Note censored?

[luke warm]

I'm certainly glad I am apolitical.

LMAO.... Really.

 

:)

but ben, he was being serious (it just *seemed* like a joke)

[PassedOut]

OK so if you were in charge, how would you prevent yourself from becoming disappointed? I can think of a few alternatives:

 

1) Allow anyone to say anything in their profiles or through chat and pay an army of people to respond to the flood of e-mail complaints that you would receive (not that these e-mails would do any good in most cases since the only appropriate response would be "sorry but here on BBO we allow everyone to act like an xxxxx")    edit:ui

 

2) Allow anyone to say anything in their profiles or through chat and ignore the flood of e-mail complaints you would receive

 

3) Only allow political/religious/sexual comments in profiles or through chat if you personally happen to agree with them

 

Regardless of which of these options you choose, good luck staying in business especially when those who belong to the small % of BBO members who give you a $1 on occasion decide to stop playing on your site.

 

Or maybe you have a better idea?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

This problem seems to crop up a lot. I don't see anything wrong with BBO or any other site controlling the content it displays. Other web sites allow political comments of all kinds, and it's easy to put up a new site if nothing suitable already exists.

 

In our local area, a college professor runs a site where she publishes news of an environmental nature, and she did allow folks to post comments. Then a township in our area (the one I live in, actually) had a huge political flap over tax irregularities, and a recall election.

 

People began posting on her site about those issues, and the level of vitriol reached the point where she decided to close her site to comments. She had gotten unpleasant emails and phone calls, and the topics being discussed were not relevant to her site.

 

On the other hand, the comments posted on her site alerted me and others to problems we had been oblivious to. I decided to put up a non-commercial site where people could continue to post their comments about those problems, and even got permission to display an archive of the original comments that had caused offense.

 

Although I then got all the emails, phone calls, and empty threats of legal action, I wasn't getting any money from the site anyway, so there was nothing they could do. And now, our township's new government is clean and efficient, and our state-ordered reassessment has been finished. No more vitriol either.

[vuroth]

I'm 100% behind Fred on this one. I'm also glad that I've gotten to witness yet another emerging chrysalis realize that disappointment is endemic to life.

 

Also, the explanation of +++ gave me a chuckle.

[helene_t]

I'm 100% behind Fred on this one.

I second that.

 

One could always argue about exactly where to draw the line, and sometimes it may give rise to issues about which I have strong feelings. Even so, let's try to cool down such discussions here. It's better for BBO and for everyone if BBO can devote their resources to software rather than to our frustrations about political issues unrelated to BBO.

[qwery_hi]

I'm 100% behind Fred on this one. I'm also glad that I've gotten to witness yet another emerging chrysalis realize that disappointment is endemic to life.

 

Also, the explanation of +++ gave me a chuckle.

A simple LOL instead of a chuckle would speed up (my) realization.

[mtvesuvius]

I'm 100% behind Fred on this one.  I'm also glad that I've gotten to witness yet another emerging chrysalis realize that disappointment is endemic to life.

 

Also, the explanation of +++ gave me a chuckle.

A simple LOL instead of a chuckle would speed up (my) realization.

LOL

 

there we go... :)

[Aberlour10]

I'm certainly glad I am apolitical.

Its my favorite for Water Cooler's "Posting of The Year Award" :)

[Winstonm]

I'm certainly glad I am apolitical.

LMAO.... Really.

 

;)

but ben, he was being serious (it just *seemed* like a joke)

Once again the religous right is 100% wrong - maybe that's because they can't bear to poke fun at their own imperfections?

[Lobowolf]

I'm certainly glad I am apolitical.

LMAO.... Really.

 

:P

but ben, he was being serious (it just *seemed* like a joke)

Once again the religous right is 100% wrong - maybe that's because they can't bear to poke fun at their own imperfections?

lol

[jonottawa]

Fred's back on his 'if you allow anything you must allow everything' tear. His snark coupled with comments like 'attention-seeking profile' are misguided.

