Exclude undesirables from your tourneys

[uday]

Some of our users are very much "into" this space, and have strong ideas about who is cheating, who was barred from other sites for cheating, and so on.

 

How do we TDs feel about this:

 

- I allow a select few people to create lists of undesirable players

- I allow any TD to select an EXCLUDE filter that excludes these players

 

This way, a TD who wants to avoid these suspected cheaters can do so without needing to do the work, while a possible innocent would be able to play in other tourneys.

[hrothgar]

Hi Uday

 

For what its worth, I voted "Don't Care" in your poll.

 

Here is my line of reasoning:

 

Regardless of whether or not you chose to implement a feature in BBO to permit TD's to share exclude lists, TD's will have the ability to do so. The Internet is a wonderful mechanism to share information. Its trivial to use email of the web to distribute this type of data.

 

I expect the integrating this type of functionality within the BBO Client will have little impact on this type of "collabrative filtering".

 

For what its worth, I've seen a lot of similar design efforts being used for everything from collabrative anti-SPAM filters to Internet Dating. All of these can be viewed as special cases of the same concepts of reputation and identity.

 

Personally, I'd wait before implementing anything. Better to wait and leverage a pre-existing implementation...

 

Your milage may vary.

[Cascade]

I think pooled information would be more useful than pooled lists.

 

I have written a few brief notes about some players when directing using the note facility on a player. I mean notes like - did not alert, did not answer questions, disconnected after a bad result (now redundant) etc etc.

 

It would be useful if there was a pooled repository of information available to TDs so that it would be possible to see a pattern of behaviour across different tournaments.

[inquiry]

I voted, NO. This is unfair to the possibly innocent "undesirables"

 

I have long maintained that any group getting together to "gossip" and gripe aboiut person X or Y as cheating is not a good idea. And I have long been against the concept of keeping a database of "problem causers" who TD think cheat or ohterwise disrupt their games.

 

IF you have someone abusing the system, then do two things,

1) Put him/her on your enemy list and ban them from your tournments,

2) If evidence is compelling enough send it to abuse@bridgebase.com

 

I guess there is nothing that can be done to stop the "whispering" from one TD to another that "player X" or "player Y" cheats. And persuade another TD to ban them based upon your word. OF course this should not happen, we should not be discussing cheats in with each other this way, but we all know it happens. But to codify this conduct seems very wrong to me. If the evidence is strong enough to be shared in a database with god knows how many people, as being suggested, then it should be strong enough to turn over to abuse for proper handling.

 

I have recently sent my second suspected cheater to abuse@bridgebase.com today. And I feel, obviously strongly that cheating was going on, but I would never turn this persons name over to a database for general use. That just seems wrong to me. This also included tournment jumpers, and rude players in addition to cheaters.

 

Ben

[Dwingo]

Since this is a Directors Forum, I am not voting. But will let you know how I feel about it.

 

UNDESIRABLES is a very broad term. I hope you TD's will be able to differentiate between petty offenses and serious offenses like cheating.

 

I am all for sharing of lists of cheaters between TD's from a practical standpoint, but I am like Ben from the moral standpoint. TD's who conduct a Tournament once a week, will not have the resources and the frequency/cheating patterns in their tourneys to nab these culprits. So I am for sharing these cheat lists among TD's.

 

TD's also mark players as UNDESIRABLES for minor offenses like bailing out of tourneys for poor results, not alerting, making life difficult for TD's with repeated calls to tables, etc . I am not for sharing of these lists among TD's.

 

Probably add more definition to the player's selectable profile. I wouldn't mind removing Host, Invisible, Champion in the list as this is not selectable by the user in anycase. These can be replcaed by UNDESIRABLE ( players with whom you would not like to partner because of previous bad experience, different from ENEMY, software should not block chat from Undesirables), ACQUAINTANCES ( players with whom you played once, who neither is in the Friends or Undesirables category), SUSPECTED CHEATS ( Maybe this should be selectable only if you have the TD status)

[spwdo]

Since this is a Directors Forum, I am not voting. But will let you know how I feel about it.

