the yellow ACBL

[inquiry]

Well said maureen.

 

Jimmy, ACBL is a yellow. The ACBL name tags are to make it easy for participants to identify and communicate with the people associated with ACBL events. All the directors have acbl names. The yellow ACBL does not give up yellowness when being logged on as ACBL. And in fact, club was not EVEN playing in any tournment when he ran afoul of the rules. I saw screen shots, and I would have banned him as well, if I was on line. Since his ban has been extended, abuse has seen this as well, and obviously agrees with the ban. This is not about ACBL, this is about club and his actions, as st least two other yellows would have responded as ACBL did.

 

Ben

[uday]

Our position is:

 

Rude players do not belong here on BBO. I cannot emphasize this enough. Most of our rules boil down to one simple rule -- BE NICE.

 

Someone who is rude in an ACBL tourney is more likely to be banned, because a yellow username is "watching". This is a good thing.

 

 

If I knew the other 749 TDs well enough to give them this power, I would do so. It is not a problem that yellow ACBL bans rude players, it is a problem that unmonitored rudeness in other Ts is not always caught.

 

Anything that gets the rude people away from our community is a good thing, at least until we set up an unmoderated site where these guys can beat up on each other (no, no immediate plans to do so)

[luke warm]

Well said maureen.

 

Jimmy, ACBL is a yellow. The ACBL name tags are to make it easy for participants to identify and communicate with the people associated with ACBL events. All the directors have acbl names. The yellow ACBL does not give up yellowness when being logged on as ACBL. And in fact, club was not EVEN playing in any tournment when he ran afoul of the rules. I saw screen shots, and I would have banned him as well, if I was on line. Since his ban has been extended, abuse has seen this as well, and obviously agrees with the ban. This is not about ACBL, this is about club and his actions, as st least two other yellows would have responded as ACBL did.

 

Ben

ben, i have no doubt that whatever was done by club deserved banning, and i have no doubt that any yellow who saw what he did would have banned him... this is made even more obvious by the fact that abuse@ agrees with the ban... however, the truth of the matter is no other yellow did ban him, it fell on a yellow acbl to do so... why? were they too busy? remember, his activity took place in the lobby, not in an acbl tourney

 

can't you even acknowledge the logic henri, eric, and i attempted to show? if you log on under a non-yellow nick, i imagine you'd message a yellow if you saw something that warranted further action... true? if it is, why is it true? is it because that at this particular time you are 'off duty' and will only act in an emergency situation? i can't see why henri's suggestion doesn't make sense... what is harmed by it?

 

while i agree 100% with uday's post re: rudeness, i don't see how subscribing to henri's suggestion lessens bbo's ability to police that type behavior...

 

as an outsider looking in, this is appearing to take on a 'company line' perspective... if you read my post above you'll see that i acknowledge bbo's right to do whatever they want... hell they *should* have that right, bbo is a better place because of it... but i honestly don't see how what we wrote is undermined by having different colors for different functions

[mikestar]

In one of my tourneys (yes i was a TD once!!!!!! ) but made to serve hard labour for advertising my tourney by saying Men rule while women drool and madame who has the confidence of everyone said it was a sexual remark and so off i was....

 

Perhaps English is not your first language. No doubt Gwenny said sexist remark, not sexual remark. Sexual refers to sexuality, sex acts, etc. If you thought this was what she meant, I can can see why this bothered you.

 

Sexist means showing hostility towards/predjudice against members of one sex, in this case women. I beleive your remark was indeed sexist and you deserved some punitive action.

 

Do you think that "White people rule and black people drool" would have been acceptable? Would you think it would be OK to advertize your tourney as "No [insert your favorite derogatory term for gay people here] allowed"?

[inquiry]

can't you even acknowledge the logic henri, eric, and i attempted to show? if you log on under a non-yellow nick, i imagine you'd message a yellow if you saw something that warranted further action... true? if it is, why is it true? is it because that at this particular time you are 'off duty' and will only act in an emergency situation?

 

 

 

you read my post above you'll see that i acknowledge bbo's right to do whatever they want... hell they *should* have that right, bbo is a better place because of it...

ben, i have no doubt that whatever was done by club deserved banning, and i have no doubt that any yellow who saw what he did would have banned him... this is made even more obvious by the fact that abuse@ agrees with the ban... however, the truth of the matter is no other yellow did ban him, it fell on a yellow acbl to do so... why? were they too busy? remember, his activity took place in the lobby, not in an acbl tourney

 

I can easily tell you why.. almost all yellows turn off lobby chat FOR THE SAME REASON YOU DO.... all the noise there... A few yellows, ACBL being one, tend to monitor lobby chat, especially before and after tourneys in case any players or potential players have questions and don't know how to contact the ACBL people. So in fact, most of the time when someone is screaming obsenities to the lobby, users have to tell me.....

