Draconian Measures.
#1
Posted 2010-December-15, 03:15
If the table breaks up because of this, and the hand never finishes, then you should be permanently banned from BBO.
(ok, maybe not that last bit).
I suspect this would be fairly tough to implement... though maybe a timer instead of a callback when the hand is finished. who knows...
#2
Posted 2010-December-15, 12:19
U
#3
Posted 2010-December-15, 13:08
uday, on 2010-December-15, 12:19, said:
U
Hey Uday,
I'm aware of that feature, but for several reasons I still very much prefer playing on the stand-alone client. I am also not sure that the filter picks up all of the offenders; in particular, the ones that come to an already started deal, see they have a crap hand, and leave.
#4
Posted 2010-December-15, 13:42
matmat, on 2010-December-15, 03:15, said:
If the table breaks up because of this, and the hand never finishes, then you should be permanently banned from BBO.
(ok, maybe not that last bit).
I suspect this would be fairly tough to implement... though maybe a timer instead of a callback when the hand is finished. who knows...
Please let us not implement anything like this.
IMO by far the biggest problem at BBO is having to leave after taking part
in auction and/or play because some other player, usually but not always
the host, will not do anything, thus inactivating the table.
This probably happens 1000s of times a day (certainly 100s of times a year
for me) and the OP suggestion would be as likely to punish the innocent as
it would be to punish the guilty.
#5
Posted 2010-December-15, 15:12
USViking, on 2010-December-15, 13:42, said:
it would be to punish the guilty.
I disapprove of indiscriminate use of the word "likely".
-- Bertrand Russell
#6
Posted 2010-December-15, 15:26
USViking said:
it would be to punish the guilty.
mgoetze, on 2010-December-15, 15:12, said:
I am not sure how to take this, but will amend as follows:
The OP suggestion would be sure to punish the innocent as often as it punished the guilty.
#7
Posted 2010-December-15, 15:29
USViking, on 2010-December-15, 15:26, said:
I feel that this is clearly wrong.
-- Bertrand Russell
#9
Posted 2010-December-16, 02:51
USViking, on 2010-December-15, 16:14, said:
You have not: All you are doing is saying "I object!".
OK, here is your foundation:
USViking, on 2010-December-15, 13:42, said:
for me)
Here is my foundation:
I have seen this happen almost never. I have seen what the OP described significantly more often.
-- Bertrand Russell
#10
Posted 2010-December-16, 12:02
mgoetze, on 2010-December-16, 02:51, said:
I have seen this happen almost never. I have seen what the OP described significantly more often.
There are two different events being weighed here.
This one from the OP:
A. "(A player is) at a table, make(s) a call, and leave(s)"
And this one from my post #4:
B. "(A) player, usually but not always the host, will not do anything, thus inactivating the table"
I agree both A and B occur. Without having kept any records I believe A takes place
significantly less than B, maybe half as often for me. I do not believe it would be
exaggerating to say that B is a daily experience for me. I do not think there should
be any possibility of penalzing someone who leaves a table under those circumstances.
With 100s thousand users per month (per week? daily?) different users may have different
experiences due to their playing habits. Someone like me who usually plays pick-up with
three strangers should have experiences similar to mine. Perhaps you usually play with 1-2
who you know well enough to know they are reliable, and won't freeze the table.