[Rain]

Club said :
" Men rule while women drool " was construed as sexist remark and thus he got banned. He failed to mention that abuse had restored his status after review and thought, taking into consideration previous offenses too.

--------

As usual, Ben hits everything spot on, in my opinion.

--------

A non-abuse yellow, including yellow ACBL bans in emergencies, which will then be reviewed by abuse. This is the case here, as evidenced by the lengthening of ban to 2006, unfortunate though that may be for club.

---------

bglover said:

However, that scrutiny is applied to this one specific case only. Ecepal's post indicates she received a ban threat from some yellow for kibitzing a tourney when, in fact, she wasn't even logged into BBO at the time she was supposedly kibitzing. APPLYING THAT SAME SCRUTINY I would say the actions now were way past the point of appropriate-- even bordering on bullying. And, if there is a pattern of this sort of bullying by any specific yellows-- and let's be honest, that is the real concern here-- then, perhaps the entire situation regarding that yellow needs reviewing.


Topflight and aba club had some disagreements, and it was resolved with some agreements, including not kibitzing each other in some circumstances. This yellow probably thought ecepal broke the agreement, even if it were not so. This can happen easily if a user uses more than 1 user ID, and the other ID is shared by some other user. Is this confusing? Yeah, probably, the whole incident was.

-------

And lastly, I want to say:

Ben said: But that said, yellows still have to uphold the "niceness" standard. But we should not be fast to ban. I follow the rules stated earlier in this thread, as all yellows should. Any yellow banning people for non-emergency reasons, should probably have their bans checked closely to see if they are being too harsh.


Give that man a beer. Give that man a tiger.



Rain

[luke warm]

bglover said:

I don't think you and Henri are right. I think what color someone happens to be wearing at that particular moment is relatively unimportant.

kinda like a state trooper eh? never off duty

bglover said:

A yellow has his responsibilities whether wearing that color at that moment or not. If I were a yellow and I saw someone breaking a rule I would ban him even if I was logged in under a normal color. I don't see why this is such an issue.

why? at any one time i believe there is an average of 5 yellows online... how hard is it to message one of them, or even email abuse?.. also, i don't believe you have the right to ban someone for breaking a rule... that seems a bit harsh

bglover said:

Ecepal's post indicates she received a ban threat from some yellow for kibitzing a tourney when, in fact, she wasn't even logged into BBO at the time she was supposedly kibitzing. APPLYING THAT SAME SCRUTINY I would say the actions now were way past the point of appropriate-- even bordering on bullying. And, if there is a pattern of this sort of bullying by any specific yellows-- and let's be honest, that is the real concern here-- then, perhaps the entire situation regarding that yellow needs reviewing.

i agree, this (on the face of it) appears to be an egregious abuse of power... whether ece was logged on or not doesn't matter a bit... there is no rule against kibbing that i know of, except maybe those imposed by certain TDs... this sounds like a situation where a player at the table she supposedly was kibbing did not want her there, and this person obviously carries weight with whatever yellow was involved... this alone would be enough for me to rethink the yellow's value to the organization, when she obviously plays favorites to this extent...

bglover said:

It seems, these days, to me, that more of these posts are hitting the forum for a reason. That reason is apparent-- some people think that control isn't being properly exercised.

yeah, and maybe it's just me but it appears that the questioning posts concern a *very* small minority of the yellows

[uday]

This sort of thread is usually a soapbox for someone who has been banned, who uses this forum to drum up "support" for his or her posiition. Sometimes, normal users get sucked in

There was an incestuous, juvenile, ugly, annoying, timeconsuming mess a while back between two BBO clubs with independent but worthy ambitions. Eventually, the mess got sorted out, and part of the resolution of that mess include(d) mutual restraining orders for people who suffer dramatically when their usernames are printed alonside those of their "enemies" on the screen.

Mind, we're talking about shifting allegiances, people sliding from club to club, crazy-seeming letters flying around, vicious allegations of BBO misbehaviour, nasty comebacks of real-world misbehaviour, accusations of cheating, accusations of illegal behaviour, acccusations of mental illness, dramatic departures, dramatic returns, and one memorable letter with more "Fxxx you" in it than the hairs on a dogs back.

Lots of drama, and these people all seem to share the same computers and usernames. Some of them still can't stand each other, and yell when one of the bad guys tries to spec the same vugraph match or whatever.

I nearly shut down both clubs at that time, since they couldnt occupy the same planet without consuming our ever scant BBO resources to arbitrate trivia day after day after tedious day.

Now, things are quiet, and thats the way we like them. IIRC, part of the "negotiated settlement" that lead to our own "Roadmap for peace" included a set of rules, each punishable with a ban if violated.