 

can't you even acknowledge the logic henri, eric, and i attempted to show? if you log on under a non-yellow nick, i imagine you'd message a yellow if you saw something that warranted further action... true?

 

No. If I see a bannable offense, I will go the separte webpage and ban the person... and then file a report with abuse... I don't have to be the BBO to ban someone, and I don't ahve to be yellow (obviously)... If a warnable offense occurse, I will tell a yellow who is on line, or report to abuse to send warning later.

 

i can't see why henri's suggestion doesn't make sense... what is harmed by it?

 

I think there is a small problem (which uday doesn;t agree with me on), in that act up in most peoples tourneys, you are banned from their tourney. Act up in a tourney run by a yellow you risk being banned from the site immediately. But the truth be known, when non-yellow TD turn people in, there is very good chance they will be banned at least a short while if it was bad action. But at least I can see the double jepadoy of playing in a yellow's tourney and accidentially losiiing your temper.. .and sometiems, any TD can become exasperated with "compalints" and might take this out on a relatively simple "why" type of question on a ruling or lack of ruling. If you get tossed out of a tournment for this, that is bad enough, if you get tossed out of site, that is much worse.

 

But, we need all the "full powered" yellows we can get to help police aweful behavior. I occassionaly fill in directing tournements or running them. I still get questions from users on line, I still get reports of horrible behavior. Think I shouldn't handle them, if possible? I do.

 

while i agree 100% with uday's post re: rudeness, i don't see how subscribing to henri's suggestion lessens bbo's ability to police that type behavior...

 

Of course it does, it removes one person from the list of those who to can sanction someone... and remember, all bans are automatically reviewed by abuse....

 

as an outsider looking in, this is appearing to take on a 'company line' perspective... if

 

I try to be as neutral as I can, but I will never do dirty laundry in public... having said that I offered to go to bat for club.. and I investigated...

 

but i honestly don't see how what we wrote is undermined by having different colors for different functions

 

A yellow doesn't need different functions... we do what needs to be done, and hopefully not one thing extra...

 

ben

[slothy]

Rehi all,

 

I have decided to come out of semi-retirement...writing posts in the 'Crochet and Cross-stitching' and 'Dental-Flossing Techniques For Domesticated Llamas' forums was never as stimulating and as inspiring as writing here :o

 

Nice to see that time has not mellowed Ben and he is as voluble as ever :) He seems not to subscribe to the old Tuareg proverb

 

 

----

'There is no need to light a cigarette with a blow-torch' :)

 

May he continue to ignore full-stops forever and overlook the virtues of succinctness, amen....

 

As for being profane and writing sexually im/ex-plicit comments in the lobby as a bannable offence why am I still playing bridge in BBO??? :D

 

Yet again this thread seems to regurgitate the old chestnut about a fallacious contradiction between what an individual perceives as acceptable and what a collective has instantiated as unacceptable and impeachable behaviour - a set of rules that i am sure have been debated and discussed and have been endorsed to satisfy the the 'policing' of a community which is both diverse and ever-growing. Any society, in whatever context it exists, is going to have rules/laws governing how people are expected to behave and if they dont then there is some punitive redress. TO take this further, those people who seem to go as far as to suggest or insinuate that BBO is some sort of virtual Orwellian 'Big Brother' society either havent read the book or confused it with Animal Farm :P

 

I personally do not understand some of the arguments put forward by some people, not only here but in similar threads. I am very sure Gweny was very pragmatic and objective in her decision to ban the person in question, and even if she wasnt* she has been invested with the powers of 'de yellow people' by virtue of her commitment and contribution to this site by those very people who, however dispassionately you view it, have the right to impose whatever they want, assuming they have the majority of the community's interests at heart.

 

* this person still has an appeals procedure (s/he should try living in a few countries in this world where s/he hasnt even got this privilege!) and THIS is to protect the rights of the individual and to perhaps rectify potential errors in judgement made by an enforcer, IF they were made! May i just add that if this person was banned, after a review by other yellows it seems, as s/he says to 2006, then i am QUITE sure it was not for a singular isolated sexist remark!!

