[slothy]

ecepal, on Mar 27 2004, 08:29 PM, said:

\\\\aishacim,//////
I will have you in FOT dear any time you are welcome
but dear you are the  "queen of the hearts" lol
does this say anything to you?
ROFL
ece

.....well it says.... ummmm it depends...do i have to lead her as Roman or standard?

Anyway,

Are you two establishing some sort of Mutual Admiration society? And if you are is it restricted to (non-resident) Turkish women??

Alex...

Love you both...

(In different ways, needless to say)

1eyedJack, on sometime yesteday, said:

Now, I consider that emasculating myself in order to get a game is a bit extreme.

At a snip, i think you are right Jack: tooooo extreme...and i imagine your wife/girlfriend/live-in lover/once-a-weeker (please delete as appropriate - multiple entries remaining may cause some distress to readers [especially if one of them is your wife ]) may think likewise...

I can direct you to another site for help if, in a moment of sheer frustration, you did in fact go through with the consideration..

[JRG]

Getting back to the original post...

I have been the author of rejections (forgive me!). The problems I run into, and the reasons for rejecting, are:

- We are playing a set game (prearranged, 4 people). I set the table up using reservations. Everything is fine until it is time to break up. When that happens, I usually want to chat with my partner for a minute or so to arrange when we will play the following week.

- An opponent (or both) leave. Now, quick as a bunny, someone requests to sit. I cannot reply why, only reject.

- I do rejection and try to click TABLE button to do something about it, but before I can, two more requests pop-up.

- I had thought the option to "Reject all, table closing" was meant to solve this problem (but I guess not).

- If I can manage to do so, I make the table invisible; but often it is kibitzers who are asking and making the table invisible doesn't make them go away (I don't know why they try to sit when we have been chatting at the table about the game breaking up).

- I used to always make my table invisible when I set it up (and thus did not run into this problem). But that is unsociable and I do have some friends on BBO that like to chat at the table with us.

- My final solution is to reserve the seats for "reserved". That works, as long as I get a chance to hit the TABLE button before the requests start coming in (I usually don't think of doing this until I get the first request -- I'm too busy trying to find out when we will play again to remember).

What I would really like to see is that when a table is set up with all four seats reserved, that when a player leaves voluntarily, the seat is kept reserved (perhaps with a fake Id like "reserved"). The problem with being able to enter a response when you reject a request to sit is that in the time taken to respond, the requests may queue up.

Oh, I did try clicking the TABLE button while a request to sit was up, but couldn't do so. I should check again to see if the behaviour has changed.

It's not even that we are experts or well known. While sometimes it is people I know that ask, often it someone I have never heard of.

[aisha759]

Hi;
Making table invisible doesnt really solve the problem; as you mentioned JRG it is unsociable for one; besides that, friends who see you idle in lobby, can't see you are playing, therefore start sending a lot of private messages, whereby you have to explain that table is invisible... knowing a friend is busy playing, one wouldn't carry on a long private conversation..
It doesn't bother me at all when rejected from a table, there is usually a valid reason; i doubt table host has the time to read all profiles and be that choosy... I personally either save a seat and mark it xx, if waiting for someone, or allow players to sit without asking... im not really into this rejecting stuff... if they happen to sit, and table is about to break up, i just tell them so...

I don't believe it should be taken personally at all......

[ecepal]

Hi If I may ,like to say one thing please.
when you set up a table(that is when you are the host lol) you have options,
one option is to describe the table type..
some write there experts only.. some writes fun only...etc etc
maybe IMO we can try writing "BY INVITATION ONLY" maybe that helps a little:))
thank you ecepal

[aisha759]

Ececim: very good point..... why didnt i think of that!!! WE all know what to expect when "expert only" is written or "french speaking only" etc..... this way, a player knows that he/she may rejected, and not get offended!
Right on!♥

[slothy]

ecepal said:

some write there experts only.. some writes fun only...etc etc
maybe IMO we can try writing "BY INVITATION ONLY" maybe that helps a little:))
thank you ecepal

First welcome to the forum Ece....

do you think that will still stop some people from trying to join the table? I have found that the same person tries to join more avidly if you DO reject them

PS sorry saw 100 posts thought the number was binary sorry......

