BBO Guidelines for Banning Players

[Abadaba]

I was wondering if there is anywhere the actual "guidelines" used by BBO and Abuse are posted.

 

Yesterday a player in a tourney I was directing was publicly, as far as I know, as guilty as possible of the website. As per my understanding I booted him after he publicly sent the following message to the table players and specs.

 

(swear words were actual I am adding ##'s so they may be postable.)

 

"u biger idiot than him host kiss my a## ok?

 

f#ck off idiot"

 

I sent the screenprint and assumed it would be a far better place for all if none of us confronted this language on BBO.

 

Tonight I received an email from Abuse. It thanks me for reporting the incident and for supplying the screenshot and says the offender will be punished according to BBO guidelines. It goes on to say that they "hope I will meet more pleasant people in the future.

 

Interesting point is that this person is still very much online and playing on BBO.

 

Now I rarely write to the forum although I do enjoy the various points of views. I guess that I would not post this message had I not watch a player ho at an open table, heavy with specs be thrown off BBO for making a comment far less abusive.

 

As he was thrown off line it was explained it was because the person had again - exactly as what happened yesterday typed publicly to the table that one of the specs was an "a##hole"

 

Now believe me I am not taking sides or venturing an opinion. I find BBO on the most part to do an incredible job of trying to keep us all on the fair and straight and narrow. But these two incidents happening so alike and so close to one another makes me wonder.

 

Are their actual guidelines? What does BBO exopect from me and what can i expect from them?

 

Respectfully.

ABA

[uday]

Managing abuse is a complex, boring, irritating process.

 

Our internal rules drift over time as we seek decent solutions to the problems

 

 

Our usual practice is to look at the abuse, and decide whether the person can be salvaged. If so, we issue a warning, or a disciplinary penalty. If we think he can't be salvaged, or if he is a repeat offender, we do our best to keep the person out of BBO.

 

The volume of complaints makes it impractical to personally follow up with each complaint. Emails to abuse@ receive a stock message saying "thanks, we'll look into it"

 

We do our best to track each complaint in our private forums, and discuss each case if it is more complex than the usual "Fxxx you, axxxxxx"

 

Managing abuse is a complex, boring, irritating process. The way you can help is by not reacting to abuse (simply report the person), and not pressuring abuse@ to implement the penalty you think fits the crime.

[doofik]

A very interesting topic as it concerns all of us. We're all capable of losing it and going overboard. Or lets say, I know I can.

 

So Uday, if I follow what you're saying, I can write any expletive to a TD and I can stay online. If I, however, take an issue with a player at a table heavy with kibs and yellows and use a lesser expletive, I will be banned just because kibs were there or just because yellows happened to be there or is it that some players have good luck and some bad luck. Can you perhaps explain this to me because, as you and I know, I've walked a fine line occasionally.

 

I've taken myself on a vacation away from BBO because hypocrisy bothers me. Chance actions bother me. Explanation that there are rules when there are none, bothers me. The fact that on any given day a yellow may get up on the wrong side of bed and it might happen to be the same day that I got up on the wrong side of bed and now that yellow is holier than thou when there are no rules to cite, bothers me. All that being said, BBO is the greatest website on earth, but it does need a uniformity of dealing with players. Players have an expectation as to where the line is drawn and there's nothing, absolutely nothing. Depending on yellow's mood is not my idea of fun.

 

doofik

[Guest Jlall]

I honestly don't understand why this was posted here. You reported a person to abuse, and they dealt with it. You are not happy with how they dealt with it. Perhaps it didn't occur to you that they probably investigated the matter. Maybe they discovered that the guy is actually a good person that can be an asset to BBO, but his wife just divorced him and took his kids. So he flipped out a bit and they were lenient. Maybe this is farfetched, but you get my point. They will know the facts, and they will give punishment as they see fit. Maybe you do not agree with it, but you also do not know what they do. Just trust them that they have made a good decision. If you do not think this is the case then you are free to go to a different site.

