[doofik]

I haven't seen this topic addressed yet but it's one that needs immediate attention, at least from my point of view, and the title says it all.

On January 1,2004 I received a letter from our sponsor and benefactor, XXXXX, and I quote:

"You're rich. I'll say that. Your outrage has been noted. My scheduling was a mistake. You may send my apologies to your pal and have her send my her schedule so it does not happen again... Better yet, send it to YYYYYY... Cuz I don't even want to get close enough to either one of you to even have to see your name on an email ever again. "

And today, lo and behold, I see the whole (GROUP OF THEM) at my table, following me in the tourney. And there's no option to remove them, no option to do anything other than to continue getting insulted with their presence. I thought one's word was one's honor, so what gives?

This is a direct plea to Fred, Sheri and Uday - please either talk to them or give me tools to not have to suffer the presence of the righteous. My other option is to say good bye - that's also doable.

Jola

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2004-March-29, 10:20

[inquiry]

To keep this from getting further "personal" I edited out the names in the original post putting in XXX's and YYY's in bold for the names etc used. I am certain uday will know who is being discussed, as the battle between the people involved is well known. I will not tolerate a hostle response from the other side on this issue to Jola's response either.

She raises a very good point. Just like in the real world F2F, a player has the right to have a kibitzer removed, so too this right should exist in the online world. And in fact, I believe there is already an BBO policy on this, and if there isn't there should be one (I will try to find it.. i think it was addressed already). The solution should not require a software fix. IF a player is uncomfortable, for whatever reason, with a particular kibitizer at his or her table, a simple please XXXXX don't kibitz my table should be more than enough. IF they refuse to leave after such a request, reporting them to the nearest yellow and abuse@bridgebase.com should bring an immediate official response.

Jola, did you ask the entire (GROUP OF THEM) to leave? Give the feud between you and them, there would be reasons to believe that their actions is a violation of the BBO policy concerning interfering with your enjoyment of the site if they refused to do so when requested.

As an aside, I am associated with the (GROUP OF THEM) but do not participate in the bickering and carrying on that goes on, and did not participate in the kibitizing that went on. Although I would not have thought a second that I would not be allowed to kibitz you and your partner, as I kibitz her frequently and never have heard a complaint. However, to be clear I feel it necessary to state that my editing out of the names involved had nothing to do with my association, but rather was my responsibility to keep the tone here cival and to try to prevent an open group of he said she said attacks between frequent posters on this site.

To restate... jola's position that unwanted kibiters should be "removable" by a player is sound, and a simple clear policy statement rather than a lot of software hocus pocus would seem to be sufficient to accomplish this... assuming one to this affect doesn't already exisit.

Ben

[Abadaba]

A responsible - rational - much to be respected response Ben. Thank you very very much.

I was Doofik's partner. One of the players involved has promised UDAY he would stay away from my tables. I had him removed from my table after he made innuendos to an audience while specing at my table.

As Ben mentioned his dislike for me as a person and disrespect for me is well known and his visits to the table are nothing more than harassment. So why was he there? Why did he not leave? What is the purpose?

Why can't two ladies who love and respect BBO and the game of bridge play without such unwelcome stalking?

Once again - thank you Ben for your response. Perhaps finally BBO will take this under serious advisement.

Abadaba

[uday]

For now, simply send a msg to spec saying that you dont want spectators. If there is no good reaction, contact abuse@bridgebase.com.

A more effective solution will require coding and education. This is a social issue. And the answers are not straightforward.

You "ban" XX from your table. She logs in again as YY. Should YY be banned as well? Are you sure you are entitled to know that YY and XX are the same person? Is your right to avoid a certain spec any stronger than your enemies right to spec your opponent? Than your enemies right to privacy? None of this is clear to me.


As our zoo grows, there are inevitably more instances of friction, as dogs and cat run into each other at the bridge table. Dogs and cats hate each other; each think that the other is crazy and mean, and each group sends me email to prove this. Each group has sent me enough email that I think they are perhaps both right.

