Unwanted kibs

[Gerardo]

Richard:

Law 76A4 says "Consideration for Players: A spectator must not in any way disturb a player". No right to ban (unless just being there is a disturbance), no limits of any kind. Heard that before, though, maybe supplemental regulation, or tradition, or old Laws.

 

Phil:

About preventing a enemy to join a table, please don't. Join and misbehave in any way, then I promise to kick.

 

Certainly in an online environment, don't think just being there in to disturb (talking to the table is, though). Personally, I don't think at f2f just being there is to disturb, particularly if kibitzing other player at table (following excluded, that would make it a disturbance).

 

If you take the time to monitor the kibitzer list to see if there is someone you don't like, you are disturbing yourself IMO. If such person talk publicly or privately to you while you're playing, then I agree (ignore once?, ask to stop, call yellow).

[the hog]

It is a pity that posters such as Septic don't read posts logically and comment on them. Dave - Mrdct - has it right.

 

"I probably would only ever use the function once or twice (that is not true, we had that function in yahoo and I loved using it) it is a great function and one I am sure a lot of people would like it."

 

I find the above comment a sad reflection Septic!

[epeeist]

I must be missing something... :) After reading this whole thread, I still don't understand the point.

 

In the main bridge club (or other clubs), whoever starts the table can set whether or not kibitzers require permission to join the table, and whether or not kibitzers may chat with players. If it's your table, refuse to let kibitzers you dislike watch you and set chat to allowed or not. If it's someone else's table, it's their privilege to let whomever they want watch. I'll concede, in the situation where the table host allows someone to kibitz, then realizes there was a mistake, or the host wants to remove the person, there might be a problem, but is that really a common occurence? You can always reset the table to turn off chat allowed, or start a new table and not let that kibitzer join. An annoyance, I'll grant you, but I would think the kibitzer would get the point.

 

In tournaments, the TD chooses whether or not kibitzers are allowed. Play in tournaments with rules you like or start your own. Again, I'll concede, there are situations where you might not _like_ to be watched by a particular individual, but if they can't talk to you or any other players, what's the big deal? Unless you think there's cheating going on e.g. by using Messenger, which is another sort of problem entirely.

 

By the way, personally I prefer tournaments which allow kibitzers (both as a player and a kibitzer). It also allows me to vent sometimes, sending the kibitzers messages which (hopefully) are amusing B) Like in an individual, "Hmm, I always thought 2♣ openings were forcing in SAYC...guess I'm just not an 'expert' like my partner...LOL".

[sceptic]

Actually dropping the c from my name is the sort of thing that I find sad Ron, it is deliberate and very childish :), but there we go that reflects on your character (or lack of it) not mine.

 

I still stand by my personal thoughts that yes I would love to be able to boot some of the unpleasants from my table and I did read the original post.

 

BUT I see Bens point about causing a bad environment and I am willing to agree maybe that is why I come here and not yahoo as he is right. it is a worse environment (in my opinion)

 

And we do have the option to Black people out, which does work to the extent that we don't have to listen to them.

 

As you are probably aware from my posts I am not the most fluent of authors and some times I don't explain myself as well as I would like to, but there you go, that does not make me a bad person haha.

 

Doofix was refering to tourneys, as he quoted about, when the director was called, I have the misfortune of generalising my statements

[doofik]

Indeed epeeist, you are missing something and I don't mean it to sound serious :)

 

The problem that I am addressing concerns of unwanted kibs. This is not about any allegations of cheating as being a novice I'd not know someone's cheating if it hit me in the face. Besides, I find constant reminder that people cheat, a real turnoff. I'd rather live in lala land and imagine that people just play that great.

 

Back to unwanted kibs. My issue is this:

- a kib shows up at the table where you are playing that you just cannot stomach. The kib doesn't talk to you, but from your previous encounters you know what's happening at the gallery. You go on playing at the table and ... the beat goes on. That's the pacifist version and I'll try to present a picture of what I'm talking about:

 

As a gracious host, I've opened a new table with permission for kibs required, which stops your game every 2 to 5 seconds and either you admit a kib or you might as well kiss the game or your concentration good bye. And your annoying kib wants in and I mean THE KIB WANTS IN. While you're playing with "admittance denied" your action at the table stops. Now your partner makes a dynamite lead that sets the contract, you're the only ones setting it. Opps aren't idiots, they can see that there's silence from you and now they leave. They don't have a clue that all of your pauses were consumed by this one kib, worse still, there's nothing you can say to make this situation better.

