Notice of Thread/Post Moderation

[Bbradley62]

I am strongly leaning towards the recommendation to fred and uday and rain that the forum block such look at this hand showing cheating threads in the future, with the only exception for threads like the 6♦ hand we all remember.

Why would that one have been an exception? It was more blatant than most others because it provided the real name of the opponent, not just a BBO alias.

[inquiry]

Why would that one have been an exception? It was more blatant than most others because it provided the real name of the opponent, not just a BBO alias.

 

Because it was already public, and well known. It had spread like wildfire. I actually think the posting here eventually helped defuse the situation and allow some to see a second side to the issue. If I am wrong, I am sure people will tell me so. I know some changed their minds about the hand, others didn't.

[Bbradley62]

Because it was already public, and well known. It had spread like wildfire. I actually think the posting here eventually helped defuse the situation and allow some to see a second side to the issue. If I am wrong, I am sure people will tell me so. I know some changed their minds about the hand, others didn't.

Ok. I just read the poll thread. (This one came up first in my View New Content list.) Yes, if the thread is presented as a news story about something that happened at a prestigious event, that would be one thing; but a thread started with (only slightly paraphrased) "I just got cheated against in the Spingold" is something else.

[jjbrr]

If posting the PM was what it took to get the mods to take action against the shenanigans today, then it was definitely the right thing to do.

 

If you actually sympathize with the guy whose PM was posted, I think that's not at all in the best interest of BBF.

[Antrax]

Thanks for this assessment for my motives.

Of course, the clever, what would you do type hand with no obvious link to potential UI would be unable to stop.

Not sure you should want to stop them, if the question is sincere. I can see a situation where someone is fuming, feeling he was cheated. Then he posts one of those "what is reasonable to do" and finds out it was just a system he's unfamiliar with, or his judgment isn't the only possible one, etc. I remember the first time I played a tournament in BBO I sat in a table and the bidding went 1♠-p-6♠. 6♠ made and I immediately called the TD, which then helpfully explained to me at some length why this is not necessarily something to worry about. A better outcome than if this happens to me and I keep feeling cheated and unable to complain.

Of course, the existing rules about not naming names are critical. But giving people a way to find out if they're crazy when they feel this was suspicious is important, especially since abuse@ never emails back, to the best of my knowledge.

[BunnyGo]

If posting the PM was what it took to get the mods to take action against the shenanigans today, then it was definitely the right thing to do.

 

If you actually sympathize with the guy whose PM was posted, I think that's not at all in the best interest of BBF.

 

More so, I don't understand why anyone would consider this a violation of trust or privacy. If you receive a letter, e-mail, phone mail, PM or other message then it is yours to do with as you see fit (except use as blackmail). If you don't want something you said to be public, then make sure the person you message is a friend--otherwise, don't say it!

[inquiry]

If posting the PM was what it took to get the mods to take action against the shenanigans today, then it was definitely the right thing to do.

 

If you actually sympathize with the guy whose PM was posted, I think that's not at all in the best interest of BBF.

 

Posting the PM had nothing to do with the action taken today. I had known all along the real purpose of the thread, as I was asked if it was "legal" to post a hand or hands. I explained the rules about if it was traceable back to a real person, then no. The purpose of the other thread is to see if the rules should be changed because I think the resulting thread was a huge distraction to everyone, and me in particular because I ahd to keep checking who played the hands to make sure a direct link was not easily established. Perhaps a new rule coming out of this about what is appropriate will be helpful.

[Antrax]

More so, I don't understand why anyone would consider this a violation of trust or privacy. If you receive a letter, e-mail, phone mail, PM or other message then it is yours to do with as you see fit (except use as blackmail). If you don't want something you said to be public, then make sure the person you message is a friend--otherwise, don't say it!

There's the notion that something called "private message" can be expected to remain "private". As stated, this is a part of netiquette that's quite common on many parts of the internet. It's quite clear the person who sent the PM didn't intend for it to be posted in public or forwarded to other parties.

[jjbrr]

More so, I don't understand why anyone would consider this a violation of trust or privacy. If you receive a letter, e-mail, phone mail, PM or other message then it is yours to do with as you see fit (except use as blackmail). If you don't want something you said to be public, then make sure the person you message is a friend--otherwise, don't say it!

 

Sorry but I don't agree with this. I do honestly think a PM should be kept private.