 

 

 

TD's also mark players as UNDESIRABLES for minor offenses like bailing out of tourneys for poor results, not alerting, making life difficult for TD's with repeated calls to tables, etc . I am not for sharing of these lists among TD's.

hi,

 

first dwingo those are really not minor things, sorry.There is a limit to everything and mutiple calls is more then just annoying but forgiving since u brought up the reason yourself why u cant know:).

 

 

Many of tds working with me asking me for a way to see all the notes i made on each profile when they are called to a table.I for one woud like to see a posiblity to share that with tds.

 

 

As for the ones pressumed are chaeting, send in evidence to abuse and bann them parmanent if case is strong enough.

If we allow a "select group" to loook into that and they think/feel/are sure about names really are chaeting, why allow them any further on bbo.

 

I feel that suspecting someone isnt enough reason to ban, either someone makes a discision that they are/are not/under investigation (for cheating)and rule on that.

 

I woud not like to see tds banning on gossip from others, all it needs it 1/2 tds that dont like you for personal reasons and your abilty to play woud be decreased.

 

 

 

spwdo

[Mirjam_3]

First of all:

 

I think uday has great point here.

 

I remember when i first started hosting tournaments i didnt get any lists from other hosts when i asked for those at first td-meeting and i felt disappointed about that.

 

For that reason... if any new td wants to have my current list, i will send it, no problem there, as long as that td realises that it is a changing list. People on that list are not fit to play in my tournaments at this moment but of course this list is updated every day!! So a player can be on it and next week he isnot since he/she and i found a way to cooperate. If uday wants to use my list somehow, plse do so. If any td wants to have that list, mail me, my address is on my profile. But plse treat the list with what i have said in mind.

 

On this list there are:

- no cheaters, if any possible cheating is on i send it to abuse.

- no players from which i think they will never be fit to play in my tournament Glamour, because if that is the case i will report them to abuse since i strongly believe that such players cannot be allowed in BBO as well.

I remembered one player used the f word, i mailed it to abuse and this player was banned from BBO the next minute and i saw him never back.

- no players who might have been rude in my tournament Glamour, but from which i dont have the chat and if asked denied to have being rude.... i ask the insulted player to mail abuse him/herself, if possible with the chat.

 

 

Well who are on that list:

players from whom i think they were rude/or from whom i have chat they were rude

- players who refuse to play with sub

- players who dont communicate if i ask them (f.e. if i ask about a bid and i never get answer i have to go on.. i can handle tournaments of 60 tables.. 240 players by myself but of course i cannot wait 6 minutes to get no answer in the end

- players who dont speak english at all

 

Sometimes a player and i agree we cannot get along an i put him/her in blacklist.

Sometimes a player and i have chat after tournament and we agree than and i dont put him there.

 

Mostly players ask after some time to get off the list and after that we get along very well!

 

In my healthy days i was a teacher, sorry for all, but i need a bit respect for what i try to do. I have tournaments with nice and polite players and i love it and them!!

 

There is no need to shout at me, a partner or an opp, and plse we honour the subs!!!

[inquiry]

Mirjam_3 post is a perfect example of why I am against such a database and such sharing of ideas.

 

First, correctly, Mirjam_3 reports real abusers to abuse@bridgebase.com, as it should be, well done.

 

Second, Mirjam_3 bans players that disturb his/her events. Which is Mirjam_3 right, and is as it should be (I have no complaints about the criteria listed).

 

But, third, Mirjam_3 has a list that change daily. People go on and come off that list, but once shared with other people, those people will become permanantly on some list (others maynot be so quick to take off), and then the list will get shared by that TD with ohter again, and who knows, Mirjam_3 may put someone on a list, share it, then remove that person from the list, only to get a similar list from a third TD who got the oringinal name from Mirjam_3's list (before removing the name). Thus Mirjam_3 will tehn re-add the person back on the undersirabe list again, despite having resolved the "problem" with that person, simply because the name put there in the first place has now come full circle.

 

Fourth, "undesirable players" is certainly a slippey term in this context. To Mirjam_3, undesirable players include anyone who can not speak english. This is fine for a director who can only speak english, and no doubt "english" is listed in the tournment directions. But those undesirable players who are included for not speaking english are lumped in with all the other undesirables. When this list is shared (despite the caveat), any other director getting the list will not see the reason for undesirable, and they may (will?) share this list with yet others in this context.

