BBO Discussion Forums: couple things - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

couple things thoughts

#21 User is offline   Old York 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 447
  • Joined: 2007-January-26
  • Location:York, England
  • Interests:People, Places, Humour

Posted 2009-December-15, 12:08

fred, on Dec 15 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

Of course we could have solved this problem early by charging a fee for a BBO user ID. That would naturally satisfy the goal that I mentioned at the start of this point - it would create value for BBO user IDs thereby giving people incentive not to have their IDs taken away. But since the basic premise of BBO was to be a free site that would welcome all bridge players, this concept would have been a non-starter even if I had been able to foresee the problems that we are experiencing now.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I would be in favour of the creation of Premier Membership and would be more than happy to pay an annual fee

Perhaps with a few $BBO thrown in as a sweetener?

Tony B)
Hanging on in quiet desperation, is the English way (Pink Floyd)
0

#22 User is offline   onoway 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,220
  • Joined: 2005-August-17

Posted 2009-December-15, 18:28

Quote

It is easy to obtain as many free e-mail addresses as one wants. This means that an e-mail address is not a reliable way to identify a person.


I didn't think of that. well actually I didnt know that. I thought they were in some way connected to your computer. In that case it is indeed a puzzlement and you and your staff have my sympathy
0

#23 User is offline   mohitz 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 357
  • Joined: 2008-May-19
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

Posted 2009-December-15, 20:13

fred, on Dec 15 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

If I understand you correctly, this would just be pushing the problem to some other site that provides free e-mail addresses.

It is easy to obtain as many free e-mail addresses as one wants. This means that an e-mail address is not a reliable way to identify a person.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred,

Agree that e-mail accounts are free and a person can create as many as he can but first of all I am sure not everyone is aware of the ten minute e-mail providers. So, if they try to create a new e-mail address they would try to create it on websites like gmail, yahoo etc. Now, this takes some effort because you are required to fill lots of forms etc. So, while its true that e-mail is free, people don't like to fill lengthy forms. So, if a member is banned from BBO and he is required to create a new e-mail id everytime to re-register, he will tend to behave in the future.

A better and popular way of identifying people on the internet these days seem to be taking their phone number and texting them a code on registration. Only when you enter this code on the site, can you be registered. I don't think sending text to people from various countries would be that difficult. I am sure there must be services on the Internet that do so. But again this is not ideal. People like you won't be able to register :lol:
All your ace are belong to us!
0

#24 User is offline   spwdo 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 2003-December-26

Posted 2009-December-18, 04:04

when a new user logs in, why not have send a confirmation e-mail that holds a link that needs to be followed before entry is allowed. that way your sure users give a valid e-mail. that cant be too hard too implement.

As for runners, software exists already that people need to complete such and such % of the events they enter. If the % is set higher then what it is today more runners will be unable to enter for a certain time giving them time to think about their actions.

Or as suggested, give tds a tool that they can chose what % is required for their Tr`s. punishment and incentive hand in hand usually works best.

more survivor trs is crap, numerous times i started with an ugly score in round 1 and still managed to end high in final round. in survivor format i would have been eliminated and had no way of recovering. being forced to seek a new event after 10 minutes when you signed up for 2 hours is simply not fun
"if you fail at your first attempt , maybe skydiving is not for you".
0

#25 User is offline   Old York 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 447
  • Joined: 2007-January-26
  • Location:York, England
  • Interests:People, Places, Humour

Posted 2009-December-19, 12:11

spwdo, on Dec 18 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

more survivor trs is crap, numerous times i started with an ugly score in round 1 and still managed to end high in final round. in survivor format i would have been eliminated and had no way of recovering. being forced to seek a new event after 10 minutes when you signed up for 2 hours is simply not fun

Again, you have failed to see the reason for setting the removal rate to zero%

With the rate at zero, low scoring pairs are unaffected, they continue to play, but all disconected players and runners are removed from the tournament at the end of round, preserving subs for the tables where needed

When a new player logs in for the first time, they are greeted by a welcome message and menu. Maybe they should be first greeted by a copy of the rules of the site, in their own language, and be forced to complete an acknowledgement that they have read and understood these rules, before being allowed to continue

Tony
Hanging on in quiet desperation, is the English way (Pink Floyd)
0

#26 User is offline   shintaro 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 349
  • Joined: 2007-November-20

Posted 2009-December-19, 14:19

Old York, on Dec 19 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

Again, you have failed to see the reason for setting the removal rate to zero%

With the rate at zero, low scoring pairs are unaffected, they continue to play, but all disconected players and runners are removed from the tournament at the end of round, preserving subs for the tables where needed



Tony

:D


Tony

I am worried about the 'Disconnected Pairs' being dropped out by the software does not seem fair especially with the great number of Disconnections we seem to be getting.

However dumping those TD boots is ok :rolleyes:
0

#27 User is offline   spwdo 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 2003-December-26

Posted 2009-December-19, 21:37

if my partner or me have a second of bad connection during round change we are dropped and this is an improvement you say? cant see the advantage here.

My Indian friend Aramesh_ sometimes suffers from a red nose, playing with him is for fun and to pass time . He sometimes needs to log in again but always has enough tempo to play in a timely manner like the next guy, why would we have to be ejected?