 

However, for anyone who can read, it was painfully obvious that the sender of the PM had no intention of keeping anything he said private. On the contrary he wanted as much attention as he could possibly get. Sympathizing with his privacy, in this case, is really, really bad, though. Diana, that's the type of passive aggressive response to BBF situations that doesn't make BBF a better place. In this case, posting the PM was perfectly valid as evidence for the OP's intentions. If OP's feelings got hurt, that's a small price to pay to keep BBF honest.

 

Ben: I, for one, would like to see the mods take a firmer stance when problems arise in the forums. You don't need to make a public poll to check if your actions were right. As someone who spends several hours every day reading internet forums, I can say confidently that 1) we, the users, WANT the mods to take firm stances against the shenanigans we saw today, 2) we WANT you to keep these types of decisions consistent, 3) if you're unsure of your decision, we WANT you to discuss between the other mods in the yellow forum and NOT leave it up to the users.

 

What we don't want is for you to lock a thread and then seek validation for your decision. We trust your decision! We have a thread to check and make sure you're doing the right thing! If we disagree, we'll say so!

[jjbrr]

Posting the PM had nothing to do with the action taken today. I had known all along the real purpose of the thread, as I was asked if it was "legal" to post a hand or hands. I explained the rules about if it was traceable back to a real person, then no. The purpose of the other thread is to see if the rules should be changed because I think the resulting thread was a huge distraction to everyone, and me in particular because I ahd to keep checking who played the hands to make sure a direct link was not easily established. Perhaps a new rule coming out of this about what is appropriate will be helpful.

 

I do hope we learned something today, as I mentioned in your poll thread. I think locking the thread was absolutely right, and my position on the topic of people posting such threads should be clear in the other thread.

 

I may be in the minority, but I doubt I'm the only one who thinks BBF is a better place without the type of things we saw today, all things considered.

[Antrax]

jbrr, I'm constantly amazed by the extent of your mind reading powers. You started by deducing what the poster of the offending thread wanted, moved to knowing what my motivation was, and now you know you can speak for all users on this forum and potentially all other forums on the internet.

[jjbrr]

jbrr, I'm constantly amazed by the extent of your mind reading powers. You started by deducing what the poster of the offending thread wanted, moved to knowing what my motivation was, and now you know you can speak for all users on this forum and potentially all other forums on the internet.

 

nice, that's nice.

[matmat]

jbrr, I'm constantly amazed by the extent of your mind reading powers. You started by deducing what the poster of the offending thread wanted, moved to knowing what my motivation was, and now you know you can speak for all users on this forum and potentially all other forums on the internet.

 

Wow. constantly amazed? you mean, like, all the time? Pity you spend all your time being amazed by jjbrr, think of what you could do with your life if you stopped that for at least a little while.

 

Am I missing something? the motivation of the OP was clear, especially with some of the other crap that was tossed around the forums for a few days before this post showed up.

 

I fail to see where it is that your motivation was "known," there is one conditional clause somewhere above that you seem to be misconstruing.

 

Finally, jjbrr might not be talking for everyone on the forums, but I would be surprised if what he says wasn't a majority opinion. Letting users vote and bicker over decisions like the one being taken here, or the forum rules, leads to unnecessary animosity and overly-heated debate (case-in-point).

 

IMO it would be better to save some mental energy to argue about the pros and cons of opening xx45 hands 1♣ vs 1♦...

[Antrax]

1♣ if you can live with declaring 1NT and 1♦ otherwise, no?

It's a state of the match thing.

 

In any case, I personally would prefer:

a) Not to have anyone speak for me or speak in a way that implicitly states that dissenting views must be a minority. Instead, I suggest a mechanism wherein people post their opinions and someone can do a tally.

b) Knowing it would be frowned upon if someone were to post or forward a private message I sent him, regardless of however much I may be in violation of various forum rules.

c) Nobody assuming that if I care about privacy it's because I hate BBF and want to ruin it for everyone.

 

I didn't think those were such outrageous opinions, but apparently they are.

[jjbrr]

1♣ if you can live with declaring 1NT and 1♦ otherwise, no?

It's a state of the match thing.