Most people are not under such strictures, and most people are not banned for breaking minor rules (except the rules about being abusive, which can easily lead to an immediate ban ).

[bglover]

This issue has not a thing to do with two clubs. Uday and Rain seem to want to tie this into that. It has to do with one issue only: Has someone abused their position as yellow?

Now, it apparently is true there is an incident where a yellow invoked the TopFlight name as a reason for closing a tourney (see thread:
http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...?showtopic=5091
for more info), but that is only periphery to the question at hand.

There has been a continual stream of posts regarding possible inapproprate bannings, ban threats done in the name of others, etc. And, often, this club thing is invoked, I fear, as a smoke screen to cover the real issue of whether the actions involved are appropriate period. It seems convenient more than anything else to blame the "club issue" than deal forthrightly with the real issue. I fear that Rain and Uday are trying to put this into "its just 2 clubs fighting" vein and make it seem, somehow, to be less than it really is.

This issue had nothing to do with that club fight and never has. It has to do with the appropriateness of behavior-- the fact the Topflight name was invoked by this yellow as a justification for one of these actions is incidental contact at best. I would personally appreciate it if things were dealt with honestly and not jumbled as to give the impression there is a lesser problem because it involves an old and ugly incident-- because frankly this has nothing to do with that incident in the least and anyone with two eyes open can see that.

[slothy]

uday, on Camp David about 3 posts ago, said:

Now, things are quiet, and thats the way we like them.  IIRC, part of the "negotiated settlement" that lead to our own "Roadmap for peace" included a set of rules, each punishable with a ban if violated.  
.

I was quite taken by the idea of Uday vacuuming in a global idealistic phenomenon to analogise a rather trivial series of scuffles and bar-room brawls on BBO

We've been watching this road-map to peace - i hope that it has more chance of resolution than the actual one where the current Head of State has shown sparse willingness to participate in it

(I could think of no other way to make a contemporary discreet commentary on today's election results ) thanks Uday for the lead-in. I shall read your posts more carefully in future )

But i do agree with him. It does seem people sometimes come on the forum to 'close ranks' and drum up support for a situation where they feel they have been mistreated or wronged. Perhaps they feel they can get their point across more articulately, dont know....

But i still dont see where it is coming from. I am sure the BBO Management have a more sensitive finger on the pulse of what is happening on BBO than people seem to suggest and give them credit for. If somebody, whether a TD, a yellow or whoever in a position of assumed authority, is behaving in a way that makes a significant number of people question that persons integrity or competence, it would have percolated up to the appropriate people way before it comes here and they will have taken preliminary action before the first post, never mind the salvo of replies, is ever written.

To extend the cartographical metaphor (I was gonna mix this metaphor but nahhhh......) ...throwing up smoke-screens and shooting active participants in the foot aint going to get people round the table sooner (especially when a few of 'em have got their foot bandaged and have to hobble to the table ) ... and when you got a Roadmap to Peace you got an agenda and something you had wanted to fight for to materialise it: i just dont know what some of these people are fighting for!!

If anybody understands what the hell i was getting at in that last paragraph you done better than me

Alex Zapata

[club]

ouchhhhh the whole thing was so simple and it started a thread that started to unravel so long that everyone has forgotten the guy "who got banned till 2006". Ok the crux is this...is there way to get "unbanned"...can a simple sorry lets be friends do the trick?- Can i fall on my knees lok towards the east and chant prayers - will that be of help....now that we are in the season of christmas can forgiveness be asked for and clemency be granted....even democrats and republicans sometimes make up!!!!! Lets forgive and forget...easy for me to say since i want to get back in as i have lots of friends in there......so will the powers that be turn their charitable side and allow me in!!!!!!

clubdias

[inquiry]

club, on Nov 3 2004, 05:27 PM, said:

ouchhhhh the whole thing was so simple and it started a thread that started to unravel

As a matter of fact, all the things you get into trouble for start as simple things that unravel and get blown up, out of your self-promoting agenda, that you drag into the public. The thing that started this thread is, in fact a perfect example, and what is happening here, is why we do not allow this kind of activity on the BBO. This is sort of an object lession, as it was.

Let you back in? No one here has the authority. You simply have to plead your case to abuse and be done wiht it. But since this HAS BECOME so public, my guess is your chance of getting back is less than if had been kept quiet. That is a guess, I don't know how abuse will rule, but you see the problem. How does it look if you show back up? Come here and make public statements is the way to get back in early? I think that sets a dangerous precident. That is just my opinon. Doing dirty laundry in public is never good for any side in disputes becasuse it hardens positions.

bEn

[jtfanclub]

inquiry, on Nov 3 2004, 04:36 PM, said:

Doing dirty laundry in public is never good for any side in disputes becasuse it hardens positions.

