bglover

I have played on BBO almost from its inception. I quite possibly have played more hands here than anyone. If not I am certainly in the top three. During my long tenure here I have been cheated and I have seen some cheating while just kibbing. I would never attempt to say cheating is non-existent on BBO.. Nor would anyone else. However, let me say that the cheating is not that frequent that someone can’t find a new table in a hurry with all honest players. Indeed, if you avoid tourneys (where you are locked in for 12 hands) it’s quite easy to find an honest game… and a diligent person can find a good, honest game. However… some people see cheats in their sleep. We all know a few of them around here. People who can’t distinguish between someone who is maybe a bad player and has fixed them or maybe is a bad player on their own and too arrogant to not recognize a good play when it slaps them upside the head. The vast majority of cheating accusations fall firmly into one of those two categories. Listing yourself as a pro and a teacher doesn’t qualify you in anyway to assess YOURSELF. There are some famously fatuous bridge players in the world who believe they are gods when they are, in fact, not even intermediate players. And, these people seem to be the ones who THINK they’ve been cheated the most. BBO can become a very dangerous place if a few loose cannons decide to besmirch the general population and imply the vast majority cheat. You know how they used to stop cannons from going off too soon? They’d STUFF A SOCK IN IT.

Gee Matt... you don't think Melviss would stoop to such a low trick as to imply anyone was insane do you? He's always posted such kind, balanced and sweet posts. Oh... wait. Actually that isn't true, is it? So, I guess this is just another attempt by Melviss to insult the masses for his own self gratification. Suggest the bathroom is a better place for that than here, Mel.

I have been clear as I can be. Apparently, you can't see what is plain on your face. So, I won't bother beyond this little statement. But, you now admit you wanted the right to shut up everybody. You think that's fine. I think that sucks. End of story.

"...table hosts the option of muting kibitzers such as a on a vugraph table." I am sorry. Those are your exact words. And the ONLY part I was fighting stenuously about. You advocated precisely what I fear most-- the elimination of free speech as an option. Freedom of speech has a downside-- we are stuck listening to everyone-- whether they have anything useful to say or are just stupid or annoying. Let's face it, some can be annoying-- me included at times. It iis part and parcel of freedom to speak one's mind. I would denouce any person in any forum who advocates this. It has less to do with BBO per se than the rights of individuals in general. Elimination of individuals' rights leads to totalitarianism. As someone who lives in a free country you should appreciate how precious that is. Please appreciate my position-- had your request been granted it would inevitably lead to further hostilities. And I don't want to see BBO become more hostile than it already is.

Keylime "croaked: However, I think that to say that a curtailment of free speech to result from the filtering chat is incorrect." NO. Jilly advocates a kill all chat button at the table. It is an all or nothing proposition and that is the point. You can ask or HOPE others will focus on bridge and maybe that is even a good goal to obtain (altho when the talk is dominated byr "straight bridge' chat it can get pretty dull). READ WHAT JILLY WROTE AGAIN. I won't bother to requote the text. Turning off ALL CHAT as an option is a horrible thing to ponder. Yet that is EXACTLY what she requested-- the option for a host to do just that. Suggest you read before you write. At times I go way off the bridge track-- on purpose-- to try and eiicit a chuckle from people because the comments get too staid and dull (and I get messages thanking me for lightening the room up). BBO is a SOCIAL SITE where bridge is played. Anything that advocates the devolution of social interaction I am dead against. Some of that has been foisted on us already-- perhaps even rightly. But too much of it is dangerous. It threatens to ruin the fabric of this place even more than it has the past 3 years as the site has grown. Most of the people posting here have been here since 2003 or before, and can remember when BBO was a much friendlier place-- something all us long-timers fondly remember. And most of the people I know wish it could get back to that friendlier atmosphere. Frankly, with the giant influx of people I doubt that is possible-- bridge players by nature tend towards stodginess (which is why I hate live bridge honestly). So, I can only fantasize that BBO will again become that friendly little site I helped to nurture and grow. But, I don't kid myself... those days are gone. On the other hand, any proposals by anyone-- management or users-- that is certain to have a deleterious effect on users rights can only work towards an even greater degree of unfriendliness. What Jilly wants is to do precisely that. If you want proof of this-- just watch what happens whenever someone in a large gallery says "can't you people shut up." This happens at least once a week and is inevitably met with the same response-- let us have fun-- move to another table instead. Sure, the person who says it will get a few private messages saying "hear, hear" and thinks that proves his or her points. But, clearly anyone who pays attention can see those comments are generally not met with a favored response by the masses. You can never keep everyone happy. You cannot say talking is OK but you must only talk bridge. It's impossible. Face it. So, you are faced with 3 options. Stop all talk (which the user himself can currently do thrus his profile), leave the table and find a less chatty one (there are always a few games worth kibbing besides the "big match") or.. and I like this best.. get on with your life and enjoy the ride. Maybe one day BBO will add an option to "ignore kibitzer chat only". That is up to them and no one would object if they did. But please, PLEASE do not further abrogate our freedoms on BBO. We have too few already.