 

This is exactly the thing that I feer, well this, and the fact that public sharing of a list of "undesirable players", especially if this list is condoned by administrators at BBO, might have potential legal ramifications. As a private site, BBO has the right to bar any player they want, but they don't have to the right to publically humilate the ones banned. This is why the practice of not allowing public accussations of cheating should be strongly adhered too, and this is why the practice of handling disciplinary actions in private is by far the best approach. A public or semi-public list of undesirable players I think is just the wrong appoach on so many levels, especially if there is not even reasonable administrative review of who goes on such a list and why. Just my 2 cent's worth.

 

Ben

Edited April 14, 2004 by inquiry

[Mirjam_3]

i can agree a lot w yr post but where comes yr idea of the lenghth of my list? i certainly dont have a list of 240 o dear..noway!!!

[hrothgar]

Ben has raised some very reasonable points, and in response I think that I should clarify some of my earlier comments.

 

I steadfastly believe that "information wants to be free". As soon as we allow individuals to create Exclude lists, we need to be prepared to accept the fact that this type of information is going to be shared.

 

With this said and done, potentially it would be worthwhile to shift the course of the discussion to consider "How" lists should best be shared rather than whether this information should be shared.

 

For example, I share Ben's concern that it is undesirable to have a single "list" of undesirables. I am also worried about the dynamics of how people might get added or subtracted from such a list.

 

If BBO does decided to implement such a function, I think that it would be wise to support the evolution of multiple collabrative filters.

 

With this said and done, I still think that the best thing to do is to sit arround and wait and then expropriate an approrpirate implementation from the anti-SPAM community or whatever.

[inquiry]

For example, I share Ben's concern that it is undesirable to have a single "list" of undesirables. I am also worried about the dynamics of how people might get added or subtracted from such a list.

Richard,

 

If these list are shared by TD who then add the names from ohter's list to theirs, effectively there will be no way to remove a name. Let's say in a fit or rage at you from some slight, real or imagined, I add hrothgar to an exclusion list that then gets shared with just two other TD's.

 

Then a week later, I realize the errors of my way, and now consider you the best person in the world. I quickly remove you from my exlude list. In the meanwhile the two TD I shared your name with have added hrothgar to their exclude list, and shared theirs with a dozen other TD's, who are likewise sharing this list. Eventually, someone shares their exclude list back with me, and lo-and-behold, your name has showed up again on my list. Delete it as I may, it is out there, to resurface everytime a list is shared from any TD who doesn't know, and can't find out, that hrothgar should never have been on the list is the first place.

 

And others seeing the list, think, "why is hrothgar" on the list? They always questioned your moscito bidding anyway, so does this say something about your bidding system? Your ethics? What if someone else marks you as an undesirable player, say for an SAYC event, becasue you play moscito? And then this list gets shared... No, this list sharing or database creating is just a bad idea, all the way around.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

For example, I share Ben's concern that it is undesirable to have a single "list" of undesirables.  I am also worried about the dynamics of how people might get added or subtracted from such a list.

Richard,

 

If these list are shared by TD who then add the names from ohter's list to theirs, effectively there will be no way to remove a name. Let's say in a fit or rage at you from some slight, real or imagined, I add hrothgar to an exclusion list that then gets shared with just two other TD's.

 

Then a week later, I realize the errors of my way, and now consider you the best person in the world. I quickly remove you from my exlude list. In the meanwhile the two TD I shared your name with have added hrothgar to their exclude list, and shared theirs with a dozen other TD's, who are likewise sharing this list. Eventually, someone shares their exclude list back with me, and lo-and-behold, your name has showed up again on my list. Delete it as I may, it is out there, to resurface everytime a list is shared from any TD who doesn't know, and can't find out, that hrothgar should never have been on the list is the first place.

 

And others seeing the list, think, "why is hrothgar" on the list? They always questioned your moscito bidding anyway, so does this say something about your bidding system? Your ethics? What if someone else marks you as an undesirable player, say for an SAYC event, becasue you play moscito? And then this list gets shared... No, this list sharing or database creating is just a bad idea, all the way around.

 

Ben

Comment the First:

 

The only way to eliminate individuals sharing exclude lists is to eliminate exclude lists. I don't think that this is going to happen.

