[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Nov 4 2004, 01:53 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?

We have to assume the gweny typed too fast here.By far and away, the most common action if you break one of our rules, you WILL BE WARNED, not banned. Just as for most lawbreakers, arrest never happens. They get speeding tickets, or a warning, something like that. When yellows warn someone, we also report that to abuse, so that if five diffeent yellows warn one person, abuse will ahve a record of the many "violations". This is one reason why abuse handles adding time (and reducing time) for violations.

Second, I assume she also typed too fast, becuase if you BREAK THE RULES, in most cases, we will make recommendations that a person be banned to abuse and explain why, rather than ban ourselves. Abuse, without being involved in the incident (say a -back-and-forth between a yellow and member) can make a calm, objective ruling, again relying on other reports of bad behavior (or lack of them) by this member to make a ruling.

As a yellow we will ban you immediately for your breaking of the rules only in those emergency situations... But everyone needs to be aware if you start arguing with a yellow who is givnig you a warning, you risk being banned immediately. And if you take that argument public by using lobby chat, well you WILL be banned immediately under the emergenxy provisions.

To helium. This thread is not yet ready to be closed. IT is no longer about clubdias, it has evloved into a thread where bbo and yellow policy can be openly discussed (as long as civil). There are misconceptions and some anger at how yellows (and not jsut any particular one) make decisions. Uday is no longer monitoreing this thread, but I see a lot of people who are unhappy with decisions made by yellows are... maybe we can come to some common understandings if each side can express their views in an open and constructive manner. No doubt someone will step over the line and get their post editted, deleted, or maybe the entire thread removed or blocked, but for now, I see no reason to stop the discussion.

Ben

[ecepal]

HI all,
Gwenny,
I do not know you very well to say i dislike you personnaly the brief communication we have had tells me nothing,but this is nothing to do with your yellow actions.
in reference to your explanation you say "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. "do my best to remain IMPARTIAL and act in BBO's best interest"
1-If you are responsible FAIR yellow you SHOULD CARE who logged in and you should check BBO's best interest???
2-as courtesy??? it is your duty when you become a yellow to do these but in proper ways
3-are you telling me you take neutral steps in violation af the agreement?
please tell me this is not the proper way of acting and not courteous;

one day about few weeks ago while I am directing topflight tourney a nick name (shared one also and according to the agreement you have mentioned ,not supposed to kib my tourney-breech of agreement) comes to my tourney and kibitz, I have noticed and informed 3 other yellows as well as my friends.After that I have asked the nick who it was and I have got the answer ,the user explained who it was.and I have told "xxxxx" abalucy nick name is not supposed to kib my tourneys."xxxx" person apologised and left.I said it is ok not to worry these kind of things happens and you may not know the agreement.

yes gwenny which way is correct and corteous ,courteously sending I will bann you 2 weeks notices without even bothering to ask and then checking if this is true violation of the agreement?
(I strongly reccomend to read the agreement I can send you one copy if you like to be fair yellow )

Gwenny you say "YOU NEVER at any time cancelled any tourney and not give topflight nick name as reason"??By the way imo this is defamotory.there is no rules
that( only topflight and abalucy cannot)other tournements cannot overlapp.we have 7 days and 24 hours and so much TD's and tourneys logically they will overlapp and people have choices which one to enter.
hmm I think you have been preoccupied with something else and got short memory ) please read willems post
(http://forums.bridge...?showtopic=5091)he has screen shots and I do not even know who willem is and i see no reason for him to lie?
you say BBo is full of noughty people.
Actually I am seriously offended with this comment by sending me ban warnings you are calling me noughthy person without any evidence and i have done nothing wrong.

"but I can assure you it is not personal and given my favorite choice I never need to bar anyone."
this assurance gwenny .sorry a NO NO NO situation as far as I am concerned.because you were very quick to thereaten me to ban something never happened.????
" think this is rather simple rule who is easy to live with and by. "
hmmm Gwenny there is a simple rule for yellows too...if you act that way and live by it you may not like who i am but if you do go proper channels you can live easly too.

ece

[ecepal]

Ben
Thank you this is very enlightening post you made
ece

[helium]

[quote name='inquiry' date='Nov 4 2004, 07:46 AM'] [quote name='The_Hog' date='Nov 4 2004, 01:53 AM'] " i CAN and WILL bar you if you break our rules. "

To helium. This thread is not yet ready to be closed. IT is no longer about clubdias, it has evloved into a thread where bbo and yellow policy can be openly discussed (as long as civil). There are misconceptions and some anger at how yellows (and not jsut any particular one) make decisions. Uday is no longer monitoreing this thread, but I see a lot of people who are unhappy with decisions made by yellows are... maybe we can come to some common understandings if each side can express their views in an open and constructive manner. No doubt someone will step over the line and get their post editted, deleted, or maybe the entire thread removed or blocked, but for now, I see no reason to stop the discussion.

