[Trpltrbl]

I starting to see many complaints about the level of directors here on BBO.
I think BBO, instead of making anybody TD that asks, has to set some guidelines about who can become director.
Sometimes I have a feeling that many directors here, just became directors because they are not good in bridge, so they try it this way.
In Europe and USA you have to pass a test to become a director.
Why not do something similair here ?

Mike

[bearmum]

I see what you are trying to say Mike
But I believe MOST of the directors on BBO are folk who do a great job providing tourneys in a NON pay site -- and maybe all of us who play should not be SO horrible to them (We are not playing for the proverbial sheep station -- an Australianism meaning for a HUGE amount of money /kudos/or whatever means the most to you the player) --- maybe BBO needs to ask ALL players to respect directors here??

BUT maybe when directors (for example ACBL) tourneys they should not only be accredited ACBL directors - but ALSO have to PROVE that they are capable of dealing with an ONLINE format - which is SO different to a f2f tourney

[Trpltrbl]

Quote

maybe BBO needs to ask ALL players to respect directors here??

How to respect somebody that makes rulings that have nothing to do with bridge?
It is free, great, but you still expect some level of knowledge.
Maybe it is important for people to go around and tell other they direct bridgegames online, but please, how hard is it to read up on some rules?
Or otherwise put in tournament rules, that you make up as you, at least then we know what to expect.

Mike

[hrothgar]

Trpltrbl, on Jul 6 2004, 03:24 PM, said:

I starting to see many complaints about the level of directors here on BBO.

I think BBO, instead of making anybody TD that asks, has to set some guidelines about who can become director.

Mike, I agree with your ends, but not the means:

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Centralized command/control structures don't work in large/complex environment. Personally, I would prefer that Fred/Uday are able to focus on providing core infrastructure rather than creating some kind of test to certify the capabilities of individual directors.

IMHO, the "right" way to handle this situation is to provide mechanisms by which players are able to rate the performance of indivudal directors. Over time, directors will develop "reputations". Good directors will rise to the top. Poor directors will receive feedback that they will (hopefully) use to improve their performance.

From my own perspective, I've played in a several pay tournaments. I've only been involved in one incident that required a director call. From my perspective, the call was handled quickly, efficiently, and completely in line with my understandings of the Laws. If a feedback mechanism were available, I would have happily provided a good review for this director.

I played in the same tournament that generated Lukewarm's original thread. I had no interactions with either of the directors, and wouldn't feel comfortable filing a review. With this said and done, I'm guessing that Lukewarm would...

I'll note in passing that the feedback system that I am discussing with happen with or without official blessing/support/infrastrucutre. Just look whats happening here. However, facilitating this process through a formal rating service will accelerate the process and ensure that it happens in a more open fashion.

[scoob]

hrothgar, on Jul 6 2004, 07:46 AM, said:

IMHO, the "right" way to handle this situation is to provide mechanisms by which players are able to rate the performance of indivudal directors. Over time, directors will develop "reputations". Good directors will rise to the top. Poor directors will receive feedback that they will (hopefully) use to improve their performance.

this is the best idea i've heard all day

[xx1943]

hrothgar, on Jul 6 2004, 08:46 AM, said:

IMHO, the "right" way to handle this situation is to provide mechanisms by which players are able to rate the performance of indivudal directors.  Over time, directors will develop "reputations".  Good directors will rise to the top.  Poor directors will receive feedback that they will (hopefully) use to improve their performance.

Hi

this is one feature in the great projekt Mike (Malucy=Yzerman in this Forum) is planning:

Description

Internet-adress

I wish you much success Mike

Al

[McBruce]

Could we have a "feedback mechanism" such that Directors could rate players who make nuisances of themselves then? There are as many nuisance players who call often (and repeatedly) without good reason as there are Directors making random rulings. I could tell you some stories...

[hrothgar]

McBruce, on Jul 6 2004, 07:21 PM, said:

Could we have a "feedback mechanism" such that Directors could rate players who make nuisances of themselves then? There are as many nuisance players who call often (and repeatedly) without good reason as there are Directors making random rulings. I could tell you some stories...

From my perspective, the "right" mental model is the feedback system that online auction sites like EBay have created. Using these systems, buyers and seller's are both able to "rate" one another. It's quite easy for either party to look at the "history" of a prospective partner. In a similar fashion, players and directors should both be able to rate one another.

Its worth noting that most of these feedback structures have mechanisms by which indivuals can determine whether they consider a data-source to be "trustworthy".

[uday]

Doesnt ebay suffer from "you rated me poorly so i will rate you poorly in turn?"