I confess that I never actually read the dirty laundry. I just looked at the facts (person ejected until 2006, ACBL did the ejecting), and ignored who was right or wrong in this specific case. Unless they decide to make an appeals committee and I'm on it, I don't see why I'd care. I can't possibly get enough information to judge.

I'm betting most of the people who replied to this did the same thing.

[luke warm]

alex, you wrote:

Quote

We've been watching this road-map to peace - i hope that it has more chance of resolution than the actual one where the current Head of State has shown sparse willingness to participate in it

(I could think of no other way to make a contemporary discreet commentary on today's election results ) thanks Uday for the lead-in. I shall read your posts more carefully in future )

and then:

Quote

I am sure the BBO Management have a more sensitive finger on the pulse of what is happening on BBO than people seem to suggest and give them credit for.

i'm sure you can see how the 2nd quote, which on the face of it has nothing to do with the first, can be used against you... i agree that it's highly likely bbo management has a far more sensitive finger on all sorts of pulses... they are in possession of far more intelligence (information) than we are

by the same token, the heads of state of which you speak might, just might, be in possession of more intelligence about any number of situations than you, or i, or any lay person... so perhaps the fingers they have on the various pulses means some of the decisions they make, even those with which you disagree, might give them more insight into a problem than you "..seem to suggest and give them credit for."

[the hog]

I don't know what this guy did, if anything - but a 12 month ban seems excessive, is it really till 2006? We had a case here where someone got 12 months for physically assaulting someone. That was probably realistic, but its hard to see how you could do that in the online game.

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Nov 3 2004, 09:18 PM, said:

I don't know what this guy did, if anything -

I don't know about ACBL or ABUSE, but I find this "if anything" portion insulting. ACBL thought this guy did something deserving an emergency ban, and did so. She reported it to ABUSE as required. ABUSE reviewed it, agreed that it is was worthy of the ban, and along with other information, decided to extend the ban. I stuck my nose in where it didn't belong when this thread was started (primarily because as moderator, I made a decision not to delete a personal attack on the yellow ACBL, as perhpas I should have). After an investigation, I agreed with ACBL's emergency ban, I am not fully aware of the reasons why ABUSE extended it, but I willl say this, abuse is much more reserved and "forgiving" than I would be on cases I am more familiar with.

Let me also add that the volunteers at this site, people like me, rain, ACBL, and others, get very tired of dealing with chronic problem people. This is also true of uday, who waste too much of his valuable time on issues like this... .... again, think of it as three strikes and your out.. .you may not be familar with this phase. It means if you ahve been banned twice before for whatever offense, your next offense that requires sanctions get you thrown out. In effect, a ban to 2006 means either the current offense was truly horrible, or this was a repeat offender. I think if you read the thread you can decide which it was. I hope you will appreciate that as a private site, the bbo doesn't have to put up with repeat problem causers, no minor how relatively minor you or I or others might consider the various multiple offenses.

Ben

[the hog]

"I don't know about ACBL or ABUSE, but I find this "if anything" portion insulting."

I was going to respond privately but as you chose to go public, I'll reply publicly:

The post was not meant to be insulting, nor in my mind to any reasonably minded person would it be insulting. It's a shame that you have taken it to be so. As I said, I have no idea what he/she did and don't care. I reiterate a 12 month ban seems like a long time to me.

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Nov 3 2004, 09:49 PM, said:

"I don't know about ACBL or ABUSE, but I find this "if anything" portion insulting."

I was going to respond privately but as you chose to go public, I'll reply publicly:

The post was not meant to be insulting, nor in my mind to any reasonably minded person would it be insulting. It's a shame that you have taken it to be so. As I said, I have no idea what he/she did and don't care. I reiterate a 12 month ban seems like a long time to me.

No problem Ron, you made it public, so public is more than fine.

I have no problem whatsoever with whether or not you or anyone else agrees with the legnth of the ban. Like you, I don't know all the details that lead to the legnth of the ban, so I can't say if it is too long, too short, or jsut right. I doubt you or others can say either. But I do know THERE WAS a reason for A BAN... I told you so, acbl thought so, and abuse must have thought so. So it was the "if anything" part that I found problemsome. Even the first starter of this thread more or less admitted he did wrong... where he said...

Quote

I served my time for any previous sins and this one if reviewed has to be reviewed in isolation and on its own merits and on the basis of this one individual act....not that 2 weeks ago this was said and 2 months ago u did this. I am willing to take my punishment but not for a cumulative "list" of dones and not dones

Here he is dead wrong, cumulative "list" of deads do count against you. Mabye if you went two or three years problem free, or evne a few months, a new offense would not be judged quite as harshly. But even a long series of minor offenses taxes the system.

