[Gerard]

I, more often that I wish, suffer from asmall but very "active" kibitzers who not only bash me in kibs, but also send nasty messages to the table, interrupting the game and the players concentration. In it's current version, you can accept all kibs, unconditionally (the bad guys can come in as they please), or select which kibs are allowed in or not (very disruptive too, because I have so many kibs and, in consequence, so many requests), or refuse all kibs (unfair to those who really would love to watch the game, the vast majority of kibs).

Methink the software needs 1 more option: the one consisting in being able to remove a kib who is or has become undesirable, without removing all the kibs simply because of one or two of them are being a pest.

Could you put this in the wishbox?

Thank you

Gerard

[matmat]

This is what the enemy feature is for on BBO. Use it.

[awm]

As far as I know there isn't an option to "disallow enemies as kibitzers." As long as this is the case it'll be hard to ban specific people from the table. Maybe a good thing to add.

[DrTodd13]

Isn't there a "require permission to kib" feature? Admittedly this is only useful if you know who you don't like to start with. If someone is already a kib and you discover you don't like them then you're stuck.

[1eyedjack]

The OP seems like a reasonable request. Why settle for a half-workable solution when there is an obvious improvement?

Yes you should be able to reject specific kibbers from spec, and yes you should be able to ban flagged enemies from kibbing - at least in the main playing area. Tourneys would be different I think.

[luke warm]

i agree, something like 'ban enemy list from kibs' then mark whoever as enemy

[fred]

It's a good idea (which has been mentioned before), but I am afraid it is too late to put it into the upcoming release.

This will almost certainly be implemented one day...

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Echognome]

The nice thing about it is it might save certain hassles for abuse. Abuse can simply say "if you don't like them, don't allow them to kib." Might also be nice for TDs in a friendly team match. You may want to allow comments from your friends to, say, a team match, but not to all people.

[hrothgar]

This response is going to drift a bit from Gerald's original post, however, there's really a point to this all:

As I noted in some earlier postings, I think that getting the messaging system "right" needs to be one of the central components of the new BBO architecture that Fred/Uday are discussing.

Conceptually, one can break BBO into three large chunks

1. The client code that provides the interface between the end users and their local machine

2. The server side code (dealing hands, saving board results, keeping a listing of open tables, upcoming tournaments and the like)

3. The "Social" fabric: BBO consists of a lot of different communities.

The messaging system is the glue that holds all these different pieces together. It would be interesting to study whether it would be possible to using an existing Chat architecture (IRC or some such) to build the interface between the BBO client and the server... In a sense, you could treat most everything as a chat channel or a UNIX type pipe.

For example, assume that Gerald wanted to open a new table

Gerald click on the open table button in his client. By clicking on this button, Gerald creates two chat channels. One chat channel is a private channel between Gerald and the server. The server uses this channel to send Gerald his hand. The second channel is a "public" channel. The public channel is used to convey information that is of general interest. Cards played. public converations, etc.

Here is where life gets interesting: Most chat systems allow end users to place restrictions on new channels. For example, I have the option to create and publish a chat channel but require permission for anyone to join it.

I really think that you could get enormous bang for the buck by leveraging some exisiting code. (Sigi made some similar observations a while back)

[Limey_p]

awm, on Jul 27 2006, 12:07 PM, said:

As far as I know there isn't an option to "disallow enemies as kibitzers." As long as this is the case it'll be hard to ban specific people from the table. Maybe a good thing to add.

Another way to address this is within Chat - have table options "prohibit chat from enemies" and/or "allow chat only from friends".

(this may well be encompassed by hrothgar's suggestion...)

[1eyedjack]

I think Limey_p is introducing a new dimension to the OP.

Barring specific kibitzers from kibitzing would have a slightly different effect from barring specific kibitzers from chatting to the individual player.

The former measure would go some way to prevent a hostile kibitzer from slandering a player to other kibitzers, where the latter measure would not.

[hrothgar]

Limey_p, on Jul 29 2006, 09:32 PM, said:

awm, on Jul 27 2006, 12:07 PM, said:

As far as I know there isn't an option to "disallow enemies as kibitzers." As long as this is the case it'll be hard to ban specific people from the table. Maybe a good thing to add.

Another way to address this is within Chat - have table options "prohibit chat from enemies" and/or "allow chat only from friends".

(this may well be encompassed by hrothgar's suggestion...)

Slight different actually

Assume for the moment, that we have a brand spanking new BBO with lots of bells and whistles, including - hopefully - an upgraded chat system...

Furthermore, asusme that me an a group of my blokes have our own channel that we use to discusses whatever topic might fit our fancy. This is a private channel and exists separately from any given table that we might be spectating...

In theory, a group of folks could gather at anyone's table and mock player XYZ to their heart's content without any of this spilling over into general chat. In short, the only way to block the type of activity that Gerald is complaining about would be to block said players ability to access the "feed" from the table.

(In actuality, even this wouldn't work since players can always use the review hand function to access the same information after the fact. Players could be criticising your play even as we speak using IRC or some such)