 

As a rule of thumb, if it wouldn't be censored by broadcast TV, it shouldn't be censored by BBO. If people complain frivolously, give them a 'complaint without merit penalty point'. Accumulate a few of those and your complaints get ignored.

 

That being said, BBO is a great and inexpensive way to play and watch bridge, regardless of how poorly they handle this particularly issue and as a private company they are free to do whatever the hell they want. When they learn that it's NOT their job to 'ensure that 250,000 people have a good BBO experience' but to ensure that 250,000 people have the tools at their disposal to give THEMSELVES a good BBO experience (through filters or whatever,) they'll save themselves a lot of aggravation and make their product better in the process.

[cherdanno]

If X is offended about Y's profile, why can't X just mark Y as an enemy?

[Lobowolf]

As a rule of thumb, if it wouldn't be censored by broadcast TV, it shouldn't be censored by BBO.

"shouldn't" is an interesting word in this context.

 

 

My rule of thumb would be that the owner/operator of the service, and his agents, "should" do whatever they want to provide the atmosphere of their choosing.

[jdonn]

When they learn that it's NOT their job to 'ensure that 250,000 people have a good BBO experience' but to ensure that 250,000 people have the tools at their disposal to give THEMSELVES a good BBO experience (through filters or whatever,) they'll save themselves a lot of aggravation and make their product better in the process.

You've never run a company have you?

[mikeh]

I'm also 100% with Fred.

 

As for 'shouldn't'... who says? This is a private venture to which we have (remarkably) been given free access... yes, I hope Fred makes money from some aspects of the site, but I have never paid a dollar to use these fora or BBO.. and I suspect the same is true of a lot of us.

 

It is up to Fred how he runs his business, within the broad constraints of external, state-imposed, rules. The market will tell him how he is doing :)

 

So if he wants to require people to modify their public profile... go ahead, Fred.

 

And for those offended... note that you are able to voice that offence freely... you can post all kinds of comments in the WC... and you even get a response from the principal of the business....

 

Kudos to Fred....and if you disagree... set up your own site :P

[fred]

Fred's back on his 'if you allow anything you must allow everything' tear.  His snark coupled with comments like 'attention-seeking profile' are misguided.

 

Sorry but, given that you strike me as one of the biggest attention-seekers I have ever encountered as well as a person who has strong political opinions and zero objectivity when it comes to handling people who happen to disagree with these opinions, I don't really care if you *think* my comments are misguided.

 

But of course, typically for you, you don't say "I think" or "in my opinion" - you just state that my comments *are* misguided as if that were a fact.

 

As a rule of thumb, if it wouldn't be censored by broadcast TV, it shouldn't be censored by BBO.

 

Another nice example of one of your know-it-all statements of fact as opposed to opinion. Here is my opinion of your opinion:

 

It is misguided to the point of being idiotic. You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jonottawa]

LOL @ Fred

 

The word 'should' always precedes an OPINION, Fred, not a 'statement of fact.'

[babalu1997]

When they learn that it's NOT their job to 'ensure that 250,000 people have a good BBO experience' but to ensure that 250,000 people have the tools at their disposal to give THEMSELVES a good BBO experience (through filters or whatever,) they'll save themselves a lot of aggravation and make their product better in the process.

I beg to differ.

 

When the obnoxious kibitzer crashes in the star-studded game, we innocent bystanders have to hear all sorts of foolishness.

 

Last week, the situation was so ridiculous, that the host threatened to close the game to kibitzer. So there, 600+ kibitzers cannot enjoy a game because the obnoxious attention seeker must have his say.

 

Of course the guy could come here to the water cooler and spew his venom, but that is not enough, because people read these things voluntarily. what he wants to annoy a lot of people who had 30 minutes to spare and wanted to learn and watch without listening to racist comments.

 

And there is not a thing I can do, the obnoxious one is already on the enemy list but public and table chat still appears.

