[inquiry]

I have locked (at least temporarily) the thread by vianu2 dealing with a possible online cheater. I edited slightly a post in that thread attacking vianu2, including striking out (but still readable) comments that violates the rules but that others responded too, including vianu2 (to remove them would make other comments including defense unclear). I deleted one sentence that was insulting but not addressed by others.

I think wyman made good points in his last comments in that thread. I think this is an area where we might need a new "rule", so I will open a poll on the issue wyman raised.

[Antrax]

While we're creating rules, I'd like to point out it's quite uncommon to post private messages on most forums on the internet.

[inquiry]

Antrax, on 2011-July-26, 10:08, said:

While we're creating rules, I'd like to point out it's quite uncommon to post private messages on most forums on the internet.

What private messages have been posted? Am I missing something. Has this been a problem? The things i quoted above is directly from the thread in question.

[matmat]

inquiry, on 2011-July-26, 10:19, said:

What private messages have been posted? Am I missing something. Has this been a problem? The things i quoted above is directly from the thread in question.

I believe antrax is referring to a PM that was posted in the locked up thread by one of the other posters.

[wyman]

Antrax, on 2011-July-26, 10:08, said:

While we're creating rules, I'd like to point out it's quite uncommon to post private messages on most forums on the internet.

Agree, however, blatantly lying about the purpose of a thread in order to gain some sort of satisfaction by publicly exposing cheaters (but being oh-so-clever in how you do it) is more absurd.

The PM I posted was unsolicited, and I don't think that the sender had any expectation of privacy when he sent it.

My contention is that threads of that nature have no place on the forums -- especially after the poster sends a PM confirming that the thread is all about cheating. Apparently Ben and others agree. If you disagree, Ben has mentioned that he's going to create a thread with a poll to discuss the matter, and I encourage you to make your voice heard.

Posting a thread saying "no I'm not accusing them of cheating -- their system is just the best in the world! Look at these magic boards," and then sending unsolicited PMs to posters from the thread about how the people were obviously cheating seems like an equivalent infraction to making public accusations of cheating.

[diana_eva]

I still disagree with posting the PM. Better send these to the mods.

[inquiry]

I am thinking PM should be private as well... some exceptions, when bidding contest hands are sent and returned, etc, where the point is to eventually make the PM public. Let logic decide.

I have permanently banned a member with multiple aliases for violation of the rules of this site. Of course, proper apologies and promises to do no more evil emailed to inquiry at bridgebase dot com might get this ban lifted for one, and only one, alias in the future. The ban will not be lifted immediately even with an appropriate email, however.

Second, I have deleted one gloating post in the "Should the "bidding, play and defense thread stay closed?" Neither the poster who made the deleted post, nor the person caught out that he was gloating over have much to be proud of in dragging those of us into their personal battles. I am beginning to think that the result of what is happening because of this thread is having much more influence on me than the voting ever in that thread ever will. I am strongly leaning towards the recommendation to fred and uday and rain that the forum block such look at this hand showing cheating threads in the future, with the only exception for threads like the 6♦ hand we all remember. Of course, the clever, what would you do type hand with no obvious link to potential UI would be unable to stop.

[Bbradley62]

inquiry, on 2011-July-26, 17:16, said:

I am strongly leaning towards the recommendation to fred and uday and rain that the forum block such look at this hand showing cheating threads in the future, with the only exception for threads like the 6♦ hand we all remember.

Why would that one have been an exception? It was more blatant than most others because it provided the real name of the opponent, not just a BBO alias.

[inquiry]

Bbradley62, on 2011-July-26, 19:44, said:

Why would that one have been an exception? It was more blatant than most others because it provided the real name of the opponent, not just a BBO alias.

Because it was already public, and well known. It had spread like wildfire. I actually think the posting here eventually helped defuse the situation and allow some to see a second side to the issue. If I am wrong, I am sure people will tell me so. I know some changed their minds about the hand, others didn't.

[Bbradley62]

inquiry, on 2011-July-26, 19:48, said:

Because it was already public, and well known. It had spread like wildfire. I actually think the posting here eventually helped defuse the situation and allow some to see a second side to the issue. If I am wrong, I am sure people will tell me so. I know some changed their minds about the hand, others didn't.

Ok. I just read the poll thread. (This one came up first in my View New Content list.) Yes, if the thread is presented as a news story about something that happened at a prestigious event, that would be one thing; but a thread started with (only slightly paraphrased) "I just got cheated against in the Spingold" is something else.

[jjbrr]

If posting the PM was what it took to get the mods to take action against the shenanigans today, then it was definitely the right thing to do.

If you actually sympathize with the guy whose PM was posted, I think that's not at all in the best interest of BBF.

[Antrax]

Thanks for this assessment for my motives.

inquiry said:

Of course, the clever, what would you do type hand with no obvious link to potential UI would be unable to stop.

Not sure you should want to stop them, if the question is sincere. I can see a situation where someone is fuming, feeling he was cheated. Then he posts one of those "what is reasonable to do" and finds out it was just a system he's unfamiliar with, or his judgment isn't the only possible one, etc. I remember the first time I played a tournament in BBO I sat in a table and the bidding went 1♠-p-6♠. 6♠ made and I immediately called the TD, which then helpfully explained to me at some length why this is not necessarily something to worry about. A better outcome than if this happens to me and I keep feeling cheated and unable to complain.
Of course, the existing rules about not naming names are critical. But giving people a way to find out if they're crazy when they feel this was suspicious is important, especially since abuse@ never emails back, to the best of my knowledge.

[BunnyGo]

jjbrr, on 2011-July-26, 21:23, said:

If posting the PM was what it took to get the mods to take action against the shenanigans today, then it was definitely the right thing to do.

