.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[2over1]

Please refrain from telling me what I believe or what my motives are since you do not know. My motives are exactly as I've stated and nothing more. I wear my heart on my sleeve and may not be particularly good at politics, but almost always try to act in the interests of the greater good, whether you want to believe it or not. If you read in between the lines you might be able to figure out why this thread was necessary-- and it wasn't because I felt peeved. So PLEASE do not attempt to assess my motives-- your view of me is dead wrong.

I stand by what I wrote. My memory is that you and Uday (mostly Uday as I recall) were not thrilled with the prospect of giving people the ability to prevent people from joining tourneys based on various criteria such as language or skill level. If I am wrong on that, it is a mistake of memory, not an attempt to misconstrue the truth.

Perhaps the complaints came from others on this board. I do not recall-- but I HONESTLY thought that Uday stated on several occasions his contempt for the ideas of limiting things in such a way. The ONLY THING I wasn't clear about (and I was not being deceitful in any way) was that those restrictions applied to tourneys and not tables.

If my memory is wrong, I apologize, but I do NOT like being accused of things that have no basis in fact whatsoever.

You don't have to like what I wrote. Fine. I wish I hadn't had to post in the 1st place. But, I assure you, the reasons for the posting have far more to do with ongoing behavior rather than one isolated incident. I hoped bringing one absurd, ridiculous example to the front would perhaps get a dialogue going.

It was a dialogue that should have started long ago, in the opinion of many. (Indeed, I volunteered to start a thread on this subject BEFORE the person did this stupid little thing-- and I am fully aware of its stupidity). Many, many people have complained for a long time. It is a constant source of both amusement and irritation amongst many.

It was merely the launching point on a subject that should have been broached long ago.

[Zelandakh]

peachy, on 2010-November-03, 12:47, said:

The solution is not to invite the guest that I didn't like the last time I had a party.
I agree "Bite me" would not trigger "MY" personal imaginary filter if sent in private. In public, it can easily be misunderstood and it really might not sound nice to those who miss the context. But I respect the table hosts' rights to have their own standards and I have the right to disagree with them, away from the party. It is not a public forum there.

This seems to be the real solution here rather than a blanket muting of all specs. Would it not be simpler for the table host to have the ability to ban individuals from kibbing and/or speaking at their table? There have been a couple of times when a kibber has disrupted a table at whih I was playing. Currently the only expedient is to add kibber permission and then remove all kibbers. It is unfair on any friendly kibbers that they get booted at the same time to enact this.