[inquiry]

doofik, on Mar 21 2004, 01:21 PM, said:

Ben:

I'm not suggesting that AbaLucy is a cheat-free zone. What you need to take a look at is the way it's been dealt with - quickly, decisively and with a great deal of discretion.

Jola

Yes, and abadaba said they have a committee of bridge expert volunteers who reveiw the allegations and make recommendations. Sound familiar?

And the "bridge police" you fear will do so in the models posted above in a similar manner, and without knowing peoples names, so it will be equally or even more discretion, and presumably quick as well. Hard to believe you would stop playing here is such a policy was enforced and yet you play in abalucy and hold it up as a great example and yet they use the very same model. This position seems odd to me.

Ben

[Shrike]

Re online messenging services:

Perhaps it would be possible to have the client software return data on whether such software is enabled, and for the either (1) that information to be recorded; (2) any messages recorded for checking should allegations later arise; (3) entry in certain tournaments contingent on temporary disabling of such programs; or (4) entry into such tournaments contingent on recording of messages.

I like (3). Tournament oprganizers could set this as a tournament parameter. In practice (2) will never fly -- even if the recording occurs at the client machine to solve the storage problem, no one will ever agree to it. (4) is ungood for similar reasons, though not as bad as (2). Many forum users have expresssed distaste for (1), and BBO users in general probably wouldn't accept it. Maybe a sort of (1.5) is possible: recording only the volume and timing of communication (and possibly matching those for partners). Maybe that's too much to expect. But what, other than the initial programming headache, is wrong with giving tournament organizers the right to limit entry to those not using chat?

I propose to the owners that this feature would be valuable. It will not solve the problem, nor even the subset of the problem consisting of communication between partners, but it will make it a lot harder to get away with by taking away what is often the easiest method. It will be particularly valuable with the increasing seriousness (pay-for-play especially) of tournament play.

[hrothgar]

Shrike, on Mar 21 2004, 11:08 PM, said:

Re online messenging services:

Perhaps it would be possible to have the client software return data on whether such software is enabled, and for the either (1) that information to be recorded; (2) any messages recorded for checking should allegations later arise; (3) entry in certain tournaments contingent on temporary disabling of such programs; or (4) entry into such tournaments contingent on recording of messages.

I like (3).  Tournament oprganizers could set this as a tournament parameter. In practice (2) will never fly -- even if the recording occurs at the client machine to solve the storage problem, no one will ever agree to it.  (4) is ungood for similar reasons, though not as bad as (2).  Many forum users have expresssed distaste for (1), and BBO users in general probably wouldn't accept it.  Maybe a sort of (1.5) is possible: recording only the volume and timing of communication (and possibly matching those for partners).  Maybe that's too much to expect.  But what, other than the initial programming headache, is wrong with giving tournament organizers the right to limit entry to those not using chat?

I propose to the owners that this feature would be valuable.  It will not solve the problem, nor even the subset of the problem consisting of communication between partners, but it will make it a lot harder to get away with by taking away what is often the easiest method.  It will be particularly valuable with the increasing seriousness (pay-for-play especially) of tournament play.

As I noted before:

Adding the type of functionality that you request would be very complex.

Equally significant, adding these funcitons would do virtually NOTHING to improve security. BBO can layer on all the security they want, however, I can circumvent this with a trivial amount of effort.

Example 1: There is nothing that BBO could do to prevent me from using a communications media on either

(a) A second computer
(B) A second image on the first PC - Check out a cute little company called VmWare that was just bought out by EMC

Example 2: There is nothing that BBO can do to prevent me from using a phone

In short, if someone wants to cheat, they will be able to find a way to cheat.

Wasting enormous numbers of development cycles to provide the illusion of security is idiocy. I'd rather have the developers focus on actual feature set enhancements.

[bglover]

I agree... BBO's resources should be put to better use.

The reason for any policing unit, be it on a web site or state troopers or whatever, is not to enforce crime but to prevent crime. Sure, once the crime takes place they investigate and enforce, but the main purpose is to provide a framework where bad actors know there is a consequence to their actions and so, hopefully, will cease from doing so in the first place.

