[Al_U_Card]

barmar, on Nov 16 2005, 10:35 AM, said:

rona_, on Nov 16 2005, 07:07 AM, said:

BBO doesn't get involved in private clubs and we can't fault them for that. They believe that market forces will sort out the clubs that have unhappy members. It isn't happening in the club that you are referring to because, either the majority of the members are happy, or too afraid to speak up, as they know they will have their memberships terminated.

Or maybe they don't know that the club manager is so heavy-handed. Since Jilly is too much of a class act to name names, we still don't know which club to boycott.

Or a large majority of their customers are not running their own tournaments...... . Jb, vote with your feet, but please don't feel or think with them. The few times we spoke, you had an air of gentleness that can only enrich the our environment. I am sure that we all support your decision but would feel the loss in more than just a general way.

[luke warm]

uday, on Nov 16 2005, 07:04 AM, said:

Quote

IF jilly is correct in saying that

She did not say that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

she said, "Since then I have tried to discuss the problem with the club manager but they will not talk with me, hiding behind BBO directive not to communicate with free td’s."

Quote

A manager is free to run an organization as he or she sees fit.  This freedom  includes the right to revoke a player's membership for any reason, good or bad.

i wasn't aware of that... so if a club manager abuses a bboer, is reported to abuse for that, the manager is then allowed to simply kick out the person who (rightly) turned them in?

hmmm...

[uday]

Yes, although I'd expect that a club that behaved like that would have trouble attracting and keeping users. Or maybe not.

Similarly, a TD is free to --- for any reason ---- exclude anyone from his tourneys. Will it be the person who argued with him in the last tourney? Sure. Why not? His T, his rules.

The alternatives to this freedom for the TD/Club manager are ridiculous..

Should we "force" a club manager to provide service to someone when the club manager does not want to provide it? What about forcing TDs to provide service to all, without allowing "enemies" to be excluded ? How exactly would we enforce this ? Any such attempts by us would surely result in many clubs and Ts shutting down.

[luke warm]

uday, on Nov 16 2005, 08:07 PM, said:

Yes, although I'd expect that a club that behaved like that would have trouble attracting and keeping users. Or maybe not.

Similarly, a TD is free to --- for any reason ---- exclude anyone from his tourneys. Will it be the person who argued with him in the last tourney? Sure. Why not? His T, his rules.

The alternatives to this freedom for the TD/Club manager are ridiculous..

Should we "force" a club manager to provide service to someone when the club manager does not want to provide it? What about forcing TDs to provide service to all, without allowing "enemies" to be excluded ? How exactly would we enforce this ? Any such attempts by us would surely result in many clubs and Ts shutting down.

i agree with most of that, but i can't help thinking that what happened to jilly kat was a different kettle of fish entirely

i don't know what happened, but i do lend a lot of weight to kat's version, simply cause i know her and think she's being honest... so it just seems to me that there's a difference between some of the things you describe and in a td or club manager booting someone for simply doing what bbo asks her to do, that is emailing abuse when abused

[Fluffy]

uday, on Nov 16 2005, 12:04 PM, said:

Quote

IF jilly is correct in saying that

She did not say that.

Our rules in this area are pretty simple. One of them is: Pay clubs (ACBL, Sky, etc.) may not squawk at a free TD for scheduling a tourney that clashes with a pay T.

There are no restrictions on private clubs/tourneys, IIRC, except the obvious ones (no spamming members, etc).

A manager is free to run an organization as he or she sees fit. This freedom includes the right to revoke a player's membership for any reason, good or bad.

It looks like kathrin could answer scheduling all her toruneys on the time the club tries payment ones, they would get what they deserve, sadly that's not her style :/

[barmar]

Why do you want to be a member of a club run by someone who hassles you in the first place?

[chicken]

which club?????

[keylime]

Beaner,

You will ALWAYS have a home in Future Stars. Without a doubt.

This unfortunately is another regrettable chapter. We'll overcome, with grace.

If this game is to survive, we need to put people first and not personal pursuits.

