[nigel_k]

It's a huge amount of work for BBO to verify what happened and go through a process of warnings etc. Even if they eventually ban someone, the person can just log in with another username. So it makes sense that BBO will give priority to cases of serious abuse rather than just general rudeness.

I suggest that if you do feel someone is being rude, ask them to apologise. If they don't apologise, quit the table and go somewhere else. If enough people do that, the abusive players will have to change. If not, at least you will be at another table.

[diana_eva]

I think asking them to apologize is kinda childish and wont do any good.

Also, OP was kibbing, not playing there.

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2012-February-06, 13:57

[aguahombre]

diana_eva, on 2012-February-06, 13:57, said:

I think asking them to apologize is kinda childish and wont do any good.

Also, OP was kibbing, not playing there.

Yes, IMO Kibs should not interact with actual players for any reason at all except discussion on whether they may be seated to play. This includes after play has concluded on a board or a set.

Private messages later are different. There is no longer a Kib/player connection. I am conflicted about whether a Kib not assigned by BBO to monitor activities at a table should be encouraged to report alledged abuse. They are not really in a position to know the relationships of the players to each other, the context, or the manner in which the chat is taken by the players. Foul language, rather than seemingly abusive comments, might be another matter.

[barmar]

In particular, while a remark like "ugly turkish bidding" sounds like a racist remark, it could just be a commentary on the prevalent style of bidding in Turkey.

[Bbradley62]

Codo, on 2012-February-06, 07:31, said:

So, you and me had not been at the table.
What is your take: That the OP claimed that faster please was written because the player was "doing other things"? Or because he thought, that it was wrong to speed up the game?

Given that two players at the table complained about the slow play, it is my take that the other player was exceedingly slow. Since OP thinks the table host's comments were abusive (those would be the two that included the word "please"), I put little stock in his evaluation of the situation.

[mgoetze]

Bbradley62, on 2012-February-06, 19:23, said:

Given that two players at the table complained about the slow play, it is my take that the other player was exceedingly slow.

It is my take that what 95% of BBO players consider "exceedingly slow" is actually normal tempo for those who consider Bridge a mind sport.

[barmar]

I wouldn't be surprised if "faster" and "play pls" are among the most common chat messages. I just hope "glp" is up there with them.

[Bbradley62]

the first screenshot does include "wdp" and "ty p".

[barmar]

In my early days of online bridge, people would write "thinking" if they were being slow because they had a bridge reason, as opposed to being distracted. Does anyone still do that?

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2012-February-06, 20:26, said:

In my early days of online bridge, people would write "thinking" if they were being slow because they had a bridge reason, as opposed to being distracted. Does anyone still do that?

Yes, but depending on the player, everyone might know it isn't true.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-06, 20:33, said:

Yes, but depending on the player, everyone might know it isn't true.

Or in my case, won't help.

[straube]

I'm interested in knowing more about the certain style of bidding.

The other day I was in a team game against a pair and it seemed like every hand one or the other did something godawful but they wound up landing on their feet most of the time. Examples....


Overcalling a 2-cd suit at the 2-level and finding partner with 5-cd support. Partner didn't raise.

In a competitive auction doubling (apparently for penalty) a 3-level contract with one trump. Their partner had 5 trump and pulled.

In third seat, opening 4C with a 15 ct and AKQxx, finding partner with 4 trump and a stiff...off one for a good score. (We could make 4S but it was unbiddable after the preempt)

Responding 1S to 1H and then passing 2H with something like Qxxx AQJx xx Qxx. 4H was making but didn't look like it would make.

I had the impression opponents were sharing information, but perhaps there is some other explanation.

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2012-February-13, 22:43
Reason for edit: edited to make this post presentable

[billw55]

hmm, I have seen way worse than these two examples. Frankly neither of these would even raise an eyebrow for me.

Abuse is a problem yes, but I have found the cases of meaningful abuse to be a smallish minority. Minor crankiness is to be expected. I think maybe you are just too sensitive, and this when you aren't even playing.

[im2lukie]

foul language should not be acceptable. offender should be blocked from playing

[lindha]

nothing can be done about abuse due to the infamous dunning-kruger effect (wikipedia: The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.) This is just how it is. stay away from open tables and play tourneys instead. the td's will boot the worst abusers.

[mycroft]

I repeat my story (around "foul language should not be acceptable") that that goes a little too far. Picture the scenario:

I'm just kicking around, and decide to kibitz a friend. Turns out he's playing with three other people I know very well, with a couple of kibitzers from the same set (whose names I recognize, may only have met them in midnight games though). It's obvious the game, and the conversation, is well lubricated. One player leaves, and I'm asked to sit in. I tell them I have to go get a beer first, or I won't be allowed to play...

8 or so hands in, I get a question: "Have you figured out what your carding is yet?" "Nah, I think she's changing it every hand" It was that kind of game.

Note that *many* expletives were deleted from this version of the story. If *any* of them had been taken seriously, I'd have the same problem everybody else does. If *any* of the people were unknowns, I'd have had the problem again (because it's not clearly obvious to an outside observer that we weren't being dead serious). But it wasn't, it was just a somewhat drunken, somewhat junior, extremely profane really good time - and I've had the same experience in the Midnights before, and I'm sure will have again.

I don't think you can - or should - ZT ban this situation. I'm absolutely sure that wasn't the only occurrence.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2014-December-12, 12:24, said:

I don't think you can - or should - ZT ban this situation. I'm absolutely sure that wasn't the only occurrence.

Good story. This shows why it's not really feasible to have a "one size fits all" policy for the site.

If we really thought this was worth pursuing, we could conceivably have a table option like "Profanity filter on/off".

[JustaDummy]

barmar, on 2014-December-12, 16:04, said:

If we really thought this was worth pursuing, we could conceivably have a table option like "Profanity filter on/off".

Really? From a purely technological point of view, which algorithm would you use in this case? I recount the salient features of my original post, some two years ago:

"faster please erna"

"if you can’t play faster, please leave"

"ugly turkish bidding"

I don't believe that this conversation is amenable to computational analysis within the boundaries of the technology available to BBO. But to my mind at least, this series of comments is abhorrent, and the last one is clearly racist. This is not about the friendly use of "foul" language as outlined by mycroft. I personally do not believe that language of itself has foulness associated with it. My view is that it is the intention behind ANY use of language, no matter what specific words are used, which must be deduced from the exchange, which is important.

Regarding "banning the situation," that is of course impossible, but members who exhibit clearly unacceptable behaviour, such as telling a player to leave because they are too slow (or too fast, or too dark-skinned, or too Turkish) should, and must, be brought to account, or at least be asked to explain.

This will, of course, not happen in BBO. You prefer to play with insignificant filters rather than face the truth of the matter.

OK, I'm probably banned now, but I don't care. The only reason I make these comments is because of the paucity of thought that barmar has proffered.

[diana_eva]

You made some good points, the problem isn't barmar's paucity of thought, rather the huge number of games that take place on BBO. It's impossible to police them at "intent behind words" level, so there must be some automation to at least eliminate what can be considered undoubtedly abusive. That's why the discussion about what, if anything could be eliminated with filters.

[JustaDummy]

I accept that, to a point. But when barmar said "If we really thought this was worth pursuing" then all bets were cancelled.

diana_eva, on 2014-December-12, 17:25, said:

You made some good points, the problem isn't barmar's paucity of thought, rather the huge number of games that take place on BBO. It's impossible to police them at "intent behind words" level, so there must be some automation to at least eliminate what can be considered undoubtedly abusive. That's why the discussion about what, if anything could be eliminated with filters.