Enemies

[pebcat]

Do you think we might look forward to the software recognizing ALL enemies or maybe the TD could have the ability to remove them BEFORE they slip the net?

[Mr. Dodgy]

QUITTERS

warning: long post, old rant, attempt at some sort of solution?

 

 

I have been hosting tournaments on BBO for several years, just did my 400th :) . Whilst chatting with another experienced TD recently, the old and, in my opinion, prolific problem of 'quitters' and how to cope with them came up. Again :( . What I perceive as definitely too-frequent quitting in free BBO tourneys has been addressed on these forums before but it seems not much has changed. In a sample tournament conducted yesterday (which used a fairly extensive exclude list prohibiting known quitters in the first place), the TD needed to make 31 substitutions from a field of 116 Pairs - that's more than 1 in 4 Pairs not actually completing the 12 boards. Seems high to me. I mean, can you IMAGINE using 31 substitutes at a real tournament, even of this size? In an hour-and-a-half? How about 10 subs?! Yet I doubt that this high a quit rate is particularly atypical for a free BBO tournament. I have run tournaments in which a 50% quit rate has been recorded, and on rare occasions a tournament must be cancelled for a lack of available substitutes. A few rotten apples may thus quite spoil the game for many blameless others.

 

BBO's own rules state:

 

"When you...register to play a tournament on BBO...you are expected to play the entire tournament (barring a personal emergency or computer problems)...the first time a member leaves a tournament in progress without a very good reason that member will receive a warning...Repeat offenders will not be allowed to play in future tournaments on this site"

 

Sounds fair to me...but plainly it doesn't really work like this. Players quitting tournaments remains rampant, frustrating TDs and players alike. I know that while I make every possible effort to finish any tourney I play in, sometimes things go awry - such is life. But, I wonder, knowing also that I have failed to complete tournaments on at least two occasions, why have I never received ANY warning or ban? And why are other players whom I KNOW to (also) be ‘repeat offenders’ allowed to continue playing?

 

Evidently, BBO does not really enforce this policy as stated. Believe me, I understand and sympathise with the difficulties involved in attempting to do so. If someone is simply unlucky enough to suffer from failing internet connectivity, they may be banned from tournaments and BBO’s administrative staff cop it, having to spend time explaining, checking, and resolving appropriately. And that’s one of the better cases, some people will undoubtedly claim all sorts of ‘real’ reasons to leave which are practically impossible to either verify or deny. Headache.

 

Of course, it would be nice if a TD were simply able to mark quitters as ‘enemies’ on BBO, select ‘exclude enemies’ and, to use my fellow TD’s terminology “let them rot” :). Unfortunately this also doesn’t always work; BBO has acknowledged that there are limitations to the effectiveness of exclude lists – I have confirmed with another BBO TD [Hi Denis :)] today that enemies are able to register for ‘enemy excluded’ tournaments under some circumstances (I can’t readily confirm this myself as I stopped using the enemy function of BBO in this way a long time ago because it was failing this).

 

[The limitations of exclude lists seem to be largely related to size; In testing today I was able to register for a tourney using an ‘excluded’ ID when the list was ~650 names but not when the list was ~480 names. The numbers do seem to vary quite considerably; I know of TDs with 800 enemies and no problems (yet).]

 

Now I must say that I think BBO does GREAT things in so many areas, so I really hope all this doesn’t sound too much like a complaint. I feel immensely proud to be a BBO TD, and will continue to take it on the chin. I accept that there are technological limitations which effect exclude lists. Please read this as a sort of ‘suggestion for the software’. Further, I sincerely thank Uday, Fred, et al. for the good things they already do in these regards.

 

Indeed, a very significant part of my support for exclude lists is the way in which the BBOWIN software can use them to help overcome name-swapping. Include lists work better in some ways, but an ‘enemy’ could very easily change to a different ID, get permission, and carry on with impunity. Exclude lists are less vulnerable to this thanks to Uday’s nifty programming. Include lists are also subject to size limitations though these are not as restrictive as for exclude lists.

 

I declare – I enjoy being a BBO TD very much, despite the fact that if I were to list every ID I’ve ever had reason to put a black mark on, there would be over 5,600 names on it. I know of multiple TDs with more than 1,000 ‘enemies’.

 

OK, one-off or very rare problems should probably be disregarded. Everyone has an exceptionally bad day sometimes, or really does lose power occasionally. It’s the serial offenders we want to keep out…but to determine who they are a TD needs to start keeping records, and that can be a pretty big task – there are tens (hundreds?) of thousands of IDs used on BBO.