[doofik]

That's exactly the issue Justin. There is nothing that guides players who 'step' a bit out of the ordinary. Perhaps neither player should have been banned or perhaps both of them should have been thrown out. Who knows? No one does, that's the issue.

 

doofik

[Guest Jlall]

I like BBOs case by case policy. To give a good example of organizations that look no further than what actually happened, we have to look no farther than the public school system in USA. In my opinion it is not the way to go, it is just easier.

[shoeless]

Well there are guidelines for behaviour on BBO - and in all areas of life there are the black, the white and the gray interpretations. Frankly Solomon would be challenged to effectively apply justice here. Fred, Sheri and Uday have brilliantly created and launched something special - unfortunately what always is attendant in institutions are management headaches (abusive customers in this case) that are not always easy to resolve for diverse and complex reasons. I, for one, think going gently on this issue would be respectful. Sometimes when I read Uday's and Fred's responses to some of these posts, what I feel I hear between the lines is: "Geez, cut us some slack here - the alligators are up to our butts and we can't find the plug that will drain the swamp."

 

One thing I do admire here is that BBO has provided forums for folks to air their views and frustrations. Kudos!! It is up to us whether we use them to be critical or helpful and supportive. It has been my long held view that strong language comes from weakness and soft language comes from strength.

[Echognome]

I agree entirely that case by case is much better, although it entails a lot more work of course. The problem with setting hard rules about what is and isn't allowed is that it makes it all the easier to skate around them.

 

Which of these statements is abuse?

 

You were an idiot on that board.

That was a stupid play.

Great play partner! (when they just went down in a cold contract)

 

If it is just expletives, are they ok to say in another language? What if I have a slang word that can be construed as insulting?

 

It is really a difficult task. If BBO makes it black and white, then there will be a thousand loopholes exploited and everyone will simple say "I was just following the rules." "I didn't call him an a##-hole, I called him a donkey. Of course I meant it as saying he was stubborn, not that he was stupid." etc. etc.

[uday]

So Uday, if I follow what you're saying, I can write any expletive to a TD

 

Either you are not following what I am saying, or I am explaining myself poorly.

 

I suspect the former.

 

- Many, most, almost all of our customers seem to be normal, calm individuals.

 

- When we need to step in, we prefer to warn (to educate) before we ban

 

- There are factors that make us ban immediately, others that make us warn twice.

 

 

We don't have hard and fast rules about what exactly requires an immediate ban. Try to construct them yourself and you'll see why. Is it one death threat? two? Accusations that you raped your own mother last night? Hate-chat against your own country? Anti-semetic remarks? Derogatory remarks about the skin color presumed by your flag? Repeated public requests for anal sex ? Public accusations of cheating at cards? Private accusations? Random noise to the lobby? Requests to describe your torso anatomy? Unwanted requests for online sex (don't ask)? Consensual online sex that goes astray ? Attempts to sweep unsuspecting stars into team games w/o their permission? 300 login attempts in 2 minutes? Masquerading as another user? Requests for money? Polite invitations to a tea party?

 

The list is endless. I invented exactly one of the items from the list. The remainder are taken from "real life".

 

 

I think it is futile to try and map the list of possible offences onto a punitive/discipilnary scale of actions.

 

 

Don't sweat this stuff. Be nice. if someone is not nice, tell us about it and try not to be too indignant that we chose something other than the death penalty.

[Abadaba]

First of all I want perfectly clear. The actions of the Yellows today i admire and respect and it shows the effort that is put into making this the good clean not mean sight we all strive to be a part of.

 

The email said

 

"I will look into this and punish/warn the offender accourding to our guidelines."

 

From this remark and seeing the person online playing - and having seen what happened this afternoon - I was asking what these guidelines were.

 

Justin, forgive me for wondering what there is about the public chat of this player that could not be improved by a week to consider that kind of conversation in a tourney that was well attended and well spectated. What is the point - what is to save I wondered - so I asked about the guidelines mentioned.

 

I was the TD left to replace the player - discuss with two sets of opps what had taken place and what their rights were to having "witnessed such talk".

