[Creeksider]

I see the sense of having tournaments that exclude runners. However, the new system apparently treats new users or infrequent users -- anyone with fewer than 10 tournaments, or (I assume) with fewer than 10 in the last 30 days -- the same as someone who bails from tournaments. What's more, the "no runners" restriction has been placed on some of the tournaments that are most suitable to new or infrequent users, such as the "Express - Free Automated Fun" tourneys. The new user is in a catch 22: can't enter these tourneys because he has fewer than 10, and can't get to 10 because he can't enter these tourneys.

My suggestion: instead of treating everyone with fewer than 10 tourneys as a runner, treat everyone who has bailed one or fewer times as a non-runner (allowing for one emergency or mistake by a newbie). Either that or take the runners restriction off the Free Automated Fun tournaments where it isn't as important as in other tourneys due to automated robot replacement. Otherwise you're putting a big obstacle in front of people who are new here and trying to get into tournament play.

[fred]

The fundamental reason why this is a problem is because we have no way to identify the actual people behind a given user ID and no reliable way to get rid of or "punish" those who behave badly.

If someone using a given ID behaves badly, we can block that ID from logging in or restrict the priviledges of that ID, but there is nothing we can effectively do to prevent that person from creating another ID (please don't bother telling me why I am wrong about this - whatever method you propose will have a relatively easy loophole around it and I don't want to get involved in posting the details of these loopholes). If an abuser resurfaces with a new ID and if new IDs are not restricted from certain privileges, it is all but certain that the pattern of abuse will continue.

One advantage of the current approach is that abusers are forced to improve their behavior if they want to continue to be able to play in tournaments.

As you point out, the disadvantage of this approach is that new BBO members who are destined to become good citizens on our site have a harder time establishing themselves as such.

It is unfortunate that we (as the people who run BBO) have been forced to make what we think is a "least of evils" decision in this area, but I suppose in a sense this is part of the price that all BBO members pay for having access to a free online bridge site - this issue would likely be a non-issue if we charged a membership fee for basic access to BBO, but that is not a "solution" that we are prepared to consider.

Even if you do not agree with our decision, I hope you now understand why we made it. This whole area is very new and it is not unlikely that we will refine our current policies as we learn more about the impact of what we have done and as we receive feedback from our members.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[nige1]

Sorry double-post again

[nige1]

I've been a member for years but don't play often. Am I banned from playing in tournaments? If this sort of thing is judged a problem, then possible improvements would be

• to keep runner-records forever rather than just the last month.
• to run special coyote tournaments where runners could rehabilitate themselves. beep beep

[fred]

nige1, on 2010-November-20, 11:02, said:

I've been a member for years but don't play often. Am I banned from playing in tournaments? If this sort of thing is judged a problem, then a possible improvements would be

• to keep runner-records forever rather than just the last month.
• to run special coyote tournaments where runners could rehabilitate themselves. beep beep

This new feature we are referring to is an option that only applies when tournament hosts choose to use it.

At this point in time most tournaments hosts are not using this option for most of the tournaments they run.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[diana_eva]

I think the easiest way to build a completion rate (or to increase your rate) is to register as a sub. That way you don't have to play 10 whole tourneys and you don't have to spend time checking which tourney is restricted to what. Just hang around waiting to be invited.

[hotShot]

I really hope that someone who is playing a tourney once a week on his/her BBO night can earn a completion rate.

[Zelandakh]

Fred, might I suggest a way of protecting from abusers creating new IDs while not penalising those who complete tournies when entered but do not play in many. Simply treat the first month (or longer period if desired) as a trial period where the completion rate is zero by default but thereafter make it 100% by default.

[jillybean]

diana_eva, on 2010-November-20, 13:21, said:

I think the easiest way to build a completion rate (or to increase your rate) is to register as a sub. That way you don't have to play 10 whole tourneys and you don't have to spend time checking which tourney is restricted to what. Just hang around waiting to be invited.

Don;t subs need to meet the completion rate requirement?

fwiw, the completion rate filter makes it a lot easier to run tournaments, there are considerably less subs required.

[Creeksider]

I can understand better than most the frustration of dealing with persistent bad actors as I happen to run a website where we sometimes deal with these issues. Measures used to deal with the problem always involve tradeoffs, and sometimes require fine-tuning. The following thoughts are offered in the hope they might lead to helpful adjustments, and not as criticism or complaint.

I'm new here but fairly serious about the game. I expect that after more practice and study I'll want to participate in tournaments that attract the better players but I don't think I'm on that level yet. I play some robot tournaments, but playing with a live partner is a different challenge. The "Automated Fun" tourneys seem like a good way to get my feet wet, but now I'm closed off from the free ones. And I haven't found an alternative. I've had no luck getting into other tourneys that cost less than $1.00: either I don't qualify or I'm the only one registered. I've signed up to substitute a couple of times and waited a long time without being called on. Robot tournaments don't count toward completion rate.

As far as I can see, the only way I can establish a completion percentage is to pony up $1.00 ten times. After that I can play the free tourneys that block runners. Paying $10 to get started in tournament play isn't a big deal for me, but it seems odd that I have to pay before I can play free, and I have to play in tournaments with more experienced and skillful players (who are likely to be frustrated having me as a partner) before I can play in the automated fun tourneys that are better suited to my skill level.

If I understand correctly, those who play tourneys once or twice a week are also being grouped with runners, because they have fewer than 10 results within the preceding 30 days. Those folks don't have the option of paying $1.00 ten times to establish a completion rate because they still wouldn't have 10 results within 30 days.