Although I cannot envision any way to help this situation without further involvement on BBO's part, there is no need that it BBO management be the sole resouce involved to help ensure a more ethical environment. Based on my involvement in this so far, I can say honestly of the many people who are in some way aware of it, they are enthusiastic in their support and are willing to help.

As Ben pointed out, BBO's main problem is one of resouces. We are all, in some form, recognizing those resources are limited and are asking others who also feel a more ethical environement is a worthy goal to help. We aren't asking BBO to devote "all" its resources to it, but to provide enough assistance to the volunteers that a thorough job can be done. We all want to be sure that no injustices are done. I think I can say that on behalf of everyone contributing who agrees something should be done to improve this.

It will take a commitment on everyone's part... BBO's, those who volunteer and those who feel they have been victimized. It's a group effort...

[doofik]

Ben:

The way AbaLucy functions is fine with me. What I have a problem believing is that a larger committee can be trusted to keep everything secret. The way some suggest disconneting outside communication means lacking trust in its use, the same way I lack trust that any investigating committee will be discreet. I don't think this is as much of a stretch as you imagine. Consequently I'd rather stop playing than to listen to "whispers" of a group of peers.

Jola

[the hog]

"Howdy to The Hog & Mr1303, I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you both. Hog, even if you're not using a chat service to cheat, the fact that you're typing away could cause your opponents to think that you're hesitating on a bid or play, or, at best, just holding up the game. "

Melvis, I would strongly argue that no one has the right to tell me what programs I can run on my PC. Trust me or don't bother to play against me. Anyway as Richard has already pointed out, it would be a great waste of Bbo's resources to police this.

Ron

[inquiry]

doofik, on Mar 21 2004, 04:54 PM, said:

Ben:

What I have a problem believing is that a larger committee can be trusted to keep everything secret. The way some suggest disconneting outside communication means lacking trust in its use, the same way I lack trust that any investigating committee will be discreet. I don't think this is as much of a stretch as you imagine. Consequently I'd rather stop playing than to listen to "whispers" of a group of peers.

Jola,

I find it VERY HARD to believe that a committee who reviews hands without ANY Identifiers of who the players would be less descreet than abalucy committees... First, I think you put too much faith in abalucy guys, and Second, a committee who do not know the name of the "accused" could hardly spreed any whispers at all.

And in case you don't know it, there are plenty of "whispers" now about this player or that player who "cheats", and this goes on without any committee in place anywhere, and in part out of frustration that no one is trying very hard to stop cheaters.

Ben

[doofik]

Ben:

And my feeling is that someone had seen something and reported it. Whoever reported it is the beginning of the story. Then there is the committee who, allegedly, gets anonymous hands. Forgive me if I feel that you're too optimistic.

It's not a matter of putting too much faith in Abalucy guys, it's just that I've seen it done first hand. Where the matter is being discussed all third parties are excused from the discussion. Is this a guarantee that you're willing to give me? If you can't then I stand by my position.

Jola

[Trpltrbl]

hrothgar, on Mar 21 2004, 03:54 PM, said:

Shrike, on Mar 21 2004, 11:08 PM, said:

Re online messenging services:

Perhaps it would be possible to have the client software return data on whether such software is enabled, and for the either (1) that information to be recorded; (2) any messages recorded for checking should allegations later arise; (3) entry in certain tournaments contingent on temporary disabling of such programs; or (4) entry into such tournaments contingent on recording of messages.

I like (3).  Tournament oprganizers could set this as a tournament parameter. In practice (2) will never fly -- even if the recording occurs at the client machine to solve the storage problem, no one will ever agree to it.  (4) is ungood for similar reasons, though not as bad as (2).  Many forum users have expresssed distaste for (1), and BBO users in general probably wouldn't accept it.  Maybe a sort of (1.5) is possible: recording only the volume and timing of communication (and possibly matching those for partners).  Maybe that's too much to expect.  But what, other than the initial programming headache, is wrong with giving tournament organizers the right to limit entry to those not using chat?