 

Anyway in no means did I mean to insult or accuse. Just was asking because it all happened so similarly - so close together.

 

Uday your point is well taken. Thanks for your fairness and wisdom as always.

 

Aba

[Guest Jlall]

If that is what you are wondering I am just curious why you did not e-mail uday or rain privately and ask them. They are the ones who can give you the answers, not us. Forgive me for being both blunt and a sceptic but it seems to me like...

 

1) you report this user with the expectation he will be punished

2) he is not punished the way you would like him to be so...

3) you post about it here. the motive for this I have no idea, but it would not surprise me if it were simply to start something or put pressure on uday and co.

 

I'm curious, if he had been punished how you would have liked would this be posted here right now?

 

If your only motive were to find out "what there is about the public chat of this player that could not be improved by a week to consider that kind of conversation in a tourney that was well attended and well spectated." and you posted to ask "about the guidelines mentioned." you could have just as easily asked the people responsible. From where I sit there is no point to this excersize.

[guggie]

recently I was directing a tournament and I got a call: please help me my p is an idiot.

I went to the table (it was the lowest table, swiss) to check the previous boards but before I could do so the player flooded the room chat with capitals YOU ARE A FOOL repeated on and on. I removed him immediately and said I would report to abuse, and that, whatever p did, he should stay polite.

ThenI revieuwd the boards boards. Fool was a kind expression. Meanwhile the sub disappered soon. The next sub disappeared soon. The last sub stayed on, I thanked him (I said "thxs for hanging on, yr p is not a star"), and we had some private conversation. He said: "the man is completely insane, I have never met someone like him". I could not but agree. I understood the first partner was severely provoked. So I deleted my screenshots and chatted to the first partner: "I will not mail abuse because the man was a disaster, but please let the TD handle it in future, no public scolds, no capitals." He agreed he should.

[shoeless]

Well sounds like you did the job that abuse would - coaching this guy to different behaviour. However, I think abuse is the appropriate channel even in this instance - filling the room chat with 'you are a fool' is flagrantly abusive and while you might judge his behaviour to be a one-time thing and duly provoked, I think it is still appropriate to let the record build if it will, but your incident will never show - you pre-empted the process. Because someone doesn't know how to play bridge doesn't make him a fool by the way. However, having said all this - you also have to live with yourself and you were there I wasn't. I would love to direct on BBO but these stories chill me - who needs this aggravation - hats off to you for your contribution to our enjoyment.

[guggie]

Well, is was worse than not knowing how to play bridge. He stated to be advanced, doubled and redoubled randomly, bid a grand after checking for aces AND finding one ace missing, etc etc. Not just bad bridge, but really insane bridge, the bridge you should play if you really tried to get the most negative total. (He succeeded, btw;-)

[shoeless]

Think it was implied that was the case - goodness knows if it was intentional or drug induced. Still two wrongs don't make a right. I would report them both. Certainly empathetic to the partner of the crazed but abuse is still abuse and we have a mechanism for dealing with it and it needs our input for it to work most effectively.

[guggie]

You are right

[inquiry]

If I, however, take an issue with a player at a table heavy with kibs and yellows and use a lesser expletive, I will be banned just because kibs were there or just because yellows happened to be there or is it that some players have good luck and some bad luck. Can you perhaps explain this to me because, as you and I know, I've walked a fine line occasionally.

 

The fact that on any given day a yellow may get up on the wrong side of bed and it might happen to be the same day that I got up on the wrong side of bed and now that yellow is holier than thou when there are no rules to cite, bothers me. (SNIP) Players have an expectation as to where the line is drawn and there's nothing, absolutely nothing. Depending on yellow's mood is not my idea of fun.

I think Uday has done a good job explaining the "rules". The simple "be nice" should be enough, the penalties for not being nice vary, clearly, but are under the control of one person... ABUSE..... not all the yellows. But since you mentioned yellows, and our mood (yes, I am a yellow), let me address what yellows do in situations like this.

