[mrdct]

It would be nice if the system could somehow recognise completely innocent bootings of players that shouldn't attract a ban. I'm currently banned from the Main Bridge Club due to an incident a couple of nights ago when I was having a friendly game in the Main Bridge Club. This is what happened:

- My LHO was the host of the table and, as such, I had no control over the table settings.

- My partner announced that he was going to finish-up after a couple of hands, so I messaged a few of my friends in lobby to see if anyone wanted to jump into my game. One of my friends replied in the affirmative, and I messaged my LHO to ask him to reserve the seat for him when my current partner leaves.

- During the next hand (which was my partner's last hand) my LHO briefly disconnected and I became host. As I was concentrating on the hand in play, I didn't think to check the table settings.

- After the hand was claimed, we all said goodbye to my partner and I opened up the "table" settings to reserve the seat for my new partner (which you can't actually do until someone vacates a seat). My partner stood up and I started typing the name of my new partner in the reservation box, but before I could type his name it greyed out due to someone else sitting down opposite me.

- I then got stuck in a loop of booting the player who sat down and then trying to type my partner's name in before someone else sat down. This went on for maybe 30 seconds or so during which time I must have booted at least 6 players.

- It then dawned on me that the previous host didn't tick the "permission required to join" box so I ticked it and then came an avalanche of requests to join the table. Clicking "close and reject all" doesn't seem to do anything as the invites just kept coming.

- Somehow I managed to eventually get my new partner's name reserved and he took as seat and we had a nice game.

- A day and bit later I get a BBO message upon login that I have been banned!

I think the automatic banning rules need to recognise situations like this where the host of table is clearly trying to organise a specific person into his game and can only do it by booting people. I also think there would be some merit in "permission required to join" was the default.

[david_c]

mrdct, on May 11 2007, 09:46 AM, said:

- It then dawned on me that the previous host didn't tick the "permission required to join" box so I ticked it and then came an avalanche of requests to join the table. Clicking "close and reject all" doesn't seem to do anything as the invites just kept coming.

Indeed, we could do with a "reject all and reserve seat" option.

[Cascade]

A possible work around.

Reserve the seat with something like "x". Click ok then go back to the table button to write your partner's name which will take longer.

[inquiry]

There is at least several ways to prevent such a problem where one doesn't have to be booting people left and right.

One simple solution is announce that you will close the table and open a new one. When you start a new table, you are free to type the names of the players into the seats before anyone can see it to try to join.

A similar solution is make the table invisible. As an indivisible table, only kibitzers at the table before it went invisible can even see the empty seat to try to sit down. After you get the name typed in, you can make the table visible again. The invisible table trick is the way to "reject all and reserve seat" option david_c is suggesting. Of course, if you have 100 kibitzers who all will try to take the seat you may need to block all kibitzers as well. I don't generally have that latter problem, because anyone who sees me play would not want to sit down opposite me, so my partners always show up as surprizes from the lobby.

The autoban has been a great addition to the BBO software as far as yellows are concerned. Due to it, we generally do not get involved in booting cases (many, many people get personnally insulted when they are booted). There are some exceptions if rudeness preceeded the booting. If players are booted and then declarer claims a ridiculous number tricks, things like that.

It is much easier for us to deal with the occassional "unfair" banning than the hundreds of justified ones. And you should note, EVEN after you are autobanned for this, you can still play in public and private clubs, in team games, and in tournaments. In addition, you can still kibitz anyone on the BBO including vugraph. So it is not like this "autoban" totally prevents anyones enjoyment of the gaming site, other than being irrate the computer issued a punishment to them that they consider unjustified. In addition, this problem is not all that prevasive. When situtations like this occur, it is always to bbo gold stars, who when there is a seat opposite them open, the seat seems to attract a lot of potential parnters. So while i am not certain, i would guess that mrdct must have a gold star. Gold stars can simply learn the little tricks to make partner exchanges simpler.

None of the above doesn't mean other simplier software solution might not be implemented. One would be a single check box that does not allow anyone to even try to sit in the empty seat. This is sort of that the invisible button does.

[Gerben42]

Quote

One simple solution is announce that you will close the table and open a new one. When you start a new table, you are free to type the names of the players into the seats before anyone can see it to try to join.

