Banned from Sitting

[jimger]

On an unusually slow internet day, I had to boot many unresponsive players.

Now, I am banned from sitting.

 

How long is this? So, I have learned, if you are at a slow table, you must leave??

 

This is not fair to me or the other fast playing players.

[sceptic]

Tolerance is the key and yes it can be quite frustrating for you, but, it is probably more frustrating for the people with conn probs

[inquiry]

Hi.. welcome to the BBO forum. Sorry your visit has been spurred on by a computer generated ban.

 

The ban you have will expire at 2008-07-11 08:00:05. I am not sure if that time is local to me or local to where-ever you are.

 

I am also sorry you feel like you are being punished by having to play with slow players. What most people do is either ask them to leave after the current hand, or after the current hand, they themselves leave. The rule will not be changed, if you want to play lightening fast, try one of the speedball tournaments.

 

 

One has to really kick off a lot of people to generate a computer-issued ban (they last routinely three days), and in fact you were booting well more than is needed.

 

BTW, you can still play

 

1. In public and private clubs

2. In tournaments

3, In team games

 

You can also still kibitz and watch vugraphs.

[Gerardo]

Actually, that's local to server, US Central Time.

[USViking]

Tolerance is the key...

 

Where do you suggest drawing the line of toleration?

 

30 seconds? 60 seconds? 120 seconds? All day?

 

 

 

 

and yes it can be quite frustrating for you, but, it is probably more frustrating for the people with conn probs

I have never once had conn probs,

but if I do, then the host should boot me.

 

It is better that only I be frustrated than for

three other people to be frustrated.

[USViking]

...The rule will not be changed...

 

...One has to really kick off a lot of people to generate a computer-issued ban...

Exactly what is the rule, and exactly how many removals

within what amount of time will generate a ban?

[Echognome]

...The rule will not be changed...

 

...One has to really kick off a lot of people to generate a computer-issued ban...

Exactly what is the rule, and exactly how many removals

within what amount of time will generate a ban?

Why does it matter? So you think they should go around telling everyone the exact limits so that people can make sure that if they ban that 99th person in a day that they shouldn't ban that 100th (or whatever the limit is)? I think it's perfectly reasonable for bbo to give the users some uncertainty around what the limits are and just set a reasonable limit themselves. I mean come on, the ban is a slap on the wrist, saying "you should really think about how many people you are banning." I don't see why BBO should have to disclose its limits. The users should be sensible enough. I've certainly banned players (most often when I've forgotten to lock the seats when setting up a table for friends), but I don't imagine I've come remotely close to getting a ban.

[Rain]

The limits is automatically generated and changes each day.

 

It goes something like this: we generate the daily limit to ban the top 0.0001% of BBOers based on ban/desertion numbers.

 

So on a day with server bad connections throughout, everyone's dc rate is higher than normal, so the tolerance limit goes up.

 

Anyways, what sceptic said - try to get a group of people who prefer your fast and hard style if you prefer quick games. Then there'd be 0 problems, and you can play in another club area if you like. No problems.

[USViking]

Before I go further I would like to thank the BBO

owner for the free gift of his site. It is a treasure

to me. My life would be much poorer without it.

 

 

 

 

Why does it matter? ... I don't see why BBO should have to disclose its limits.

I would like to know the exact letter of the law.

 

If administration wishes to impose secret and/or

inexactly defined rules that is its prerogative.

 

 

 

 

So you think they should go around telling everyone the exact limits so that people can make sure that if they ban that 99th person in a day that they shouldn't ban that 100th (or whatever the limit is)? 

Yes, I do think so.

 

 

 

 

I think it's perfectly reasonable for bbo to give the users some uncertainty around what the limits are and just set a reasonable limit themselves... 

I prefer certainty to uncertainty.

 

 

 

 

I mean come on, the ban is a slap on the wrist, saying "you should really think about how many people you are banning." 

I automatically sympathize with anyone

who might have been punished for booting

slow players, even if the punishment is

only a wrist-slap.

 

 

 

 

The users should be sensible enough.  I've certainly banned players (most often when I've forgotten to lock the seats when setting up a table for friends), but I don't imagine I've come remotely close to getting a ban.

All those I have removed for slowness have been

inactive for over about two minutes once, or

one minute twice, and yes, I do often time them

with a stopwatch.

 

I doubt I have ever removed five players in one day,

but if I had to remove 100 for the type of slow play just described

I do not think I should be punished.

[USViking]

The limits is automatically generated and changes each day.

 

It goes something like this: we generate the daily limit to ban the top 0.0001% of BBOers based on ban/desertion numbers.

 

So on a day with server bad connections throughout, everyone's dc rate is higher than normal, so the tolerance limit goes up.

Thank you for the information.

 

This type of SOP did not occur to me.

 

I commit what might be termed "desertion"

much more often than I remove players.

 

Hopefully I will not stray past the the cutoff limit.

[nige1]

As an occasional victim of bootboys, I am delighed that BBO suspends repeat offenders, especially as, typically, they are slower than their victims.