 

I have been asked on a couple of occasions to 'tone down' some of my lobby comments. After a warning i did so (well i just switched to Italian he hee), mainly because, on reflection, i acknowledged that what i had said MAY be perceived by some to have been OTT and they have just as much right as me not to have to read as i have to write...

 

There is a fine line between what may be construed as banter by some people and what may be understood as (downright) offensive to others. Further, there is some language, attitude and behaviour that, within the largest part of the social spectrum, is considered to be intolerable. Even more so when one considers that a lot of the BBO community's first language is NOT English and thus the opportunity for misunderstanding increases dramatically.

 

SOMEONE has to take the responsibility of ensuring that a happy medium is reached. I, for one, am not envious of those who have voluntarily decided to wear that mantle. It is a thankless occupation most of the time.

 

Another microfibre, as it were, of this thread is whether Gweny had the rights of a yellow and/or whether she abused her rights as a tourney yellow????? Whatever she is/was or is/was not, whether a kosher yellow or a yellow manqué is something that surely is to be determined by the management and not in a forum!! and allow the appropriate people to take the appropriate action. IF, and only IF, she acted outside her realm of influence then i am sure it would be resolved internally and the side-effects of her action reviewed!

 

Alex

[ecepal]

Hi ben,

would you please answer to this question for me

" a yellow should check the accusers story if it is true or not before take any action" yes or no?

In my opinion and past experience a yellow have to ask the accused person if the accusation/s are right or not.. because sometimes and mostly a little detail might change whole event. Like it happened in my case which i will not go into detail here

I got offline message from a " yellow" that SHE will ban me for two weeks for kibitzing one private club tourney. As a matter of fact if SHE had to bother to ask me i would explain that I was in Istanbul having cocktail drinks between 700 guests ..

do you think this is fair and correct?? Of course i have complained to abuse@bridgebase.com lets see what happens. :o

In another thread the SAME YELLOW cancelled a tourney ................ :D will reply this there .Abuse of the power is something has to be dealt with asap in my opinion.

So please tell me what is the procedure of a Yellow before banning a user?I know the answer but perhaps other users not know this so it is usefull if they enlightened.

thanks

ece

[pclayton]

My two cents, although I consider myself a minor player in these discussions.

 

On BBO we have DIRECTORS and we have YELLOWS.

 

Say I am a Director, and I am running the FOP (Friends of Phil) tourney. Naturally only players of the highest caliber in both ability and ethics play in the FOP :o . An invited player does something to cause me to boot them out of the FOP, thus becoming an EOP (Enemy of Phil). Well within my rights as a Director.

 

Say that I am also vested with Yellow authority. Ooh, goody, I see this person acting rudely (in a subjective way) at a table (maybe other FOP's are out there watching this person). Great: stamp BANNED on the EOP's forehead and let them cool for one week.

 

Amazingly, this causes hard feelings for the EOP. When the cooling off period is over, the EOP comes back on and to no one's surprise, the problem escalates. Rinse and repeat and before we know it we have hard-core lifetime bannees. All because they started as an EOP.

 

Director's are the popes of their tourneys. Its their domain.

 

Yellows are the niceness police of BBO. The global community of BBO is their domain. Yellows also trump the authority of Directors by definition.

 

See the conflict?

[slothy]

DEar Phil,

 

After a review it was decided that the FOP tourney clashed with the FOA tourney...the person banned from FOP tourney decided to play in the FOA tourney and the director of FOA blamed the director of FOP for banning him from his tourney and thus be free to play in FOA.

 

you see the conflict?

 

Yellows also trump the authority of Directors by definition.

 

 

Geez Phil do you HAVE to use a bridge metaphor for everything!!!!!

[EricN]

Everyone in his right mind knows that the FOA tourney is an illusion - it would not even attract enough players for 1 table :D

 

Eric

[pclayton]

DEar Phil,

 

After a review it was decided that the FOP tourney clashed with the FOA tourney...the person banned from FOP tourney decided to play in the FOA tourney and the director of FOA blamed the director of  FOP for banning him from his tourney and thus be free to play in FOA.

 

you see the conflict?

 

Yellows also trump the authority of Directors by definition.

 

 

Geez Phil do you HAVE to use a bridge metaphor for everything!!!!!