I'm the zookeepers, and I can't spend too much time on the dogs and cats. I have to sweep out the cages, expand the zoo to avoid overcrowding, and pay some attention to the other animals. Otherwise, we'll have chaos, since a zoo needs all of the above to be healthy.

Dogs and cats should cut each other dead if they cannot stand to be polite, and should make every effort to avoid seeming like they are being hostile. After all, the presumption is that any interaction between dogs and cats is hostile in intent.

Wrapping this up: no quick fix. If you are a cat and feel threatened by a dog, send the dog (or all specs) a message asking that they do not spec you. Bear in mind that the dog may be away from his PC. If the dog persists in harassing you, email abuse@bridgebase.com - but pls offer some evidence that you tried the gentler solution first.

I'm making a little fun of us all here, so try not to be too offended by my use of animals instead of usernames.

[doofik]

Thank you Ben for taking the names out, and I apologize but when I get steamed then, oh boy, trouble And no, I have absolutely no problem with you playing/kibbitzing at any table where I'm present.

Uday, I can do what you suggest but what you need to consider is that your time will be limited to nothing but needing to respond to whining. Your choice, what you propose I don't envy:-) Since you are familiar with zoos, how do zookeepers keep cats and dogs apart? Perhaps that will work here also:-)

But quite seriously, I think that players should have the option of removing kibs. This isn't directed to just this situation I've encountered today. Not every kib is welcomed and players need a tool to adjust their surroundings without having to search for a "yellow" or having to write letters. Perhaps I'm simplistic but that's the way I see it.

Jola

P.S. What if your skin crawls when you have to go near that kib, nevermind talking. Now what?

[keylime]

Well, if someone's marked as an enemy, couldn't it programmed to have the software "auto-ban" them from non-tourney play? Shouldn't be that difficult to add the subroutine into the stellar tour de force Uday and crowd create for us.

With myself and pard, we welcome all - we rather be inclusive than excluding. However there have been instances where someone(s) were there that didn't sit well with us, but we've yet to ask for their removal. Let them sit and watch; they might learn something, and that is always a good thing.

[csdenmark]

To me this topic seems quite un-understandable. Today you have several ways to separate cats and dogs:

- Disallow all kibitzing at table
- Disable communication to table from kibitzers
- Disable all communication from a certain ID(turn ID into black and disable chat from enemies)

To me it looks like we all have an option today to choose who communicate with and who not to communicate with.

[doofik]

Claus:

I beg to differ. This is about presence not necessarily communication - I'm a social animal and I like my friends being at my table. So now my choices are (as per your suggestion) to ban everyone or ban no one. Do I have that correct?

[csdenmark]

Doofik - I think right. Maybe the new filters can help you here - I dont know. As far as I remember I noticed today - it is possible to filter out enemies.

I have never met people I cannot stand to look at their ID's as long as it is silent - at least to me. Maybe you feel different!

I very much hope you will be able to solve your problems. Even cats and dogs have problems - they all have a right for a peacefull life - you too of course.

[inquiry]

I don't think I like the concept of a blanket ban of all "enemies" from kibitzing. This is for philospohical and practical reasons.

First, what if a yellow makes you mad, and you click them as enemy? You think you should be able to keep a yellow from coming to your table. What if there is a complaint that needs addressing.

Second, I mark a fair number of people as enemies... most of them for limit time to remind me to speak to them about some transgression I thought they made... like being rude to opponent or something....

Third, many, many people I mark as enemy are done so for easy of dealing with what I would call frauds... people who claim to be world class or expert but don't know the least bit how to bid or play. I would not want to bar them from kibitzing, I just have little desire to play against or with them... I play with beginners and novices, fine... but preferably ones who know their level and are willing to work to improve, not ones who think they are god's gift to bridge and see no need to get better as they think are world class already.

Really, I think the ban a specific kibitizer should be much more restrictive than just ban all your enemies. It really should be either a cat/dog situation like uday referred too. or maybe if you have reason to believe one kibitzer maybe sharing info about the hand with an opponent (or your parnter). Or if a kibitzer is causng a disruption of play at the table.

