[inquiry]

DelfinoD, on Feb 16 2005, 03:15 PM, said:

mr1303, on Feb 15 2005, 07:50 AM, said:

I frequently psyche when the hand seems right for it, and these sort of arguments occur more often than I'd like.

Hello

If you frequently psyche (and your p. knows about it) I think you should announce it to the opponets at the beginning, because frequent psyche is an agreement

Anyway if you announce it I guess ops. won't be so mad when it happens.

My "profile" says "I psyche occ" It use to say I psyche freq, but I decided that freq makes people think I psyche once every 10 or 12 hands. I don't psyche anywhere near that frequently. Providign this info is very useful.

I do alert my opponents that I open very light. I don't mention a number of hcp, because I pass some 11 or 12 point hands, and the other day, I passed a 13 point hand but that is so rare, I don't remember doing that in the past.

But the point is, like you, I think any unusual agreement or understanding (like frequent psyche) need to be described to your opponents.

[fred]

DrTodd13, on Feb 14 2005, 09:26 PM, said:

So what is BBO's policy on discussions that take place outside BBO administrative boundaries? For example, if someone gets upset at ridiculous behavior such as these opps and posts a message to rec.games.bridge or puts an entry in his blog and names names then what, if anything, will BBO do?

If somebody wanted to set up an external site to allow players to rate tournament directors then would BBO have any comment?

We don't have an official policy in this area. This sort of thing has not happened much in the past (at least as far as I know). Up until now we have handled such incidents on a case by case basis.

I believe the most important factor would be the perceived intent of the action. If someone wanted to know to solicit opinions about something like a ruling we would have no problem with that.

If someone was upset by a ruling that they didn't like and thought that this was a good enough excuse to try to publicly embarass the management, staff, or the many volunteers who help make BBO possible, we would not be impressed.

Uday tends to just bar people who do this sort of thing, especially if he thinks that their actions could damage the BBO community or our business. I can't always control myself and sometimes issue a public response. If appropriate I will fill in the details that these people tend to conveniently omit. I figure that if they want to try to embarass us then it's open season and, although I don't enjoy playing these kinds of games, I am good at them. Uday is probably right that it is not professional to respond in this way.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[DrTodd13]

Fred,

If somebody were to create a web site that allowed people to rate tournament directors and somebody on that site was disrespectul to a director or to BBO, what would you do if the comment was anonymous or if the username did not match a BBO user name? Would you avenge your wrath on the (known) owner of the site or would that person be an innocent? I mean somebody can get on r.g.b. and say something, so does it make a difference if it is said on a website instead of usenet?

Todd

[uday]

I don't think I would care if the site were unbiased and genuinely attempted to rate TDs for no other purpose than to improve the quality of life of BBO members.

Of course, this is the Internet. No one cares what I think. I'm aware of a couple of abusive sites ( principals might disagree with "abusive") aimed at a specific BBO member. They don't care what I think

Most US ISPs protect the identity of their customers and allow anonymous abuse, hacking, spamming, petty crime and what-not, regardless of what they pretend to believe.


There are a couple of pitfalls if you are contemplating a ratings website

1. Allowing people to type in comments about TD quality will assuredly lead to abusive remarks

2. You won't be able to stop people from voting multiple times

3. Will this become a popularity contest? Votes along the lines of: I hate him but he makes good rulings: will probably be rare

4. Will this become the watering hole for the many people we've had to ban from BBO for various reasons?

5. Will competitors for our customers ACBL card fees attempt to make our acbl tds look bad using this site?

6. Will anyone bother to look up a TDs rating on the web while playing on BBO?

7. Will TDs brag about their ratings in their profile? Who will ensure that a person has the rating he claims to have?

8. Will TDs quit TDing/BBO, in shame/anger if it turns out they are poor TDs as measured by this site?


IMO, as you can tell, an unmoderated effort to rate the casual TDs is likely to harm BBO (and thus, the members it is trying to serve). What harms BBO harms FG/SW/UI and takes away from our ability to serve the customers.


I don't think rating TDs is a bad thing. To do it properly, I think

1. the mechanism for rating a TD has to be very easy. Even right-clicking on a name is too much. I'm thinking more along the lines of a popup whenever you complete a tourney, asking for (demanding?) a rating of that event/TD.

2. The results of the rating have to be visible inside the description, or maybe even alongside the lock and dollar icons, and also available when inviting, etc.

3. We have to find a way to combine ratings when multiple TDs run a T together.


We'd have to get by with fewer tourneys, I think . Some TDs wont do the work if it isnt fun, so to speak, and the ratings might make TDing less attractive.


U

[fred]

I doubt I would even visit such a web site so unless someone complained to me about it, I probably wouldn't even know that this was happening. If someone did complain I am not sure what I would do about it, but if I thought such a web site was harming BBO or our business (or that the fallout from such a web site was causing me or our staff to waste a lot of time), then I doubt that the person responsible for creating such a web site would be welcome on BBO.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[uday]

Oh - and to answer your Q, Todd, I think I would hold the owner accountable for anything said on his site, up to and including the loss of his bbo membership. I'd like to be able to do the same thing on RGB, but I can't.

