etherwiz Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 Unfortunately as BBO grows, the .1% of "bad members" also grows. Remember the one bad apple can spoil the whole barel. I personally have no objection to anything I say being recorded, but then I am sober right now. In another state I would probably would object (when the Hangover happens at least). But I had to vote no on recording public chat. That is a political view rather then a proactical or enforcable one. Wither BBO can have a site then allow "Site-Recorded: Pricate Chat may be leagally questionable, but would be morally justified. Also unforunately the courts are more concenred with the Questionable Laws then the Moral certainty of what actually happened. But that is another matter mostly ignored. I beleive BBO has the right to record private conversations (both in Tourney and in Chat Room) anywhere. Making that public would quickly reduce the use of the site (or reduce the "happy use" of thier site at least). Even in a temporary form (only hold for 24 hours, and if needed copy it out to a leagle document, I would still object. But that is me. And I would mostly benifit from this anyway, as I KNOW I would object more to what is said TO me then what I say to others. But sometimes Private Thoughts are sent as private text. This includes health information as well as practical life-thype questions. A bridge site is not the proper site fir this stuff, but people being people will still think Private is Private, even if a warning is given on sign on. These could be embarressing to such people if made public. And yes I know that BBO would never publish something with the only intention of embarressing someone, but site owners are like the goverment, no one really likes trusting them ! There is no question you have the right to record private chat (and I would perfer that then trusting copies made from some users machines) but does BBO have the moral right to call it "Private Chat" then ? Terminology. Words and inturputation .....................most deffinitions are in the eyes of the beholder ........................... _*_Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 I am a little frightened reading content of this topic, I think that nobody should be allowed to read private chat except the person who receives it. Regardless of whether BBO does it, I guarantee anything you type on your computer can be read by your Internet Service Provider, short of certain encryption programs. I don't know that people at the ISP read your chat for entertainment, but then I don't know that they don't either. And I also think that making copies or logs or screenshots of private chat is not ethic, This, I cannot disagree with more. Especially when I am directing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearmum Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 I am a little frightened reading content of this topic, I think that nobody should be allowed to read private chat except the person who receives it. Regardless of whether BBO does it, I guarantee anything you type on your computer can be read by your Internet Service Provider, short of certain encryption programs. I don't know that people at the ISP read your chat for entertainment, but then I don't know that they don't either. And I also think that making copies or logs or screenshots of private chat is not ethic, This, I cannot disagree with more. Especially when I am directing.I have NO problem with my ISP being able to read my private chat :) (they have TOO much traffic to be bothered reading MY insignificant postings on their VAST data base) BUT I really do have a problem if BBO (repeat BBO!!) felt it necessary to record PRIVATE chat for whatever reason :) Unfortunately I don't think there IS a way of preventing somebody playing with me of taking screenshots of 'private' chat but I can live with that ( as I very rarely 'private chat' anyway ) :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 Accepting that there may be other dangers and/or unpleasant side effects, there are perfectly sensible reasons why private chat should be loggable. When providing an explanation of an action to opponents, beyond the very limited amount of space provided in the bidding dialog, the only way to achieve this without providing UI to partner is by way of private chat. In such circumstances, the "chatter" has no particular interest in the chat being private other than to avoid the transfer of UI to partner for a very limited period of time. It would probably be too difficult to implement but it would be nice for a sender of private chat to be able to make it public in retrospect when the danger of UI has passed. TDs are regularly required to rule on alleged transgressions in circumstances where the explanations provided are relevant to the ruling. This requires access to private chat. Logging of private chat may also be useful in recording abusive behaviour. If screenshots are regarded as acceptable there is no reason why it should be unacceptable to make such recording easier to achieve and manage. Perhaps there should be three types of chat: Public, private and very private, but I stand by my earlier suggestion as best: Allow individuals to enable/disable the logging of private chat, and allow TDs to override those settings in a tourney environment (subject to publication of policy). The objection on privacy grounds is flawed: Players would be on notice that privacy is insecure and would be guarded against making comments in private chat that they do not wish to be accessed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doofik Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 If I may reiterate my point. Why are we sacrificing status quo for the very few? As soon as someone convinces me that my take on this whole matter is wrong, I'll join the ranks. Jola Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotShot Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 (edited) ....Logging of private chat may also be useful in recording abusive behaviour..... Well it may also be usefull to spy upon people, but is this what the world should be like? There are several thousand privat messages each day and may be a handful worth reporting to abuse. I think it is not acceptable to log all privat chat, just to procecute a few offenders.We are talking about rudeness here and not about serious crimes. There are people out there who cannot file a screenshot if neccessary. They need somethink more convenient,within the software. Edited September 5, 2004 by hotShot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 Why are we sacrificing status quo for the very few?Factual disputes over what