A plea

[jillybean]

We have frequent opportunities to watch world class players on BBO other than those players on vugraph. I would love to watch these players but I find the incessant drivel from kibitzers to be very distracting, so much so I can only take a small amount at a time if the chat is in full swing.

 

Others I have spoken to feel the same, so here I am to plead to BBO to give individuals and /or table hosts the option of muting kibitzers such as a on a vugraph table. Those who wish to continue talking can do so on one of the many free chat software and the rest of us can enjoy wordclass bridge and chat in private if we so desire.

 

jb

[bglover]

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

[matmat]

bridge is a social game, especially when kibitzing. if you don't like that, don't kibitz.

[Walddk]

bridge is a social game, especially when kibitzing. if you don't like that, don't kibitz.

LAW 76, SPECTATORS

3. Mannerisms or Remarks

During the round, a spectator must refrain from mannerisms or remarks of any kind (including conversation with a player).

....

 

Law 76 doesn't specify that spectators on the internet are not included.

 

Roland

[bglover]

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!

[keylime]

I actually agree with Beaner on this one wholeheartedly.

 

There are times (especially when I watch Benito and co. hard at work) where I want to focus in on the play and not worry about the scrolling chat that many of the amateurs spew out guessing at contracts and bids and such. I would like to have that choice so that when I want to mingle I can do so, and when I want to study I can do that as well without much interruption.

 

There are some that feel that it is an infringement of speech or that there is a sense that BBO has a "speech police" of sorts. This is grossly a distortion of the reality that the vast majority of folks when they come to BBO are not out to make a statement or to be "seen" so to speak.

 

I don't mind the social nature of people when they watch at table. I do mind when it crosses the line of good taste or when it becomes incessant.

[matmat]

ok. this isn't hard.

click on your name

click the "ignore all chat" check-box

click OK

 

presto -- No More Chat!

[pclayton]

BG knows my feelings on this.

 

I have no problem with allowing 'free speech', but all of the banal banter gets a bit old all of the time.

 

Its funny, usually I log on to either play bridge, or watch bridge, or talk about bridge. I don't log on to make mindless chitchat with people that I have never met in person. My kids do it on Myspace and AIM, and it gets pretty stale.

 

Unless youre my friend and we are chatting privately, I don't care what you think about:

 

1. Sports Teams

2. Your pets

3. Your children

4. Your health issues

5. What you had to eat today

6. Etc..

 

Great people talk about ideas

Average people talk about things

Small people talk about other people

 

Which one are you?

[Elianna]

ok. this isn't hard.

click on your name

click the "ignore all chat" check-box

click OK

 

presto -- No More Chat!

This doesn't solve the problem of also wanting to see what the players say to each other.

 

Anyway, I just use the club liberally. This may not work for people who direct regularly like Jillybean, because then these people are banned from her tournament, and she may not want to do that, or to have to go to the trouble of finding them all again and unclubbing them. I don't have this problem, as once people have annoyed me, I don't see why I need to keep "listening" to them.

[Walddk]

I agree with jillybean as well as phil. Comment on the bidding, declarer play and defence, or ask relevant bridge related questions. Refrain from telling everybody what the weather is like in Hartford, CT, or how your bagels were delivered 4½ minutes late this morning.

 

If mrcurious wants to know, he will surely find a way of sending you a private chat message.

 

Roland

[bglover]

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.

[keylime]

To all concerned,

 

I think it is safe to say that I am probably the most vocal and straightforward conservative on the boards. I am for almost all forms of free speech by implication. I am for lower taxes, for my country, for families, and most importantly, for my faith and for God.

 

However, I think that to say that a curtailment of free speech to result from the filtering chat is incorrect. There are certain forms of speech that people don't want to see or hear about due to personal preference. There is also a time for silence and solitude. We can have our cake and eat it too with this issue.

 

Let me use an analogy. A few years the movie theaters in a push to regain market share instituted a policy about silence being desired (AMC used the phrase "Silence is Golden" if memory serves) because of the incessant cell phones and pagers that were going off during the performances, and thus losing the occasional moviegoer to rentals.

 

All that Beaner, Phil, and I are advocating is the choice to filter it, not the suppression or reduction of it. The understandable concern that the growing level of unpleasantness would increase markedly as a direct byproduct of this is most likely unfounded. I am of the belief that the reason for the perception that BBO has been become "less social" is due to many reasons that have been discussed prior.