 

I’ve being keeping a fairly detailed record for a couple of years now, noting quits and other, um, notables during my tourneys (and others). Here’s a sample, ‘my’ page:

 

(LINK REMOVED AS PREDICTED - Inquiry)

 

Cool, in several sad ways. Now I can use these records to generate my blacklist. But by gosh it’s a pain to maintain – I now have almost 10,000 IDs recorded. A good include list would also require considerable maintenance (yeah yeah probably not THIS much, although I’d estimate that considerably more than 10,000 IDs have participated in my tourneys).

 

Now, according to my algorithms and applying a ‘3 strikes’ rule, I get the ‘Dirty 389’ list, naming my most pernickety players of all time:

 

(LINK REMOVED AS PREDICTED - inquiry)

 

[i realise that the forum moderators may take exception to my posting other user’s IDs here in this way and might remove link(s). I do note that there are others who publish similar details publicly online – SKY CLUB have theirs here: (LINK REMOVED AS PREDICTED - Inquiry). Anyway, my apologies if this is not allowed.] (apology excepted. BBO does nothing about what you post on your own webpage, we can't police the universe. But we do not allow such posting on ours - Inquiry)

 

Now, my criteria for a black mark may be different than yours, so you should take my ‘results’ as probably being biased, maybe even, yes, a bit dodgy. I hope and feel that I have heeded BBO’s rules and the Laws of Bridge as well as I can. My calculations punish incidents I regard as ‘quitting’, as well as those who are rude, or unacceptably slow, as well as things like failing to alert and/or announce in accordance with CoCs (including BBO’s), while offering some rewards for other, kinder acts such as filling in as a substitute and thanking your frazzled TD.

 

I have shared my blacklist(s) with other TDs before and have in some cases been allowed to use their blacklists to add to my own. I update it reasonably regularly. If you would like to use it, feel free, though bear in mind that you may have players ask why they are excluded and you won’t really know LOL. I’m happy to consider incorporating reports submitted by additional TDs too. If you want any further details you could send me a PM here.

 

 

Ultimately, however, I think the solution to the quitting problem more generally must be best enacted by BBO itself. BBO does, I understand, track deserters, and there are some bans imposed. BBO’s ability to track ALL desertions is obviously better than mine, as is their capability to enforce sanctions universally.

 

In composing this little thesis, it occurs to me that even an only slightly more aggressive scheme of warning and minors bans might help considerably. If a player fails to complete, they get an automatic warning (perhaps at next login, like the BB$ and MB$ balances, a message advising that a quit was recorded, next quit will gain a 15-minute all play ban, and further quits will result in a 24-hour ban. The warning could expire after some period, or not :)). I reckon that would sort at least some of them out. Yes, sadly some unfortunates would get slapped with bans for real technical or emergency reasons, but to be brutally honest with y’all I don’t care much WHY they keep disrupting my tourneys. It’s an annoying inconvenience for me and the other players that we can do without - whatever the real problem is.

 

Actually I’d prefer an immediate 15-minute ban, but I’m a vengeful sod (perhaps even better would be some ironic and perverse penalty, such as only being able to play as a sub until you darn well DO finish a tourney :) ).

 

As BBO grows, and the number of players, TDs and tourneys increases accordingly, it becomes easier for quitters to prosper, jumping from a bad result in one tourney to a fresh start in the new one starting in 5 minutes time. It also becomes more difficult for TDs to effectively monitor or control.

 

I’ll keep doing all I can to beat the lousy buggers, but it often feels like a losing battle, even using the tools I have developed to assist me.

 

BBO: Some members are breaking your rules to the detriment of others on a disturbingly regular basis. Policing of serial quitters is seemingly left largely to individual directors or organisations as BBO-imposed sanctions are apparently too rare and/or ineffective at curbing this undesirable behaviour generally. PLEASE, ENFORCE THESE RULES and make BBO an even better place for us all!

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Justin aka MrDodgy

Edited February 18, 2008 by Mr. Dodgy

[hrothgar]

Personally I think that there is a better way to skin the cat:

 

Create a new class of tournament that requires that players post a "bond" in order to enter. If a player completes a tournament, the bond is returned to them. If a player is unable to complete a tournament they forfeit the bond. (I couldn't care less why a player can't complete said tournament. A bad network connection creates all the same problems a player who quits after a bad result)

 

In theory, the system should be designed such that neither the TD nor BBO collects bond forfeits. (You don't want to create a system in which people might claim that BBO had an incentive to deliberately disconnect players to boost its revenues). Find some charity that could benefit from any loot that gets collected, divide it evenly across BBO members accounts, what have you...