was said in a tourney environment are not so rare in face to face games. I have no reason to think that the frequency should be any less in online games, for as long as the potential for evidential support remains the same as in face to face, ie non-existent. If you prefer the status quo, how about providing some constructive dismissal of the concerns of those who argue for change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 ....Logging of private chat may also be useful in recording abusive behaviour..... Well it may be usefull to spy upon people, but is this what the world should be like? Where does spying come into it? If the chat is logged and accessable then it is not private. But there is no suggestion that members should be misled into thinking that the chat is private if it is not. Perhaps it would be better to remove the word private from the description. Any person who submits chat should be aware of the potential for its access and should use the facility on the assumption that it would be. If they are not happy with that then they are free not to use that chat facility and their privacy is maintained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doofik Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 "Factual disputes over what was said in a tourney environment are not so rare in face to face games. I have no reason to think that the frequency should be any less in online games, for as long as the potential for evidential support remains the same as in face to face, ie non-existent. If you prefer the status quo, how about providing some constructive dismissal of the concerns of those who argue for change?" It is my point that what we're discussing applies to very few members of BBO. You've got your own chat log, you've got screen shots, and now you want that powers-that-be get involved in disputes which, overall, are petty and ridiculous? Are the above materials insufficient? Again, give me a valid reason and I'll join the ranks. Jola Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 Again, give me a valid reason and I'll join the ranks. It is all about making life easier. If, as you say, there are alternative, albeit relatively complicated and timeconsuming, methods of achieving the same end, then the question arises: if there is an opportunity for making it less complicated and less timeconsuming then why would anyone NOT want to jump at the opportunity? Time and again we hear of the problems of TDs who are pressed for time in a tournament for making rulings. Those resources are stretched further if you place unnecessary obstacles in the way of the TD having access to the facts forming the basis of his ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 It is my point that what we're discussing applies to very few members of BBO. And it is my point that what we are discussing applies to no fewer members of BBO than it does to the equivalent proportion of face to face players. What is your evidence that the number affected is "very few"? I have no evidence to the contrary, but in the absence of any evidence either way I do not think it unreasonable to assume parity of proportions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doofik Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 1eyedjack, And just what percentage of face-to-face tournaments deal with this type of a problem? I presume you've got those percentages? Jola Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 I have no percentages. But I have enough experience of f2f games to accept that in that environment it is a significant problem which, if it could be solved, would be of benefit to the game. What is it with percentages anyway? If it is of benefit to a few, and there are no downsides, what is the objection? This software is in its infancy, so to talk about the "status quo" is nonsence. It hasn't had time to establish a status quo, and it is continually evolving. The process of improving the software/service can be divided into separate stages: Stage 1: Identify a list of desired improvementsStage 2: Prioritise the list according to benefits and difficulty of implementationStage 3: Implement the list in that priority. I can accept that *IF* the proposal is of benefit to a very small minority, then it would have a detrimental effect on stage 2. But let us at least agree on whether it fits into the list in stage 1 first. Then we can haggle over where it should appear in the (stage 2) prioritising, wherein the number of beneficiaries would be one (of perhaps several) factors. This thread was initiated by BBO management soliciting our opinions. They are I suspect well capable of prioritising their improvements. I suspect that the original purpose of the thread was to identify whether the suggestion even fits into Stage 1, for which purpose arguing over the number of beneficiaries is moot. Objections tend to take the flavour of matters of principle rather than number crunching the number of players who would benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doofik Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 Well put and I still don't see the benefit of logging all private chat. It my premise that once complaints start rolling in, everyone will be involved in searching chats out the wazoo. Personally, I'd prefer to have that time spent on developing a software to remove unwanted kibs. I guess it's all a matter of personal preference:-) Jola Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 i've read some impressive posts taking the 'pro' view on this... as impressive as they've been, and as respected as some of the posters are, i still think logging all chat is a bad idea *in theory*... it's so easy to make light of the orwellian possibilities that exist in the world, but just because something is subject to ridicule doesn't mean it's wrong.. even paranoid people have enemies... we've lost a lot of privacy lately in this country, and with internet legislation coming next we're bound to lose more... there seems to be too many people who value communal safety (or whatever) over personal liberties what does logging all chat on bbo have to do with the fbi *legally* monitoring my internet usage? maybe nothing... what i'm afraid of is the mindset that sees both things as correct, or necessary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 Those with Orwellian fears would be protected under my proposal: They just disable the logging of private chat and avoid those tourneys where the host has overridden it. Those without such fears could play in those tourneys, and even enable private chat logging in tourneys where it has not been enforced by the tourney host. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doofik Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 The world is not perfect. Why should BBO strive to be perfect? In real life, disputes are settled in court often with "she said/he said" evidence. In BBO, disputes are settled by @abuse. If screen shots, logs and comments of those involved are not enough to assure the evidence to be real, then nothing will help it. We live in an imperfect world, try to get used to it. Don't make a sterile environment where all fantasy has to be gone because someone's "watching". Colorful language notwithstanding people seem to get into petty squabbles that escalate into stratosphere. Perhaps what is needed is more mediating help that really really listens to both sides. Jola Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farfie Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 ;) i like the way paolo "turbin" answers this question...my vote is NO too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 The world is not perfect. Why should BBO strive to be perfect? There is nothing wrong with striving to improve. In all walks of life, if you do not make that effort then you will fail in the end. Your competitors will certainly make that effort and eventually leave you behind. If you see an improvement, why would you not take it? As I have said before but clearly have to repeat: the first stage is to determine whether it is or is not an improvement (however marginal). The second step is to determine whether, if it is a net improvement, it is one worth pursuing over and above the other demands on the programmers. I don't understand where perfection entered the argument. Impossible to define, and impossible to achieve, but irrelevant to the goal of improving on what went before.In real life, disputes are settled in court often with "she said/he said" evidence. In BBO, disputes are settled by @abuse. If screen shots, logs and comments of those involved are not enough to assure the evidence to be real, then nothing will help it.This totally misses the point. The proposal has less to do with the reliability of evidence than it has to do with making the maximum amount of information instantaneously available to the TD. Information which, I suggest, would largely be uncontested but which, without the logging of chat, would have to be repeated to the TD in a belaboured manner at a time when demands on his time are at a premium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uday Posted September 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 We only have about 50 responses, but enough of them don't want this that I will not implement an across-the-board chat log. However, I have another thought, based on something hrothgar said. What if 1) I logged all chat, encrypted, so that not even I could read it without effort2) Daily, I erased all chat older than (say) 3 days3) I supply a web screen that allows each user to examine his own chat logs4) This screen would allow a user to send chat ( from/to user) to an email address (example abuse@ ) without the ability to edit the chat first. The effect of this would be to allow people to easily back up accusations of abuse while maintaining a high degree of privacy. It is true that I would be able to tap into the users login session, extract his password, and use it to decrypt his chat. Until we switch to completely encrypted sessions, it is difficult to see a way around this. I can say that we could log private chat now, or sniff it, if we wanted to (it does pass thru our servers in plain text) -- we don't , of course, not least because the volume is overwhelming and the content would be overwhelmingly mind-numbing. I think this is a reasonable solution to my basic problem, which is the need to deal with disputes without forcing non-tech users to take screenshots. Objections? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulhar Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 No objections here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doofik Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 "This totally misses the point. The proposal has less to do with the reliability of evidence than it has to do with making the maximum amount of information instantaneously available to the TD. Information which, I suggest, would largely be uncontested but which, without the logging of chat, would have to be repeated to the TD in a belaboured manner at a time when demands on his time are at a premium. " And I don't think you quite understood my post to which you replied. It is my understanding that this whole effort is being proposed to resolve disputes. Are these disputes of such magnitude that we should surrender our expectation of privacy? That if screenshots and logs are provided by both parties, that we absolutely positively need a TD or an Administrator to search for verification? How do you envision a TD going thru the mountain of chat that will surely be logged? And during a tourney? I don't think so. TO UDAY: I still object as I don't quite understand what is so important that we should be subjected to a treatment with suspicion. Jola Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uday Posted September 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 All i'm suggesting is that each user can decide when to release his or her personal chatlogs to abuse@bridgebase.com in a tamper-proof fashion.Maybe down the road for TDs, but i'm not worrying about that now. Why? It is not an uncommon situation for abuse@ to receive a complaint like xxx said "fxxx you and your mamma", while xxx denies it ever happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doofik Posted September 7, 2004 Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 Uday, I must be having a weird day and when I look at what's happening all over the world, everything else becomes minimal. It is my experience that when someone says "fxxx you and your momma" to one person, they'll do it again. Does it really take a surrender of private chats to find out that this is so? Perhaps an easier answer might be that all clients log chats and with a timestamp, things will be easier for @abuse also? I'm just arguing for the preservation of privacy, nothing else. Jola Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uday Posted September 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2004 chat logs are easily doctored (we have seen people try this).chat logs are not always available.Screenshots are harder to doctor, but most users don't know how to take screenshots. I claim that my proposal preserves privacy; a "surrender" is not called for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.