Why wouldnt that happen here for any community-based rating scheme?

I am a big believer that this is the only scalable way to handle this issue, not just for TDs but for rudeness, pleasantness, skill level, cheating, etc. Having said that, why have we not implemented this? well, we probably will, the moment FG and I are in synch as to the hows and whys and we have some cycles to burn.

[hrothgar]

uday, on Jul 6 2004, 08:57 PM, said:

Doesnt ebay suffer from "you rated me poorly so i will rate you poorly in turn?"

Why wouldnt that happen here for any community-based rating scheme?

There is a LOT of work going on in so-called "social networking" models tha attempt to extend real word concepts like Reputation and Trust to online environments. Commercial sites like E-Bay represent one group of early adopters. However, "Social" sites like Orkut and Friendster are leveraging the same ideas. Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) for cryptography is also the exact same concept.

Most of the "elegant" solutions are based on some kind of distributed trust model. I provide ratings for a group of individuals that I know directly on a number of different attributes. One of the attributes that I rate them on is THEIR ability to accurately rate other individuals. At this point in time, its possible to roll up an entire network into a set of transitive relationships.

Complicated way of saying that in cases where "He says/She says", you need to make a decision who you think is trustyworthy. However, as always primary evidence [log files and the like] will be useful in reaching a decision.

Please note: While I strong believe that this type of system will be of enormous help to BBO, I am an even firmer believer in code re-use. My guess is that it would be more useful to sit back and see what other sites develop and then modifying this for your own use rather than trying to re-invent the wheel. Who knows: Ultimately, the best course of action might just be to recommend that anyone who cares about this get themselves an account on Orkut or some such...

[Trpltrbl]

I think it is a great idea, Richard.

Mike

[xx1943]

hrothgar, on Jul 6 2004, 01:36 PM, said:

"Social" sites like Orkut and Friendster are leveraging the same ideas 

Hi
I'm faszinated. Your Idea is great.

To my information: What is Orkut and what is Friendster? Can I get the URLs from you?

Many thanks.

Al

[hrothgar]

xx1943, on Jul 6 2004, 10:37 PM, said:

Hi
I'm faszinated. Your Idea is great.

To my information: Whats is Orkut and whats Friendster?

ty

Al

Comment the First: None of this is my "own" original work. I'm lucky enough to have a job that permits me to do lots of reading in a variety of different fields. All I do is use someone's brilliant idea from field A and apply it to field B. Its MUCH more difficult to do original work.

Friendster and Orkut are attempts at building Internet communities. The basic idea is that you join up and submit a personality profile that describes your thoughts/likes/dislikes. Each site has a wide variety of forums in which individuals can discuss different topics that they find interesting.

Where this gets interested in the "networking" aspect. I can establish links to different friends and rate them on different attributes. For example, Orkut has three main dimensions ("Cool", "Trustworthy" "Sexy"). In turn, my friends link to their friends, and so-on, and so-on.

The goal is to provide a mechanism to identify new people that you might share common interests with. In practice, everyone seems to know Leon Marr...

[Free]

scoob, on Jul 6 2004, 03:30 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 6 2004, 07:46 AM, said:

IMHO, the "right" way to handle this situation is to provide mechanisms by which players are able to rate the performance of indivudal directors.  Over time, directors will develop "reputations".  Good directors will rise to the top.  Poor directors will receive feedback that they will (hopefully) use to improve their performance.

this is the best idea i've heard all day

This is an AWFUL idea, since the side which gets disadvantage will rate the director as a poor one, while the good guys might rate him avarage. Even if the director is right, sometimes pairs which don't understand the rules will say he was wrong. Bad idea!

I don't have any problems with TD's who organize free tourneys, since they do it for their pleasure. But once you have to pay for it, I expect real QUALITY, and not some lazy newbie which doesn't know a single rule. Why should people pay for a tourney online when the TD is incapable of handling any semi-normal or abnormal situation??

[luke warm]

even if a feedback system could be implemented, and i think the worst that can be said for it is that it's a good idea, i think there would first of all need to be some way for the td/player(s) involved to discuss the ruling so the thought processes would be understood... in this way, much negative feedback might be curtailed... if the player said something like, "the ruling was incorrect based on law so-and-so" and if the director then said something like, "yes i see... you're right and i apologize.. this will not happen again" then it seems *positive* feedback can be left

anyway, that's my biggest problem with what happened to me recently... the fact that i tried twice to find out what happened and was ignored both times... that's totally unacceptable, and someone needs to do something about it