[helene_t]

Good idea, Richard.

[Codo]

I love this idea too.

 

And for all the people who are not able to pay a bond? (F.E. no dollars avaiable, not enough understanding of English to understand the rules) you can still have normal tourneys and it is our choice where to play.

[TimG]

I'm pretty sure I've never played in a BBO free tournament. It seems to me that the effect of pairs dropping out could be lessened if the movement were a Swiss. It really wouldn't matter if a number of pairs dropped out half-way through (or whenever they felt they were no longer in contention). Are BBO free tournaments run with a Swiss movement, or are they regular Howell or Mitchells?

[Mr. Dodgy]

I'm pretty sure I've never played in a BBO free tournament.  It seems to me that the effect of pairs dropping out could be lessened if the movement were a Swiss.  It really wouldn't matter if a number of pairs dropped out half-way through (or whenever they felt they were no longer in contention).  Are BBO free tournaments run with a Swiss movement, or at they regular Howell or Mitchells?

yeah, 'survivor'-format tourneys do a fair job of this, 'eliminating' any pairs with a disconnected player before the start of each round.

 

It's not possible to to run 'Individual' or 'Unclocked' tournaments with this option, however, and it doesn't really help much when players leave mid-round (or mid-board).

[Mr. Dodgy]

Personally I think that there is a better way to skin the cat:

 

Create a new class of tournament that requires that players post a "bond" in order to enter.  If a player completes a tournament, the bond is returned to them.  If a player is unable to complete a tournament they forfeit the bond.  (I couldn't care less why a player can't complete said tournament.  A bad network connection creates all the same problems  a player who quits after a bad result) 

 

In theory, the system should be designed such that neither the TD nor BBO collects bond forfeits.  (You don't want to create a system in which people might claim that BBO had an incentive to deliberately disconnect players to boost its revenues).  Find some charity that could benefit from any loot that gets collected, divide it evenly across BBO members accounts, what have you...

I would think that, given BBOs stated rules, any player registering for any tourney IS giving an assurance that they will, if at all possible, complete the tourney and accept the penalties for failing to do so. I'm simply asking for the proscribed penalties to be enforced! Your 'bond' should, according to those rules, be your right to play in any future tourneys.

[TimG]

It's not possible to to run 'Individual' tournaments with this option, however, and it doesn't really help much when players leave mid-round (or mid-board).

Can GIB fill in when a player leaves mid-round and/or fill-out an individual field with a non-multiple-of-four players?

[uday]

This is a tricky problem.

 

We definitely care about this issue and we have tried things like auto-banning people who have high bail rates.

 

I have found tho, that these auto-bans (and similarly ) enemy bans are not of great value in terms of keeping people out. And they're tricky to issue and implement.

 

These bans rely on our being able to identify and block people by identifying and blocking PCs based on bbo-generated "fingerprints".

 

They don't work too well. Too many false positives. Too easy to generate a new fingerprint.

 

When Fred's Flash version rolls out, things will be worse. I won't even have this putative fingerprint to work with.

 

I think the answer lies elsewhere.

 

This issue is on a short list of things to be resolved before we issue the next version of the flash thing. We have some ideas that i think will help. as they flesh out i'll bring them up here. Until then, hang in there.

 

Uday

[Mr. Dodgy]

It's not possible to to run 'Individual' tournaments with this option, however, and it doesn't really help much when players leave mid-round (or mid-board).

Can GIB fill in when a player leaves mid-round and/or fill-out an individual field with a non-multiple-of-four players?

No, GIB is not available to play in normal tournaments.

[jillybean]

When Fred's Flash version rolls out, things will be worse. I won't even have this putative  fingerprint to work with. 

:(

I’d have said it cant get any worse but regrettably, I have to believe you.

 

Nice post Justin and I will happily share lists with other TDs.

 

Most of the tournaments I run now are those I want to play in. I cant play and deal with frivolous TD’s calls so it is very important to me that I have players who wont quit or fail to alert and who do have a basic understanding of the laws. (or are happy to play under my understanding of the laws) I have been able to achieve this by running small tournaments for ‘members’ only. Anyone can join, the only criteria are that you can read my tournament rules and follow the directions to join. A Zero quit rate is becoming the norm.

