[EarlPurple]

Here you are referring to playing in a tourney and restricting who kibitzes you, even though kibitzers cannot be heard by players. You are just worried about what they might say about your play behind your back?

[inquiry]

EarlPurple, on Nov 3 2004, 01:41 PM, said:

Here you are referring to playing in a tourney and restricting who kibitzes you, even though kibitzers cannot be heard by players. You are just worried about what they might say about your play behind your back?

Yes this is exactly what doofik is talking about, except also extend to open room when she is not the host as well....

[pclayton]

Some 'meta'; questions and comments:

1. Some players kibitz certain players with kib chat disabled. A table is opened up at OKB or a group chat on Yahoo so that they can chat with others. Is this a problem? Does it represent an invasion of privacy for the table host that specified 'kib chat disabled'? I dont think BBO should bury its collective head in the sand and say, as long as it doesn't happen in our medium, we don't care. Using an outside medium to obviate 'barriers' on BBO doesn't accomplish any goals. Yet its possible.

2. What if you could make your enemies completely invisible; not just disabling chat from them, but not even knowing of their existence? If an enemy played at a table, there name would show up as "xxxxx". Or, the table WOULD NOT EVEN BE DISPLAYED.

3. If two people choose each other as 'enemies', I would think we could go even further. Perhaps a warning could be displayed if you tried to kib a table where one of your mutual enemies was also kibbing at. Two people that chose each other as enemies would certainly not be able to kib the other. Perhaps in cases of the dogs and cats, yellows could institute 'mandatory' labeling of enemies, so that enemies would be 'blind' of the others existence.

4. Similarly, I would think that some enhanced features could be implemented if two people chose each other as friends. For instance, I liked it at OKB when a friend of yours moved tables (or maybe it was just entering the lobby). This was cool, since you would know instantly when someone was available to play, without constantly checking their status.

BBO can be a digital utopia if we choose it to be. As a user, why can't we blot out the literal 'existence' of another user, as if they didn't even exist? And lets look at ways to better keep track of our friends.

As far as dogs and cats, if they all chose each other as mutual enemies, I can see a situation where both groups can co-exist peacefully because all parties won't even be aware of the others existence on BBO. It would be as it one was playing on MSN Games and the other on Swanbridge. Same internet; same game; different venues.

Uday and Fred have done a fantastic job creating this world for us. I am amazed at how it continues to evolved into a model medium so that our collective love of this great game is enhanced. Because of this service, others will be drawn to this mind sport. Lets look at ways to constantly improve the rules of our 'bridge village' to reduce conflicts and foster goodwill.

[inquiry]

pclayton, on Nov 3 2004, 02:00 PM, said:

Some 'meta'; questions and comments:

No fair, phil. A thoughtful, well explained and rationale post. What are we going to do with you? Things like this might do some good and spoil the good clean fun of compalining about every small slight, imagined or not.

Ben

[inquiry]

EarlPurple, on Nov 3 2004, 12:25 PM, said:

There is, on MSN, a "hide cards from kibitzers" option, and perhaps you could have an option here. While it won't prevent kibitzers, it will mean those players have option of not having kibitzers watching them with double-dummy information.

hide the card from kibitzers is an aweful solution. What we are talking about here is not cheating, but simply boarish behavior. Seeing all the cards, or just on hand will in no way address the issue being discussed, and will reduce teh enjoyment of many (those who WANT to kibitz just one hand can do so with a selection in software, adn I kibitz this way often).

WE are a large community, we have good guys, we tried to get rid of evil doers, but we still have a lot of people who lack common sense or the ability to follow common behavioral norms. These people, someitmes think they are being extremely funny, when they are not, and this causes problems they can't understand. These people sometimes think they are being very clever when they are not, or they are being "very helpful" pointing out what someone did worng on a hand, but there activity not only is unwanted, it is a source of aggrevation for players at the table. Sometimes this might be due to the cultural differences between our members, but often it is just becasue some of our members are way to self-centered to see the effect their actions have. This, is the route of 90% of all problems on the bbo that we yellows deal with.

We can't solve this, but I fear two things.. 1) giving everybody the abilty to one button kick any kibiter, and 2) hiding software function in response to cheaters.

In the first case, I will boot your kibitizer, you will boot mine, and we both will make enemies. people booted from kibiting will be angry and complain to me and other yellows, and a hostile gaming area will quickly evolve. Don't want that, sorry doofik, sorry sceptic, sorry other supporters... just mark them enemy and get on with it.. if you ignore them, eventually they will go away.

And changing the software? I am agianst blcoking kibitzer from tourneys (long ago threads on this), and now against the idea of blcoking kibitaer from seeing but one hand. Then we will have people complaining that someone has multiple kibitzers, one in each other compass position, all reporting to whoever the player in question is. This is madness... this is a place to play bridge and have fun. IT is an educational site, and little is as educational as kibitzing. Let's keep it going without burying ourselves in red tape.