I don't know the answer but I suggest you think creatively about how to solve the problem. Maybe instead of being free to all, the automated fun tourneys should be free to those who've established an acceptable completion rate and $.25 to those who haven't. Or maybe they should be free to everyone who's established a BB$ account and doesn't have a bad completion rate. One way or another you should seek a way to avoid snubbing new users or long-time occasional users.

[Creeksider]

One more quick comment. While it may seem obvious to you that bailing from a tournament is bad behavior, my guess is that many of those who do this simply aren't aware of the problems it causes. They may figure that with robots or substitutes standing ready to take their place there's no need to continue playing after they no longer care to do so. One very simple measure you could adopt to address this problem is to put a bold statement in the window that appears prior to registration for tournaments other than robot tourneys saying "Please do not register for this tournament unless you intend to complete all the hands" or words to that effect.

[pooltuna]

I am surprised that Fred has not made it clear that a new member is a time-based rather than number-of-tournments-played based decision. Perhaps he thinks that is implicit in the description i.e. "new" means just fell off the turnip truck.

[nigel_k]

Could this be fixed with a joining fee? For example, pay $10 at the start and then you can play as much as you want in the 'free' tournaments. Obviously if you run too much you would be excluded and could create a new ID but would have to pay another $10.

[Bbradley62]

pooltuna, on 2010-November-22, 10:00, said:

I am surprised that Fred has not made it clear that a new member is a time-based rather than number-of-tournments-played based decision. Perhaps he thinks that is implicit in the description i.e. "new" means just fell off the turnip truck.

"New", in the context of tournament completion rate, is someone who has played fewer than 10 tournaments in the past 30 days. Nothing about being new to BBO implies being a bumpkin.

[pooltuna]

Bbradley62, on 2010-November-23, 05:31, said:

"New", in the context of tournament completion rate, is someone who has played fewer than 10 tournaments in the past 30 days. Nothing about being new to BBO implies being a bumpkin.

surely this definition will change as there will be people out there who don't play 10 tournaments a month but have been using BBO for years. So what happens if someone goes on a hiatus of 30 days do they instantly become newbys? I would think not!

[zenko]

pooltuna, on 2010-November-23, 08:17, said:

surely this definition will change as there will be people out there who don't play 10 tournaments a month but have been using BBO for years. So what happens if someone goes on a hiatus of 30 days do they instantly become newbys? I would think not!

So team matches do not count as tournaments? If not maybe they should, that way you can build your history for free. Nevertheless, I am very much in favor of this, turney/team organizers need as much support as we can give them! Now if we can somehow make them use the team match organizing feature on the web version that would awesome. I love playing team matches but often give up on waiting for one. I suspect many people gave up on organizing matches because of so many runners.

BTW it would be great to be able sign up for team match while playing on a table. Maybe the solution is to add an additional semi-automatic chat "type" that can be used only for advertising for team matches, that you can choose to enable or not, in similar fashion as starting of vugraph, or notification if your friend logs in. That way I do not have to sit idle waiting for the right team match for me to come along.

[Bbradley62]

It appears that there are four small groups to consider: low-rated (in terms of completion rate) players, legitimate new BBO members, cheaters creating new names, and members who play few tournaments.

How about defining the "rating period" as the shorter of (1) 30 days, and (2) 10 tournaments for each player, while using total history for players with less than 10 recorded tournaments, and setting newbies' initial completion rate (0 completed out of 0 played) = 100%.

This would allow low-rated players a reasonable opportunity to rehabilitate their ratings; would allow legitimate new BBO members the chance to play all tournaments; would require cheaters to immediately behave using their new names to establish good ratings; and would allow loyal but infrequent players to maintain accurate ratings.

I haven't looked at the BBO TOS lately, but if it requires members to have only one name, then cheaters can be dealt with as TOS violators, but that's a tangent.

[bilgo]

I am a member of BBo since it's first days, I think I used to play here when there where 10 people in the lobby including Fred...
Lately I have experienced a lot of problems with my internet supplier which caused a great many crashes. This made me change a supplier, and as of 2 weeks my connection is great and I never crash any more....but... there are a lot of tourneys I am banned from, and it is very frustrating. I hereby declare I never in my life intentionally left a tourney, why should I be put into the same group with runners? I think it is very unjust.

[georgeac]

bilgo, on 2010-December-05, 12:10, said:

I am a member of BBo since it's first days, I think I used to play here when there where 10 people in the lobby including Fred...
Lately I have experienced a lot of problems with my internet supplier which caused a great many crashes. This made me change a supplier, and as of 2 weeks my connection is great and I never crash any more....but... there are a lot of tourneys I am banned from, and it is very frustrating. I hereby declare I never in my life intentionally left a tourney, why should I be put into the same group with runners? I think it is very unjust.

it is unfortunate that many of the bbo tds are quick with the blacklist button when someone goes red and does not come back. they should only use it after many times of someone leaving multiple tourneys or after very obvious times like bidding 7nt randomly.

[jillybean]

georgeac, on 2010-December-05, 19:35, said:

it is unfortunate that many of the bbo tds are quick with the blacklist button when someone goes red and does not come back. they should only use it after many times of someone leaving multiple tourneys or after very obvious times like bidding 7nt randomly.

I’m not willing to track runners to see if their disconnection is accidental or a repetitive behavior, and I don’t expect anyone who hosts tournaments would. The extra work that would be required to protect a few who have legitimate disconnections is significant. If anything, the onus should be on the player to contact the host when they get back online and explain that they were disconnected unintentionally.

The bigger problem is that banning runners does not solve the problem. The runner can simply create a new ID and start again. This new filter, while not perfect is imo the best new feature introduced in a long time.