 

Every now and then when Im feeling some masochistic tenancies I run an open tournament, deep down I would like anyone to be able to join my tournaments. This becomes an exercise in appeasing players whose partner have turned abusive after a bad board and finding subs, no fun for anyone.

 

BBO: I was consistently sending screen shots of abusive players and those who left after a bad board. I stopped after I being told there was no need since ‘BBO track quitters’. This may well be true but aren’t you more interested in abusive players and those who obviously, deliberately leave after a bad result? I don’t think these players need any # of strikes before the receive some sort of warning. You have TD’s willing and able to provide this information, why not use it?

Perhaps provide the TD's with the ability to send 'reminders' to players, 3 reminders and the player is brought to the attention of abuse.

 

I do hope BBO find a solution here. In the meantime, I think a shared ban list between any TD interested is a cracker idea. :)

[cherdano]

Another solution to this problem is white-listing. I.e. you can only play in free tournaments if you have a sufficiently good (some number of played boards, few quits during hands, etc.) in MBC. Once you gain the privilege of playing in tournaments you can lose it again if you quit too often.

 

This way you can't just make up a new login and reenter the next tournament once you got banned.

[finally17]

One could also have a decaying points system for tournaments. Give the TDs a short list of unacceptable behavior (not completing a tournament, not alerting bids, unacceptable language, excessive slowness). Then allow TDs to give a single point to anyone in their tournament who commits one of these infractions.

 

Now have the points decay at a rate of, say, one per day.

 

Once the player reaches a pre-determined # of points, they are banned from all free tourney play until their points decay to under that value.

 

The system could be made more complex for repeat offenders, etc. It sounds a bit complicated but I think it wouldn't be that hard to develop a fair system that would make a lot of people's lives a lot easier. And make it a lot more likely that people such as I would sign up for the free tourneys. As it is, I haven't even looked at the tourney list offerings in over a year.

 

In conjunction with Cherdano's suggestion you now would have a system that automatically rejects problem offenders while making it very difficult for them to slip through the cracks again.

[rbforster]

Create a new class of tournament that requires that players post a "bond" in order to enter. If a player completes a tournament, the bond is returned to them.... Find some charity that could benefit from any loot that gets collected, divide it evenly across BBO members accounts, what have you...

This is a much better idea than the black lists or demerits. You can't solve the problem of new accounts created to evade some sort of "negative" that attaches to your BBO name since the annoying people will just make new accounts. You can however cost them money when they annoy you by having the bond forfeited.

[matmat]

Create a new class of tournament that requires that players post a "bond" in order to enter.  If a player completes a tournament, the bond is returned to them....  Find some charity that could benefit from any loot that gets collected, divide it evenly across BBO members accounts, what have you...

This is a much better idea than the black lists or demerits. You can't solve the problem of new accounts created to evade some sort of "negative" that attaches to your BBO name since the annoying people will just make new accounts. You can however cost them money when they annoy you by having the bond forfeited.

not a big fan of this actually. i imagine there is a lot more legalese that would have to go into these and people would need to digitally sign stuff, etc. more work for BBO itself for all the independently ran tournaments.

[jillybean]

I originally liked the idea (of deposit tourneys) and thought any forfeited deposit should go to the TD ;)

However, it could also be a nightmare for BBO and open to abuse, TD’s booting players without good reason etc. I assume people would continue to run free games and who would put up a deposit to play when they could play free? I think these problems are largely transparent for the players, I doubt they’d care.

[helene_t]

Richard's idea would only discourage those players who expect to be quiting, which is a good thing.

 

Except that those players who don't have any BBO$ would not be able to play.

 

But I can imagine that support@ would get a lot of complaints from people who claim that it wasnt their fault that they were disconnected etc.

[TylerE]

How about this...then deposit credits cost 1 BBO. When you create a new account you get, say, 3 "free" credits. You only need to buy more if you wish to play in those tourneys and have a problem finishing.

[Mr. Dodgy]

LOL, I just beat my 50% quit record.

 

Indy, MP, 52 boards (13 rounds).

 

109 starters, 44 of whom finished - about a 60% quit rate. More than 137 substitutions were required.

 

I know that running a tourney this long is asking for more than the usual amount of trouble, but this is the sort of nightmare that anyone who wanted to run a 'serious' open event on BBO faces. Don't try this at home.