 

1) If there is an ongoing problem (someone in the lobby asking for oral sex or cursing up a storm)... we issue an immediate ban. Simple. Bans by average yellows (not abuse or Uday) can never be longer than 7 days. We then file a report informating ABUSE of our actions. After the report abuse may either shorten the ban or lengthen it. Even one lobby request for sex is probalby more than enough to get you banned by a random yellow.

 

2) If some one has been unpleasant, but the unpleasantness has stopped and we did not witness it, we file an report of the alleged behavior on the private forum here. We can also check if the person has been proven to be unpleasant before. IF there is a history of such behavior (but still no "proof"), I will talk with the accused and inform him that we are investigating his action. I will strongly encourage the person reporting the incident to email ABUSE.

 

3) We witness bad behavior. Here a yellow always does something. Often it is just a warning, depending upon the serverity of the behavior. This can be a "mood" issue or some yellows are more "sensitive" to certain types of bad behaviors. Also, a yellow can check the record of the person doing the bad thing. Is there a history? HAve they been warned multiple times? HAve they been banned before fot this behavior? Was the response uncalled for or was there mitigating circumstances (poor play by partner IS NOT mitigating circumstances). How much "damage" was done?

 

What you don't know is if the person the yellow banned had a previous record or if there was a lack of mitigating circumstances. At the very least, there was "more damage". What do I mean by more damage? Saying someone is a cheater or calling them a name at a table with just four players is bad. Saying it to a table with five kibitzers is worse, saying it at a table with 100 tables worse still, and saying it in the lobby is worse still. The damage depends a lot on the size of the audience. I assure you abuse takes even the private chat between two players seriously not to mention what is said at a table with no kibitzers. But you can see how reputaions will be damaged and "more injury" occurs iwth a larger audience.

 

Finally there is the problem of misbehaving with a yellow at the table. That is just stupid because as noted above, then the yellow in forced to do something (most often just a warning and then file a report.... I issue a report for every warning I give, and remember repeat offenders get harsher punishment for future events).

 

So in the case in question (which by the way was promptly logged), what you don't know is the following.

 

1) Previous history of player "punished"

2) The level of mitigating circumstances (since this was a game where the player attacked a kibitzer, the mitigating circumstances rate to be very low).

 

Also in question is

3) The level of insult (there was more said than reported here, as it also dealt with the player being insulted and his level of play)

4) How many kibitzers at the table

 

Then there is the issue of the insult to the player with a yellow in the audience. Yellows as rule never comment on the actions taken against a member. That the yellow not only took action, but if aba's post is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it), made a comment to the table (to explain the sudden disappearance of the player in question I guess) suggest the unpleasant nature of the event and the fact that the yellow had witnessed it (and had been seen witnessing it).

 

This is another difference between the banning at the table and Aba's email to abuse. Here a yellow witnessed the entire event. No need to investigate further to find out what happened. In aba's case she sent an eamail and got an automatic response. It is possibe 1) the email hasn't been read yet, 2) the facts of the case have not yet been reviewed.... not that we don't trust aba... it is that all reported incidents have to be investigated (mitigating, who started it, what else was said, waht is the history of the players, etc).

 

Finally what you don't know is the yellow who issued the ban (no it wasn't me), filed a complete detailed report for abuse to review. Abuse has the power to overturn the ban or to extend it. All bans by generic yellows are reviewed and "ruled" upon by abuse (good ban, bad ban, etc). So each person gets a "second chance" right out of the box. In fact it is kind of hard to get banned for long. The first yellow might issue just a warning. IF the yellow issues a ban, abuse might (and often does) overturn it and issue a warning (of course the player in question could be blocked for a day or so before abuse gets to it). No doubt Aba's making this case a public case has made ABUSE's review much harder. If I was abuse, regardless of the merits of the ban (I agree with it in this case, btw), I would feel almost compelled to leave it in place now.

[doofik]

Thank you Uday and Ben, now I understand a lot more than before this topic appeared here. I think that all members of BBO needed to be educated in what the process is and how it happens.