[1eyedjack]

aisha759, on Mar 28 2004, 04:55 PM, said:

WE all know what to expect when "expert only" is written

Right on! (sorry JRG). It means "Random game coming up" :-)

[slothy]

monocledJack said:

Right on! (sorry JRG). It means "Random game coming up" :-)

LOL monocled Jack .... you read too many posts...

[irdoz]

A few comments on reading through this thread..

I understand the reasons for restriction lists on topflight and the beginner/intermediate lounge... both groups serve a particular and for me, worthwhile, function.

I also understand the TD enemies list..not allowing their 'enemies' to play in their events but I would not like to see these lists have any use beyond that.

However, I get uncomfortable with some other restrictions that exist in clubs on BBO and that TDs implement..they seem to go against some of the democratic and equitable philosophies of the internet. I'm not out to have a dig at anyone..but for example some clubs only allow entry based on personal referral. I'd be more comfotable if they exlcuded based on behabvioural criteria rather than entry based on who you randomly happen to know.

And TD's excluding beginners or private...I can understand the motivation but these categories are totally meaningless and self-assigned... and take one second to change. This sort of restriction only encourages people to change their self-assigned ranking. And Im not sure what message it sends excluding beginners from tournaments.

The 'private' thing amuses me. I see all the time in the lobby typed 'no private stats' - a hangover from okbridge. Given the so called 'stats' on BBO are all self-assigned and need to be interpreted very broadly and with some scepticism the notion that you would exclude people because they are hiding their own meaningless self-assigned rating is humorous. I have a few friends who say 'private' in their rating precisely because they realize the self-assigned assessments are meaningless. As one friend said 'if i put what I am according to BBOs criteria I am intermediate...but if I use the self-assigned rating methods that most seem to apply here I am expert. And there's so many "world class" players on here there must be a Bermuda Bowl every week...I refuse to lie.' And for choosing not to misstate their rating like thousands of others they get excluded from tournaments. Too funny.

[1eyedjack]

I agree with much of what irdoz has to say, with the exception that however illogical, unfair or downright immoral a restriction might be I would fight to support the ability of sub-clubs or tourneys to set whatever totally automomous rules and regulations (not in conflict with the principal laws of bridge) that they wished, and for whatever reasons they chose. That would include excluding members on whatever criteria, charging a fee for membership, inclusion solely on recommendation if they wished, introduction of independent ranking systems (however computed, at the club's discretion) and so on.

If the groundswell of opinion is, as I would hope, in line with irdoz then market forces will see that the unpleasant restrictions will not survive. The Internet is a great "democratizer". In all areas you survive or fail purely on the support of the remote users who are attracted to your site, club or whatever. It is precisely for that reason that there is no need for rules.

Personally, the single most influential reason why I put "Private" as my ability is so that I don't get to play at tables that find that practice objectionable.

[slothy]

claus said:

The table description is only visible if you run full screen. Else you dont see the table description unless you set your pointer to the table and not the players - especially not to an empty seat. I think it is here the information is needed - but NOT displayed.

The last modifications for the client has changed nothing here - except you will be running full screen.

Dear Claus,

I shall try and write this with an injection of humour to try and partially detoxify some of the venom that may be ejaculated in what i am going to say. Whether it will work or not is debatable!

There are very few posts submitted by you that i have incidentally stumbled upon that in some way are not hypercritical (i use the prefix hyper very validly) of the software, either directly or implicitly.

I am not sure whether it is your command of English (this i doubt very much as you seem quite fluent when you want to be and you only make a few mistakes - like forgetting that the pronouns God and Fred (peace be upon him) are interchangeable ) or whether by writing in a foreign language you lose a certain decorum in how you express yourself and are totally oblivious to what others may read into what you write ...