 

I did not bother to complain, but kept the chat anyway.

 

the pity is that he is still allowed to log in!!!!

[jdonn]

LOL @ Fred

 

The word 'should' always precedes an OPINION, Fred, not a 'statement of fact.'

Says who? Quick research points to 3 common usages of 'should'. To give advice (You should not go to the beach without sunscreen), to express obligation (You should alert your conventional bids) [that seems to me the context in which you used it], or to express expectation (dinner should be ready by the time you get home from work). I can find no source at all that suggests 'should' implies an opinion in any of those cases. But it was pretty amusing that you stated "The word 'should' always precedes an OPINION, Fred, not a 'statement of fact.'" as a statement of fact, when it's in fact clearly wrong given that you said "always", and not necessarily right even if you didn't.

[helene_t]

If X is offended about Y's profile, why can't X just mark Y as an enemy?

Yeah, if someone is an asshole I'd rather know it from his profile than experiencing it from his behavior after having invited him to a team match or whatever.

 

Then again, apparently some users think differently, and it's not like it's a big loss not being able to express my religious/political/sexual orientation on BBO, there are plenty of other places I can do so if I need.

[Trinidad]

I could imagine that 'should' would precede an opinion, but I can't imagine that 'should' should be followed by an opinion nor that an opinion should be preceded by 'should'. But I could be wrong. What would I know?

 

Rik

[fred]

"You should bid 3NT."

 

and

 

"In my opinion you should bid 3NT."

 

Do not mean the same thing to me.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jonottawa]

Josh,

 

'Fred should not go to the beach without sunscreen' is not an opinion? Agreed, it borders on fact, but still, it is an opinion.

 

In bridge laws, 'should', 'shall' and 'must' all have different meanings that express varying degrees of obligation. Obviously I wasn't using the word in a legal context.

 

Your third example is a different usage of the word entirely.

 

I accept your quibble that I overgeneralized. But is that the best you can do? Let me rephrase and see if I can escape pedantic objection this time:

 

In the grammatical context and conversational environment in which I used it, 'you should' or 'it shouldn't be' always precedes an opinion.

[helene_t]

I think you are wrong, Jon.

 

"You must use sunscreen" expresses an opinion or knowledge about an obligation.

 

"You should use sunscreen" expresses and opinion or knowledge about what is best for you, but acknowledges that it is your own choice, if you feel like burning your skin I can't force you not to.

 

It's not like one is based on knowledge and the other on opinion.

 

"Fred should allow me to write what I want in my profile" sounds to me like it acknowledges that Fred has no obligation to allow it, but does not necessarily acknowledge that my advice could be bad.

[jdonn]

I accept your quibble that I overgeneralized.  But is that the best you can do?  Let me rephrase and see if I can escape pedantic objection this time:

I don't know what you mean by asking if that's the best I can do.

 

If you mean my objection was petty, I think you opened yourself up to that by starting with LOL (meaning, I can't believe this idiot doesn't realize what I'm about to say). Obviously LOL will backfire if the LOLer is wrong!

 

If you mean my objection was pedantic, well again you are the one who focused on your use of that one particular word, so of course that was going to be dissected.

 

If you mean I should have more or better sources, I would counter that you don't seem to have any sources at all, just your own continued insistence.

 

Anyway I don't feel the need to do any better. I see four repliers to your posts on this topic, and they all believe you are wrong. At best that would mean that even if you are technically right then you are doing a poor job of communicating your sentiments. You might also realize that when you state your opinions (if that's what they are) so bluntly and rudely then it seems you are leaving open no possiblity that you might be wrong. That is not what an opinion is.

[jonottawa]

So you're saying that my original comment, as written, was a statement of fact, Josh?

 

Should I bid 3NT?

 

How should I play this hand?

 

What should BBO policy be on this issue?

 

These are all solicitations of opinion. You're quibbling for the sake of quibbling.

 

I'm so sick of fants.