The FOP was specifically scheduled not to occur on the following:

 

1. Wiccan holidays (2/2, 3/21, 4/30, 8/1, 10/31, 12/21)

2. Annual meeting of the International Dental Association (10/6 - 10/9)

3. Sundays

4. Feast Days of St. Fabian (1/20), St. Anselm (4/20), St. Justin (6/1), St. Bonaventure (7/15), St. Josophat (11/12) and St. Sylvester (12/31)

5. National Poetry Day (10/7)

6. Oktoberfest (9/17 - 10/3 (and similarly 10/4 and 10/5))

7. Scheduled total eclipse (4/8)

8. Thursdays

 

You have been forewarned!

 

All FOAs may be granted asylum from the FOA. As long as they aren't well... felons, or for that matter, Englishmen.

[inquiry]

Hi ben,

would you please answer to this question for me

 

" a yellow should check the accusers story if it is true or not before take any action" yes or no? In my opinion and past experience a yellow have to ask the accused person if the accusation/s are right or not.. because sometimes and mostly a little detail might change whole event. Like it happened in my case which i will not go into detail here

 

In 99% of the cases (well 90%), a yellow will usually not take any action without confirming the facts. This includes checking with both sides in any dispute (he said/she said issues). This is one function of yellows not taking immediate action, but rather reporting to abuse who checks the facts. This yellows only act in emergency situations is a change since your yellow time, ece. There are some cases where I (and presumably other) yellows will take immediate action without spending a lot of time checking (remember, Abuse WILL CHECK).. for instance if a well know and respected player tells me that “player x” was grotesquely profane and insulting, and it is an ongoing problem (say via private chat), I will tell player x he is being banned and to contact abuse and I will ban. If five or six people message me at once that player Y is saying the most fowl things in the lobby, I am likely not to investigate further, but ban as quickly as I can, but once again report this action to ABUSE to check.

 

I got offline message from a " yellow" that SHE will ban me for two weeks for kibitzing one private club tourney. As a matter of fact if SHE had to bother to ask me i would explain that I was in Istanbul having cocktail drinks between 700 guests ..

do you think this is fair and correct?? Of course i have complained to abuse@bridgebase.com lets see what happens.

 

Well a couple of issues here. The fact that you were drinking with 700 people instead of kibitzing seems immaterial. I mean so what if you where kibitzing? I know of no rule that bans anyone from kibitzing any tournament in the main tournament rule. Even enemies of the TD who can’t play in tournaments are not banned from kibitzing tables at that tournament. At one time, there was a rule that certain players could not kibitz each OTHER when they were playing. But I think for the most par this is in the past, where it should be, and I never knew it to apply to entire tournaments. So, there is maybe a bigger issue here (assuming this is

 

In another thread the SAME YELLOW cancelled a tourney ................ will reply this there .Abuse of the power is something has to be dealt with asap in my opinion.

 

Canceling someones tournament is something a yellow should do only in dire emergency, and if your tournament was cancelled when you didn’t want it cancelled, this could be a very serious problem. I assume you reported this to abuse.

 

So please tell me what is the procedure of a Yellow before banning a user?I know the answer but perhaps other users not know this so it is usefull if they enlightened.

thanks

 

In all non-emergency situations, report potential bans to abuse to review and make a decision. In an emergency situation, make the ban, report the reason and facts to abuse for review.

 

Ben

[inquiry]

My two cents, although I consider myself a minor player in these discussions.

 

On BBO we have DIRECTORS and we have YELLOWS.

 

SNIP....

 

Director's are the popes of their tourneys. Its their domain.

 

Yellows are the niceness police of BBO. The global community of BBO is their domain. Yellows also trump the authority of Directors by definition.

 

See the conflict?

See the conflict? In my last post I discussed the possible double jeopardy of playing in a yellow tourney's and misbehaving. This shows that I reconginize the problem you point out. Look, the policy is if it isn't an EMERGENCY, no normal yellow should ban anyone... it should be reported to ABUSE to deal with. This is exactly the SAME THING any TD can do on their own and get the same support and consideration from ABUSE.

 

But that said, yellows still have to uphold the "niceness" standard. But we should not be fast to ban. I follow the rules stated earlier in this thread, as all yellows should. Any yellow banning people for non-emergency reasons, should probably have their bans checked closely to see if they are being too harsh.