Does not help in the actual case. He only wanted 1 new player.

I would support a standard setting that would change a table to "permission required to join" as soon as the table host changes as this is a messy situation.

In addition a remodelling of the rejecting system would be useful. If you "reject all" you almost never want to be bothered with more suggestions 0.5 seconds later (usually the same people btw).

[david_c]

inquiry, on May 11 2007, 11:49 AM, said:

The invisible table trick is the way to "reject all and reserve seat" option david_c is suggesting.

Yes, I've tried that in the past, but the problem is it takes a few seconds to make the table invisible, and if someone else tries to sit in that time (which very often happens) you have to start all over again.

[mrdct]

inquiry, on May 11 2007, 05:49 AM, said:

One simple solution is announce that you will close the table and open a new one. When you start a new table, you are free to type the names of  the players into the seats before anyone can see it to try to join.

Not really viable. Inconvenient for the kibitzers, interupts a complete LIN record of the session and it's likely that opponenet will call it a night rather than muck around moving to a new table.

inquiry, on May 11 2007, 05:49 AM, said:

A similar solution is make the table invisible.

If I'd had the forethought to review the table settings before my partner left, I would've ticked "permission required for players".

inquiry, on May 11 2007, 05:49 AM, said:

Of course, if you have 100 kibitzers who all will try to take the seat you may need to block all kibitzers as well.

We did in fact have 100+ kibitzers and I am fundamentally opposed to blocking kibitzers in any circumstance. It is against the laws of bridge to block kibitzers unless the sponsoring organisation has separate regulations that provide for such an action.

inquiry, on May 11 2007, 05:49 AM, said:

The autoban has been a great addition to the BBO software as far as yellows are concerned. Due to it, we generally do not get involved in booting cases (many, many people get personnally insulted when they are booted).

Whilst it wasn't the situation with this particular problem, if I am the host of a table and someone breaks my rules, it should be my right to boot them. I have a zero tolerance policy for my opponents being rude to eachother. Perhaps when the host boots someone a reason should be submitted such as "wont bid or play a card", "was rude", "was not welcome", etc.

inquiry, on May 11 2007, 05:49 AM, said:

And you should note, EVEN after you are autobanned for this, you can still play in public and private clubs, in team games, and in tournaments.

That didn't really help when I wanted to play a few boards in the MBC this afternoon. I didn't have the time or inclination to set up a teams match and I'm not a member of any of the clubs.

inquiry, on May 11 2007, 05:49 AM, said:

When situtations like this occur, it is always to bbo gold stars, who when there is a seat opposite them open, the seat seems to attract a lot of potential parnters. So while i am not certain, i would guess that mrdct must have a gold star. Gold stars can simply learn the little tricks to make partner exchanges simpler.

If I had set up the table initially or acted a bit more quickly when hosting duties were passed to me, I would've largely averted the problem; although with the "close and reject all button" not actually doing anything I still would've been wading through the permission pop-ups but at least I wouldn't have been banned.

[uday]

The automatic bans are a blunt weapon, and not always accurate -- as in this case, they sometimes ban the innocents. But IMO, this is easy to resolve, since the victim can login and contact a yellow username (who can then lift the ban).


All that we see when deciding whether to ban someone is

User booted B at 01:01
User booted C at 01:02
User booted D at 01:03
etc

We can't tell this apart from

Crazy booted B at 01:01
Crazy booted C at 01:02
Crazy booted D at 01:03

In other words, the software doesn't know that MrDct is one of the good guys and I don't really see how to let it learn that for itself.

[Al_U_Card]

inquiry, on May 11 2007, 05:49 AM, said:

Of course, if you have 100 kibitzers who all will try to take the seat you may need to block all kibitzers as well. I don't generally have that latter problem, because anyone who sees me play would not want to sit down opposite me, so my partners always show up as surprizes from the lobby.

Gee Ben, and I thought it was because they were still laughing so hard about your previous play.......

[Tola18]

this thread shows another weak point: It is possible to write up people only in vacant seats.

It should resolve many problems if it was possible to write up the coming player while the seat is still occupied. Occupied either by a living person or by this provisoric X, as mentioned.
Something like: Next player is:

[bid_em_up]

mrdct, on May 11 2007, 07:42 AM, said:

inquiry, on May 11 2007, 05:49 AM, said:

A similar solution is make the table invisible.