 

I used to think that certain elements of BBO were polarizing admittedly. I am not longer of this view - I decided to not have those elements dictate my enjoyment of BBO.

[hrothgar]

Hate to keep kicking a dead horse, however, here's a proposed implementation based on the assumption that we're going with multiple chat channels modelled after IRC or some such...

 

When you join a table as a player, you automatically join a chat channel for players. This channel is used for discussion, pre-alerts, and the like. When you join as a kibitzer, you automatically join two channels: The one that players use and one for kibitzers.

 

Users have the option to "ignore" anyone that they want. If you add a user to your ignore list, you don't see any of the messages that they type. If folks are talking too much, all you need to do is unsubscribe from the kibitzer channel. (You might want to have separate ignore lists for different channels)

[bglover]

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.

[hrothgar]

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.

Personlly, I'm not overly concerned with what Katheryn wrote: I think that the general theme that she is discussing is a lot more significant that the specific choice of implementations.

 

For what its worth, I think that there is some validity to here original request. (Look at some of the discussion about the Ron Klinger talk in the BIL to see what I'm talking about. I think that it would have been very useful to be able to create a channel in which one or a handful of people have the right to speak). As for kibitzers at a table: I don't think that its reasonable (or particularly useful) for the table server to be exerting control over the kibitzer channels. I'd rather see a system in which players have the option to either ignore individual kibitzers or unsubscribe from the channel altogether. This seems like a much more flexible way to achieve the same end.

[pclayton]

I guess it depends what you liken a large room with a lot of kibitzers to:

 

Say its a conference on the economy of Peru. You will have government officials, economists, bankers, labor officials, business interests, etc.. Is it appropriate for a bunch of chatterboxes to dominate the conversation with talk about pizza? I doubt it. This is a gathering of like-minded individuals that are attending the conference because they have something in common and want to talk about something meaningful. Free speech doesn't enter into it .

 

Perhaps later there is a large cocktail party after the conference where there is some really good Huayno music playing in the background. Maybe I'm tired and I just want to listen to the lutes and mandolin, but there's that loud group again, talking about pizza. If the room is large enough, I suppose I can find a quiet corner and just listen to the music, without the talk about pepperoni.

 

Just as you have the right to free speech, I have the right to not have to hear you. Thats MY right. But it shouldn't be an 'all of nothing' proposition. If I want to hear the banker talk about the possibility of devaluing the Nuevo Sol, and turn off the pizzaphiles, that should be my option. If I want to be able to listen to the music, and silence the cheese debate, that should also be my choice.

[fred]

The next version will have an option for "Ignore chat to kibitzers". The default setting for this option will be "no".

 

I have set it up so that chat from a player->kibitzers will go through even if this option is set.

 

Thanks for bringing this matter to my attention.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Echognome]

The next version will have an option for "Ignore chat to kibitzers". The default setting for this option will be "no".

 

I have set it up so that chat from a player->kibitzers will go through even if this option is set.

 

Thanks for bringing this matter to my attention.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

It's always great when technology can be used to solve a problem.

 

Of course there will still be some disagreement on what is appropriate discussion for kibitzers, but at least this helps quite a bit.

[slothy]

hee hee.

 

guess there in no need for me to add to this thread...

 

<Edit: but i am certainly thinking about it>

 

Slothy

[jillybean]

Bglover,

 

As Phil has said, I do not want to remove anyone’s freedom of speech, I want the right to listen or not.

 

I like the idea of chat channels so I can chose when and what I listen to, until that is available this seems like a fine solution. :)

Thanks!

[bglover]

"...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.

[jillybean]

I was throwing in some ideas, the better option is of course for the individual to chose to listen to chat or not. Failing that the next best option may have been for the table host to set silent kibitzers.

 

I don’t see how this violates a persons freedom of speech – you can start a table or a chat room or post on these forums and discuss what you like with anyone interested. You seem to be arguing for the right to use another players table and hold the audience captive.

 

 

jb

[bglover]

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.

[uday]

I dont get what we're grumping about now. With next client, specs who dont want to participate won't have to. Those who do, may. Sounds like everyone wins.

[1eyedjack]

Slightly related, slightly unrelated issue:

 

How about when the table is in "Teacher" mode, host is given the option to turn off broadcasts from outside the table? Can get a bit irritating if they mess up scripts.