 

I think it is disingenuous to suggest that forcing an individual to log in as a non-yellow in certain circumstances that this will limit their power or ability to issue sanctions. We use web tools that are not directly associated with our yellow name for most, but not all, our powers. What this would do, in fact, would make stealth yellows, players with yellow power but without the easy to see yellow jacket. I don’t think that would be any help at all. Best is if the run of the mill yellows follow the rules and only use bans as emergencies only.

 

Ben

[luke warm]

~snip~

We use web tools that are not directly associated with our yellow name for most, but not all, our powers. What this would do, in fact, would make stealth yellows, players with yellow power but without the easy to see yellow jacket. I don’t think that would be any help at all. Best is if the run of the mill yellows follow the rules and only use bans as emergencies only.

 

Ben

you're right, it wouldn't be any help *unless* something like henri's suggestion was taken.. different hats for different functions

[bglover]

I don't think you and Henri are right. I think what color someone happens to be wearing at that particular moment is relatively unimportant.

 

A yellow has his responsibilities whether wearing that color at that moment or not. If I were a yellow and I saw someone breaking a rule I would ban him even if I was logged in under a normal color. I don't see why this is such an issue.

 

Having said that, however, I think the real issue isn't what color someone is logged in under, but whether that yellow (or any yellow) acted RESPONSIBLY in barring club. (Or any other person, for that matter.)

 

Clearly, in this particular matter, given the facts as stated, there is reason to suspect ACBL acted responsibly and in accordance with her status as a yellow. She just happened to be signed in as ACBL rather than Gweny. I have no problem with that. I'd have done the same.

 

However, that scrutiny is applied to this one specific case only. Ecepal's post indicates she received a ban threat from some yellow for kibitzing a tourney when, in fact, she wasn't even logged into BBO at the time she was supposedly kibitzing. APPLYING THAT SAME SCRUTINY I would say the actions now were way past the point of appropriate-- even bordering on bullying. And, if there is a pattern of this sort of bullying by any specific yellows-- and let's be honest, that is the real concern here-- then, perhaps the entire situation regarding that yellow needs reviewing.

 

It is not hard to imagine some yellows abuse their privilege. We have to rely on Fred and Uday to ensure that any yellow who does so is kept under control. It seems, these days, to me, that more of these posts are hitting the forum for a reason. That reason is apparent-- some people think that control isn't being properly exercised.

[Rain]

Club said :

" Men rule while women drool " was construed as sexist remark and thus he got banned. He failed to mention that abuse had restored his status after review and thought, taking into consideration previous offenses too.

 

--------

 

As usual, Ben hits everything spot on, in my opinion.

 

--------

 

A non-abuse yellow, including yellow ACBL bans in emergencies, which will then be reviewed by abuse. This is the case here, as evidenced by the lengthening of ban to 2006, unfortunate though that may be for club.

 

---------

 

bglover said:

 

However, that scrutiny is applied to this one specific case only. Ecepal's post indicates she received a ban threat from some yellow for kibitzing a tourney when, in fact, she wasn't even logged into BBO at the time she was supposedly kibitzing. APPLYING THAT SAME SCRUTINY I would say the actions now were way past the point of appropriate-- even bordering on bullying. And, if there is a pattern of this sort of bullying by any specific yellows-- and let's be honest, that is the real concern here-- then, perhaps the entire situation regarding that yellow needs reviewing.

 

 

Topflight and aba club had some disagreements, and it was resolved with some agreements, including not kibitzing each other in some circumstances. This yellow probably thought ecepal broke the agreement, even if it were not so. This can happen easily if a user uses more than 1 user ID, and the other ID is shared by some other user. Is this confusing? Yeah, probably, the whole incident was.

 

-------

 

And lastly, I want to say:

 

Ben said: But that said, yellows still have to uphold the "niceness" standard. But we should not be fast to ban. I follow the rules stated earlier in this thread, as all yellows should. Any yellow banning people for non-emergency reasons, should probably have their bans checked closely to see if they are being too harsh.

 

 

Give that man a beer. Give that man a tiger.

