Controlling kibbers

[1eyedjack]

Apologies in advance for any repetition if suggested before, or if requested features are already available.

 

1) I would like to be able to boot a kibitzer.

2) I would like to be able to make a table invisible by default, but visible to a designated list of members

3) I would like to be able to make a table visible by default, but invisible to a designated list of members

4) I would like to be able to auto-reject specified members from attempting to join the table either as kibber or as player, if said member is included in a custom list. This might even override the table default which might otherwise not require permission to be granted.

5) I would like to be able to set up named lists of members in groups, so that I can apply actions such as the above to the named group without having to list individuals. There may be other actions such as ignore chat that I might wish to apply by group. I think it would not be a good idea to allow private messages to be sent to the group. While that would be a useful feature if available the potential for abuse is too great.

 

All of the above may sound a bit antisocial, but sorry to say there are some antisocial members out there, and we just have to cope with it.

[matmat]

i think you can do this if you start your own club...

[sceptic]

The "I don't want anyone in it club" :rolleyes:

[1eyedjack]

i think you can do this if you start your own club...

I don't think that you can. Private clubs can no longer be created, and even those in existence do not offer these facilities to my knowledge.

[skjaeran]

i think you can do this if you start your own club...

I don't think that you can. Private clubs can no longer be created, and even those in existence do not offer these facilities to my knowledge.

I think he meant outside BBO...

[matmat]

i think you can do this if you start your own club...

I don't think that you can. Private clubs can no longer be created, and even those in existence do not offer these facilities to my knowledge.

I think he meant outside BBO...

no i didn't.

 

certain clubs on bbo allow only members to play and watch. (perhaps it's the lounges, not sure... )

[1eyedjack]

Just to clarify some of my thoughts in this area ...

 

The software already has the facility to require a host's permission to join a table as either kibitzer or player. The only reason for providing that facility is a recognition that on occasion someone may try to join who is not welcome. Currently the software requires a host's intervention to reject a request to join. All that I am asking for is a minor extension to that facility to enable the host to pre-reject the applicant without the host's further involvement, thereby saving the host from unnecessary diversion of attention from the game.

 

I do not understand how anyone could object to that extension to this facility and yet support the existing facility that enables the host to be prompted for permission.

[1eyedjack]

The "I don't want anyone in it club" ;)

I do not understand this comment.

 

A few antisocial elements might be listed in the "exclude" list (tournament hosts already do this, by the way). Those (vast majority) who are not on the list would be entirely unaffected.

 

If I happened to list the entire membership of BBO in the "exclude" list (something of a ridiculous extreme) then yes, I would effectively have formed an "I don't want anyone in it club". I don't see anything in my original post that suggests that I or anyone else would go down that road.

[1eyedjack]

Incidentally, some of my suggestions have nothing to do with antisocial elements.

 

Suppose you have a pre-arranged game with a few other players, and you would rather not be bothered by other players/kibbers. Currently there is within the software a facility to cater for this demand: it is called the invisible table. But this seems to me to be an imperfect solution.

 

I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but my current understanding is that the table has to be visible in order for an individual to join it (ie the intended individual). For as long as it is visible, those who you would rather exclude (not necessarily because you have anything against them but rather because for whatever reason you would rather just have a private game) can attempt to join. Those attempts can be rebutted by setting the table so that permission is required, and then rejecting or ignoring those requests. A superior solution would be for those requests to be pre-rejected by the software, and a superior solution still would be for the attempt to join never to be issued. The suggested solutions that I have proposed would bring this about, reducing demand on the table host and reducing any feeling of rejection on the part of the unwelcome applicant.

[uday]

I'm pretty sure that if you reserve seats for the intended players and make the table invisible the intended players will see it, and no one else will .

[1eyedjack]

I'm pretty sure that if you reserve seats for the intended players and make the table invisible the intended players will see it, and no one else will .

Thanks Uday. I did not realise that, and it does go some (but I think not all) way to fulfilling the suggestion. What if you are running a class for, say, 20 students, have no private club, and don't want non-registered student attendees (nor to be bothered by joining requests from the same)? You can reserve up to 4 places at the table, but how to reserve places in the gallery? Gallery attendees may join a few minutes late (by which time the table may be hidden), and due to connection problems they may disconnect and rejoin periodically during the class.

 

Even for players in a regular prearranged game, the process of setting an invisible table then reserving 3 seats manually is more onerous than maintaining an offline list in file of attendees to whom the otherwise invisible table would be visible by default. I agree that this degree of fine tuning would be a very low priority for you, given that a workaround is available that is only a minor inconvenience to the players.

 

To matmat, I think that some of the suggestions would go some way to replacing the functionality that was withdrawn when the (in my view sensible) policy was invoked not to permit the continued proliferation of private clubs. But even had additional private clubs been allowed, this would not have solved the problems for which some of the listed suggestions were prompted. Suppose that you were happy to play with/against any member apart from a small list of half a dozen or so players. If you formed a private club with the intention of excluding those players, then how would you automatically admit all other players as members? And anyway, if the other players are hanging around in the main bridge club how would you get to play with/against them?

 

As for booting kibbers, I prefer to give potential kibbers the benefit of the doubt, and I admit them to the gallery on request if they are not already known to me as falling in the antisocial class (assuming that I am playing in an occasion where I do not wish to bar kibbers entirely). If they prove themselves to be unsavory characters during the course of that game I can make a note to reject future requests to kib. For the currency of that game, however, my only option is to close the table, open a new table, and then reject the offender's request to join. Far simpler would be to boot the offending kibber from the current table and reject future joining attempts. I cannot currently construct an argument that justifies the current, existing facility for the host selectively to accept or reject kibbers from joining and yet denies said host the authority to change his mind (having initially accepted a kibber) and then to permaboot him.

[Elianna]

As for booting kibbers, I prefer to give potential kibbers the benefit of the doubt, and I admit them to the gallery on request if they are not already known to me as falling in the antisocial class (assuming that I am playing in an occasion where I do not wish to bar kibbers entirely). If they prove themselves to be unsavory characters during the course of that game I can make a note to reject future requests to kib. For the currency of that game, however, my only option is to close the table, open a new table, and then reject the offender's request to join. Far simpler would be to boot the offending kibber from the current table and reject future joining attempts. I cannot currently construct an argument that justifies the current, existing facility for the host selectively to accept or reject kibbers from joining and yet denies said host the authority to change his mind (having initially accepted a kibber) and then to permaboot him.

Without setting up a new table, you can boot all kibbitzers (close the table to kibbitzers) then reopen it to kibbitzers with permission set.

 

I agree that this is an annoying work around, and can annoy the nonproblematic kibbitzers, but a lot times they are happy for the booting of a problem kib.

[matmat]

I agree that this is an annoying work around, and can annoy the nonproblematic kibbitzers, but a lot times they are happy for the booting of a problem kib.

and after all the kibitzers have joined who you wanted to join... make the table invisible.

[Gerben42]

Can you hook players who are playing at an invisible table and be a kibitzer that way?