Having read some of the archives (well not that old) it seems that Fred had a rather similar attitude to me and you didnt seem to take on board what he was saying. i felt that i had a rather perverted and misplaced duty to remind you....

I am trying not to be judgemental (seems like on this front i failed miserably huh?)- only asking you to be a bit more discreet. I have read your posts that over and over again seem to suggest that you are either unhappy with the software(forget this one it is timid in comparison) or believe you can do a better job. There is nothing wrong in perhaps occasionally (well once even ) to give Fred a pat on the back (not too hard, dont want to crack his vertebrae ) and commend him for something that others have done with a more selfish and commercial will.

I think it is unintentional. If not, then this post is more than justified. If it is, I am just asking you, Claus, to be more aware of how what you write is interpreted by others and that ones use of words and tone projects ones willingness to be a co-operative member of a forum, supported and funded no less by the people you are unintentionally (and i think it is) excoriating...

sorry but i have read one post too many

Alex

[spwdo]

slothy, on Mar 29 2004, 11:19 PM, said:

claus said:

The table description is only visible if you run full screen. Else you dont see the table description unless you set your pointer to the table and not the players - especially not to an empty seat. I think it is here the information is needed - but NOT displayed.

The last modifications for the client has changed nothing here - except you will be running full screen.

Dear Claus,

I shall try and write this with an injection of humour to try and partially detoxify some of the venom that may be ejaculated in what i am going to say. Whether it will work or not is debatable!

There are very few posts submitted by you that i have incidentally stumbled upon that in some way are not hypercritical (i use the prefix hyper very validly) of the software, either directly or implicitly.

I am not sure whether it is your command of English (this i doubt very much as you seem quite fluent when you want to be and you only make a few mistakes - like forgetting that the pronouns God and Fred (peace be upon him) are interchangeable ) or whether by writing in a foreign language you lose a certain decorum in how you express yourself and are totally oblivious to what others may read into what you write ...

Having read some of the archives (well not that old) it seems that Fred had a rather similar attitude to me and you didnt seem to take on board what he was saying. i felt that i had a rather perverted and misplaced duty to remind you....

I am trying not to be judgemental (seems like on this front i failed miserably huh?)- only asking you to be a bit more discreet. I have read your posts that over and over again seem to suggest that you are either unhappy with the software(forget this one it is timid in comparison) or believe you can do a better job. There is nothing wrong in perhaps occasionally (well once even ) to give Fred a pat on the back (not too hard, dont want to crack his vertebrae ) and commend him for something that others have done with a more selfish and commercial will.

I think it is unintentional. If not, then this post is more than justified. If it is, I am just asking you, Claus, to be more aware of how what you write is interpreted by others and that ones use of words and tone projects ones willingness to be a co-operative member of a forum, supported and funded no less by the people you are unintentionally (and i think it is) excoriating...

sorry but i have read one post too many

Alex

alex,

in the days /moths /years to come can u send me a copie of your texts before posting it so if i totally agree(like this one) i ask u to add my name to it so save some serverspace cause BABY you took the words right out of my mouth(translated anyways)


marc

[inquiry]

[quote name='csdenmark' date='Mar 29 2004, 05:44 AM'] [quote name='ecepal' date='Mar 29 2004, 06:50 AM']
The table description is only visible if you run full screen. Else you dont see the table description unless you set your pointer to the table and not the players - especially not to an empty seat. I think it is here the information is needed - but NOT displayed. [/quote]
Claus,

I get the table description in full screen, minimized, wide view, or not wide view. That is, on my computer, it doesn't really matter what setting I have the software on....

I think this is a function of the resolution you are running at... If you computer supports higher resolutions try changing your resolution. Also, go the main bridge room and try some variations of Control-V, each time you push it, the display should change. One of the displays is the old 640x480 I guess, and there you will not see the table description unless you are in the "wide" mode. but if you toggle to the higher resolution setting, it works wide or not, and expanded vertically or not. So not to see the description in the "not wide" mode is a failure of your computer's resolution not the software, or a failure of you to realize that you can change these settings.