 

:D

 

Rain

[luke warm]

I don't think you and Henri are right. I think what color someone happens to be wearing at that particular moment is relatively unimportant.

kinda like a state trooper eh? never off duty

 

A yellow has his responsibilities whether wearing that color at that moment or not. If I were a yellow and I saw someone breaking a rule I would ban him even if I was logged in under a normal color. I don't see why this is such an issue.

why? at any one time i believe there is an average of 5 yellows online... how hard is it to message one of them, or even email abuse?.. also, i don't believe you have the right to ban someone for breaking a rule... that seems a bit harsh

 

Ecepal's post indicates she received a ban threat from some yellow for kibitzing a tourney when, in fact, she wasn't even logged into BBO at the time she was supposedly kibitzing. APPLYING THAT SAME SCRUTINY I would say the actions now were way past the point of appropriate-- even bordering on bullying. And, if there is a pattern of this sort of bullying by any specific yellows-- and let's be honest, that is the real concern here-- then, perhaps the entire situation regarding that yellow needs reviewing.

i agree, this (on the face of it) appears to be an egregious abuse of power... whether ece was logged on or not doesn't matter a bit... there is no rule against kibbing that i know of, except maybe those imposed by certain TDs... this sounds like a situation where a player at the table she supposedly was kibbing did not want her there, and this person obviously carries weight with whatever yellow was involved... this alone would be enough for me to rethink the yellow's value to the organization, when she obviously plays favorites to this extent...

It seems, these days, to me, that more of these posts are hitting the forum for a reason. That reason is apparent-- some people think that control isn't being properly exercised.

yeah, and maybe it's just me but it appears that the questioning posts concern a *very* small minority of the yellows

[uday]

This sort of thread is usually a soapbox for someone who has been banned, who uses this forum to drum up "support" for his or her posiition. Sometimes, normal users get sucked in :D

 

There was an incestuous, juvenile, ugly, annoying, timeconsuming mess a while back between two BBO clubs with independent but worthy ambitions. Eventually, the mess got sorted out, and part of the resolution of that mess include(d) mutual restraining orders for people who suffer dramatically when their usernames are printed alonside those of their "enemies" on the screen.

 

Mind, we're talking about shifting allegiances, people sliding from club to club, crazy-seeming letters flying around, vicious allegations of BBO misbehaviour, nasty comebacks of real-world misbehaviour, accusations of cheating, accusations of illegal behaviour, acccusations of mental illness, dramatic departures, dramatic returns, and one memorable letter with more "Fxxx you" in it than the hairs on a dogs back.

 

Lots of drama, and these people all seem to share the same computers and usernames. Some of them still can't stand each other, and yell when one of the bad guys tries to spec the same vugraph match or whatever.

 

I nearly shut down both clubs at that time, since they couldnt occupy the same planet without consuming our ever scant BBO resources to arbitrate trivia day after day after tedious day.

 

Now, things are quiet, and thats the way we like them. IIRC, part of the "negotiated settlement" that lead to our own "Roadmap for peace" included a set of rules, each punishable with a ban if violated.

 

Most people are not under such strictures, and most people are not banned for breaking minor rules (except the rules about being abusive, which can easily lead to an immediate ban ).

[bglover]

This issue has not a thing to do with two clubs. Uday and Rain seem to want to tie this into that. It has to do with one issue only: Has someone abused their position as yellow?

 

Now, it apparently is true there is an incident where a yellow invoked the TopFlight name as a reason for closing a tourney (see thread:

http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...?showtopic=5091

for more info), but that is only periphery to the question at hand.

 

There has been a continual stream of posts regarding possible inapproprate bannings, ban threats done in the name of others, etc. And, often, this club thing is invoked, I fear, as a smoke screen to cover the real issue of whether the actions involved are appropriate period. It seems convenient more than anything else to blame the "club issue" than deal forthrightly with the real issue. I fear that Rain and Uday are trying to put this into "its just 2 clubs fighting" vein and make it seem, somehow, to be less than it really is.

 

This issue had nothing to do with that club fight and never has. It has to do with the appropriateness of behavior-- the fact the Topflight name was invoked by this yellow as a justification for one of these actions is incidental contact at best. I would personally appreciate it if things were dealt with honestly and not jumbled as to give the impression there is a lesser problem because it involves an old and ugly incident-- because frankly this has nothing to do with that incident in the least and anyone with two eyes open can see that.

[slothy]

Now, things are quiet, and thats the way we like them.  IIRC, part of the "negotiated settlement" that lead to our own "Roadmap for peace" included a set of rules, each punishable with a ban if violated.  

.

