[cicus]

Just finished playing on BBO. During the session I had to boot two players for giving no response of any kind for several minutes. They had no red dot, they simply did not bid or answer. Now I think this will count the same as though I had booted them out of anger. SOS!

Gábor Szőts

[Rain]

Hi Cicus,

If you boot people for good reasons, like these 2 players,

1) This should happen so infrequently that you'd have to be very unlucky to get caught in the scans and auto-punishments

or

2) You have a very high standard that you adhere to, and expect all other players to adhere to it. So you boot people for what you feel are good reasons: Eg: rejecting undos, refusal to alert, this kinda stuff. But you do this often enough to get caught in the scans and auto-punishments.

The most likely auto-punishment in this case would be that you are prevented from playing in the MBC. You'll still be able to play in the public clubs (or private club if you're a member). These areas have less traffic, so you will probably have to invite people to play with you, which means you will be choosing who you play with, and will not have a reason to boot them again.

I'm trying to explain what happens generally. Repeat offenders or flagrant offenders will probably be punished more heavily than this. From what you said 1) probably will apply to you. In other words, booting 2 people probably won't cause you to get banned.

[cicus]

Rain, on Sep 17 2005, 11:41 AM, said:

Hi Cicus,

If you boot people for good reasons, like these 2 players,

1) This should happen so infrequently that you'd have to be very unlucky to get caught in the scans and auto-punishments

or

2) You have a very high standard that you adhere to, and expect all other players to adhere to it. So you boot people for what you feel are good reasons: Eg: rejecting undos, refusal to alert, this kinda stuff. But you do this often enough to get caught in the scans and auto-punishments.

The most likely auto-punishment in this case would be that you are prevented from playing in the MBC. You'll still be able to play in the public clubs (or private club if you're a member). These areas have less traffic, so you will probably have to invite people to play with you, which means you will be choosing who you play with, and will not have a reason to boot them again.

I'm trying to explain what happens generally. Repeat offenders or flagrant offenders will probably be punished more heavily than this. From what you said 1) probably will apply to you. In other words, booting 2 people probably won't cause you to get banned.

Thanks for the reply. In fact if memory serves me well I have never booted anybody till today. Both these players were from Turkey (maybe in a region of Turkey there were connection problems - I don't understand why there were no red dots in either case), and when a 3rd Turkish player came to play to my table I felt quite desperate... I decided not to boot him whatever happens, but I also decided that I would never be a table host again.

Gábor

[candybar]

I think the "auto" nature of this banning is extremely dangerous. I boot people from my table for

1. Rudeness to anyone at the table.
2. Inappropriate sexual remarks or obscenity.
3. Remarks derogatory toward gender, ethnic, racial, or religious groups.
4. Repeatedly refusing to alert or explain their bidding.
5. Repeatedly rejecting undos that I consider fair.
6. Rejecting valid claims and forcing the hand to be played out.
7. Extreme slowness.
8. Repeated bad connection problems.
9. Refusing my request for them to leave.
10. Any reason that I no longer wish to be at the same table with them.

Even in the Main Bridge Club, I think I have a right to play against whomever I wish, and NOT be forced to continue playing against someone I don't want at my table.

All this new auto-banning will do is force people to close the table and start a new one to get rid of problem people.

[1eyedjack]

candybar, on Sep 17 2005, 10:40 PM, said:

All this new auto-banning will do is force people to close the table and start a new one to get rid of problem people.

I think that sounds like a reasonable reaction. What is wrong with it?

[candybar]

1eyedjack, on Sep 17 2005, 07:12 PM, said:

candybar, on Sep 17 2005, 10:40 PM, said:

All this new auto-banning will do is force people to close the table and start a new one to get rid of problem people.

I think that sounds like a reasonable reaction. What is wrong with it?

Not a lot, it just means that the "solution" to the original problem isn't going to work, and for those who need to boot someone for legitimate reasons, you have to take the time and trouble to tell the remaining people what is about to happen, close the table, start a new one, wait for the welcome people to come back. It's much easier and quicker to just boot the unwelcome one.

[uday]

If someone is a jerk at your table, the best thing to do is report him to abuse@

I'd like to think that the # of crazies at a typical table isnt so high as to put the host in anything resembling danger

[candybar]

uday, on Sep 17 2005, 09:01 PM, said:

If someone is a jerk at your table, the best thing to do is report him to abuse@

I'd like to think that the # of crazies at a typical table isnt so high as to put the host in anything resembling danger

Unfortunately, reporting him still does not get rid of him from the table ... only the boot button does that.

And it is true that the number of crazies that I boot from the table in any given month can be counted on one hand or maybe one finger, but since you didn't tell us the target number of boots to cause auto-banning, you'll have to forgive people for feeling a little paranoid.

[uday]

Don't be paranoid ---


The auto ban only blocks you from sitting in the MBC. So you can login, track down uday/gerardo and have us remove it.

Currently it looks like the only people who have been caught by this have booted at least 6 different users from their table in a single day.

[cicus]

candybar, on Sep 17 2005, 04:40 PM, said:

I think the "auto" nature of this banning is extremely dangerous. I boot people from my table for

1. Rudeness to anyone at the table.
2. Inappropriate sexual remarks or obscenity.
3. Remarks derogatory toward gender, ethnic, racial, or religious groups.
4. Repeatedly refusing to alert or explain their bidding.
5. Repeatedly rejecting undos that I consider fair.
6. Rejecting valid claims and forcing the hand to be played out.
7. Extreme slowness.
8. Repeated bad connection problems.
9. Refusing my request for them to leave.
10. Any reason that I no longer wish to be at the same table with them.