I propose to the owners that this feature would be valuable.  It will not solve the problem, nor even the subset of the problem consisting of communication between partners, but it will make it a lot harder to get away with by taking away what is often the easiest method.  It will be particularly valuable with the increasing seriousness (pay-for-play especially) of tournament play.

As I noted before:

Adding the type of functionality that you request would be very complex.

Equally significant, adding these funcitons would do virtually NOTHING to improve security. BBO can layer on all the security they want, however, I can circumvent this with a trivial amount of effort.

Example 1: There is nothing that BBO could do to prevent me from using a communications media on either

(a) A second computer
( A second image on the first PC - Check out a cute little company called VmWare that was just bought out by EMC

Example 2: There is nothing that BBO can do to prevent me from using a phone

In short, if someone wants to cheat, they will be able to find a way to cheat.

Wasting enormous numbers of development cycles to provide the illusion of security is idiocy. I'd rather have the developers focus on actual feature set enhancements.

I agree, if people wanna cheat, they will. Don't waste BBO resources or time on it. Play the game, cheaters will be found out and excluded eventually. And I really don't know why people are trying to cheat insomething where you don't have ratings, money or raking to play for. It's just plain stupid and silly in my eyes.
But what people wanna do is up to them, I just feel very sorry for them

Mike

[irdoz]

Banning communications programs would be like banning conversation in a face to face event. It doesn't work. It's a waste of time. It's just security for the paranoid. Playing bridge for hours online is a socially isolating activity as it is...banning chat would make it more so.

The one paragraph I this whole thread I most agree with was this by bglover...

Quote

The reason for any policing unit, be it on a web site or state troopers or whatever, is not to enforce crime but to prevent crime. Sure, once the crime takes place they investigate and enforce, but the main purpose is to provide a framework where bad actors know there is a consequence to their actions and so, hopefully, will cease from doing so in the first place.

For me the most important thing is to have well publicised procedures and ethical leadership. The simple act of TDs announcing every event that this site frowns on illegal communications but any suspicions should be handled with privately with the tournament director or by email to abuse@bbo would be an example of well publicised procedures and ethical leadership. In an environment of perceived laxity I've seen what can happen in an online bridge site.

And I think BBO is a great site and Im thankful for its existence. At the present time Id like its focus to be on further developing the software and the business plan so that it can be sustainable - policies and procedures like the resources to deal properly with ethical issues may flow when the resources are available to support them.

[inquiry]

doofik, on Mar 21 2004, 10:53 PM, said:

Ben:

And my feeling is that someone had seen something and reported it.  Whoever reported it is the beginning of the story.  Then there is the committee who, allegedly, gets anonymous hands.  Forgive me if I feel that you're too optimistic.

It's not a matter of putting too much faith in Abalucy guys, it's just that I've seen it done first hand.  Where the matter is being discussed all third parties are excused from the discussion.  Is this a guarantee that you're willing to give me?  If you can't then I stand by my position.

Jola

Jola,

First, "Is this a guarantee that you're willing to give me?"

No. The plans for anonoymous review of hands played by suspected cheaters (so that people doing the review do not know the names of the players they are reviewing), was a clever idea expressed by others... Bglover, McBruce, and mike lucy (Yzerman). The effectiveness of the system seems to be as good as anything else, because, someone is currently reporting cheaters that doesn't change in any of the processess. If that person "wisphers" there is liltle to be done about it.

