Abuse at the table

[mgoetze]

Given that two players at the table complained about the slow play, it is my take that the other player was exceedingly slow.

It is my take that what 95% of BBO players consider "exceedingly slow" is actually normal tempo for those who consider Bridge a mind sport.

[barmar]

I wouldn't be surprised if "faster" and "play pls" are among the most common chat messages. I just hope "glp" is up there with them.

[Bbradley62]

the first screenshot does include "wdp" and "ty p".

[barmar]

In my early days of online bridge, people would write "thinking" if they were being slow because they had a bridge reason, as opposed to being distracted. Does anyone still do that?

[aguahombre]

In my early days of online bridge, people would write "thinking" if they were being slow because they had a bridge reason, as opposed to being distracted. Does anyone still do that?

Yes, but depending on the player, everyone might know it isn't true.

[barmar]

Yes, but depending on the player, everyone might know it isn't true.

Or in my case, won't help.

[straube]

I'm interested in knowing more about the certain style of bidding.

 

The other day I was in a team game against a pair and it seemed like every hand one or the other did something godawful but they wound up landing on their feet most of the time. Examples....

 

 

Overcalling a 2-cd suit at the 2-level and finding partner with 5-cd support. Partner didn't raise.

 

In a competitive auction doubling (apparently for penalty) a 3-level contract with one trump. Their partner had 5 trump and pulled.

 

In third seat, opening 4C with a 15 ct and AKQxx, finding partner with 4 trump and a stiff...off one for a good score. (We could make 4S but it was unbiddable after the preempt)

 

Responding 1S to 1H and then passing 2H with something like Qxxx AQJx xx Qxx. 4H was making but didn't look like it would make.

 

I had the impression opponents were sharing information, but perhaps there is some other explanation.

Edited February 14, 2012 by inquiry
edited to make this post presentable

[billw55]

hmm, I have seen way worse than these two examples. Frankly neither of these would even raise an eyebrow for me.

 

Abuse is a problem yes, but I have found the cases of meaningful abuse to be a smallish minority. Minor crankiness is to be expected. I think maybe you are just too sensitive, and this when you aren't even playing.

[im2lukie]

foul language should not be acceptable. offender should be blocked from playing

[lindha]

nothing can be done about abuse due to the infamous dunning-kruger effect (wikipedia: The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.) This is just how it is. stay away from open tables and play tourneys instead. the td's will boot the worst abusers.

[mycroft]

I repeat my story (around "foul language should not be acceptable") that that goes a little too far. Picture the scenario:

 

I'm just kicking around, and decide to kibitz a friend. Turns out he's playing with three other people I know very well, with a couple of kibitzers from the same set (whose names I recognize, may only have met them in midnight games though). It's obvious the game, and the conversation, is well lubricated. One player leaves, and I'm asked to sit in. I tell them I have to go get a beer first, or I won't be allowed to play...

 

8 or so hands in, I get a question: "Have you figured out what your carding is yet?" "Nah, I think she's changing it every hand" It was that kind of game.

 

Note that *many* expletives were deleted from this version of the story. If *any* of them had been taken seriously, I'd have the same problem everybody else does. If *any* of the people were unknowns, I'd have had the problem again (because it's not clearly obvious to an outside observer that we weren't being dead serious). But it wasn't, it was just a somewhat drunken, somewhat junior, extremely profane really good time - and I've had the same experience in the Midnights before, and I'm sure will have again.

 

I don't think you can - or should - ZT ban this situation. I'm absolutely sure that wasn't the only occurrence.

[barmar]

I don't think you can - or should - ZT ban this situation. I'm absolutely sure that wasn't the only occurrence.

Good story. This shows why it's not really feasible to have a "one size fits all" policy for the site.

 

If we really thought this was worth pursuing, we could conceivably have a table option like "Profanity filter on/off".

[JustaDummy]

If we really thought this was worth pursuing, we could conceivably have a table option like "Profanity filter on/off".

 

Really? From a purely technological point of view, which algorithm would you use in this case? I recount the salient features of my original post, some two years ago:

 

"faster please erna"

 

"if you can’t play faster, please leave"

 

"ugly turkish bidding"

 

I don't believe that this conversation is amenable to computational analysis within the boundaries of the technology available to BBO. But to my mind at least, this series of comments is abhorrent, and the last one is clearly racist. This is not about the friendly use of "foul" language as outlined by mycroft. I personally do not believe that language of itself has foulness associated with it. My view is that it is the intention behind ANY use of language, no matter what specific words are used, which must be deduced from the exchange, which is important.

 

Regarding "banning the situation," that is of course impossible, but members who exhibit clearly unacceptable behaviour, such as telling a player to leave because they are too slow (or too fast, or too dark-skinned, or too Turkish) should, and must, be brought to account, or at least be asked to explain.

 

This will, of course, not happen in BBO. You prefer to play with insignificant filters rather than face the truth of the matter.

 

OK, I'm probably banned now, but I don't care. The only reason I make these comments is because of the paucity of thought that barmar has proffered.