 

In any case, I personally would prefer:

a) Not to have anyone speak for me or speak in a way that implicitly states that dissenting views must be a minority. Instead, I suggest a mechanism wherein people post their opinions and someone can do a tally.

b) Knowing it would be frowned upon if someone were to post or forward a private message I sent him, regardless of however much I may be in violation of various forum rules.

c) Nobody assuming that if I care about privacy it's because I hate BBF and want to ruin it for everyone.

 

I didn't think those were such outrageous opinions, but apparently they are.

Antrax:

 

I promise in all my posts I

a) won't speak for you. I don't care about your opinions anyway.

b) won't ever post a PM. OK? Even if it's justified.

c) won't ever pass judgment about what someone might or might not care about on these forums. OK? Does that make you happy?

 

I hope we find these terms agreeable. Unfortunately, I will continue to post as I always do.

 

Regards,

jbrr

[matmat]

In any case, I personally would prefer:

a) Not to have anyone speak for me or speak in a way that implicitly states that dissenting views must be a minority. Instead, I suggest a mechanism wherein people post their opinions and someone can do a tally.

The first part is not unreasonable, I think running a forum via democracy is a bad idea.

b) Knowing it would be frowned upon if someone were to post or forward a private message I sent him, regardless of however much I may be in violation of various forum rules.

 

I am really torn on this. I think the expectation of privacy in the context of BBF is much, much, much weaker than via other methods of private communication. I don't immediately see a difference between forwarding a PM to a yellow or posting it to the forums.

 

c) Nobody assuming that if I care about privacy it's because I hate BBF and want to ruin it for everyone.

errr.... i must have missed this point being made somewhere.

[Antrax]

I didn't suggest all decisions be accepted via a majority vote. I just think a better way of finding out what people think is to ask them. Then you can make your own deductions about what part of what crowd is in favour of what.

I don't immediately see a difference between forwarding a PM to a yellow or posting it to the forums.

Neither do I. I disagree with either.

errr.... i must have missed this point being made somewhere.

If you actually sympathize with the guy whose PM was posted, I think that's not at all in the best interest of BBF.

Unfortunately I sympathize, even though I agree with jjbrr and others' assessment of his motivation. Nevertheless, I don't think that my tendency to consider private messages private should be taken to mean I don't have the best interest of BBF at heart.

 

jjbrr, not sure why you seek my agreement seeing as you don't care about my opinions, no doubt due to already holding the correct ones yourself, so all I can contribute is either useless agreement or clueless disagreement. In any case, if I somehow managed to offend you I apologize, it was the opinions you expressed on those specific posts that I disagree with, nothing more.

[diana_eva]

Sorry but I don't agree with this. I do honestly think a PM should be kept private.

 

However, for anyone who can read, it was painfully obvious that the sender of the PM had no intention of keeping anything he said private. On the contrary he wanted as much attention as he could possibly get. Sympathizing with his privacy, in this case, is really, really bad, though. Diana, that's the type of passive aggressive response to BBF situations that doesn't make BBF a better place. In this case, posting the PM was perfectly valid as evidence for the OP's intentions. If OP's feelings got hurt, that's a small price to pay to keep BBF honest.

 

Ben: I, for one, would like to see the mods take a firmer stance when problems arise in the forums. You don't need to make a public poll to check if your actions were right. As someone who spends several hours every day reading internet forums, I can say confidently that 1) we, the users, WANT the mods to take firm stances against the shenanigans we saw today, 2) we WANT you to keep these types of decisions consistent, 3) if you're unsure of your decision, we WANT you to discuss between the other mods in the yellow forum and NOT leave it up to the users.

 

What we don't want is for you to lock a thread and then seek validation for your decision. We trust your decision! We have a thread to check and make sure you're doing the right thing! If we disagree, we'll say so!

 

IMO your statement:

 

"I do honestly think a PM should be kept private."

 

and my post saying:

 

"I disagree with the PM being posted"

 

are equivalent.

 

Sorry, i am not that subtle with words but in any case the idea was simply to not post private messages on the Forums.

 

In this case, posting the PM was perfectly valid as evidence for the OP's intentions. If OP's feelings got hurt, that's a small price to pay to keep BBF honest.

 

I don't see why taking such action in private would not keep the Forums honest, as opposed to publicly exposing his intentions.

 

I think there is a difference between forwarding a message to a moderator and posting in the forums. The forums are a public place, while forwarding a private message in private to a moderator is not a public action, hence the message remains private while proper action is being taken against the offender.