Second, your "faith" in Abalucy that third parties are excluded in the discussion is probably well founded. I think they try to handle cheating allegations (going after the accuser and the alleged cheater both.... to make sure the word cheater isn't thrown about recklessly). But I will point out two things. Abalucy does not do anomoyous reviews, and second, Abadaba herself posted in this thread (now in the often refered to deleted post) that she wanted to publically identify those who they identified as cheating. That is hardly the standard you suggest here, and I point out, that after my reply, she came around to that was the wrong idea (publically identifying). The fact is however, anyone of the aba guys might get a similar feeling and let the cat out of the bag at sometime because they DO KNOW the name of the accussed. Perhaps in a fit of anger over some other abuse by the same person. This simply COULD NOT HAPPEN in the model the people are proposing in this thread as they don't know the names of the players they are reviewing. And I wonder what percentage of players thrown out of abalucy for cheating feel like their name has been sullied by the process in place?

Third, others have proposed even more radical solutions. There was (and may still be), and effort to organize TD and share the names of trouble makers (rude, jumpers, and yes, alleged cheaters), so that these players could be banned from tournments in a common way. A database of evil doers so to speak. This I opposed, and still do, because of the lack of review (a director who just doesn't like you doofik could black list you across multiple tournments without a "fair review" as to why for instance) . Somehow that solution is really, really objectional to me.

I can certainly understand anyone who objects to the process proposed by the people mentioned above, as many do. This is becasue an "its not broke, so don't fix it" approach is surely a reasonable one. But for the life of me, someone who holds up the abalucy process as being wonderful and "discreet", but who on the other hand would "quit" the BBO site if the identical or nearly identical (some would argue superior) process was more widely available like you do, is just impossible contridiction which I can not understand.

Now, will uday or fred even consider Mike's, or Steve's or one of the other proposals? I have no idea, they have been very quiet on the subject of online cheating since day one. I think the real problem is the serious cheaters, who are cheating as a pair rather than as one lone guy with two computers, will be impossible to catch. The cheaters that you and I can recognize are perhpas all too easy, I suspect Fred will "know" when a pair is cheating (unknowns out playing even the best world class standard time and time again)...but will not be able to prove that cheating is occuring. I am certain most of us woudl agree that a pair of advanced or expert players with full knowledge of the board could cheat in a manner that would not be "catchable". Thus, a reasonable view might be, if you can't get those guys, why go for anyone? But I think for the good of the site the obvious, stupid cheaters have to be caught simply because everyone (except Claus.. who is to forgiving with misclicks) who sees that kind of cheating recongnizes it when it happens...

Ben

[aisha759]

I feel sorry for the person who has to go out of his/her way, to set up 2 computers to win a tournament....
As for having programs running like msn, or a kibber relaying information during play, sounds very stressful.... but tempting
Everyone seems to have excellent ideas on how to stop online cheating ...what do you do about the phone?
It would be nice to play in a trusting environment, and not take every good play, or slow play as a sign of cheating.....
It's a great topic for discussion though, because I believe it makes one think twice before they even attempt it..

This is not a very enlightening post i just wanted to add my views and hope you can come up with a solution which will be acceptable to all members of BBO..

[luis]

Just to add my vision I think that online bridge can never reach the level of seriousness of face to face bridge. I really think NCBOs should refrain from running tournaments giving points for online play.
First of all you can't prevent cheating. And second it's not the same game, there're differences in the proceedings and regulations that make f2f and online bridge incompatible.
I love online bridge but it's just a way to practice, have fun, improve your play and play hands with friends and many excellent players. It's fantastic. But for tournaments and serious competition I will always prefer f2f bridge.
If we focus in what online bridge really is you will realize that there's no sense at all in cheating and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Luis

[doofik]

Ben:

Perhaps what is missing in my and your discussion here is a matter of trust for the committee, a trust in discretion. So we can continue this haggling over a long period of time and neither one of us will convince the other.

People's names have been sullied? Really? Can anyone point to either Aba or Mike as the source? Because I presume we all are aware that the source of "talk" is the need to explain in letters sent to several members by the former members. Or setting up chats one-on-one where the accused explains his/her position to others.

My point still is that yes, I have faith in "Abalucy guys" as to their discretion and I lack same for the nameless, faceless committee to whom an infraction is being reported by another nameless, faceless player.

Perhaps I ought to explain something further. I was born and raised in Communist Poland - how much more would you like me to say?