 

Comment the Second:

 

The best way to mitigate the problems that you have identified is to ensure that the specific implementation of list sharing that BBO adopts address specific concerns.

 

Worried about Stale information: Automate replication

Worried about a single director banning someone: Adopt threshold values

 

Collabrative trust is a well understood problem.

 

Comment the Third:

 

I fully expect to end up on multiple ban lists. Between MOSCITO and my tendency to psyche I'm not especially popular with players or Directors. Such is life. In all honesty, I'm probably better served not playing in those tournaments.

 

Case in point: I was playing with LukeWarm in a recent Abalucy tournament and had the audacity to bid a forcing NT over partner's 1H opening holding

 

xxxx

xxx

Ax

xxx

 

Partner then reversed into 2S which I passed.

 

RHO was incensed at my 1NT response and the Director wasn't too pleased about it either.

 

The whole exchange left a sick taste in my mouth. Especially, since this was supposedly a tournament for "Expert" players.

[inquiry]

I fully expect to end up on multiple ban lists.  Between MOSCITO and my tendency to psyche I'm not especially popular with players or Directors.  Such is life.  In all honesty, I'm probably better served not playing in those tournaments.

 

Case in point:  I was playing with LukeWarm in a recent Abalucy tournament and had the audacity to bid a forcing NT over partner's 1H opening holding

 

xxxx

xxx

Ax

xxx

 

Partner then reversed into 2S which I passed.

 

RHO was incensed at my 1NT response and the Director wasn't too pleased about it either.

 

The whole exchange left a sick taste in my mouth.  Especially, since this was supposedly a tournament for "Expert" players.

I certainly don't mind any TD exluding you because you play moscito or you psyche, but if they lump you in with nasty temperment people, frequent disconnectors and suspected cheaters, you may endup getting banned from tourmments that are prefectly happy with moscito and psyche's.

 

AS for your forcing 1NT bid in the abulcy thing, your oppents have to complaint. First your hand is certainly well within normal guidelines for a forcing 1NT (I assume you were going to show a weak raise to 2♥). When your partner reversed, you had to make a 2♠/4♠ decision. Your pass certainly was at least reasonable. You got a great result becasue you found ♠ and didn't get too high. Your oppents go a poor result because WEST choose to be silent (although, once you find ♠, you are going to do ok, I doubt they will be allowed to play 3♦. West must overcall 2♦ and EAST must raise. Now they play 3♦ making or you likely 3♥ down.

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=st952h732da4c8742&w=sj764hdkjt932ckj5&e=sqhjt864d865caqt6&s=sak83hakq95dq7c93]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  1♥

 Pass  1NT!  Pass  2♠

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

[inquiry]

I stand corrected....

 

Mirjam_3 posted above, and sent me a private message, that his/her exclusion list is not 240 people. I misread what was posted, what was said was.....

 

players who dont communicate if i ask them (f.e. if i ask about a bid and i never get answer i have to go on.. i can handle tournaments of 60 tables.. 240 players by myself

 

Sadly, I misread this as being 240 people on the list, not what was indeeded as runing a tournment with 240 people (that is a lot of tables!!!). I have edited this part out of my earlier post, and apologize for misrepresentation based upon my hasty reading.

 

Ben

[Maaa]

Well, hosts share their lists already today. I do it with friends and i know lots do it, but there is a small difference. These lists are personal... when something like a standard list appears it will be official... here I see the danger, as i am sure that some players on this list will be by accident there, but "officially defined as cheaters"...

It is too easy to get marked as cheater - It is VERY hard to get off the odour from that mark!

 

On the other site - I think BBO needs something like a commission, experienced players who would look over series of lots of boards from suspected pairs, so we could effective ban cheaters from BBO/Tournaments, not just becouse someone had 3 suspected boards in the opinion of 1 or 2 persons. TDrs could report such pairs directly there, like they already today report to ethics@bbo... but not becouse of 2 boards or 3... every blind hun finds a corn twice, only in cases which are very strange and happen often.

 

I also am gratefull for Udays work with players who do not finish tournaments, who disconnect intentionally. I think the 50% and one week ban (only from tournaments) is very fair ! In my tourneys i register, already after that short time this works, a very big improvement ! THANKS Uday ♥

[Gweny]

B) In general I am oppose to sharing lists.

