Table Hosts

[7NTDbld]

I haven't played at BBO for awhile, and I'm shocked to find the Table Host Seniority System gone. Why did they change it?

 

We play for hours at a table, yet a pop-in becomes the Host? If they're abusive, do weird stuff, and/or die, we're stuck. That happens plenty enough with non-Hosts, so why make it easier for those types to become Hosts and mess things up for the rest of us?

 

Please, reinstate the old Seniority System.

 

Thanks.

Carol

[mink]

I also noticed that some random player becomes host when the former host leaves. I guess this is not intended by BBO.

 

Karl

[uday]

The scheme did change a bit - the new scheme is:

 

If host bails: assign a host from the players seated in S, W, N, E in that order.

If there are no players seated, assign a host from the kibs, avoiding anon kibs

If all else fails, assign an anon kib as host

 

Why is this so bad? Or, how could this be made better? The reason I tinkered with this was that assigning by seniority occasionally made kibs the host while there were players at the table , and that didn't seem right

 

U

[hrothgar]

The scheme did change a bit - the new scheme is:

 

If host bails: assign a host from the players seated in S, W, N, E in that order.

If there are no players seated, assign a host from the kibs, avoiding anon kibs

If all else fails, assign an anon kib as host

 

Why is this so bad? Or, how could this be made better? The reason I tinkered with this was that assigning by seniority occasionally made kibs the host while there were players at the table , and that didn't seem right

 

U

Can you track the length of time someone has been sitting at the table (as opposed to present at the table)?

 

My preference would be that the person who has been playing longest becomes the host

[jdonn]

I think a better priority order would be:

Partner of prior host

First opponent to sit

Second opposite to sit

Seniority among non-anon kibs

Seniority among anon kibs

(actually I think if all that is left is anon kibs the table should automatically close)

 

I think it was a good idea to make players host if there are any rather than kibs.

[7NTDbld]

Until recently, the most senior player at the table became the new Host when the previous one left. It's been like that for as long as I've been playing here, which is 6 years now.

 

The Seniority Rule helped increase the odds that a reasonably stable player became the Host. Under the new SWNE Rule, it's possible for any new player to the table to become the Host right off the bat. This is not a good thing, and here's why.

 

There's a huge problem with players popping-in or popping-out during the bidding and play of the hands, and it's only getting worse, not better. Some of these "crazies" pop-in, bid crazy, then pop-out. Others pop-in, then die, and have to be bounced by the Host. Others hang around awhile but are rude and obnoxious.

 

What's the rationale behind allowing a new player to the table to become the Host of the remaining residents who have been there for hours? It's bad enough when a "crazy" infiltrates a table, but at least the Host can bounce them. But, when they join as the Host, we're stuck until they pop-out, or we can get a Yellow to deal with them. In the meantime, the game is in chaos, and the remaining players dessert ship, further acerbating an already bad situation.

 

It says in the BBO rules that when a player joins a table, he should first ask if he's welcome. This implies that the current residents have the privilege of accepting or declining a new player. BBO further states that such a rejected player is expected to politely accept the decline without incident. This being the case, why must we now accept a new player Host without the privilege of accepting or rejecting them as a player, much less a Host?

 

The Seniority system filtered out the "crazies" quite well, while protecting the rights and privileges of the residents. No outsider should be allowed in as a Host.

 

New rules should solve problems, not create them.

 

Please restore the Seniority Rule.

 

Thanks,

Carol

[7NTDbld]

Uday, I just read your post. Please read my previous posts, which outline the reasons why the Seniority Rule should be reinstated.

 

I understand the problem of a kibitzer becoming a Host. I once witnessed a Host who left the table, but no new Host was assigned. I couldn't figure it out until I noticed he had become a kibitzer while retaining his Host designation. While it wasn't ideal, at least he had been playing at the table for awhile as a very stable player. Everything went smoothly, and he soon left.

 

This is the only time I've ever seen a kibitzer as a Host. But, under the new SWNE Rule, I've already seen outsiders come in as Hosts. It's a much more common problem than the other.

 

Maybe the programmers can change things so kibitzers can't become Hosts. That's where the problem needs to be resolved, not by allowing "crazy" outsiders to become Hosts without first allowing the residents to accept or reject them as players.

 

Thanks,

Carol

[1eyedjack]

I think that assigning host to a long-standing kibber is a lesser problem than the current set-up. In short, the previous system was better than the current. There may yet be a third algorithm that is better than either the previous or current system, but until that is devised (and perhaps some consultation would be a good idea?) let's please revert.

 

I can envisage some genuine reasons why the table host should rightfully be the kibber, anyway.

[bid_em_up]

I think a better priority order would be:

Partner of prior host

First opponent to sit

Second opposite to sit

Seniority among non-anon kibs

Seniority among anon kibs

(actually I think if all that is left is anon kibs the table should automatically close)

 

I think it was a good idea to make players host if there are any rather than kibs.

fwiw, I agree with this.

[Echognome]

Also agree with Josh's order.

[Mr. Dodgy]

I am just registering my vote for the seniority system to be restored.

 

I would disable kibs becoming hosts entirely.

[Rain]

I like seniority and kibs having least priority to assume table host duties too.

 

In addition, let players vote to boot someone who's inactive for x amount of time, vetoable by table host who responds within 5 seconds of 3 "boot him" votes.

[yoder]

The BEST way to do this is when the table host crashes, the PARTNER automatically becomes host.

 

Today I had still another case ... my host partner crashed, the opponent (ina difficult 5S contract) immediately took a BEGINNER as my partner, even though my original partner was already back online and trying to sit. When I protested, he removed me from the table and took another Beginner to play the hand.