If you actually sympathize with the guy whose PM was posted, I think that's not at all in the best interest of BBF.

More so, I don't understand why anyone would consider this a violation of trust or privacy. If you receive a letter, e-mail, phone mail, PM or other message then it is yours to do with as you see fit (except use as blackmail). If you don't want something you said to be public, then make sure the person you message is a friend--otherwise, don't say it!

[inquiry]

jjbrr, on 2011-July-26, 21:23, said:

If posting the PM was what it took to get the mods to take action against the shenanigans today, then it was definitely the right thing to do.

If you actually sympathize with the guy whose PM was posted, I think that's not at all in the best interest of BBF.

Posting the PM had nothing to do with the action taken today. I had known all along the real purpose of the thread, as I was asked if it was "legal" to post a hand or hands. I explained the rules about if it was traceable back to a real person, then no. The purpose of the other thread is to see if the rules should be changed because I think the resulting thread was a huge distraction to everyone, and me in particular because I ahd to keep checking who played the hands to make sure a direct link was not easily established. Perhaps a new rule coming out of this about what is appropriate will be helpful.

[Antrax]

BunnyGo, on 2011-July-26, 21:34, said:

More so, I don't understand why anyone would consider this a violation of trust or privacy. If you receive a letter, e-mail, phone mail, PM or other message then it is yours to do with as you see fit (except use as blackmail). If you don't want something you said to be public, then make sure the person you message is a friend--otherwise, don't say it!

There's the notion that something called "private message" can be expected to remain "private". As stated, this is a part of netiquette that's quite common on many parts of the internet. It's quite clear the person who sent the PM didn't intend for it to be posted in public or forwarded to other parties.

[jjbrr]

BunnyGo, on 2011-July-26, 21:34, said:

More so, I don't understand why anyone would consider this a violation of trust or privacy. If you receive a letter, e-mail, phone mail, PM or other message then it is yours to do with as you see fit (except use as blackmail). If you don't want something you said to be public, then make sure the person you message is a friend--otherwise, don't say it!

Sorry but I don't agree with this. I do honestly think a PM should be kept private.

However, for anyone who can read, it was painfully obvious that the sender of the PM had no intention of keeping anything he said private. On the contrary he wanted as much attention as he could possibly get. Sympathizing with his privacy, in this case, is really, really bad, though. Diana, that's the type of passive aggressive response to BBF situations that doesn't make BBF a better place. In this case, posting the PM was perfectly valid as evidence for the OP's intentions. If OP's feelings got hurt, that's a small price to pay to keep BBF honest.

Ben: I, for one, would like to see the mods take a firmer stance when problems arise in the forums. You don't need to make a public poll to check if your actions were right. As someone who spends several hours every day reading internet forums, I can say confidently that 1) we, the users, WANT the mods to take firm stances against the shenanigans we saw today, 2) we WANT you to keep these types of decisions consistent, 3) if you're unsure of your decision, we WANT you to discuss between the other mods in the yellow forum and NOT leave it up to the users.

What we don't want is for you to lock a thread and then seek validation for your decision. We trust your decision! We have a thread to check and make sure you're doing the right thing! If we disagree, we'll say so!

[jjbrr]

inquiry, on 2011-July-26, 21:36, said:

Posting the PM had nothing to do with the action taken today. I had known all along the real purpose of the thread, as I was asked if it was "legal" to post a hand or hands. I explained the rules about if it was traceable back to a real person, then no. The purpose of the other thread is to see if the rules should be changed because I think the resulting thread was a huge distraction to everyone, and me in particular because I ahd to keep checking who played the hands to make sure a direct link was not easily established. Perhaps a new rule coming out of this about what is appropriate will be helpful.

I do hope we learned something today, as I mentioned in your poll thread. I think locking the thread was absolutely right, and my position on the topic of people posting such threads should be clear in the other thread.

I may be in the minority, but I doubt I'm the only one who thinks BBF is a better place without the type of things we saw today, all things considered.

[Antrax]

jbrr, I'm constantly amazed by the extent of your mind reading powers. You started by deducing what the poster of the offending thread wanted, moved to knowing what my motivation was, and now you know you can speak for all users on this forum and potentially all other forums on the internet.

[jjbrr]

Antrax, on 2011-July-26, 23:04, said:

jbrr, I'm constantly amazed by the extent of your mind reading powers. You started by deducing what the poster of the offending thread wanted, moved to knowing what my motivation was, and now you know you can speak for all users on this forum and potentially all other forums on the internet.

nice, that's nice.

[matmat]

Antrax, on 2011-July-26, 23:04, said:

jbrr, I'm constantly amazed by the extent of your mind reading powers. You started by deducing what the poster of the offending thread wanted, moved to knowing what my motivation was, and now you know you can speak for all users on this forum and potentially all other forums on the internet.

Wow. constantly amazed? you mean, like, all the time? Pity you spend all your time being amazed by jjbrr, think of what you could do with your life if you stopped that for at least a little while.

Am I missing something? the motivation of the OP was clear, especially with some of the other crap that was tossed around the forums for a few days before this post showed up.

I fail to see where it is that your motivation was "known," there is one conditional clause somewhere above that you seem to be misconstruing.

Finally, jjbrr might not be talking for everyone on the forums, but I would be surprised if what he says wasn't a majority opinion. Letting users vote and bicker over decisions like the one being taken here, or the forum rules, leads to unnecessary animosity and overly-heated debate (case-in-point).

IMO it would be better to save some mental energy to argue about the pros and cons of opening xx45 hands 1♣ vs 1♦...