Furthermore them players not wanting to continue due to a bad score make sure they are red during roundchange and are excused from tourney without consequences. Another downfall if you ask me
"if you fail at your first attempt , maybe skydiving is not for you".
0

#28 User is offline   mgoetze 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,942
  • Joined: 2005-January-28
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cologne, Germany
  • Interests:Sleeping, Eating

Posted 2010-January-07, 07:49

fred, on Dec 15 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

To some extent that is true and that is the reason why this problem is harder to solve than one might think. What I think we need to achieve is to add some value to the notion of a BBO user ID. In this way people will have something to lose if their ID is taken away or stripped of its priviledges.

Hi Fred,

as a long-time administrator on another internet gaming site[1], I sympathise a lot with the problems you, and the BBO community, are facing. Even a handful of troublemakers can drain a lot of energy - sometimes we will ban one person 10 or 20 times in a day before they give up on making new IDs for a while. We have all sorts of tools for watching for logins with certain parameters[2] and so on.

I think you are on the right track with your notion of associating value with IDs. I already have quite a bit of value associated with my BBO ID. Not only have I bought some instructional content by Larry Cohen online, which I can come back and reread occasionally, there are also other people on BBO who will recognise me in their friends list even after I take a year-long break from playing Bridge. I'm certainly happy about that.

Yet still, when I go to the MBC to play in a pickup game, there are thousands of people there who know nothing about what I and others associate with my ID, and conversely I know nothing about them and their IDs - though it certainly feels like a significant percentage of them don't particularily care about their reputation.

So, for one thing, I would be in favour of a tournament filter which only allows people who have ever bought BB$. This is not the same as charging a fee - if you charge a fee the money is gone. If I buy BB$, I can use those to play with GIB, to buy content by Marty Bergen or Larry Cohen, to buy Bridgemaster deals, to play in the ACBL Sat 2AM Speedball Pairs, or to give away to someone else.

But what I think would be even more useful is some sort of social rating system. Here is what I envision: whenever you have played a certain amount of boards (say 4 or 8) with or against another player, you are allowed to "rate" that player. Your options will be:

1. This player was pleasant to play with. He was courteous and ethical throughout.
2. This player was neither particularily pleasant nor unpleasant to play with. Perhaps he said some nice things but also made a disparaging remark, or perhaps he just didn't say anything at all.
3. This player was unpleasant to play with. He was rude, disruptive or hostile.

Now, there are a few considerations for implementing such a rating system. For one thing, it should be totally anonymous, or you will have the "Ebay effect" (give me a positive rating or I'll give you a negative one). For another, you will obviously have people who will rate negatively anyone who made a single bid they disagreed with. To deal with this, you need to weight the ratings. I will present a simple proposal that I just came up with on the spur of the moment - if there is serious interest in the idea I would of course happily give it more thought.

Say we give each player a score, 0 being neutral, positive numbers indicating positive ratings and negative numbers indicating negative ratings. Now say Player A gives Player B a negative rating. Player B's rating should go down by

max(1, sqrt(Atot)/Aneg)

where Atot is the total number of players rated by A and Aneg is the number of players given a negative rating by A. For reasons of symmetry, something similar should be applied to positive ratings. Another obvious idea would be to give higher weight to ratings by people who are rated highly by others.

What will you do with these ratings? Show them in people's profiles, of course - BUT I would only show positive ratings, and no exact values. So you could mark anyone with a rating of, say, +5 or higher as a "friendly player" and anyone with a rating of +20 or higher as a "very friendly player".

Enough about that for now, I have one more idea I want to share. One of the main weaknesses of BBO, as I see it, is that there is still[3] no possibility for pairs to find a pickup game, outside of tournaments. One of the ways I typically use BBO is to log on, see if anyone in my friends list is willing to play, and go to the MBC with them to play against two randoms.

Now, in this situation my partner and I obviously have much more incentive to behave well than the other two at the table, because we know we will likely want to play with one another again and don't want to disappoint each other. Furthermore, we have a better chance of producing decent bridge because we already have some mutual understanding about bidding or carding.

But what if there are other pairs in the same situation? Well, then we won't get to play against them, obviously, because we are opening a table, and they are opening a table. That's too bad, because it would probably make for a better game if we could play against one another.

So it looks like I am stuck with building a much bigger friends list, and trying to find not 1 but 3 (or even 7) people willing to play with me, and I won't get to meet anyone new via this method. That sucks.

So what I would really like to see is a system which "helps me find a game" - but where I register with a partner, and get to play against other people with a partner. And there should NOT be any sort of partnership desk for this feature, otherwise I'll be back to the same situation as before. Ideally, it should also be possible to automatically organise team matches - register as a pair OR as a team.

Thanks for reading up to this point!
Regards,
Michael

[1] The KGS Go Server, www.gokgs.com
[2] Obviously, I won't discuss what those parameters are in public - if someone from BBO is interested in discussing technical details they should feel free to send me an email.
[3] And I am sure this was already discussed here when I was last active on the forums 2 or 3 years ago.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
    -- Bertrand Russell
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users