The situation being discussed here one of alleged harrashment by proxy. The players in question who where kibitzing couldn't talk to the table (silent kibitizers), but their precences alone was disturbing to doofik.

A couple of question arise. One of the players in question says that they were never asked to leave the table. This of course is a key point for if you are not asked to leave, how are you suppose to know to go? Second, uday is right. If the people in question wanted kibitz, they could create a new log on and kibitz to their hearts content with no one the wiser. This would even escape the "enemy" block idea.

Ben

[doofik]

Ben:

Allow me to presume that bridge players have a greater intelligence quota than an average person. That being said, allow me to show you the chat from our table. This was not a private message as I see no reason to have to have contact with individuals in question:

Abadaba: we seem to have caught the fascination of [I]XXX (my italics) pd
doofik: I can do without their fascination, really well
gypsyqueen: good comment doofik
doofik: :-)
Abadaba: it has always been the way they figure things out
doofik: it seems that I go out of my way to not be present at tables where they are, but reverse is not quite happening
Abadaba: but you have nothing to learn from them
doofik: ehhhhhhhhhhh learn or not, I like to be in company that doesn't have it's head up its behind
Abadaba: giggle
Abadaba: you know what mikey always says
doofik: not sure
Abadaba: how many monkeys does it take to screw in a lightbulb
doofik: lol
doofik: I like to think that XXX is here for our gracious opps:-)
Abadaba: well we will be able to tell at the next round
doofik: I hope I'm right cause for the past few rounds they've followed us, and I don't know why
doofik: ah, I forgot, I'll bet it's about cheating:-)))))))))
Abadaba: is it your turn or mine this week?
doofik: and the 200 member committee to examine my head - if I bid according to someone's fancy or not

Let me ask you Ben, would you have gotten a hint by now or do you find it necessary that I send a priv on top of that?

Jola

P.S. XXX = the group in question

[inquiry]

Well, of course you read your chat that you were angry they were kibitzing. I think, however, the chat you show comes across as if you are having a good laugh that they were there (at their expense as it was).

Let's see, you and aba made fun of them quite a few times, first that they are fansinated with you, second that they have their heads someplace inappropriate, third a joke about monkey's and light bulbs.

Now, maybe they were enjoying your comments as much as you appeared to be enjoying giving them. I think, had there been a yellow there, the location of the head comment might have brought at least a warning onto yourself. The chat log shows something else, which I was aware of, they could not respond to your comment (silent kibitzers). So I still say, the solution to the "problem" you brought up was a simple one. Request that they leave the table. I will make an assumption that such a request would have been followed quickly. So while you may have thought your comments were clear indications to leave, different people might interpret this as playful banner.

Another issue here, I think joking about cheating is not necessary a good thing. I think if someone suspected anyone of cheating, the way to check would be quiet examination of myhands record, not sit at the darn table during play. The rules state it is inappropriate to publically accuse people of cheating, and by proxy, you implied their presences was an indication that they were either suspecting or might be somehow accusing you of cheating. I think such actions should follow the same rules... that is, we shouldn't be quite so free with implying someone suspects someone else (even ourselves) of cheating. In so many ways, acccusing someone of cheating publicaly cheating is worse than cheating itself, so accusing some of accusing some one of cheating is probably a worse crime then too... :-)

But ok... I think this thread has gone on long enough. Two points has been made,
1) If a kibitizer is asked to leave a table, he really should,
2) In this specific instance, you nor your partner aske the kibitizers to leave.

So while your log supports the idea that you maybe not have been happy or comfortable with their watching, you never told them to leave. It was an open tournment, anyone could play in, anyone could kibitz, so until you or your partner revoked their right to be there, they could stay (at least imho...and with the caveat if uday had told one of them not to kibitz aba, then by gosh he should not have). I am locking this topic to prevent any further back and forth...we have to accept that cats and dogs will never get along....

If someone feels there is some pressing point that JUST HAS to be made, send it to me in PM. If it seems very germaine, I will open this topic again and let it be added. But enough is enough.