Jillubean said "so here I am to plead to BBO to give individuals and /or table hosts the option of muting kibitzers" Perhaps you and Phil miss the point of Jilly's post... She wants the option to ban ALL CHAT. In an earlier thread on this subject I went into the history of free speech and how denying it has a chilling effect on the entire population. I also mentioned that doing such a thing would add to the increasingly unfriendly atmosphere on BBO. And anything that adds to that unfriendliness I'm dead set against. I REALLY TRULY HOPE you, Jilly and Phil (and anyone else who thinks this is a good idea) realize that if this campaign is successful you all will have participated in destroying one of the most cherished rights that governments can grant to their citizens. A right BBO has already limited at times. To ask them to do it more is scary. Giving the host the option of killing all chat has been tried- for one "special" individual. He stopped using it-- one should ask "why". I am only speculating here-- but I'm a pretty smart guy so I'm willing to go out on a limb and say-- people couldn't have fun at his table so people started showing up in fewer and fewer numbers. And so, for whatever reasons, this person thought it more important to have his kibitzers than to have his much coveted ability to silence all. Whenever these threads pop up they usually result in a session where everyone is afraid to talk aloud. And I invariably get dozens of messages BEGGING me to say something because silent bridge watching is SO BORING. I always refuse these requests and say "not today-- one day of this will remind them that watching bridge in silence sucks." And, it never lasts more than a day. You better face the fact that people want comments. Sure, it's legitimate to want "just bridge' comments. But, the price you pay for free speech is that sometimes people talk about other things. Sometimes even stupid or inappropriate things. A small (and better) price to pay than advocating "kill all chat". God, I hope you all see that-- espcially a journalist like Roland. Better to merely club the individuals who you dont want to listen to. A really bad idea is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

During the round, a spectator must refrain from mannerisms or remarks of any kind (including conversation with a player). A cynic might point out that spectating a live game-- where kibitzers actions might affect the outcome of a match by distracting the players-- is far different... AND LESS SOCIAL... than kibbing online where the players cannot possibly be affected by what the specs are doing (unless they talk to the table). But, I'm not a cynic... Wait. Maybe I am!

Or, you can mute chat and speak to your friends on Messenger.. See, the programming is already done for you!

"I think that our society has clearly accepted that there are certain places where "free speech" is not applicable, and some of us would like to at least decide for ourselves not to have to listen to it." If the kib gallery isn't a place for free speech-- and, I might add fun and friendship-- what is? That is the entirety of my point. Too bad you are apparently one of those sticks I referred to.

Gee, no personal agendas going on here.... It is so sad that some people would fight to abrogate the one right people in the free world cherish most of all-- the right to free speech and free expression. Literally tens of thousands of lives have been lost over the course of history so that free people can express themselves in an unfettered manner. And, it's a given you can already control those people you personally find offensive by simply marking them enemy and never having to see their offending chat. But, that's not good enough for you. It's not enough you can control whose chat you can see... you have to censor everyone’s to ensure you are happy. Well, allow me to assure you that you cannot ever control peoples' thoughts and ideas-- only suppress them. So the only solutions are to entirely or selectively suppress chat (perhaps at the table-host level) IN THE GALLERY ITSELF. Then you will create an entirely different and far more perverse situation-- and you STILL cannot be guaranteed those people who are allowed to speak won't say something you don't like. Why? Because everyone has a different idea of what is "right" or "wrong' speech. But, you people would certainly be happy to repress all of us who talk so that you won't be offended... when you already have the ability to simply mute those whose comments you find offensive or silly or whatever. You’d prefer to impose mass censoring and make so many mad and create even more ill will? BBO used to be about more than bridge-- it was about fun, too. Too bad as it's grown so has the percentage of stick-in-the-muds who make it more unpleasant all the time. Barely a day goes by where I don't get a nasty message or five-- often from strangers-- just for existing. I'm glad I save all my chat logs-- to protect myself against people like you all.

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).

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.

Jeff Lynne's "Armchair Theatre", best neglected album of the 80s. Listen to "Every Little Thing" a coupla times and watch how awake and alert you are!

True story from a few weeks ago, altho it did not take place in a tourney. Some silly person with world class in his profile is sitting at my table as my opponent. He opens 1 spade, I overcall 2 hearts... he clicks on my bid. I refused to answer. Now, as a general rule I alert everything necessary and even overexplain alerted bids that aren't transfers (transfers I just alert). This guy refuses to bid. Asks me what my 2 heart bid is AGAIN. My partner explains "it's a regular 2 heart overcall." The guy clicks for an explanation again. I just told the guy "leave the table." I do think people are entitled to an explanation. But, not EVERYTHING requires one. This 2nt bid everyone is so focused on (when looking at all the hands) was an obvious attempt at a psyche. It got fielded. So, he refused to explain his bid further, knowing it had been fielded. The guy may be a jerk, that I agree, for not answering. However, it hardly falls into the category of 'cheat." And, Winston (and the TD) have now besmirched this person (everyone who knows the name of the player now thinks maybe he cheated and Winston has praised the TD for expelling same). Don't you see how wrong this is? Don't you understand it is a GAME. A game where people pysche, a game where people make silly bids that sometimes work? And you are willingly heaping praise on the director and the club for endorsing this? Am I saying this guy clearly explained his bids? No. Ami saying it's impossible these 2 were comminicating? No. Anything is possible. What I see is plain lousy bridge, a lousier ruling and someone taking the opportunity to boost himself and simultaneously further drag someone's name through the mux because the director apparently agreed with his (highly likely wrong) assessment of the siutation. Sorry, that's sick. Both you and the director deserve a warning, not any praise for this.

I doubt (and hope anyone would be very hesitant to say) this was cheating. What is disturbing is Winston's glee in getting satisfaction over a clearly suspect ruling and giving kudos to the director for a job well done. Is directing so bad that we must exult for getting (what we think is) a decent ruling? If that's all it takes these days to warrant a post in this forum then something is surely wrong at a deeper level. Happy will be the day that decent rulings are the norm-- not when someone is so surpised to actually get one that he thinks it merits a posting.