Jola

[keylime]

Faith...a heavily used word in these posts. I'll avoid the semantics of that word itself, for now <ask me in private and I'll tell you directly>.

Like before, we must police ourselves. It starts amazing enough, with a very little used item called a "convention card". I can honestly say maybe 15 percent on a good day have had the active ethics to post a CC that I can use in the bidding. In my eyes, posting a CC shows an implicit intent to play on the up and up in the general sense. It was nearly maddening to play in multiple events on a daily basis and maybe run into 3-4 pairs that took the time to make out a CC.

Then a "system announcement". Amazing what happens when that occurs - not only are the opponents "aware" of the approach used, but can actually compete against it. Not only does this make it more challenging, but more rewarding when you overcome it. Furthermore, they get to grasp the carding used - and ask when it's not "standard" (imagine the questions received on "Obvious Shift" alone).

Lastly, the biggie - "active ethics". This for some reason is like a foreign language to some and also when caught, the organizers are not being stern enough to provide a disincentive to prevent its reoccurrance. When I run events, I have absolutely no tolerance for nonsense - the game has rules and Laws and everyone is responsible for adhering to them. If one thinks about it, it's EASIER online to adhere to the rules than in real life: no leads out of turn, no penalty cards since you can not revoke, etc. Most of the time it's misinformation or UI that is the culprit, but what else is new (as I write this, there's already been like 3 appeals alone in Flt A of the NAOP's in Reno, yuck). There's times where NBO differences creep up and education has to happen (occurs a lot with our Polish players that are geared NOT to alert their openings due to their system regulations - and the occasional "oops" of the Multi), but all in all, it's a good time had by all.

If we are going to curb the perceived "threat", "boil", "mole", and "disease" of cheating, start at one table. Fill out a CC, even if it's BB-Basic - at least it's something. Also, seek out those that have a geniune knowledge of the game - I have my "inside circle", so to speak, and trust me, they have a lot more bridge acumen than the average bear. Simply placing "faith" in an sub-community is not nearly enough, especially when it potentially breeds divisiveness and the anti-BBO feeling of difference, instead of a mosaic in which each person is a color upon its canvas.

With that said, I'm going to get packing again - the answer is in the "great beyond".

[uday]

Fred is away at a tourney. I am watching this thread.

I am sure that the client will never attempt to detect the presence of IM programs. No point to it.

Anonymous review sounds ok, but how anon. can a review be in a small circle ( ie, in a private club ) of people? There is currently no software support for making hands "anonymous". It is easy enough to do by hand, of course; download a lin file from www.bridgebase.com/myhands, open with notepad, replace the names of the players wih false names, email lin file.

My issue with this is that (again, using Aba as an example only) if someone wins 5 Aba tourneys, back to back, is investigated, found guilty by some panel using some internal process to detemine guilt - any action against the player will surely be noticed. Boot the player from Aba? OK, but people will ask him to play, and find out that he is no longer a member. Aba may make an announcement that they are tough on cheaters at about the same time. It is not hard to put these events together.

Of course, i'm not picking on Aba.


It is true that online bridge currently cannot reach the same level of "seriousness" as F2F bridge. But as time passes, this will surely change. We're going to be running games with real rewards and risks sooner or later. Then, Luis' argument about this just being for fun fails, i think.


What rewards and risks? We've seen the ACBL run early rounds of its college team trials online already. Maybe in the future we'll see cash tournaments , or tournaments with real prizes. ACBL masterpoints ( arguably not a real value but some people disagree) will be going live soon enough on BBO.

I understand that we have a problem dealing with cheaters. I dont know that we have a full fledged problem of cheating.

I like the idea of farming out this sort of work to panels of people. But it wont work to have a chokepoint (me!) in the process. Maybe ideally the process would go like this:

- players reports a potential cheater via software

- server notifies the abuse panel when there are more than XX reports in YY days about the
same player.