Even in the Main Bridge Club, I think I have a right to play against whomever I wish, and NOT be forced to continue playing against someone I don't want at my table.

All this new auto-banning will do is force people to close the table and start a new one to get rid of problem people.

As to your points:

6. There are a lot of players rejecting claims because they are unable to see your line of play however obvious it may be to you. Yes it annoys me too but play levels are different.

9. Why should they leave? They want to play and you accepted their request to join your table. The only justification for booting them for this reason seems to me if they faked their level ("expert") and it turns out they can hardly tell spades from hearts.

10. These reasons may be very subjective. If you can't bear them you can leave the table yourself.

Gábor

[matelda]

You are right, cicus...but I saw some players refusing obvious claims because they hoped the declarer could misclik.That's very unfair and I'm talking about good players not about poor ones!
About booting: I prefer to leave the table at the end of the hand and open a new one: dont feel like discussing.
All the best
Matelda

[1eyedjack]

uday, on Sep 18 2005, 03:01 AM, said:

If someone is a jerk at your table, the best thing to do is report him to abuse@

I'd like to think that the # of crazies at a typical table isnt so high as to put the host in anything resembling danger

I am actually quite surprised that abuse wants to get involved in miriads of petty squabbles. I would not have thought that you had the resources and would have thought they could be better allocated.

The current system ain't perfect, but as a self-policing system that places least strain on admin it seems a reasonable compromise.

Sure, setting up another table seems like a pain. But as we are all agreed that it only happens rarely (in a justifiable sence) the pain is minor.

Perhaps it might be a good idea to log not only the number of boots a booter invokes but also the number of boots invoked on a bootee. If the bootee is booted by several different tables, then he is NOT banned from play, BUT subsequent boots would not count against a booter. Just a possibility. Not really thought it through.

[uday]

Abuse has to get involved bec. people boot for other reasons, some of them quite malign.

We don't want to get involved in petty squabbles. But we have to get involved in making sure that the handful of weirdos and crazies don't ruin it for all of us. So, if you don't report a jerk (and use your judgement) then the jerk continues on his merry way, ruining someone else's day, and so on. If you turn him in, we'l; catch up w/him eventually

[1eyedjack]

Another possible compromise, should the existing method be thought rather Stalinistic:

If booted, the bootee is presented with an option to "clock" it against the booter's record (single click button should suffice). But if no action then no record.

If a player leaves mid-hand, then remaining player(s) have same option to "clock" it against the leaver (and that includes leaver's partner). Any one of them clicks it and it clocks. No click, no clock.

Then you still have the fall back of allowing so many clocks before punitive action.

[barmar]

1eyedjack, on Sep 19 2005, 02:35 PM, said:

If booted, the bootee is presented with an option to "clock" it against the booter's record (single click button should suffice). But if no action then no record.

Players who need to be booted are likely to consider it some form of insult, so they would usually retaliate by clicking it. How many would say to themselves "yeah, I guess I deserved it, I won't punish him"?

[1eyedjack]

barmar, on Sep 19 2005, 10:46 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Sep 19 2005, 02:35 PM, said:

If booted, the bootee is presented with an option to "clock" it against the booter's record (single click button should suffice).  But if no action then no record.

Players who need to be booted are likely to consider it some form of insult, so they would usually retaliate by clicking it. How many would say to themselves "yeah, I guess I deserved it, I won't punish him"?

I would, if I was stuck on a red spot and partner booted me to enable me to reconnect. Or if I was in a table of friends and acquaintances and for whatever reason had to leave without finishing a hand. Normally with strangers I would do my utmost to finish the hand. But with friends it may not be so critical.

Then, also, there was my earlier suggestion that was received by silence: disregarding the boot-count where the recipient is repeatedly booted by several different booters ... the argument being that such individuals have probably brought it upon themselves.

The purpose behind these suggestions is to eat away at the innocent occasions, to minimise the risk of someone being autobarred without justification. The genuine grievances will continue to remain, and be dealt with using the sledgehammer.

[uday]

I don't want to drag us thru the minute details of the selection process (if nothing else, it might change w/o warning), but

- I toss out duplicates; A can boot B several times w/o it counting more than once

- I autoban people who are booted by many tables. As you say, they have probably brought it on themselves. This has resulted in maybe 2 bans to date; each preventing the player from sitting in the MBC for a few days. (this is no sledgehammer, imo. If anything, it is a slap on the wrist.)


This is a complicated selection process (at least, it seems complicated to explain and implement) . Don't worry about it. If it starts catching civilians we'll tweak it until it stops doing that.

[Clinch]

uday, on Sep 18 2005, 06:31 PM, said:

We don't want to get involved in petty squabbles.  But we have to get involved in making sure that the handful of weirdos and crazies don't ruin it for all of us.  So, if you don't report a jerk (and use your judgement) then the jerk continues on his merry way

If I may say so, I think words like weirdos, crazies, jerks, are too judgmental. Life is not binary. Let's face it, bridge can be an emotional game, and most of us say and do things on the spur of the moment that we later regret. I know I do. I have been known to shout at motorists, rollerbladers, even sometimes randomly at life itself. I guess I think that makes me human.

Peter.
New York, NY.

[shoeless]

Since the average person's small supply of politeness must last a lifetime, he can't afford to waste much of it on bridge partners.
-Alfred Sheinwold

[zasanya]

Would it be a good idea to display in some way-perhaps a color code- people who have been auto banned for booting so that people dont join their table?After a month or so the stigma could be removed to allow the offenders to reform.