Ben [/QUOTE]
YEs i aggre ben i follow this whit big intresse to, but since this treat was started as clubdias "help me"treat, and that uday dont longer follow it, i was hoping someone whould start a new treat regarding the yellow issue.


kenneth

[luke warm]

inquiry, on Nov 4 2004, 02:46 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Nov 4 2004, 01:53 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?

We have to assume the gweny typed too fast here.By far and away, the most common action if you break one of our rules, you WILL BE WARNED, not banned.

well this is certainly a possibility... and to be honest, so is ron's take on it... as for me, i still don't have enough information, although ece's post gives me pause for thought

[inquiry]

ecepal, on Nov 4 2004, 08:56 AM, said:

"I am only concern with violation of agreement by one of principals since I am person who is responsible to oversee this agreement. "do my best to remain IMPARTIAL and act in BBO's best interest"
1-If you are responsible FAIR yellow you SHOULD CARE who logged in and you should check BBO's best interest???
2-as courtesy??? it is your duty when you become a yellow to do these but in proper ways
3-are you telling me you take neutral steps in violation af the agreement?

Hi Ece,

The discussion here and the other issues that you started in your first reply should be left to ABUSE rather than rehashing all these details on this specific incident in public. But let me handle just one small part of this. (see logic of why at end of post).

From reading your lastest post, this is what seemed to happen.... Apparenlty someone using a login you use kibitzed a tournment that you have a specific agreement about not kibitzing. In response to this a yellow who is overseeing this agreement "threatened" to ban you for two weeks, and you think they should have investigated more before issuing this threat. Do I have the gist of this conflict correct?

If so, what you consider a "threat" others reading this thread might consider a warning. I mean, it sounds like your nickname kibitzed and it wasn't banned, something that the person issuing the theat had the power to do, immediately. So, a more calm view might have been that insteasd of a "threat" it was more of a warinig or a reminder of what you agreed too... along the lines of "your kbibitzing whatever is a violation, and if it continues I will ban you for a week."

To quite frank with you.. if you have such an agreement, and if your nickname (even if it wasn't you using it) was kibitzing the event, it would be violating of such an agreement, a warning seems the LEAST that would be approriate, and a in immediate ban would not be totatlly out of the question. In fact, this "threat" or "warning" gives you a time to discuss with the yellow issuing it "proof" it wasn't you violating the rules...

BUT FOR EVERYONE READING THIS, this is another problem of letting others use your nickname.... if they do something bad while using your nickname, YOU CAN BE SANCTIONED for their violation just as if it was you doing it. This means if they do something really henious, you could be PERMANENTLY BANNED from this site. Seems like everyone banned for public, flagrant, vulgar actions or really blantant cheating alway blame it on their "neighbors, friends, children or grandchildren" who logged in using their account. There is no way for us to know who is using whose nickname, so I recommend you be extremely careful allowing others access to your password.

I really don't want to see anymore issues related to this "agreement" or facts surrounding the agreement discussed here... as uday covered nearly all that needs to be said when he stated.....

Quote

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.

And from this post, you can still see his issues at work. What you have here in your story is the problem with "sharing computers", "lots of drama", "still can't stand each other"... but the key is that "part of the 'negotiated settlement' that leads to our 'roadmap for peace'" and that "now, things ae quiet." I for one don't want to drag all this out, and make this now that it is quiet become unqquiet. And as all the principals know, part of the "settlement" is not to discuss that it exist or what is in it. This thread has already leaked more about this settlement than is allowed.. (that it is exist, who is involved, who oversees it, and some of the details in general about what is in it). I also know that a lot of the details seem to be public knowldedge before this thread, which is also a violation. Despite these multiple forms of leaking, as a BBF moderator, I will not tolerate any additional details on the nature of this agreement in this public forum... and there is no need anyway, this was a VERY SPECIFIC AGREEMENT involving a very small group of people (count on one hand)... and the rules governing them and their actions are so specific, and so individualized, that they do not relate to the other 400,000 or so users on the BBO (or whatever the number might be).

Ben

[slothy]

Dear All,

It seems Ben is trying to arbritrate this thread and not let it get inflammatory. Uday has washed his hands of it and i dont blame him (cant use his quotes as a lead-in now ahhh wellll ).

With due respect Ece (and i just realised imay be reiterating what Ben said) , and i say this as a friend, there are many occasions where a hotly-debated and over-flagellated topic - no need to mention it by name - seems to unnecessarily resurface. There was no need to bring up the context in which you had this disagreement/ confrontation/whatever-it-was, with a particular yellow, in order to get your point across about the courteous or proper actions of yellows - in contrast to the action of a particular one. As Ben said, that is what @abuse is there for.