 

I was quite taken by the idea of Uday vacuuming in a global idealistic phenomenon to analogise a rather trivial series of scuffles and bar-room brawls on BBO :)

 

We've been watching this road-map to peace - i hope that it has more chance of resolution than the actual one where the current Head of State has shown sparse willingness to participate in it :)

 

(I could think of no other way to make a contemporary discreet commentary on today's election results :)) thanks Uday for the lead-in. I shall read your posts more carefully in future )

 

But i do agree with him. It does seem people sometimes come on the forum to 'close ranks' and drum up support for a situation where they feel they have been mistreated or wronged. Perhaps they feel they can get their point across more articulately, dont know....

 

But i still dont see where it is coming from. I am sure the BBO Management have a more sensitive finger on the pulse of what is happening on BBO than people seem to suggest and give them credit for. If somebody, whether a TD, a yellow or whoever in a position of assumed authority, is behaving in a way that makes a significant number of people question that persons integrity or competence, it would have percolated up to the appropriate people way before it comes here and they will have taken preliminary action before the first post, never mind the salvo of replies, is ever written.

 

To extend the cartographical metaphor (I was gonna mix this metaphor but nahhhh......) ...throwing up smoke-screens and shooting active participants in the foot aint going to get people round the table sooner (especially when a few of 'em have got their foot bandaged and have to hobble to the table :o ) ... and when you got a Roadmap to Peace you got an agenda and something you had wanted to fight for to materialise it: i just dont know what some of these people are fighting for!!

 

If anybody understands what the hell i was getting at in that last paragraph you done better than me :P

 

Alex Zapata

[club]

ouchhhhh the whole thing was so simple and it started a thread that started to unravel so long that everyone has forgotten the guy "who got banned till 2006". Ok the crux is this...is there way to get "unbanned"...can a simple sorry lets be friends do the trick?- Can i fall on my knees lok towards the east and chant prayers - will that be of help....now that we are in the season of christmas can forgiveness be asked for and clemency be granted....even democrats and republicans sometimes make up!!!!! Lets forgive and forget...easy for me to say since i want to get back in as i have lots of friends in there......so will the powers that be turn their charitable side and allow me in!!!!!!

 

clubdias

[inquiry]

ouchhhhh the whole thing was so simple and it started a thread that started to unravel

As a matter of fact, all the things you get into trouble for start as simple things that unravel and get blown up, out of your self-promoting agenda, that you drag into the public. The thing that started this thread is, in fact a perfect example, and what is happening here, is why we do not allow this kind of activity on the BBO. This is sort of an object lession, as it was.

 

Let you back in? No one here has the authority. You simply have to plead your case to abuse and be done wiht it. But since this HAS BECOME so public, my guess is your chance of getting back is less than if had been kept quiet. That is a guess, I don't know how abuse will rule, but you see the problem. How does it look if you show back up? Come here and make public statements is the way to get back in early? I think that sets a dangerous precident. That is just my opinon. Doing dirty laundry in public is never good for any side in disputes becasuse it hardens positions.

 

bEn

[jtfanclub]

Doing dirty laundry in public is never good for any side in disputes becasuse it hardens positions.

I confess that I never actually read the dirty laundry. I just looked at the facts (person ejected until 2006, ACBL did the ejecting), and ignored who was right or wrong in this specific case. Unless they decide to make an appeals committee and I'm on it, I don't see why I'd care. I can't possibly get enough information to judge.

 

I'm betting most of the people who replied to this did the same thing.

[luke warm]

alex, you wrote:

 

We've been watching this road-map to peace - i hope that it has more chance of resolution than the actual one where the current Head of State has shown sparse willingness to participate in it :)

 

(I could think of no other way to make a contemporary discreet commentary on today's election results B)) thanks Uday for the lead-in. I shall read your posts more carefully in future )

and then:

 

I am sure the BBO Management have a more sensitive finger on the pulse of what is happening on BBO than people seem to suggest and give them credit for.

i'm sure you can see how the 2nd quote, which on the face of it has nothing to do with the first, can be used against you... i agree that it's highly likely bbo management has a far more sensitive finger on all sorts of pulses... they are in possession of far more intelligence (information) than we are

 

by the same token, the heads of state of which you speak might, just might, be in possession of more intelligence about any number of situations than you, or i, or any lay person... so perhaps the fingers they have on the various pulses means some of the decisions they make, even those with which you disagree, might give them more insight into a problem than you "..seem to suggest and give them credit for."

[the hog]

I don't know what this guy did, if anything - but a 12 month ban seems excessive, is it really till 2006? We had a case here where someone got 12 months for physically assaulting someone. That was probably realistic, but its hard to see how you could do that in the online game.