 

So now you've learned your lesson and you set up a table and this time you don't have a permission required for kibs and your happy annoying kib is right back at your table. What is the recourse other than crying to a yellow?

 

I understand the tourney settings, but this is my private table. I've put it together, I've gathered some friends and all I want to do is to have fun with them and with the kibs who are interacting with us. What is wrong with this picture?

 

Jola

[the hog]

"Actually dropping the c from my name is the sort of thing that I find sad Ron, it is deliberate and very childish , but there we go that reflects on your character (or lack of it) not mine."

 

The quote below was taken from a post from Ben: 8.33 4th Nov

 

"Don't want that, sorry doofik, sorry septic, sorry other supporters... just mark them enemy and get on with it.. if you ignore them, eventually they will go away. "

 

You owe me an apology, Sceptic.

[inquiry]

Well, i will apologize to sceptic.. typing is not one of my better points. I apologize for mispelling your name. I don't know about Ron, by mine was an accident. I have edited the post ron quoted to spell the name correctly.

 

Ben

[sceptic]

Ben you have nothing to apologise for LOL, I am sure yours was unintentional.

 

Ron, you are welcome to a heart felt apology, if you care to explain why?

 

 

1/. did you mis spell my name twice accidently?

 

2/. was it that I just singled you out and not everyone else?

 

3/. another reason?

 

I could hold a poll and see who thinks I should apologise to you and who thinks you should apologise to me for calling me septic?

 

But that would be childish and I would not do something so silly (mind you it would be fun)

[EarlPurple]

Isn't the English word skeptic with a k ?

 

But not everyone on here speaks English well and wouldn't necessarily know what septic means anyway, or that the name might be insulting.

 

Perhaps there should be better guidelines of what is allowed in kib-chat? I think the fun of kib-chat is to discuss the hands being played. This may lead, on occasion, to criticising the players, but it is not meant as a direct attack on the player.

 

Everyone makes errors. We laugh more when the player who makes the error is otherwise an expert. We do that to professional sportsmen too.

 

That's why most kibitzers prefer to go to watch the star players. There may, however, be occasions, where we want to watch other players to assess them - we may be considering partnering such a player ourselves, and want to see how they play first.

 

I have no idea what spectators are saying about me when I play, but if I make an error and get a grilling for it in the gallery I probably deserve it. And it won't bother me, unless the spectators then don't around broadcasting this error to the world as large, thus telling everyone what a useless player I am to have made such an error and to avoid partnering me, and I don't think anyone ever goes to such extremes. In fact if I post a hand based on records I only show player's names if they have made a skilful play, not on their errors, with perhaps a rare exception that I am doing a match report, and all the players need to be listed.

 

Anyone who doesn't believe me should go and read my articles on Brighton 1994-97 on my website. Can you see anywhere where I insulted players there?

[EarlPurple]

Adding to that, by the way, it is very easy to privately "kibitz" a player without them knowing by looking up their hand records on the online hand viewer site.

 

Is that going to be considered abuse too?

[doofik]

Earl,

 

You're missing the point. The point is that I, as a player, have no rights to have a table with an unwanted kib. My options are:

 

1. admit him;

2. set up permission for kibs which really is a pain to the host; or

3. ban all kibs.

 

And this scenario is just not quite fair to me as a player.

 

Jola

 

P.S. Oh, and I forgot about the run to yellows option :)

[EarlPurple]

So you want an option to automatically ban enemies?

 

That seems a feasible option but to apply to the host only, though.

 

By the way, there are options to make other lists on BBO, so perhaps you could have different types of ban-lists. There are players I want to mark that I don't want to partner but that doesn't mean I want to exclude them from kibitzing at my table or ignore their chat, etc.

 

So maybe a "ban people from list <x>" option.

[doofik]

Earl,

 

If I wrote any plainer what I'm after, you'd still take it to a side road. Perhaps my English is bad or I'm not thinking straight. Please keep to the point. Whether I'd exercise the right as a player remains to be seen, but what's certain is that I don't seem to have rights (yes, I know I'm a guest on BBO etc. this is preemptive so you won't even go there :) )

 

Jola

[uday]

Doofik, you have the means to do what you want already

 

set up permission for kibs which really is a pain to the host

[doofik]

"As a gracious host, I've opened a new table with permission for kibs required, which stops your game every 2 to 5 seconds and either you admit a kib or you might as well kiss the game or your concentration good bye. And your annoying kib wants in and I mean THE KIB WANTS IN. While you're playing with "admittance denied" your action at the table stops. Now your partner makes a dynamite lead that sets the contract, you're the only ones setting it. Opps aren't idiots, they can see that there's silence from you and now they leave. They don't have a clue that all of your pauses were consumed by this one kib, worse still, there's nothing you can say to make this situation better."