As always, these are my personal views, and are not vetted by the BBO... I am just a volunteer with "big fingers" (as oppposed to bid mouth) willing to share my views.

Ben

[Gerardo]

Richard:
Law 76A4 says "Consideration for Players: A spectator must not in any way disturb a player". No right to ban (unless just being there is a disturbance), no limits of any kind. Heard that before, though, maybe supplemental regulation, or tradition, or old Laws.

Phil:
About preventing a enemy to join a table, please don't. Join and misbehave in any way, then I promise to kick.

Certainly in an online environment, don't think just being there in to disturb (talking to the table is, though). Personally, I don't think at f2f just being there is to disturb, particularly if kibitzing other player at table (following excluded, that would make it a disturbance).

If you take the time to monitor the kibitzer list to see if there is someone you don't like, you are disturbing yourself IMO. If such person talk publicly or privately to you while you're playing, then I agree (ignore once?, ask to stop, call yellow).

[the hog]

It is a pity that posters such as Septic don't read posts logically and comment on them. Dave - Mrdct - has it right.

"I probably would only ever use the function once or twice (that is not true, we had that function in yahoo and I loved using it) it is a great function and one I am sure a lot of people would like it."

I find the above comment a sad reflection Septic!

[epeeist]

I must be missing something... After reading this whole thread, I still don't understand the point.

In the main bridge club (or other clubs), whoever starts the table can set whether or not kibitzers require permission to join the table, and whether or not kibitzers may chat with players. If it's your table, refuse to let kibitzers you dislike watch you and set chat to allowed or not. If it's someone else's table, it's their privilege to let whomever they want watch. I'll concede, in the situation where the table host allows someone to kibitz, then realizes there was a mistake, or the host wants to remove the person, there might be a problem, but is that really a common occurence? You can always reset the table to turn off chat allowed, or start a new table and not let that kibitzer join. An annoyance, I'll grant you, but I would think the kibitzer would get the point.

In tournaments, the TD chooses whether or not kibitzers are allowed. Play in tournaments with rules you like or start your own. Again, I'll concede, there are situations where you might not _like_ to be watched by a particular individual, but if they can't talk to you or any other players, what's the big deal? Unless you think there's cheating going on e.g. by using Messenger, which is another sort of problem entirely.

By the way, personally I prefer tournaments which allow kibitzers (both as a player and a kibitzer). It also allows me to vent sometimes, sending the kibitzers messages which (hopefully) are amusing Like in an individual, "Hmm, I always thought 2♣ openings were forcing in SAYC...guess I'm just not an 'expert' like my partner...LOL".

[sceptic]

Actually dropping the c from my name is the sort of thing that I find sad Ron, it is deliberate and very childish , but there we go that reflects on your character (or lack of it) not mine.

I still stand by my personal thoughts that yes I would love to be able to boot some of the unpleasants from my table and I did read the original post.

BUT I see Bens point about causing a bad environment and I am willing to agree maybe that is why I come here and not yahoo as he is right. it is a worse environment (in my opinion)

And we do have the option to Black people out, which does work to the extent that we don't have to listen to them.

As you are probably aware from my posts I am not the most fluent of authors and some times I don't explain myself as well as I would like to, but there you go, that does not make me a bad person haha.

Doofix was refering to tourneys, as he quoted about, when the director was called, I have the misfortune of generalising my statements

[doofik]

Indeed epeeist, you are missing something and I don't mean it to sound serious

The problem that I am addressing concerns of unwanted kibs. This is not about any allegations of cheating as being a novice I'd not know someone's cheating if it hit me in the face. Besides, I find constant reminder that people cheat, a real turnoff. I'd rather live in lala land and imagine that people just play that great.

Back to unwanted kibs. My issue is this:
- a kib shows up at the table where you are playing that you just cannot stomach. The kib doesn't talk to you, but from your previous encounters you know what's happening at the gallery. You go on playing at the table and ... the beat goes on. That's the pacifist version and I'll try to present a picture of what I'm talking about:

As a gracious host, I've opened a new table with permission for kibs required, which stops your game every 2 to 5 seconds and either you admit a kib or you might as well kiss the game or your concentration good bye. And your annoying kib wants in and I mean THE KIB WANTS IN. While you're playing with "admittance denied" your action at the table stops. Now your partner makes a dynamite lead that sets the contract, you're the only ones setting it. Opps aren't idiots, they can see that there's silence from you and now they leave. They don't have a clue that all of your pauses were consumed by this one kib, worse still, there's nothing you can say to make this situation better.