[wyman]

Sorry but I don't agree with this. I do honestly think a PM should be kept private.

 

However, for anyone who can read, it was painfully obvious that the sender of the PM had no intention of keeping anything he said private. On the contrary he wanted as much attention as he could possibly get. Sympathizing with his privacy, in this case, is really, really bad, though. Diana, that's the type of passive aggressive response to BBF situations that doesn't make BBF a better place. In this case, posting the PM was perfectly valid as evidence for the OP's intentions. If OP's feelings got hurt, that's a small price to pay to keep BBF honest.

 

Ben: I, for one, would like to see the mods take a firmer stance when problems arise in the forums. You don't need to make a public poll to check if your actions were right. As someone who spends several hours every day reading internet forums, I can say confidently that 1) we, the users, WANT the mods to take firm stances against the shenanigans we saw today, 2) we WANT you to keep these types of decisions consistent, 3) if you're unsure of your decision, we WANT you to discuss between the other mods in the yellow forum and NOT leave it up to the users.

 

What we don't want is for you to lock a thread and then seek validation for your decision. We trust your decision! We have a thread to check and make sure you're doing the right thing! If we disagree, we'll say so!

I agree with everything in this post.

[Phil]

I got edited this morning, but I guess it was so inconsequential that it didn't make the censored list.

 

I think about some of the flame wars we used to have on here, and "ceaseless nonsense" is pretty f****g tame.

[aguahombre]

I believe I am responsible for creating the monster problem about PM's, in this case. And for that, I apologize to all.

 

Way back when the person in question's OP had not yet gotten any replies, and the OP had posted no follow-up hands or posts, I PM'd him. The message was that it was clear what he was starting. I sympathized with him and complimented him on his subtlety (at the time).

 

Then I sent him a follow-up suggesting that if he had a compilation of hands involving a certain player or pair he should instead send them to "abuse@".

 

Only later, when the thread was really getting out of hand, did I go with public posts suggesting that it be curtailed.

 

Apparently this sewed the seeds for the guy to generate PM's to me and to others who had participated in the thread.

 

So sorry, folks. My intentions at the outset (avoiding what occurred) turned sour.

 

P.S., This post here does not show up on my content, so perhaps a moderator is reviewing it, too.

Edited August 3, 2011 by aguahombre

[inquiry]

I got edited this morning, but I guess it was so inconsequential that it didn't make the censored list.

 

I think about some of the flame wars we used to have on here, and "ceaseless nonsense" is pretty f****g tame.

 

That one was me! :) I edited it

 

Keep in mind that the pretty "f******g tame" snark of yours was in the Beginner/Intermediate forum and you were in a knife fight against an unarmed man. If it had been in another forum, or if you had a more formidable opponent to argue with, I would not have edited it. The Beginner/Intermediate forum is SUPPOSE to be a ZERO tolerance place so beginners don't get turned off by the attitude of better players.

 

It had not made this forum yet, because considertion of other edits was (and is) underconsideration. I tend to lump the reports together then post here. BTW, the post was reported to me or I would have never seen it, so at least one forum member found it objectionable.

[Phil]

That one was me! :) I edited it

 

Keep in mind that the pretty "f******g tame" snark of yours was in the Beginner/Intermediate forum and you were in a knife fight against an unarmed man. If it had been in another forum, or if you had a more formidable opponent to argue with, I would not have edited it. The Beginner/Intermediate forum is SUPPOSE to be a ZERO tolerance place so beginners don't get turned off by the attitude of better players.

 

It had not made this forum yet, because considertion of other edits was (and is) underconsideration. I tend to lump the reports together then post here. BTW, the post was reported to me or I would have never seen it, so at least one forum member found it objectionable.

 

That unarmed man (or woman) you refer seems to be carrying around a backpack of little cherry bombs and doesn't have a problem flicking the noses of some people that have been around awhile, B/I or no B/I.

 

I'll see how this person responds to Mike's post, which I have nothing more to add to.

[Free]

My lovely heart symbols were edited but it's not mentioned here. Who did this, what rule did I break, and why isn't any reason given? :blink:

[shyams]

My lovely heart symbols were edited but it's not mentioned here. Who did this, what rule did I break, and why isn't any reason given? :blink:

I agree with Free's concern. If his post is edited, why are the other posts not a problem?