Two suggestions

[tartucone]

Good afternoon,

in my humble opinion there are two big problems to solve for a smoother

and more correct game:

the first is the too great power given to the host which can,

regardless of is level, remove a player for no plausible reason; it

must be limited.

the second is that you have to restore the function you introduced of

removing a blocked player.For a better BBO.

Greetings,

Marco Bianchi

[TylerE]

Why "must it be limited?"

 

If you to be the boss, create your own table.

[YAYDAY0]

I agree with Marco Bianci's suggestion that the host's power should be limited. I have been removed from many tables for reasons unknown to me. Many times I have been removed when my partner and I are winning a many hands and host does not like it. Marco uses the word "limited" because there are times when the host needs to remove a player from the table when he does not play or respond and keeps everybody waiting too long or because he is on his cellphone the game cannot continue. Also the host should be able to remove players who lose their tempers during play and use bad language in messages.

Elly Yaydayo

[fishermanz]

I am in support of this suggestion. It is simple good manners to advise a player of things which are upsetting the host. Continued infringement will justify removal. While on the subject of manners I wish all players have at least a minimum convention card. If I was running a club this would be a pre requisite for play. Perhaps this can be added to the software! In addition if you are going to leave advise everyone a hand before leaving - it is just good manners to do these things!!

[tartucone]

Why "must it be limited?"

 

If you to be the boss, create your own table.

Try joining a table and getting kicked out for no reason

[chigal64]

I have been asking for profiles since I started playing here. They should be a must. Also the cc's dont tell you who has filled it out so that doesnt help at all.

[ThomasRush]

It's not an easy thing to implement, but it would be interesting if there were a "host boot statistic" for hosts just like there's a "completed tournament" percentage for payers.

 

But seriously? How do you figure when someone boots people excessively?

 

In the end, if you don't want to be booted for no reason, be the table host.

[barmar]

A number of years ago we implemented tracking of host boots. If someone booted too often, we temporarily removed their hosting privilege. Conversely, if a user was booted frequently, we temporarily blocked them from joining tables.

 

I don't remember the details, but we disabled it because it didn't work as well as we hoped. These kinds of things are tricky to automate, because it's hard for the software to distinguish reasonable vs unreasonable booting; it just assumed that if you do it frequently, you must be the problem.

[tartucone]

I agree with Marco Bianci's suggestion that the host's power should be limited. I have been removed from many tables for reasons unknown to me. Many times I have been removed when my partner and I are winning a many hands and host does not like it. Marco uses the word "limited" because there are times when the host needs to remove a player from the table when he does not play or respond and keeps everybody waiting too long or because he is on his cellphone the game cannot continue. Also the host should be able to remove players who lose their tempers during play and use bad language in messages.

Elly Yaydayo

Hello, you have perfectly interpreted what I wanted to mean. If we want BBO to grow not so much in user numbers as in user capacity, we need to take away from these people who for no reason throw you out of the game the power to do so.

[pescetom]

A number of years ago we implemented tracking of host boots. If someone booted too often, we temporarily removed their hosting privilege. Conversely, if a user was booted frequently, we temporarily blocked them from joining tables.

 

I don't remember the details, but we disabled it because it didn't work as well as we hoped.

I would be interested to know why it didn't work well, even with the simplistic implementation you describe.

 

 

These kinds of things are tricky to automate, because it's hard for the software to distinguish reasonable vs unreasonable booting; it just assumed that if you do it frequently, you must be the problem.

I don't see it as tricky to automate this better. All the software has to do is require a reason to boot, which can be collated automatically against both booter and bootee: then later it can be evaluated manually if certain thresholds are exceeded. Even just the fact of having to give a reason and knowing that behaviour is monitored would already have a deterrent effect on serial booters.