If I'd had the forethought to review the table settings before my partner left, I would've ticked "permission required for players".

Since you do not become the table host until partner actually leaves the table, this option would not be available to you; it would be grayed out.

You can review it, but you would have to ask him to change it prior to his leaving.

[Flame]

As a previos victim of the autoboot system when i did nothing wrong (not a single thing) i really understand how fastrating this can be and atleast for me it was a feeling of being beatared by the BBO which i care alot for. I dont think you can always get a yellow to solve this, atleast not for me.
Not sure it can be fix but it feels really bad when it happend.

[mrdct]

Flame, on May 17 2007, 07:31 AM, said:

I dont think you can always get a yellow to solve this, atleast not for me.

Indeed the yellow I spoke to basically said there's nothing I could do other than wait or send an email to Uday.

[uday]

Most yellows don't use this power too often but all of us have the ability to unban users.

[barmar]

Let's just hope you use your power for good, not evil.

[inquiry]

For the most part, yellows defer both banning, and especially unbanning, decision to abuse --- whose job it is to track repeat offenders and decide the level of punishment. Most yellows don't know the history of a person (had he been banned before?) nor the usual standard for bans versus warning for racist remarks? for different levels of profanity? For unwarrented teaching lessons and partner insults?)

I for one tend never to get involved in automatic bans issued by the computer for tournament or main room problems. These are all self-limiting, and the player still has access to the site. I think a fair number of yellows follow this lead, as suggested by uday as well.

[BebopKid]

Looks like to me, changing the table to require people to ask permission is a no-brainer.

Booting people is rude. Ignorance is no excuse, I think you should serve you time being banned and get over it.

[julie5607]

My experience with the autoban system is that yellows will absolutely defer unbanning to abuse and abuse is in no rush to unban. In my case, I thought that a quck series of internet disconnects (6 in a row, in which I managed to complete 2 games and abandoned one) had triggered a 3 day autoban, and abuse was not only unwilling to lift it but unwilling to discuss it in any way, shape or form. It wasn't until later that I realized that the same day I had set up multiple invisible teaching tables, sat myself in all four seats, changed a setting, and left BBO only to repeat the process - all in order to test a volume setting in the current Beta software which wasn't working for me. That activity, in conjunction with the disconnects, had been enough to trigger the autoban. When I managed to track down abuse again and explained about the testing, the ban was lifted immediately.

So - a few suggestions. First of all I think it's important to post somewhere ALL activities which might trigger an autoban. I certainly didn't think that setting myself in all four seats of a teaching table, leaving BBO, returning, and repeating a few times was in any way abusive to anybody, or even that it would be tracked and merged with my playing records, but it was an activity that triggered a high unfinished hand ratio. I would guess the same would happen if one set up a rubber bridge table with GIB and bailed/created a new table each time GIB made an idiotic bid.

Secondly, although I understand that the autoban system is often warranted and takes a lot of stress off of abuse, there should be some sort of instant appeal system in place - perhaps abuse can delegate a "lesser yellow" or the person who sits as "bbo help" can listen to autoban cases, ask a few questions, and decide quickly if there is reason for further review. In my case, if abuse had said "those 6 disconnects don't sound like enough, is there anything else you did yesterday that was unusual" it might not have taken me most of the day to remember the teaching table testing, and saved a lot of aggravation.

It is easy for you yellows to say that the autoban is minimal and self limiting, but I have to tell you that as someone who ONLY plays in the main bridge club, and who has no history of misbehavior in any regard, I found the autoban to be humiliating, perplexing, and very heavy handed. The general concept that it is over fast doesn't lesson the sting of unfair punishment or lack of appeal process.

Julie

p.s. I also agree that there should definitely be a way to reserve a seat for a future player while that seat is still occupied, and although that's not specifically about autobanning, I think it would lower "innocent" player booting ratios significantly.

[Gerben42]

Usually the system is right but there are cases like your teaching table where the blunt weapon misfires. If the cause was booting people (which you shouldn't!) then the ban is usually not lifted.

If however you think something else like your teaching tables cause the ban I am sure exceptions can be made.

The situation where someone is suddenly promoted to host should be looked at more carefully and maybe some software improvements could be made there.