[mrdct]

In directing "Wildman" last night, I had what I thought was an extraordinary number of disconnects; probably around 30 during a 12 board tournament.

Towards the end of the tournament, I started writing down the names of the people I was replacing and then at the end of the tournament I went back to take a look at the last hand played before/during the disconnection. Not surprisingly, there was a very strong correlation between poor boards and disconnections.

I sent a report off to abuse@bridgebase.com with the details of the most blatant offenders, but what would be really useful would be if the system itself could generate a summary at the end of a tourney that details the names of the players that needed to be subbed with a link to their last board scored and cummulative score up to the time they disconnected.

[hotShot]

If you activate your chat-log, you can use a texteditor to search for the Message that player XXXXXXXXX has been replaced with YYYYYYYYYYY.
This way you can find all the players you subbed without taking notes.

Player who have been subbed by their partners are not shown. It would be nice if the TD/host would get a message too if a player is subbed by his partner.

[rigour6]

I would like the system to allow me to make a note about a player (i.e mark them as a ne enemy) when their chair is empty.

Right now I have to go in through another menu and type their name in correctly. Which can be tricky and time-consuming.

Right now I can right-click notate players only if they are online, but the people I most often want to ban are ones who have just gone offline - which is why i want to ban them.

[jillybean]

rigour6, on Jun 3 2005, 06:41 AM, said:

I would like the system to allow me to make a note about a player (i.e mark them as a ne enemy) when their chair is empty.

I think this is on FG's to do list and from what I understand tournament deserters are tracked and will be temporarily banned from tournaments if they exceed the played/deserted threshold.

jillybean

[cherdano]

I would like to know whether abuse @the-usual-place would generally like to hear about all disconnects from a tourney after bad results. Is it worth it, or do you just drop these reports because there are too many of them?

Thanks,
Arend

[uday]

You don't need to send us reports of players who bail from tourneys.

We run a program weekly that bars these people from tourney play if they exceed certain thresholds (for now, we check last 7 days and tourneyban people who have played in 10+ tourneys and have abandoned 4+ tourneys).

[scoob]

you're a lot kinder than i would be if it were my decision - i was thinking more like 2+ abandons in any 7 day period, regardless of # of tournaments entered.

[uday]

I fiddled w/this a lot about 6 months ago. I couldnt come up w/any good answers then, and I dont have any better ones now Open to any.

[MickyB]

So having played 9 and dced from 9 is ok, Uday?

Looking just at the past week seems arbitrary. Don't know how easy this would be to code, but something like 3 of the last 10 or 4 of the last 20 sounds good to me. If its much easier to stick within the past week, then maybe something like 2+ 0.1*tourneys played, rounding up. IMO noone should be banned for 2 disconnects, as occasionally tourneys can drift to a halt, if you got banned for leaving one of these and one power cut then you might feel slightly hard done by!

This post has been edited by MickyB: 2005-June-07, 16:09

[hrothgar]

Here's my own "naive" suggestion....

I prefer a system that has two important characteristics: First, players need to compete in a "meaningful" number of tournaments before the enforcement system kicks in. Second, the system is based on relative rather than absoute behaviour.

Here is a suggested implementation:

1. Create a pool consisting of all players who have participated in at least 10 tournaments

2. For each player determine what percentage of tournaments the player successfully completes.

3. Each week, the worst 10% of the pool gets banned from playing tournaments for the following week. (I have no real attachment to the 10% figure. You might prefer 5%, you might prefer 18.37%)

4. At the end of the week, each player in the "banned" pool gets credited for competing in the average number of tournaments played the previous week. Their completion rate is also set at the "average value.

5. At some point in time, you might want to combine this system with an absolute criteria as well. For example, the system described ONLY applies to players whose disconnect rate is higher than 12.5%

[hotShot]

Uday the system you applied to the intentional disconnects is good for BBO. But it might not fit the needs of "clubs". We run a series of small tournaments with a nice atmosphere, limited access and a playing TD's. So we would like to have players that have a "stable" connection.
I excluded a player from my list for quiting 2 of 2 of our tourneys after the first board. Even if this were his only 2 disconnects, obviously he does not like my style.
So for keeping my privat inclusion/exclusion lists up to date it would be nice, if missing players that are subbed by their partners would be reported to the TD as well.

[Gerben42]

Good to see that something is done but perhaps a ban from tournaments is a bit light penalty. Would you want these kinds of players to play on your regular tables, then? I guess I would prefer blocking access to BBO entirely for a short period.

I also would like the possibility rigour6 mentioned, to blacklist someone who is already gone.