 

This kind of behavior is actually a form of Cheating that is now available with the change.

[dlbalt]

Why is this so bad?  Or, how could this be made better?

It's bad because it didn't take usability into consideration.

 

For users playing in the big room(s), as opposed to tournaments, it's quite common for an established pair to set up a table, and not at all uncommon for one of them to leave for a while, to return.

 

If the table is open, the odds are good that one or more of the new players will be abusive, have a highly inflated sense of his own skill, or leave the table without logging out by closing the browser, for example). If that player has become host, you've got a bad situation.

 

It could be improved by making the most senior player (not kibbitzer) the new host.

 

While we are on the subject, why not institute a polling system so that dead tables can be avoided? A common problem (if you play in casual games using the 'find me a game' feature) is that often, the host is not responding (and thus cannot be removed). There should be a button that says something like 'report a dead table'. After it's been hit a few times, the table should get flagged so that users and the find-me-a-game routine can avoid it. If the host comes to life by bidding, playing or speaking, the flag can be removed.

[HedyG]

at a table where i was kib the other day the host left and was replaced with another player who requested that the score be cleared. in the mean time a dormant kib had become host so that this was not possible. he never did wake up till they all left

[onoway]

I joined a table this morning and instantly became host when one of the previous players left. It was a table that had been locked and it was very uncomfortable as I had no idea who or what they were trying to avoid or accept. This new system still doesn't deal with the problem of being sent to one dead table after another in main when looking for a game, and otherwise any problems with the old system were minimal, imo. So another vote for restoring the old system .

[USViking]

Please add my name to those in favor of going back to the earlier system

of host selection.

 

I have just finished a 45-deal set in which I was never host, and that strikes

me as not fair at all.

 

I am in favor of continuous quality improvement, but the new host

selection system is not an improvement IMO.

 

I think the best system would be to have host rotate to the player who has

been at the table longest. Kibbitzers need not be in queue.

[USViking]

Please add my name to those in favor of going back to the earlier system

of host selection.

 

I have just finished a 45-deal set in which I was never host, and that strikes

me as not fair at all.

 

I am in favor of continuous quality improvement, but the new host

selection system is not an improvement IMO.

 

I think the best system would be to have host rotate to the player who has

been at the table longest. Kibbitzers need not be in queue.

That was a 35-deal stretch during which I was never host, not 45 deals-

sorry about the bad arithmetic.

 

However, I have just finished another 31 deals without ever being host,

for a total of 66 deals. Make it 67 since I was at a table for one deal.

 

I do not think I ever went that long without hosting under the old system.

 

I wonder how much longer it will be before I get to host again. I will

let you know.

[zheddh]

I wonder how much longer it will be before I get to host again. I will let you know.

 

You can always start your own table :P

 

But yes, i agree this new system is not good. Part of the reason for my dislike is that I often like to play with friends. Sometimes, we dont have 4 people. So, we get a random opponent from the lobby. Now, sometimes the host friend gets disconnected and this random person becomes the host controlling the table.

 

I would like to retain control of the table so that I can wait for my friend to return and reset score etc.

 

EDIT: But since uday gave the priority order, I am going to ask the host to be seated on East everytime till this gets rectified :)

Edited July 29, 2009 by zheddh

[USViking]

The scheme did change a bit  - the new scheme is:

 

If host bails: assign a host from the players seated in S, W, N, E  in that order.

If there are no players seated, assign a host from the kibs, avoiding anon kibs

If all else fails, assign an anon kib as host

 

Why is this so bad?  Or, how could this be made better?  The reason I tinkered with this was that assigning by seniority occasionally made  kibs the host while there were players at the table , and that didn't seem right

 

U

I have now gone 162 deals over 11 tables without being host.

 

I enjoy hosting sometimes, and the new system is bad because

it is depriving me and I assume others of our fair share of hosting

opportunity compared the old system.

 

I have noticed hosts do not seem to rotate evenly between NSEW.

Instead S and W have tended to monopolize hosting. That is also bad.

 

If kibbitzers are perceived to a problem with the hosting system then

disable them from joining table automatically.

 

That would have the added benefit of preventing hands from disappearing

after deal due to seating of kibbitzer who has seen all hands. I have lost

a lot of interesting hands that way, and it seems to me to be an

irritation which could and should be eliminated.

[USViking]

After 325 deals over 34 tables I finally became host.

 

I believe that only occurred because at one point all

the other players left the table.

 

South and West were host at 32 tables, East was host

at one table.

[jillybean]

but who's counting.

[neilkaz]

Please add my name to those in favor of going back to the earlier system

of host selection.

 

I have just finished a 45-deal set in which I was never host, and that strikes

me as not fair at all.

 

I am in favor of continuous quality improvement, but the new host

selection system is not an improvement IMO.

 

I think the best system would be to have host rotate to the player who has

been at the table longest. Kibbitzers need not be in queue.

Agreed completely and please add my name to the list of those clearly unhappy with the new host system.

[dilipshind]

Any player who is inactive for 5 minutes should get automatically booted out if the host does not boot earlier. The host should also get booted for inactivity.

Players claiming to be intermediate or above must have profile.

[babalu1997]

Any player who is inactive for 5 minutes should get automatically booted out if the host does not boot earlier. The host should also get booted for inactivity.

Players claiming to be intermediate or above must have profile.

People who bid badly should be automatically banned for 2 years.

 

Players who smoke should be suspended for a week. After a third infraction, a lifetime ban.

 

Players who cheat should receive a lifetime ban-- under no circumstances adultery should be condoned.

 

People who drink or vote for Sara Palin , banned.

 

Plus the people who do not floss-- they should not be allowed to play bridge.