Hope this helps anyone wanting to see the description. But sadly, too few people use them (see "experts only") most frequently, like that request means anyting. :-)

Ben

[csdenmark]

Thank you Ben - I have it now! I delete my post to avoid somebody to get confused by my mistake.

Sorry Alex and Marc. Too many crucial and important words in your postings I dont understand. Hopefully I will find time to look them up in my dictionary.

Basically my views are to be critical to all. The only real way to test something new - not only on BBO - but in life as a whole. My attitudes are not hostile to BBO - of course not.

[JRG]

For what it is worth.

I don't think Claus is being hypercritical. I think he has a software development background as do I. When you have been involved in software development, you KNOW that developers need feedback when something is not working (or appears not to be working); otherwise, the bugs are never eradicated (testing is a part of the job that most programmers seem to hate the most and they are usually grateful for all the help they can get). He is also trying, though his English is not perfect, to give constructive criticism.

I'm sure I have seen Claus drop the odd compliment as well (perhaps he could drop a few more -- perhaps he will!).

[csdenmark]

This thread is not about me - but for some kind of clarification I try this.

My background is creativity. The methods to create new ideas to enhance the way we are doing right now. To handle such - which the world urgent needs and most people prefer to avoid - you need to be critical to everything. In danish "tvivl på alt" and in translation something like "doubt on everything - dont trust your ideas - test them ". To be annoyed with present solutions is the only way possible to pave the way for other ideas.

When you have the ideas on table you need to test them. Not all ideas worth implementing - but you need to create and to test before assessment.

I have a background in economy, organization(re-enginering) and computing. To work with creativity you need basic skills in many ways, pschycology, sociology, economy, statistics, computing, language, literature. Nearly everything you can think of you need some knowledge about - not deep of course - but enough to have a meaningful conversation with all people who are experts(deep knowledge) about their skills. You need to be able to find weak points in order to start a process where the experts can take advantage from their deep knowledge to the benefit of us all. Thats basic of all kind of invention.

I use my skills and habits in life in general. Therefore you will often see my arguments as unpleasant ones - but normally also making a difference whether stated or not. I know many are getting upset - so now you have some explanation. I also know I sometimes am unfair to some - and as soon I realize such they will have an unconditional apology from me at once. - I think I make more apologies than most.

[Judy_]

I think I have recently discovered some reasons for some rejections, which is nice to know since I get rejected sometimes. If you are host and need two or three people, and you get several people asking to join at the same time, when you accept one the others get rejected even though you aren't rejecting them and you want them to play. And if you have just one seat available and while accepting the first person several others ask to play, then they are rejected.

[blackest_k]

I think the current system is the best way it may not be polite but it doesn't give the opportunity to be impolite either.

unlike this forum
Idea's are sometimes good sometimes bad but they all can be useful to help fred towards building an ideal software environment for us to play bridge. with a complex product like the bridgebase software there are many area's it could be grown, refined, expanded.

It is natural for the focus of a forum like this to focus on the negative since these are the area's that may be selected for the next round of improvements.

If someone raises a point about a negative aspect of the software it's not an attack on fred it's just something which could be refined once the current crop of bugs are dealt with if it's important enough or trivial to change.

Fred is an artist, just like an author a painter a musician and he wants to create great software i am sure he appreciates the work he doesnt have to do because of this forum I have yet to see anything written with malice intended about the software.

warm regards
john

[dodzi]

I am beginning to think that it is only those who are patently not experts that claim to be so. Having been paired up with so many 'experts' in tourneys that can barely follow suit I now virtually ignore it. How about a 'private only' tournament?

[Gweny]

Thank you all for very very fun and laughing thread.

I nominate Slothy for official BBO Giggle maker!