[diana_eva]

You made some good points, the problem isn't barmar's paucity of thought, rather the huge number of games that take place on BBO. It's impossible to police them at "intent behind words" level, so there must be some automation to at least eliminate what can be considered undoubtedly abusive. That's why the discussion about what, if anything could be eliminated with filters.

[JustaDummy]

I accept that, to a point. But when barmar said "If we really thought this was worth pursuing" then all bets were cancelled.

 

You made some good points, the problem isn't barmar's paucity of thought, rather the huge number of games that take place on BBO. It's impossible to police them at "intent behind words" level, so there must be some automation to at least eliminate what can be considered undoubtedly abusive. That's why the discussion about what, if anything could be eliminated with filters.

[Cthulhu D]

In particular, while a remark like "ugly turkish bidding" sounds like a racist remark, it could just be a commentary on the prevalent style of bidding in Turkey.

 

Dude, that is racist. Making excuses for it just makes you look bad.

 

The problem is, again, that BBO does not have an effective match making mechanism. Let us look at the best matchmaking system on the market. It sensibly includes a process where people can report people for verbal abuse, and if an offender racks up lots of different reports they get banned from using in game chat for a short period. If they keep getting reported for being abusive they are banned from chatting for progressively longer periods. Also if you report a player for abuse you no longer see their messages.

 

Valve has noted that most players who get chat banned once or twice then start to self moderate. A small minority gets longer and longer chat bans and self select pout.

 

As an additional method, players who are abusive or have low completion percentages are sorted into a different match making queue and are match made with each other.

 

This would address JustaDummy's issues in multiple ways

 

A) he would be matched with partners of similar skill levels

B) Abuse reporting is automated. This would ensure that the community can self police.

B) Abusive players would be matched with similar and nice players with nice players.

 

Overall this would massively improve the MBC experience

[Cthulhu D]

You made some good points, the problem isn't barmar's paucity of thought, rather the huge number of games that take place on BBO. It's impossible to police them at "intent behind words" level, so there must be some automation to at least eliminate what can be considered undoubtedly abusive. That's why the discussion about what, if anything could be eliminated with filters.

 

This is why you need an automated reporting mechanism. Barmar's thought is pauce because he hasn't looked at the measures implemented and have been demonstrated to be highly effective with other online games.

[GreenMan]

A small minority gets longer and longer chat bans and self select pout.

 

I bet they do.

[johnu]

I'm interested in knowing more about the certain style of bidding.

 

The other day I was in a team game against a pair and it seemed like every hand one or the other did something godawful but they wound up landing on their feet most of the time. Examples....

 

 

Overcalling a 2-cd suit at the 2-level and finding partner with 5-cd support. Partner didn't raise.

 

In a competitive auction doubling (apparently for penalty) a 3-level contract with one trump. Their partner had 5 trump and pulled.

 

In third seat, opening 4C with a 15 ct and AKQxx, finding partner with 4 trump and a stiff...off one for a good score. (We could make 4S but it was unbiddable after the preempt)

 

Responding 1S to 1H and then passing 2H with something like Qxxx AQJx xx Qxx. 4H was making but didn't look like it would make.

 

I had the impression opponents were sharing information, but perhaps there is some other explanation.

 

File a report with BBO abuse and put those players on your enemies list. FWIW, the only explanation I can think of is that they were cheating.

[Bbradley62]

This might be a good time/place to repeat the previous discussion of the potential benefits of creating a Speedball Bridge Club, as an alternative to the Main Bridge Club. This would at least do something to separate those who want to play faster from others. The prior conversation is here: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/56034-new-playing-section-for-fast-playing-only/page__p__672612__fromsearch__1#entry672612

[barmar]

I was just thinking of the kind of "bad word" filters that you typically find in online forums. Not AI that tries to recognize all forms of annoying behavior.

 

But considering the international nature of our service, even a profanity filter would be tricky. For all I know, "the cat in the hat" is a horrible insult in Czechoslovakian.

[helene_t]

Profanity filters are worse than useless.

 

What might work would be peer rating as discussed in the "rating players" thread. If someone is marked as rude or w/e by a sufficient number of peers it could have some consequences.

[RMB1]

... For all I know, "the cat in the hat" is a horrible insult in Czechoslovakian.

 

I think Czech and Slovak are separate languages - the official languages of separate countries.

[Cthulhu D]

I bet they do.

 

You can an amusingly similar name to the DOTA 2 developer who banned a guy for a gazillion years for unloading a torrent of racist abuse in voice chat.

 

Profanity filters are worse than useless.

 

Eh, why not and have an option to disable them. It's not a solution though I agree, but not totally useless.

 

What might work would be peer rating as discussed in the "rating players" thread. If someone is marked as rude or w/e by a sufficient number of peers it could have some consequences.

 

Yes, this is the idea.

[GreenMan]

Profanity filters are worse than useless.

 

I enjoy when they do something amusing; one online forum automatically changes one particular racial slur to "attractive and successful African-American."