In real life any site like this will probably conceal the owners identity.

[DrTodd13]

Personally, if I were to set up such a website, I would moderate the content but since the goal is an honest rating, bad things will have to be said. Personal attacks can be eliminated but on-topic opinions of how well a TD is doing would have to be allowed. I don't think it makes sense to punish the person who runs such a site just because somebody on it has a complaint about some director. All that would do is shunt all
criticism to a different venue but it wouldn't eliminate it. Ideally, there would be no preference for one director over another or fee collecting directors versus non-fee collecting but given that BBO is taking a percentage of the entry fees then BBO has a vested interest in seeing those tournaments prosper and negative reviews even if they are truthful could hurt that. Personally, my view it is a private site and you can ban anybody you want for any reason but in this litigious society somebody might get pissed and sue if they got banned for saying something negative about a person in a totally unrelated venue.

1. Allowing people to type in comments about TD quality will assuredly lead to abusive remarks

Ad hominem attacks can be filtered out by the site admin.

2. You won't be able to stop people from voting multiple times

Sure you can. Require ids and passwords and allow only one outstanding vote per director per person.

3. Will this become a popularity contest? Votes along the lines of: I hate him but he makes good rulings: will probably be rare

What isn't a popularity contest?

4. Will this become the watering hole for the many people we've had to ban from BBO for various reasons?

Again it would depend on how the site is designed.

5. Will competitors for our customers ACBL card fees attempt to make our acbl tds look bad using this site?

What if somebody intentionally started running free tourneys with some sort of extra benefit to attract people opposite all the ACBL tournaments? If one of the ACBL TDs on BBO sucks then why shouldn't people know it? If revenues decrease then that person gets replaced with someone better.

6. Will anyone bother to look up a TDs rating on the web while playing on BBO?

Who knows?

7. Will TDs brag about their ratings in their profile? Who will ensure that a person has the rating he claims to have?

Go to the site and check to see they have the rating they claim. Would be hard to get away with lying about your rating.

8. Will TDs quit TDing/BBO, in shame/anger if it turns out they are poor TDs as measured by this site?

I would hope they would take the criticism to heart and learn what they are doing so that they can improve. If they are bad and don't want to improve and quit directing then so be it. There are plenty of qualified people who can step in and run more tournaments.

1. the mechanism for rating a TD has to be very easy. Even right-clicking on a name is too much. I'm thinking more along the lines of a popup whenever you complete a tourney, asking for (demanding?) a rating of that event/TD.

Yes. This is the ideal solution. Somebody's opinion of a TD may change over time so each person should only get one vote and each time they finish a tournament with that director then they vote for the director with their updated view of that director.

2. The results of the rating have to be visible inside the description, or maybe even alongside the lock and dollar icons, and also available when inviting, etc.

Yes. Going to an external site is a big negative for the feature being useful.

3. We have to find a way to combine ratings when multiple TDs run a T together.

In reality, most people complain over blown rules. If a TD runs a tourney and you never need their services then maybe you shouldn't get to rate that TD. That's not totally true because I know of TD's who says X minutes a round but then continually add time every round. This annoys me so maybe there are two ratings: general and rulings.

[fred]

DrTodd13, on Feb 16 2005, 10:51 PM, said:

I don't think it makes sense to punish the person who runs such a site just because somebody on it has a complaint about some director.

I don't think either Uday or I said that this would necessarily happen.

What you may not appreciate is that we have to deal with reality. In this case reality consists of over 100,000 people from all over the world who speak a wide variety of languages, have wide variety of skill levels, a wide variety of ideas on what constitutes good bridge and good rulings, and in some cases a wide variety of personality disorders.

If a BBO member takes an action that causes people in our membership to get upset, we (and the yellows and other volunteers) are the ones that have to deal with it. This is not only an unpleasant way for us to spend our time, it is also not a productive way for us to spend our time and all BBO members suffer as a result. Please note, we are not just worried about our volunteer TDs getting upset - if enough of these people quit as a result of your hypothetical web site, we will have to deal with the complaints of 1000s of BBO members who want more free tourneys.

Furthermore, if a BBO member takes an action that drives people away from our site and/or our pay tournaments, this costs us money. A lot of this money would be pumped back into BBO so again all BBO members wouldl suffer as a result. Some of this money would be kept by the people who run BBO so we would suffer as a result.

I think that if someone is hurting our site or is hurting the people who run our site, it makes perfect sense for us to not want such a person to have the right to be using our site. If someone came into your house and started to smash your dishes, would you invite him back again?

Please note that I have never claimed that a person who ran a "rate the BBO TDs" web site would necessary do any harm to us. My point is that, if we judged that such a person was hurting us, I would not want to spend my time, energy, and money providing him with a access to a hire quality free service (especially since such access would only make it easier for him to continue to hurt us).