So now you've learned your lesson and you set up a table and this time you don't have a permission required for kibs and your happy annoying kib is right back at your table. What is the recourse other than crying to a yellow?

I understand the tourney settings, but this is my private table. I've put it together, I've gathered some friends and all I want to do is to have fun with them and with the kibs who are interacting with us. What is wrong with this picture?

Jola

[the hog]

"Actually dropping the c from my name is the sort of thing that I find sad Ron, it is deliberate and very childish , but there we go that reflects on your character (or lack of it) not mine."

The quote below was taken from a post from Ben: 8.33 4th Nov

"Don't want that, sorry doofik, sorry septic, sorry other supporters... just mark them enemy and get on with it.. if you ignore them, eventually they will go away. "

You owe me an apology, Sceptic.

[inquiry]

Well, i will apologize to sceptic.. typing is not one of my better points. I apologize for mispelling your name. I don't know about Ron, by mine was an accident. I have edited the post ron quoted to spell the name correctly.

Ben

[sceptic]

Ben you have nothing to apologise for LOL, I am sure yours was unintentional.

Ron, you are welcome to a heart felt apology, if you care to explain why?


1/. did you mis spell my name twice accidently?

2/. was it that I just singled you out and not everyone else?

3/. another reason?

I could hold a poll and see who thinks I should apologise to you and who thinks you should apologise to me for calling me septic?

But that would be childish and I would not do something so silly (mind you it would be fun)

[EarlPurple]

Isn't the English word skeptic with a k ?

But not everyone on here speaks English well and wouldn't necessarily know what septic means anyway, or that the name might be insulting.

Perhaps there should be better guidelines of what is allowed in kib-chat? I think the fun of kib-chat is to discuss the hands being played. This may lead, on occasion, to criticising the players, but it is not meant as a direct attack on the player.

Everyone makes errors. We laugh more when the player who makes the error is otherwise an expert. We do that to professional sportsmen too.

That's why most kibitzers prefer to go to watch the star players. There may, however, be occasions, where we want to watch other players to assess them - we may be considering partnering such a player ourselves, and want to see how they play first.

I have no idea what spectators are saying about me when I play, but if I make an error and get a grilling for it in the gallery I probably deserve it. And it won't bother me, unless the spectators then don't around broadcasting this error to the world as large, thus telling everyone what a useless player I am to have made such an error and to avoid partnering me, and I don't think anyone ever goes to such extremes. In fact if I post a hand based on records I only show player's names if they have made a skilful play, not on their errors, with perhaps a rare exception that I am doing a match report, and all the players need to be listed.

Anyone who doesn't believe me should go and read my articles on Brighton 1994-97 on my website. Can you see anywhere where I insulted players there?

[EarlPurple]

Adding to that, by the way, it is very easy to privately "kibitz" a player without them knowing by looking up their hand records on the online hand viewer site.

Is that going to be considered abuse too?

[doofik]

Earl,

You're missing the point. The point is that I, as a player, have no rights to have a table with an unwanted kib. My options are:

1. admit him;
2. set up permission for kibs which really is a pain to the host; or
3. ban all kibs.

And this scenario is just not quite fair to me as a player.

Jola

P.S. Oh, and I forgot about the run to yellows option

[EarlPurple]

So you want an option to automatically ban enemies?

That seems a feasible option but to apply to the host only, though.

By the way, there are options to make other lists on BBO, so perhaps you could have different types of ban-lists. There are players I want to mark that I don't want to partner but that doesn't mean I want to exclude them from kibitzing at my table or ignore their chat, etc.

So maybe a "ban people from list <x>" option.

[doofik]

Earl,

If I wrote any plainer what I'm after, you'd still take it to a side road. Perhaps my English is bad or I'm not thinking straight. Please keep to the point. Whether I'd exercise the right as a player remains to be seen, but what's certain is that I don't seem to have rights (yes, I know I'm a guest on BBO etc. this is preemptive so you won't even go there )

Jola

[uday]

Doofik, you have the means to do what you want already

Quote

set up permission for kibs which really is a pain to the host

[doofik]

"As a gracious host, I've opened a new table with permission for kibs required, which stops your game every 2 to 5 seconds and either you admit a kib or you might as well kiss the game or your concentration good bye. And your annoying kib wants in and I mean THE KIB WANTS IN. While you're playing with "admittance denied" your action at the table stops. Now your partner makes a dynamite lead that sets the contract, you're the only ones setting it. Opps aren't idiots, they can see that there's silence from you and now they leave. They don't have a clue that all of your pauses were consumed by this one kib, worse still, there's nothing you can say to make this situation better."

Uday, if I may, remove the freeze when admitting players or kibs. That certainly will solve the problem imho.


Jola