 

I rate myself to be one of the nicest people you'll ever meet, but I've walked a fine line because I'm not much of a "yes" person. There are lots of people like I on BBO who will stick to their point if convinced that they're 100% right. Now the fine line appears.

 

Thank you again,

doofik

[han]

Let me quickly make a few apologies before I get banned:

 

Arend, sorry for using your nationality to make fun of you.

 

Ben, I apologize for making fun of your extreme downgrading of 4333-hands.

 

Matt, I still think that you are a donkey. :)

[Al_U_Card]

Zero tolerance, full disclosure.......good ideas. How about whenever any player does something and 2 out of 3 people at the table press the "guilty of abuse" button that player is gone for 1 hand, 2nd offence-1hr.-3rd offence-1 day....etc.

 

Somewhat draconian you say? Watch the instances of abuse vanish in the haze....

[Guest Jlall]

Zero tolerance, full disclosure.......good ideas. How about whenever any player does something and 2 out of 3 people at the table press the "guilty of abuse" button that player is gone for 1 hand, 2nd offence-1hr.-3rd offence-1 day....etc.

In an ideal world, this would work. However, in an ideal world this would not be needed.

 

What if the opponents get mad at declarer for making a tough game and click the "abuse" button. What if someone says something that is misinterpreted and the abuse button is hit. etc etc etc. This could be abused wayyy too easily.

[cherdano]

Let me quickly make a few apologies before I get banned:

 

Arend, sorry for using your nationality to make fun of you.

Too late, I reported you to abuse already. Since yellows like Ben, riton know how badly you behave, I am sure they will take appropriate measures soon.

[mycroft]

I'm very glad that this is handled on a case-by-case basis. As an (occasional) ACBL LTD, I have to walk the ZT official policy line, and I get it wrong. I know I do, and I just hope that I'm guessing wrong on the "best for most" side. I'm glad this isn't necessary here.

 

2 obvious cases, there are many that are less obvious:

 

1) Evening of a two-session regional Flight A pairs game. Pair in question is obviously just playing out the string, they're happily drunk, and playing against their friends. Conversation gets a bit out of hand, ending with a "FU,P" that can be heard at least one table away, and definately heard by Mr. TD. Everybody - and I mean everybody - at the table laughs, the speaker notices I'm a table away and smiling, and mentions "I'm glad the TD didn't hear that." ZT or no ZT, in this case there was no infraction - in fact my response was "as long as everybody else is fine with it, so am I".

 

2) I play bar bridge after the game - not as much out here, but a lot in Waterloo. Bar bridge, especially with a pitcher of Dark on the table and drink penalties for whatever anyone thinks is bad bridge (self-inflicted, of course, more often than not), can get a bit colourful. No worries, we're all friends, we all know nobody means anything.

 

Well, I play online with these people sometimes, too, and sometimes we play bar rules; everyone has a glass by the computer. If the same comments come out there, with no kibs that aren't in the loop, WTP? Well, unless abuse@BBO has to react due to their regulations...

 

Handling online abuse, be it BBO, net, forums, email, is a thankless and truly soul-draining job. From what I can tell, you guys do it well.

 

Michael.

[jillybean]

1) Evening of a two-session regional Flight A pairs game. Pair in question is obviously just playing out the string, they're happily drunk, and playing against their friends. Conversation gets a bit out of hand, ending with a "FU,P" that can be heard at least one table away, and definately heard by Mr. TD. Everybody - and I mean everybody - at the table laughs, the speaker notices I'm a table away and smiling, and mentions "I'm glad the TD didn't hear that." ZT or no ZT, in this case there was no infraction - in fact my response was "as long as everybody else is fine with it, so am I".

Doesn't "everybody else" include the people at the next table or anyone else in within hearing distance?

 

jb

[Echognome]

Let me quickly make a few apologies before I get banned:

 

Matt, I still think that you are a donkey.  :)

If you even think of calling me donkey, then your new nickname will be Shrek.