About lawsuits, it is not at all rare for people who have been barred to threaten us with lawsuits. Our normal response is to extend the bar on these people to "forever".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

One quick comment in response to Uday's posting:

I readily admit that "cranks" could abuse any kind of feedback system that gets implemented. However, as I've noted before, feedback/rating system are a standard feature in most E-Commerce sites. These companies have recognized that the "good" features in feedback systems far outweigh the bad...

Equally significant, its important to recognize that most of the feedback systems out there tend to be self correcting. Commentary from trusted sources with established histories are taken MUCH more seriously than random "rants" from brand new users ID or Anonymous Cowards.

>Oh - and to answer your Q, Todd, I think I would hold the owner accountable
>for anything said on his site, up to and including the loss of his bbo membership.
>I'd like to be able to do the same thing on RGB, but I can't.

This attitude seems somewhat hypocritical...

BBO operates as an infrastructure provider. BBO provides facilities that third parties use to host events. In doing so, BBO enjoys a certain degree of insulation from some of the controversies that erupt on the site. Case in point - I've seen a lot of commentary that has been highly critical of individual ACBL directors, however, I've normally seen the "blame" attached to the ACBL for agreeing to certify Director X rather than BBO.

With this said and done, Todd is suggestig precisely the same "infrastructure" provider model. The salient difference is that Todd is proposing providing infrastructure that individuals can use to rate bridge directors. I'd be willing to bet that you and Fred don't appreciate getting dragged into the petty little fights that erupt on the site. As infrastructure providers, I'm guessing that you'd prefer to be able to focus on improving BBO infrastrucutre rather than policing usage.

It seems strange to state that you'd hold an individual who created a ranking system responsible for the output produced by his system...

[Please note, its probably worthwhile to differentiate between a case in which a "flawed" feedback system was implemented as opposed to a well designed system that produced output that you didn't like...]

I recognize that BBO generates revenue by hosting fee-bridge games. However, if your serious about building a strong commercial presence then you need some mechanism to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[luke warm]

fred, on Feb 16 2005, 05:36 PM, said:

~snip~ and in some cases a wide variety of personality disorders.~snip~

i fell out of my chair laughing, literally...

[fred]

hrothgar, on Feb 16 2005, 11:37 PM, said:

I recognize that BBO generates revenue by hosting fee-bridge games.  However, if your serious about building a strong commercial presence then you need some mechanism to separate the wheat from the chaff.

For pay tournaments we have a mechanism for this already. All pay tournaments are conducted by "organizations" (such as ACBL, BBOITALIA, BBOLAND, and SKYCLUB). All organizations have a designated person who is responsible for hiring and training TDs and for responding to feedback from our members when they are not happy with how these TDs do their jobs. These people are also expected to fire TDs who are not doing their jobs and seem incapable or unwilling to improve.

If enough people complain to us about the way the person who handles an organization is dealing with such things, we will talk to that person. If such complaints continue (and if we think they are justified) we would be prepared to take away that organization's right to run pay tourneys on our site.

Judging from the e-mails we have received on this subject during the past several months, this basic mechanism seems to be working.

For free tournaments I don't think we want to be separating the wheat from the chaff. An overwhelming majority of our members could care less about the quality of TD rulings in free tournaments. They just want to play and compete and they appreciate the fact that they can do it for free. Even those in the small % of our membership who have the bridge knowledge to judge what constitutes a "good ruling", many are prepared to live with "bad rulings" they get as they understand that these things tend to even out in the long run (and that their score on a particular board of a particular free tourney is not going to change their lives).

If a free tourney TD is rude to the players in his tourneys, abuses the software, or is not responsible about things like dealing with substitutes, we will take away their right to run tournaments on our site. We have a mechanism for that as well (abuse@bridgebase.com).

I have no doubt that if we conducted a poll of our general membership (not the Forums regulars - everyone) and asked to choose between:

1) 100 daily free tourneys with TDs of random quality

or

2) 50 daily free tourneys with TDs of high quality

That the vote would not even be close.

In my opinion, most BBO members don't mind playing in free tourneys with chaff TDs. For those that do mind, it is not that hard for them to stay away from the chaff TDs and play only in free tourneys run by wheat TDs.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

fred, on Feb 17 2005, 02:57 AM, said:

Judging from the e-mails we have received on this subject during the past several months, this basic mechanism seems to be working.

For what its worth, I don't have any "issues" with any of the director's running fee based tournaments on BBO. I've played in a number of fee based tournament. I beleive that I've used all four of the sponsoring organizations (yes, this includes the ACBL). I've only beein involved with a very small number of director's calls. However, from my perspective, each of these was handled quickly, accurately, and objectively.

My interest in the rating scheme is primarly based on what I perceive as scaling problems with a more centralized approach.

For anyone who is seriously interested in these issues, there was an excellent article in Wired Magazing back in January that tangentially touches on a number of these issues... The piece is available at http://www.wired.com...12.10/tail.html

I don't think that author discovered anything new, however, he developed an organizational framework thats very useful for thinking about this sapce...