[peachy]

I would like the idea of giving all members a Premier membership after, say, 60 days, from when they joined. This Premier membership would be dropped for reason. Renewal to Premier membership would be given for, say, 120 days, after no problems like rudeness or leaving table in the middle of the hand or other offenses or problem causing. The member should ask for renewal of the Premier membership him/herself after the certain time has lapsed from him losing it, with promises of the desired behaviors. It would IMO mean more when the member himself commits to behave in the desired manner.

But all in all, I am not sure a Premier membership is necessary. There will always be rotten eggs spoiling the fun or the serious bridge, whichever type of player we are . Just mark them as enemy as you identify them as such.

[zenko]

I would gladly pay a fee to not receive those ads, not because ads per se, but because the are programmed poorly, so they are crashing/slowing down my computer.

[nigel_k]

The problem with requiring payment is that if you set it too high, some people will be excluded and if you set it too low, the troublemakers won't mind paying twice. I don't know if there is a level that works but I kind of doubt it. Then you could have legal issues if you boot someone after taking their money, that wouldn't exist if they had paid nothing.

Any of the suggestions that involve a delay between signing up and getting Premium membership suffer from the problem that people can sign up multiple times and just switch IDs if one gets banned. Maybe it could be a 'number of hands played' requirement rather than a time requirement.

[mrdct]

Apollo81, on Dec 15 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

I think it would be nice to be able to play against random people who don't leave after 1 or 2 hands.

I'd settle for opponents who at least wait until the end of a hand before they leave.

[hotShot]

There's hardly ever a technical solution for social problems.

But the tourney problem could be solved, just by storing the number of tourneys a player begins and the number of tourneys a player finishes. Once a player has started in lets say 20 tourneys and he has finished 19 he would have a finishing quotient of 95%. Lets say if that goes below 80% a player can no longer list himself into tourneys, until he has finished enough tourneys as a sub, to get his ratio better than 80% again.

As to the MBC, perhaps one could calculate the average numbers of boards before leaving the table. Leaving without playing a board or before finishing the second averaging several 0 and 1 will pull down your average. Perhaps hosts could ask for an average better than 2 boards/taking a seat.

[Old York]

hotShot, on Dec 17 2009, 09:51 PM, said:

There's hardly ever a technical solution for social problems.

But the tourney problem could be solved, just by storing the number of tourneys a player begins and the number of tourneys a player finishes. Once a player has started in lets say 20 tourneys and he has finished 19 he would have a finishing quotient of 95%. Lets say if that goes below 80% a player can no longer list himself into tourneys, until he has finished enough tourneys as a sub, to get his ratio better than 80% again.

As to the MBC, perhaps one could calculate the average numbers of boards before leaving the table. Leaving without playing a board or before finishing the second averaging several 0 and 1 will pull down your average. Perhaps hosts could ask for an average better than 2 boards/taking a seat.

One of the problems is that BBO is now available to Internet Cafe users through the web/flash version. To kill half an hour they log-in and enter tournaments, either they get bored and go to another tournament or their money runs out.
They normally log-in with different identities every time, so Fred's suggestion of blocking new members may help a lot. I have always been suspicious of identities like XyZ123 often with blank profiles etc. It is easy to see that 2 such players at adjacent machines can see each other's cards, and communicate easily

Tony

[spwdo]

having to pay for a better environment is rubbish .

When i held my Tr`s many said "he run a tight ship" I try to catch cheaters, i would give a runner 2 chances, then no entry anymore. Rudiness=bye bye.

While others would spend their time in subbing the whole tourney long that didnt happen to me.

All bbo has to do is enforce the policies already there. invest more time in bad behaviour , it will result is less work after a while .

i told a yellow couple days ago" star xxx was playing as my partner and was sucked into a team match without informing table nor numerous kibs he had signed up for a team match", please let him now its no good ethics and stars must be an example. if a star does it and gets away with it, why would us lesser individuals not do the same?
yellow responded: sorry Marc, i know. but its the way to do things these days.


imo bbo is big enough these days and can afford to lose a few hundred bad apples and set an example for the whole community. inform people there will be a period of slightly tougher sentence for the bad guys/girls . None will be disapointed with the results afterwards.

When gibs came into place on the site, one of my kids played around with one of my usernames. they cant play bridge, bid 7nt as a standard and as a result all my usernames were barred for several years....

At that time i used spwdo1 and spwdo2 to create TR since you couldn't list more then 1 TR with one user name. i felt my punishment was hard but since i was seen as an example said the person barring me it was a normal " sentence"


marc

[shintaro]

Tony

There is already A.N.other site where you pay to join

They still have the same problems (rudeness, leaving during play etc)

On that basis I do not think your suggestion would work (it doesn't on there)

M

[spwdo]

and try and get someone to behave that is paying for certain things is even harder.

numerous times i heard tds say that hold paid tourneys that people paying 1 $ think they bought the persons running those events..