Enemies

[pebcat]

I recently got a message saying 'you have exceeded the number of enemies allowed' If this IS the case, is it likely that the current limit can be increased? (Please)

[uday]

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to allow unlimited #s of enemies.

 

From the perspective of blocking people from tourneys, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense either: enemy checking is expensive, and not completely effective.

 

At some point, it would be better to make Ts with a lot of enemies "invitational" and use an inclusion list to include only people you know won't cause trble.

 

fyi:

 

the avg player has about 10-20 friends/enemies combined.

 

Some players have 25,000+ "friends." Some have 5,000+ "enemies". Why? I have no idea.

[jtfanclub]

Because they don't know how to create a tournament getting the list of allowed players from a file.

 

Here's a question for you: supposed on my list I have a Friend named Fred and an Enemy named Ed. Unknown to me, Fred and Ed are actually the same person, with the same IP address and the same computer (the user used Ed until he got blacklisted by too many people, then made the Fred profile).

 

Which of my tournaments could Fred play in?

 

A ) No enemies

B ) Friends only

C ) Friends only and No enemies.

[pebcat]

I would appreciate NOT being taken for a fool, please. I have tried EVERYTING!! No enemies, custom list, friends, THE LOT!! All I asked was a simple question. Will the ability to take more enemies be possible?

[fred]

I would appreciate NOT being taken for a fool, please. I have tried EVERYTING!! No enemies, custom list, friends, THE LOT!! All I asked was a simple question. Will the ability to take more enemies be possible?

Pebcat,

 

I don't think anyone suggested you were a fool.

 

TDs that have a lot of enemies and use the "no enemies" option create a massive strain on our system. The result is that when you add a new enemy BBO can slow down dramatically for the other 10,000+ people who are online.

 

There is no simple technical solution to this problem (and there may be no solution at all unless perhaps if we are prepared to spend 1000s of extra dollars per month on new hardware).

 

So the answer to your question is "almost certainly not any time soon".

 

Hopefully this post will help to explain why this is the case - we have a very good reason for putting an upper limit on the # of enemies. Arguably the limit we have is already too high given how much trouble it causes our members whenever a TD with a lot of enemies tries to add a new one.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[sceptic]

TDs that have a lot of enemies and use the "no enemies" option create a massive strain on our system. The result is that when you add a new enemy BBO can slow down dramatically for the other 10,000+ people who are online.

 

Interesting, I wonder if you should reduce the enemies list then, as I for one, hate the slow downs we have and any thing that can help BBO run smoother has to be wortha shot

[fred]

TDs that have a lot of enemies and use the "no enemies" option create a massive strain on our system. The result is that when you add a new enemy BBO can slow down dramatically for the other 10,000+ people who are online.

 

Interesting, I wonder if you should reduce the enemies list then, as I for one, hate the slow downs we have and any thing that can help BBO run smoother has to be wortha shot

One thing I should clarify if that there are a lot of things that can cause response time to be sluggish and the most serious factors are completely outside our control (to say nothing of being outside the control of TDs).

 

Last week for example we had about 5 days in a row in which our service provider had some problems that were completely unrelated to BBO. Probably those of you who were online at peak time (ie times with 12K+ users online) noticed that BBO slowed down (dramatically in some cases) during these times.

 

It would have been reasonable for you to conclude that the large number of people on BBO was the primary source of the sluggishness, but that turned out to be a coincidence. Our ISP kept having these problems at the same time of each day and this just happened to be around the same time of day when lots of people tend to be on BBO.

 

You may have noticed that these problems have not existed during the past 3 or 4 days. It is the case that Uday is more or less constantly working on or at least thinking about ways to improve performance. He has done some really smart things recently, but the main reason response times have improved is that our ISP seems to have solved their recent problems.

 

The main purpose of this post is to try to ensure that people don't go blaming the pebcats of the world whenever their connections are slow. There are lots of things that can cause slow connections and it is not pebcat's fault that his desire to keep undesirables out of his tournaments turns out to be so expensive.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[pebcat]

Dear Fred,

Thank you for your kind and succint response. I asked a simple question and you have gone out of your way to provide a very detailed answer and it is appreciated.

Just for the record, it was NOT a complaint as I REALLY appreciate the expense that has been necessary to make this such a hi-tech website. There IS nothing like it nor will there ever be a site that gives so much pleasure to so many. What you and your 'crew' have done, I think, will not be surpassed.

Thank you

[fred]

Thanks pebcat.

 

For the record we appreciate TDs like you who try to run free tournaments and who (evidently) care about how the players in their tournaments behave B)

 

Sorry that the enemy thing is such a problem. If and when there is a good solution you can bet that things will improve.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jchiu]

I would try to reduce the size of the enemies list by removing names that have not logged into the system for a long time (1). While you may let some who have committed offenses many moons ago rejoin, doing so may not mean the end of the world. Yes, they have committed a wrongful act in one of your prior tournaments. But there are few who I would not forgive, and the efficiency gain (2) would help all of us honest players too.

 

(1) I recall when BBO regulars, like Phil and Han, became so familiar on the site that they could go on a first-name basis (Norm!). They were asked to add the username they wanted as a friend, and confirm that nobody actively used those names. Applying a similar, but automated, solution to this problem would trade a perpetual tournament-time cost for a one-time cost that could be processed during a nightly 'batch'. Getting the classification wrong here would not take over someone else's account. It would only forgive them.

 

(2) I expect that there are 100K active usernames (3), and about ten times as many inactive usernames. Plenty of users sign up, don't use BridgeBase for a while, and forget their passwords. I know my first regular partner from Boston did this at least twice. Perhaps those who landed themselves on your enemy list would have embarrassed themselves sufficiently to find a new alias.

 

(3) Comparing a list of 100K usernames against another list of similar size would not be difficult using a simple hash. I have used this technique successfully for a problem during my research, but signed a contract that I can only disclose details to any gnomes over six feet tall (of BBF members).