Wayne_LV, on Dec 25 2006, 09:35 PM, said:
Quote
QUOTE
12. I think you will not because you cannot.
Bad choice of words, I should have said: I think you will not because you are probably not allowed to.
As Wayne correctly stated later in the post that I quoted, he and I have indeed enjoyed a long, cordial, and constructive e-mail relationship over the years. Most of these e-mail exchanges began with Wayne offering me a suggestion as to how we might improve our software or service. Some of the time I have agreed with him and some of his suggestions are now part of BBO. In cases where I have disagreed with Wayne's suggestions, I explained my reasoning and he was willing to accept my judgment even when I was unable to convince him that I was right.
For the record, Wayne always struck me as being a really good guy (and he is definitely a smart guy) so it disturbed me to see what at first appeared to be a lot of other good guys ganging up on him in this thread.
That being said, I was not planning on getting involved, but I am doing so now for 2 reasons:
1) Wayne's references to me in his most recent post suggested that he was going to e-mail me to find out what I thought about all of this. I thought that if I was going to express my opinions, it was likely that other people would want to know as well.
2) Wayne's statement that I quoted above struck a nerve.
I will address reason 2) first. This bothered me because I thought it was a not very subtle suggestion that Inquiry (and by extension the other yellows) was on some kind of leash controlled by BBO management.
Nothing could be further from the truth. We give new yellows a few simple guidelines about what constitutes appropriate behavior by a yellow. These guidelines are actually so simple and obvious that there is probably no need to state them - things like "don't initiate chat with an invisible person unless you have a very good reason for doing so".
The reason we do not feel the need to dictate policy to yellows is because we are very careful in selecting new yellows. We only allow people to become yellows if we are completely confident in their judgment and integrity. In short, we will not allow a person to become a yellow if we are worried that we will have to babysit them.
This policy has worked well for us. There have been very few cases in which we have had to tell a yellow "please do not do that in the future", almost all of these cases have been very minor in nature, and in almost all cases the yellow in question has never repeated the questionable behavior that he/she was asked to stop.
Another reason this policy works is because I believe that the yellows appreciate the respect we have for their judgment and that this makes it easier for them to do their jobs and to make the many difficult decisions they face with confidence.
The yellows we have are a remarkable group of people and I am normally hesitant to single out any particular yellow for going above and beyond the call of duty. However, if any yellow deserves to be singled out in this way it is Inquiry. Forums regulars already know about the massive number of helpful posts that Inquiry makes, but you probably do not know that much about what Inquiry does "behind the scenes". Although other yellows (including me) sometimes get involved in cheating investigations, Inquiry spends far more time helping to keep BBO clean than anyone.
In this capacity Inquiry has pioneered techniques for detecting cheating, spends countless hours compiling and analyzing hands that suggest that a suspected cheater is actually cheating (or just as important is not cheating), and consistently exhibits incredible judgment and integrity. Even if I was willing to get involved in telling yellows what they were “allowed to do”, I would not even think of issuing orders to Inquiry as far as cheating investigations are concerned – he probably knows more about cheating in online bridge than anyone in the world. He certainly has a lot more expertise and experience in this area than I do.
I would hope that the same respect that BBO management has for our yellows would be felt by our members. That is why it bothers me when people suggest that the yellows are nothing more than people who follow the orders of Uday and me. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the very suggestion involves a contradiction – any yellow who needs to be told what he is allowed to do either would not have been made a yellow in the first place or would not have remained a yellow for long.
As for Wayne’s suggestions as to how we might reduce cheating (by allowing the dummy to see only his partner’s hand for example), it is hard to disagree with him that these measures could only make incidents of cheating fewer and further between.
However, I do not think that this implies that we should implement these suggestions. As I have said before, our general policy is to not remove functionality in an (ultimately futile) attempt to reduce cheating if we believe that such functionality will significantly and adversely impact that BBO experience for people who do not cheat.
My opinion is that allowing dummy to see only declarer’s hand will do just that. It will make being dummy a lot less enjoyable for a lot of our members. Allowing kibitzers to see only one hand will have the same effect. Blocking kibitzers who come from the same IP address as any of the players will not be fair to the honest people who do this and would not be effective for a variety of reasons.
BBO members who are concerned about such forms of cheating already have plenty of options (playing only with trusted friends, playing only at tables or tournaments in which kibitzing is not allowed, playing in games with GIBs). If they don’t like any of these options, all I can suggest is that they accept the fact that they might get cheated on occasion, don’t let this ruin their day, and report suspicious behavior to our abuse department. The bottom line is that, as long as players know who their partners are, cheating will always be a part of online bridge and preventing people from knowing who their partners are would ruin the game for almost everyone. Of course we will continue to try to get rid of people who cheat and to include features in the software to help people avoid the cheaters, but we are not going to try to win this unwinnable battle by implementing features and policies that will make BBO less enjoyable for our honest members.
No doubt some of you are thinking “your ACBL policies contradict what you just said”. That is true, but there is a difference: we have a responsibility to the ACBL to do whatever we can to prevent cheating in the games in which ACBL masterpoints are at stake. It is necessary that this responsibility takes priority over the enjoyment of our members because ignoring this responsibility will mean the end of ACBL games on BBO.
My main impressions from reading this thread have been:
1) That my friend Wayne was perhaps too sensitive to the criticism that his suggestions received
2) That at least some of this was justified as the tone of some of this criticism was not exactly nice and because I did get a sense that people were “ganging up” against Wayne
After a while the whole thing because a vicious circle with each post from Wayne and his critics adding fuel to the fire without really furthering the discussion. I think it is time for everyone to take a break.
I do hope that all of you will be able to get over this because, as I said near the start of this post, I know Wayne is very bright and I am sure he has the potential to be an excellent contributor to BBO forums. I personally think it would be a shame if Wayne stopped posting here. If he does continue to post, I think it would be a shame if his future posts were ignored or dismissed as a consequence of what has happened in this thread.
One more thing Wayne (and everyone): please stop this “Fred himself” stuff! Yes I have won more bridge trophies than most and yes I have been involved in writing the BBO software, but that does not make me a deity. I do not want to be treated as such. It is nice that people seem to admire me and respect my views, but I make plenty of stupid decisions (at the bridge table, in BBO design, and in some of the things I have written in forums) just like everyone else. Please treat me like everyone else. Just because I say something, that doesn’t mean it is right.
And a message for Claus (which I have said before): I find your references to “gigolo bridge” to be deeply offensive. While I admire your study of bidding theory and your dedication to having strong agreements with your regular partners, it is time that you realize that your views in this area place you in a tiny minority of bridge players. It is highly inappropriate to suggest that anyone who does not subscribe to your views in this area (ie just about everyone) is cheating.
I also happen to think you are completely wrong, but we can save that discussion for another day. In the mean time, I am sure we will continue to disagree, but I don’t think it is a lot to ask that you show a little more respect for people whose views in this area are different from your own. Even if you are right, calling 98% (your number) of BBO members cheaters because they don’t agree with your views, really has to stop.
Thanks to all of you for helping to making BBO forums such a stimulating and dynamic place. I hope and expect we will get more of the same in 2007!
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
Help