If the BBO policy allowed it, I would be glad to share what happened here, and what happened in the past as well. But let me assure you that the represntation of ACBL banned this fellow for "SEXIST remarks" ("men rule, women drool" see earlier post in this thread) only deals with the intiation of the contact between the two individuals. The REASON for the ban was something quite different.

Ben

[uday]

presently, only abuse@ can issue bans longer than 7 days. Only uday@ can physically impose bans longer than 7 days.

A 2 year ban is not a 2 year "sentence". It means that the persons membership has been revoked, and that we have given up on him, and that we don't ever want him to set his electronic feet in our home again. I might as easily have made it 1 year, or 3 years.

The people who need this sort of bans are not the sort of people capable of either reforming or accepting a hint.

I'm out of this thread; if it survives and you want me, email uday@ or start a new one. I dont need to chat w/the people I have permanently barred from the site.

If any of you are here: your use of bbo facilities is unauthorized.

[Gweny]

Well,

I do not speak until now. And I will make no attempt to sway anyone in their opinion of my acts. I will make 2 points.

I leave message, as courtsey, for id who is involve in agreement, who is in violation of this agreement. It is share id and i do not know who log in on it, nor do i care. I am only concern with violation of agreement by one of principals since I am person who is responsible to oversee this agreement.

I at NO TIME cancel ANY Topflight, friends of topflight or any other tournament relate to topflight. Occasionally I DO get desparate calls from pitiful users trap in some team game or tournametn where td is desert and majority of players is missing. Want to see example of one I cancel? Click this link. What action do you take? You Decide - Do you cancel this tournament?

As far as how I act and whether or not I act inappropriately in yellow name... if you think i do then imo there is little i can do to change your mind. If you feel like i do please DO write to abuse. I, like my other fellow yellows, do my best to remain impartial and act in bbos best interests.

If you do naughty things yes i will immediately enact what ever action seems most appropriate at time. I care not what your name is or who your friends are - if you violate rules of this site, or any agreements in place with management, i CAN and WILL bar you if you break our rules.

I prefer to never bar anyone. I come here to play bridge and celebrate our diversity and all great people who make up BBO Community. You may not like me personally, and you may not agree with each and every decision I make but I can assure you it is not personal and given my favorite choice I never need to bar anyone.

Unfortunately naughty people do exist. Some think that because it is acceptable to speak certain way at other sites, (like yahoo, pogo, etc,) that it is ok here at BBO to abuse fellow users and they get very rude awakening at BBO.

We are here to play bridge. If you act like ladies and gentlemen you will never see "contact abuse" when you attempt to log in.
:-)

I think this is rather simple rule who is easy to live with and by.

[the hog]

" i CAN and WILL bar you if you break our rules. "

Is it just me or does anyone else find this comment to be rather arrogant?

[jtfanclub]

The_Hog, on Nov 4 2004, 12:53 AM, said:

" i CAN and WILL bar you if you break our rules. "

Is it just me or does anyone else find this comment to be rather arrogant?

Not me. It's equivalent to a cop saying "I can and will arrest you if you break the law".

It's part of a Yellow's job to keep the peace on the site, which includes barring people who break the rules. If you don't like it, don't be a Yellow.

[guggie]

I am very happy that persons who make rude remarks as this one did (with apparently much more on his record) get banned
And I think there is no other way to do it with respect for someone's privacy: should we need a public advertisement of someone's faults?

[Erkson]

inquiry, on Nov 4 2004, 02:24 AM, said:

If the BBO policy allowed it, I would be glad to share what happened here, and what happened in the past as well. But let me assure you that the represntation of ACBL banned this fellow for "SEXIST remarks" ("men rule, women drool" see earlier post in this thread) only deals with the intiation of the contact between the two individuals. The REASON for the ban was something quite different.

I understand that

1. the banned guy made several unrevealed offences in the last months.

2. Then he wrote a so-called "sexist remark" which led to an argument with someone.

3. His words during the argument were offensive and he got banned.

I only would like to comment about the second point :
someone (and many other BBO members) can't bear a person who makes that so-called "sexist remark".

I can't bear a person who fight against this kind of "sexual remark" because my culture is different -I prefer mine- and I don't take his/her culture as a model (eventhough it is struggling for spreading over, with a lot more of similar presents), but I know that I am not at home on BBO site. I am on a private site, at the home of someone else, so I accept or I leave.

Erkson

[slothy]

By the way, don't men drool too or was my grandfather just an exception????

and only last week was at the dentist and got an injection in my tooth...i drooled too with half my mouth paralysed (co-workers were happy) ...couldn't breathe in sharply and often enough .... had to change my favorite teddy-bear shirt too (

Alex