 

Number 1 reason I oppose this is very simple.

 

PartyA maybe is naughty in TDa tournament but perfect angel in TDb tournament. I know this from LONG experience (2.5 years,) serving on Board of Directors for AOL WorldPlay Bridge Association (volunteer tournament organization who you now know as Total Points club) Often people do NOT get along with particular td for what ever reason but urge to play tournament overwhelm common sense to control attitude or chat.

 

With advent of auto-ban of i.d. jerks (who is original purpose of this list) my naughty list is going to zero. (from LARGE to very very small)

 

People who is currently on my list is for variety of reasons, some of which is solvable with software (note this do not mean doable or practical)

 

1. People who find pushing "Director Call" button as much fun as doubling 7nt with 3 aces. (maybe software fixable)

 

2. People who like to argue with td on variety of topics including subbing, and adjustments, who persist in calling again and again or worse who try find other co-director who will make favorable ruling on case who directorA say no to.

 

3. People who is not worth effort for they call every round for some "slight" from opps. At some point people like this is not welcome for they calls boarder on frivolous. (ie table of sayc players and playerA calls and say things like blah blah not alert stayman)

 

People who is abusive do not belong on list they belong in email to abuse@bridgebase.com . This include people who is rude to players, subs, partners, and tds. This is not type people any of us care share table with and certainly any td do us all very big favor by reporting this type people to abuse@bridgebase.com or available yellow.

 

Screen prints is always nice way to help BBO with rude people since private chat is not available for review. Contact me if you need help with this skill.

 

While we on topic of abuse. I think it is important we TDs lead by example and not abuse call to lobby for subs function of subbing interface. You please recall how long it take you to sign up for subbing or for individual tournament and you please WAIT this same amount of time prior to clicking button in frustration for you need sub(s). It is very annoying, and little bit embarassing to see lobby fill with autogenerate messages for needing subs.

this, to, is also maybe software fixable.

 

Personally I like to see 1 min lock out on both director call button (per table) and call to lobby for subs button (per tournament)

 

I feel much better.

[blackbikin]

deall all,

 

im strongly opposed to sharing enemy list.

 

1. for "serious" abuse there is abuse@bbase

2.for minor abuse player can be be put on personal enemy list

 

reasons:

 

ad1) for swearing, insulting and bidding 7ntxx with 6 points uday bans player ,withing few minutes or under 12 h.when player is allowed to come back, there is no reason for td to over rule his decision. at least give player a chance, to see, if he has changed his manners. if you do not let him in again, you can not know.

to me happened, that player came back, appologized and i never had a problem with him again.

 

ad2)i warn player and put him on enemy list and tell him for how long.after that he can came back and we see what happenes.

 

that is all, big kisssssss

barbara

[Frosty]

I voted "Don't Care" because I think BBO has nearly all the tools a TD needs already:

 

1) Uday is tracking excessive disconnects - to a great extent this will impede those who don't finish tournaments.

2) We can filter who can participate in our tournaments

3) I'm sure UDAY is going to get tired of begin asked to modify the "Director" call button and will acquiesce so that we will not get multiple TD calls per table per incident

4) We can share "naughties" names if we want and don't have to if we don't want

 

As for my own standards, there are certain players that I simply will not allow in my games (not ever, no way). Others that I add to my banned list are usually reported to abuse@bbo, are informed of this action, and are told that - should they desire re-entry into a game I am hosting - they must have a chat with me first to be sure that they will no longer be a problem..... this is my only requirement. The ones who want to behave generally take this step - those who don't, won't. On my "NO-NO's" list are: rudeness, excessive TD calls for no reason, intentionally leaving a tournament before it's completed (without an emergency), table talk. Most everything that I would block a player for fits into one of these categories.

 

Sometimes players who are blocked also stalk you & get obnoxious in lobby chat, but if that happenes I just enemy/mute them. After than they obviously can't chat with me to return to my games, ergo they become permanently blocked.

 

While I always appreciate input from my fellow TD's, BBO has given us every tool we need (except to limit the TD call button so it can't be abused). Lists are nice to keep on my own, but I can't keep track of constant updates to shared lists. Besides - I think it IS true that players who are a geniune pain in one tournament can be just fine in another.