 

Uday, if I may, remove the freeze when admitting players or kibs. That certainly will solve the problem imho.

 

:)

Jola

[hrothgar]

There is a very basic point that has stumped me throughout this thread:

 

Why does anyone give a rats ass if other folks are watching them in real time?

In all seriousness, it doesn't matter...

 

Just disengage your ego and let it all pass by.

[doofik]

Hrothgar,

 

Every issue discussed on the forum can be approached the same way "who gives a rats ass..." Some issues are more important than others but everyone who starts a topic appears to care about that given issue. I don't quite understand what stumps you and what doesn't.

 

Jola

[Brandal]

Hrothgar,

 

Every issue discussed on the forum can be approached the same way "who gives a rats ass..." Some issues are more important than others but everyone who starts a topic appears to care about that given issue. I don't quite understand what stumps you and what doesn't.

 

Jola

Who gives a rats ass "who gives a rats ass"?

 

:(

 

I truly hope this individual who's bothering you will eventually find something else to do doofik,we are guests@Fred's house,and stalkers can take their business elsewhere

 

:)

[inquiry]

Well.. i think we have beaten this thead to death. Only uday can provide a way for all users to block a specific kibitzer, and he will make a decision on what he should or shouldn't do with this regard.

 

In most cases where a kibitzer may need to be banned, current methods handle it... a table host can require permission, a player can simply ask them to leave (that usually works), you can mark them as enemy and not hear them, you can call a yellow if they are being abusive or otherwise disruptive, -- who will handle them like any ohter rule breaker.. And finally, if they are a quiet stalker, you can report to a yellow and let me see if they can resolve the problem.

 

If you simply can't stand a kibitzer, and none of the above work for you, you can try the following...

 

1) move your table to inside a private club (these hands don't show up on myhands site btw, so no stealth kibitzin either).

2) make the table invisible (can't join what you can't see)

3) get a new nickname the kibitzer doesn't know

4) don't play while kibitzer is on line

5) Go to someohter game site

6) Do as richard suggested, and disengage your ego and let it all pass by

 

None of those ideal for any individual, but in the long run, it will be better than starting the hostilities associated with kibitzers being zapped by random players at a table... I already hear complaints when host will not allow certain players to join their tables, and of course I get A TON OF COMPLAINTS about host booting players.. just imagine the enviroment where any of four players can boot any of dozen of kibitzers... I will probably give up my yellowness if that day ever comes.....

 

Ben

[bglover]

Dang, you keep dangling that carrot and yet....

[doofik]

Ben,

 

As it is the tool to control your own table is already available. The only objection I have to it is that freezes the host while playing around with admittance or denying admittance. That does not bode well for the rest of the players nor should opps and partner be subjected to it. Freezes sometimes totally do away with my concentration, they also may get opps tired of it and they'll leave in search of a more 'speedy' action. So the way I see it, you don't need to give up your yellow status. All it takes, the way I see it, is to remove the 'freeze' from any action such as admitting players or kibs.

 

Regards,

Jola

[Dwingo]

Adding this functionality to satisfy the needs of a few individuals will further complicate the user interface. Lets remember that many of the people who log into BBO are bascially bridge players and have very little clue of computers.

 

Sticking to the 80/20 rule , any new controversial functionality should satisy the majority of the BBO population

[sceptic]

who gives a rats ass?

 

Obviously Doofik does and we sould respect that.

 

I dont think it is his ego, I actually believe he or she is genuine and finds someone a pain in the butt'.

 

as for paretto's law 80 % of all statistics are 20% out and the other 20% are 80% out, so we should not take much heed of the mathamatics.

 

Boot on sight buttons would be great, but Ben has a point, it would make it a difference, sadly not a positive one.

 

At the end of the day Doofik learn to ignore the idiots, if you have them blacked and on ignore enemies, does it really matter what they say, if you ignore them they will eventually go away, they always do