[mrdct]

With an increasingly congested vugraph schedule where it is sometimes difficult to rustle-up the requisite number of commentators, it may be a useful feature for vugraph operators to be able to "ungag all" and effectively make it a free-for-all for spectators to comment on proceedings.

Often when in the main bridge club or in a teams match involving a few high-profile players there are 50-100 kibitzers and quite interesting conversations ensue in the form of "chat to kibitzers". Only very rarely have I seen any rude or inappropriate comments and there would be in-built safety in that all vugraph chat is archived so any people making offensive comments can be followed-up through the abuse process.

Having free-for-all commentary shouldn't become the norm, but would be an option for operators and convenors of less-mainstream events. It could also be a useful option when undertaking two-table coverage whereby the open room can have the "official BBO commentators" and the closed room can be a free-for-all.

What do you all think?

[Walddk]

What is "less mainstream-events"? Who is going to decide what is and what is not? How do you think the organisers will feel about it if they are deemed "less mainstream"?

I will object as strongly as possible, but I do not make the final decision. Maybe my opinion will have some weight though. I hope so.

Roland

[hrothgar]

In all honesty, I'd probably prefer silence to cacophony...

[jillybean]

Please no!
You’ve only got to kibitz at a popular table in the MBC where a few people have decided to enlighten the rest to see this would not be a popular option!
Less commentary from selected people is preferable to a free for all.

jillybean2

[luke warm]

uh huh, what richard and kat said....

[Echognome]

I haven't thought about it much, but being one that tries to encourage choice, perhaps a compromise could be reached. That is to say, suppose there was an option where you could turn on all comments or only listen to the viewgraph commentators. I would think of this like either having lobby chat on or off. You could still ignore enemies and rude people. You could set the default to be off, but those interested in making conversation could have that option.

Of course I have no idea about the technical difficulties associated with this. Also, you wouldn't have to distinguish between events and perhaps there would be less pressure to get commentators for every event.

Just my tuppence.

[mrdct]

Walddk, on May 10 2005, 06:25 PM, said:

What is "less mainstream-events"? Who is going to decide what is and what is not? How do you think the organisers will feel about it if they are deemed "less mainstream"?

The event organisers and/or vugraph operators themselves would make that decision. There would not be anyone at BBO or elsewhere determining which events are worthy of official BBO commentators or not.

What I am proposing is additional functionality that gives vugraph operators a completely voluntary and easy means of getting some commentary underway if and when they find themselves in a situation where scheduled commentators haven't turned up or when they are running an unscheduled vugraph presentation.

I have personally found myself in both of those situations and found it quite a hassle to ask around for my friends to join in the commentary while trying to follow the bidding play. As many of the regular official BBO commentators know me, it wasn't too hard for me - but for other operators it may be a different story.

If any spectators would prefer silence to anarchy, they can simply turn the commentary off with click of their mouse.

Perhaps the ideal functionality (as suggested by Echognome) would be for all spectators being able to chat and make comments, but users can opt to "ignore public vugraph chat" and just see the "official vugraph commentary". A number of online cricket sites (fairfax for example) do exactly this.

I know there has been some previous discussion under the "suggestions for the software" section about having different "chat channels" during vugraph broadcasts (such as multiple languages, beginner-focussed commentary and free-for-all) which is a strategy I would support and commend.

It's all about offering the users of BBO vugraph (spectators, operators and convenors) more choice, functionality and flexibility.

[Chamaco]

mrdct, on May 11 2005, 04:25 AM, said:

If any spectators would prefer silence to anarchy, they can simply turn the commentary off with click of their mouse.

Perhaps the ideal functionality (as suggested by Echognome) would be for all spectators being able to chat and make comments, but users can opt to "ignore public vugraph chat" and just see the "official vugraph commentary". A number of online cricket sites (fairfax for example) do exactly this.

I think such an added functionality would not bother anyone:
Roland and the other commentators could easily turn off the "Viewgraph Public Chat", as well as other spectators who do not care about it.

At first, this sounds to me like a "no-lose" options (e.g. if one does not like it, he has the ption of shutting it off).

[nikos59]

Why not?

In any case, a pilot phase will show if the result
is unbearable cacophony or a useful and interesting
alternative.

n

[Chamaco]

nikos59, on May 11 2005, 04:57 PM, said:

Why not?

In any case, a pilot phase will show if the result
is unbearable cacophony or a useful and interesting
alternative.

n

Nikos,
all I am saying is that - if the cacophony can be turned off with a click, as the poster suggested - anyone bothered could simply be spared from the cacophony, clicking an "IGNORE PUBLIC VIEWGRAPH CHAT" button, while those interested could use the facility.

Is there anything wrong ?

Personally, the "only" loss is the effort of creating such channel facility by Fred and Uday, and I do believe such an option is 1st priority right now :-)

But aside from that, I see nothing wrong in it.

[hrothgar]

Chamaco, on May 11 2005, 08:06 PM, said:

nikos59, on May 11 2005, 04:57 PM, said:

Why not?

In any case, a pilot phase will show if the result
is unbearable cacophony or a useful and interesting
alternative.

n

Nikos,
all I am saying is that - if the cacophony can be turned off with a click, as the poster suggested - anyone bothered could simply be spared from the cacophony, clicking an "IGNORE PUBLIC VIEWGRAPH CHAT" button, while those interested could use the facility.

Is there anything wrong ?