[han]

Kathryn,

I understand that you want to take a short vacation after this unpleasant experience. But please don't stay away for very long. There is counting to be done, tournaments to be played and organized, and many friends waiting for you to come back.

Best wishes,
Han

[kenberg]

It is generally wise to stay out of quarrels one doesn't understand (and often stay out of quarrels one does understand) but my curiosity is nagging at me. Please take my questions as real rather than clever, I really don't grasp what is happening.

A glance at the tourney schedule shows that there is a lot going on, and that any tourney is fairly likely to overlap with some other tourney. Is there some sort of assumption that one should not schedule a new tourney at a time that would conflict with an established one? Does it matter if one is pay and the other free? If someone complains about the schedule can they just be told to buzz off, that the tourney has to run sometime and it will probably conflict with some other one? Do I totally misunderstand?

At any rate, I would not want to see JB or anyone leave mad. I really do not get what happened, so I will not take any sides, but I hope, as the Melina Mercuri character would say in "Never on Sunday", we can all go to the seashore. Stick around, JB.

Ken

PS If you never heard of the 60's movie Never on Sunday, I highly recommend it.

[jillybean]

Yes you are correct in your assumptions.
TD’s are free to schedule a tournament anytime.
Private Clubs are free to boot anyone they please.

I’m not mad, just very sad and disappointed.

[inquiry]

kenberg, on Nov 18 2005, 09:36 AM, said:

At any rate, I would not want to see JB or anyone leave mad. I really do not get what happened, so I will not take any sides,

JiB is right. Tourneys can be run when they want. In a nutshell, JB is (was?) a member of club xxxx, she ran a tourney that conficted with club one own event. Club one manager asked her not too run it (there is no BBO rule that stops JB from running events when she like). Then club xxxx removed her membership (there are no rules that force any club to accept, reject or keep a member).

So everyone was in the "right". JB can and should be allowed to run events when she wants. The club manager can pick and choose who is in and out of his/her club. So both sides acted as they "could" (yellows can not interfere here), the end result is bad for JB, bad for club xxxx and generally bad of the BBO community. This is one of the sadest incidences yet on the BBO in my opinion.

Ben

[keylime]

Well said Ben.

[Al_U_Card]

inquiry, on Nov 18 2005, 11:31 AM, said:

This is one of the sadest incidences yet on the BBO in my opinion.

On the other hand, like any "free-market democracy" one of the lesser pains for the greater gain. Much as I abhor the implications and support Jb, time for skin-thickening agents to be applied liberally perhaps?

[Winstonm]

Bottom line is: You can't regulate pettiness - but you don't have to be a party to it, either.

[bglover]

Clubs provide one of the few avenues for "real" power on BBO, even if that power is limited to within the club itself. Power also begets the power to abuse such power.

Therefore, shouldn't BBO stringently ensure that club managers (the very few granted such power) not abuse the privilege? One man's humble opinion. And, yes, to anticipate Uday's inevitable response, that would include rules for club managers to stringently follow. With one absolute punishement-- that club manager's powers be revoked upon any single infraction.

You'd lose half or more of the club managers immediately. And solve a bunch of headaches. Because currently you have anarchy due to lack of rules.

[uday]

There is very little difference in power between club managers and the 1,000+ TDs

Want us to tightly regulate those too? I dont see how we could.

[bglover]

You are right... and the short answer is 'yes" but it is impractical. There are FAR FEWER club managers than TDs.. a mere handful. So the 2 problems-- altho they appear similar in stature-- have absolutely nothing in common.

(But, if it were my website I'd quickly revoke TD privvies of any TD who has shown a pattern of abuse of power).

[uday]

If it were my website, I'd do the same, after looking at all the evidence and listening to all the witnesses and weighing the pros and cons of action vs. inaction

[barmar]

Al_U_Card, on Nov 18 2005, 01:15 PM, said:

On the other hand, like any "free-market democracy" one of the lesser pains for the greater gain. Much as I abhor the implications and support Jb, time for skin-thickening agents to be applied liberally perhaps?

If no one is going to name names, we don't have much of a "free market" here. How can people vote with their feet if they don't know who to vote against?