And on this note, i was happy that Gweny posted to defend herself. IMHO, the thread was, on a subliminal level, erupting into a daemonisation and stigmatisation of her and her behaviour in one (or two) incidents!.

If this thread, as Ben tried to point out, REALLY IS about discussing (in as civil a manner as possible ) the rights, privileges and conduct of yellows as a GROUP is there really any need to focus on the behaviour of an individual one? Rhetorical question by the way

Now i dont really know Gweny other than her insistence of welcoming people to her tourney in over 129 languages although i i have had the odd communication with her.

But I have to say, as i mentioned above, that there is no need to refer to clubs incident specifically or one yellow in particular if one is wanting to talk about the yellow issue. I dont think it fair or in any way resolves any issue.

If you want to talk about the mechanics of squeeze play do you do so by referring to one you executed in 1998?? or specifically to the squeezes of Zia Mahmood (especially when he got one wrong last week ) ??

[Rain]

Slothy said : "But I have to say, as i mentioned above, that there is no need to refer to clubs incident specifically or one yellow in particular if one is wanting to talk about the yellow issue. I dont think it fair or in any way resolves any issue.
"


This thread was started by clubs, discussing how he was abused by yellows/a yellow. Even ignoring the additional complaints about specific cases that were thrown in, this thread was still based on that example.

How then, can it not be fair, to illustrate BBO's position with mentions of these cases?

Let me list some scenarios of what could have been:

1) I (or any other moderator) could have closed down this thread. Cries will then be of "unfair moderation!" "BBO admin can't take criticism!". You remain unsatisfied, I remain unsatisfied.

2) I (or any other moderator) could have let this thread remain, and not explain the underlying motives of a BBO yellow's actions. Cries will then be of "BBO doesn't explain position!". You remain unsatisfied, I remain unsatisfied.

3) I (or any other moderator) could have let this thread remain open, and explain/refute each criticism as it arises. Cries will then be, or ARE of the variety of, "BBO shouldn't be explaining its stand with examples brought up by participants!", "Unfair treatment!". You remain unsatisfied, I remain unsatisfied.

4) I (or any other moderator) could have let this thread remain open, and let everyone bash us. We will accept all attacks, however unjust it is, and not explain and post the facts of the cases brought up, of which the non-affected parties will not have all the facts. Most of you will then be satisfied, I remain unsatisfied.

-------------


Slothy's last post is also suggesting that we should not refute wrong allegations and explain the facts of cases brought up, to the extent possible, constrained as we are by our wish to respect the privacy of parties involved. Yet slothy found it perfectly alright for these parties to reveal their (1 side) of the story to everyone. Exasperating and annoying.

I, and so far, Ben and Uday both, have chosen #3. Users who seemingly post before/without reading Ben's posts, some of which contain reiterations of previous posts explaining our position, exasperates and annoys me.


Rain

[slothy]

With due respect RAIN

LOL Very rare indeed where i am put in a position in having to defend what i say on here

before i repair my keyboard and return....

just as much as you insinuated i hadnt read any of Bens posts (thank God for mouse-wheels) may i accuse you of not reading (some of) mine in this thread!!! and thus getting an idea of my position

as for some sort of open discussion, Gweny's name - either directly or indirectly - has been mentioned over 35 times compared to her (belated and rather relucant it seems ) contribution of 1 post.

So before you get annoyed and exasperated you may find you are pointing your missile on an ally rather than an aggressor trying to snipe-shoot people in yellow uniforms

Sloffy

[Gweny]

Thanks for noticing Slothy. !H

I do not make threats. If I need to act I do. As I mention before, barring someone is never my first choice. This is why I warn (yes ece it is warning,) this id that Ece share with some other people. As per terms of agreement if offense occur then injure party is to send IMMEDIATE screen print to me. I get screen print so i must act.

Frankly Ece, why do you not send screen print(s) if all this violations happen? You know very well I cannot act without immediate screen print to validate misdeads by principals. This agreement is very explict - moderator can immediately bar what ever id is violating agreement. You know this.

But instead of barring someone i send message to this id because i am aware that Topflight is using some "new" people to direct tournaments. (I am defining new as someone who not directing for topflight wen this agreement take place.) I give you benefit of doubt because I think maybe this "new" people are not aware they cannot kib certain other parties while "wearing" this particular id. I am sorry you cannot see that I am trying to avoid barring someone rather than some machavellian plot to threaten/abuse you. Moreover this is FIRST screen print I get from any of you - which is why I take action.

Telling other yellows do not meet requirements for reporting violation of this agreement. Therefore, no violation happen. No screen print - no violation. You are well aware of terms of this agreement, penalties for violating it, and requirements to prove some violation take place. Send me immediate screen print then i can act.