Personally, the "only" loss is the effort of creating such channel facility by Fred and Uday, and I do believe such an option is 1st priority right now :-)

But aside from that, I see nothing wrong in it.

Consider the following:

Differentiating between "public" chat and "official" chat is simply a special case of multiple channels...

Doesn't make much sense to differentiate between these issues.

[csdenmark]

No programming is needed. Via public chat rooms available for all of us we can just open and connect. Then everybody can comment whatever they like.

- reading/writing
- Audio/speaking
- Webcam

Then comments for a match can be for many languages - just open a chat room for each language.

If only a smaller group of persons knowing each other then connecting to Messenger might be more appropriate.

[shoeless]

Guess I might put my energy into inviting more experts to commentate first - seems to me one need not look much further than these forums and the top 5 in the BPO to find folks who could make a worthy contribution and fill out the commentator ranks.

[bearmum]

nikos59, on May 12 2005, 05:57 AM, said:

Why not?

In any case, a pilot phase will show if the result
is unbearable cacophony or a useful and interesting
alternative.

n

As a person who only occasionally watches VuGraph( due to time restraints rather than indifference ) may I ask is it OK to pose questions to "chat to kibitzers?" as sometimes I would like to know (for example) what system the players are using (in the vain hope that I might begin to learn some of the other systems out there)

The other thing is -- I guess that all the players are using screens and therefore I would find it enlightening to get the "alrets" they have to use at the table (if I understand the way screens operate)

AS to a blizzard of "chat" maybe it would be better to have the ability to swithc it on of off

[Walddk]

bearmum, on May 13 2005, 03:00 AM, said:

The other thing is -- I guess that all the players are using screens and therefore I would find it enlightening to get the "alrets" they have to use at the table (if I understand the way screens operate)

In most of the high level tournaments we broadcast on BBO screens are in use. As far as the alerting procedure goes, it works in exactly the same way as here. Self-alerting is used. You show your screenmate the alert card or put it on the bid to tell him/her that this is not necessarily a natural bid.

Then he can ask for a wrtitten explanation if he wishes. Note written, since talk might be too loud. The 2 players on the other side of the screen are not supposed to hear/see the explanation.

When the bidding tray comes back to the other side of the screen, the convential bid will be alerted once again by partner. Then his screenmate can ask for a written explanation if he wants to.

Our operators during BBO broadcasts are requested to highlight a bid if it is alerted at the table, but they don't always remember. Then our commentators, in most cases, will tell that this and that call are conventional and explain them to the audience (if a system card is available that is).

Even if that is not the case, most commentators can spot when a bid doesn't have its natural meaning.

The only difference between alerting in real life with screens and on BBO is that when you self-alert here, both oppenents can see that alert. Therefore, partner will not alert too and only explain if asked.

Hops this is clear and makes sense.

Roland

[adf]

Here's a spectator's viewpoint. I've occasionally wanted to comment on a hand and have sent private chat to one of the commentators, who ignored it. I wonder if we could make it easier for them to pass it on--right click on the chat and select "share with room." Then it would appear to the whole room as my comment, but only when approved by a commentator.

I also wanted to remind people of the many inappropriate accusations chatted to VG commentators when Bocchi/Duboin had a disaster against Lanzarotti/Buratti in the Cavendish (and my apologies to anyone whose name I've spelled wrong). Think about what things might have been like if cacaphony were turned on.

[Echognome]

adf - so if I understand correctly, you are against free speech?

Ok a bit more seriously, the commentators already do some filtering of comments. I have a couple of my 'favourite' commentators that seem to pass on my suggestions and tidbits. However, I can't see the harm in people having a choice. They can either listen to commentators only or to listen to everyone. The idea of having further choices of languages would be great. I can't imagine this being an issue with anything other than how much of a pain it would be to program.

[Walddk]

adf, on May 13 2005, 06:01 AM, said:

Here's a spectator's viewpoint. I've occasionally wanted to comment on a hand and have sent private chat to one of the commentators, who ignored it.

I am no doubt the one who gets most private chat messages during vugraph broadcasts. Although I would have liked to, it is just impossible to respond to all of them, no matter how good/bad/relevant the comments and questions are.

For the record, I am also one of three (fred and ritong are the other two) who can't avoid private chat messages (because yellows can't), so many specs seem to take advantage of that. Other commentators have the option of not adding +++ to their profiles if they want to be left alone.

I have the option of logging in as invisible of course (yellows will also remain invisible in the rooms), but that should not be necessary, and it doesn't really help. Once you have sent a public message in the room, anyone can just click on the username and send a chat message.

I hope you understand that with hundreds, sometimes 1500, 1600, spectators in one room there will be almost as many views to express and questions to ask. So ignoring a chat message is not the same as saying that the commentators don't care.

A commentator's primary job is to stay focused on the game and concentrate. It's not that easy with loads of private chat messages flying around on one's screen.

Roland

[mrdct]

Jlall, on May 11 2005, 01:34 PM, said:

I also think this is a bad idea. The coke talk is already too much for me, i can't imagine 500 people talking about cokes.

I think we would tend to find that a table attracting 500 spectators would have no trouble at all rustling up 3 or 4 decent commentators. The free-for-all approach is more likely to come into play for tables with under 100 spectators where, based on what tends to occur with popular kibitzing in the main bridge club, its unlikely more that 6-10 people or so would bother saying anything.