- Panel investigates. Alleged cheaters are (maybe) anonymous. The panel is made up of a number of players who dont know each others identity. From the perspecitve of a panel member, he is occasionally notified about a pending case, and uses a web browser to make a determination. The server supplies what information is has about the players for the hand in question ( IP addresses? and whatever we know about the 2 alleged cheaters). When XX panel members have ruled on a case, that case is closed out with the majority ruling. The accused player is notified that the panel is going to be investigating his case, and is offered a website where he can supply a defence (in summary) and perhaps for each questionable hand.

- Panel disposes of cases with a ruling: Cheater, Not a cheater, Don't know. Players who have reported more than XX 'not-a-cheater' in YY days lose the ability to report further cheaters. Panel members get to flag hands as 'needing input' from the alleged cheater, who can then go to the link and defend himself.

- TDs ( hosts at open tables?) have the option of refusing entry to people who have been investigated but not cleared (ie, DONT KNOW returned by panel)


Upshot will be that a group of panel members will be able to flag players as Cheaters, or maybe-cheaters (DONT KNOW). TDs will be able to use these "ratings" to exclude players.

BBo doesnt need to get involved with any of this, beyond setting up the software to report possible cheaters (so that bbo users can report cheaters), and writng the sofware to allow panel members to hop in and make a vote on outstanding cases.

Depending on how we create panel members, you'll note that this is purely a "self-policing" effort. If enough people think that XX cheats, XX is excluded from games - OWNED BY PEOPLE WHO CARE - that dont want XX to play. Here, perhaps XXs rights are being trampled upon - but he gets a chance to defend himself. True, a player who looks like a cheater will probably be excluded from many events. But this is a social control imposed by the community (in the form of the accuser and the panel).



Is this feasible? Will people really use a web site to pore thru hands from myhands? is any of this worth it?


Drifting away from cheating, we could also suggest that people flag possible cheaters (like they flag friends). A TD might have the option to exclude based on these accusations ( again , imperfect process but self policing).

About people's names being sullied by whispers. I have had at least 4 separate instances of people complaining that other people are "whispering". Whispers are hard to track down ( everyone denies them, naturally), but i can assert that there is no doubt that the targets of the whispering campaign (which might only exist in the head of the accused) feel that this goes on.


Just thinking aloud here.

[luis]

uday, on Mar 22 2004, 07:03 PM, said:

Fred is away at a tourney. I am watching this thread.

I am sure that the client will never attempt to detect the presence of IM programs. No point to it.

Anonymous review sounds ok, but how anon. can a review be in a small circle ( ie, in a private club ) of people? There is currently no software support for making hands "anonymous". It is easy enough to do by hand, of course; download a lin file from www.bridgebase.com/myhands, open with notepad, replace the names of the players wih false names, email lin file.

My issue with this is that (again, using Aba as an example only) if someone wins 5 Aba tourneys, back to back, is investigated, found guilty by some panel using some internal process to detemine guilt - any action against the player will surely be noticed. Boot the player from Aba? OK, but people will ask him to play, and find out that he is no longer a member. Aba may make an announcement that they are tough on cheaters at about the same time. It is not hard to put these events together.

Of course, i'm not picking on Aba.


It is true that online bridge currently cannot reach the same level of "seriousness" as F2F bridge. But as time passes, this will surely change. We're going to be running games with real rewards and risks sooner or later. Then, Luis' argument about this just being for fun fails, i think.


What rewards and risks? We've seen the ACBL run early rounds of its college team trials online already. Maybe in the future we'll see cash tournaments , or tournaments with real prizes. ACBL masterpoints ( arguably not a real value but some people disagree) will be going live soon enough on BBO.

I understand that we have a problem dealing with cheaters. I dont know that we have a full fledged problem of cheating.

I like the idea of farming out this sort of work to panels of people. But it wont work to have a chokepoint (me!) in the process. Maybe ideally the process would go like this:

- players reports a potential cheater via software

- server notifies the abuse panel when there are more than XX reports in YY days about the
same player.

- Panel investigates. Alleged cheaters are (maybe) anonymous. The panel is made up of a number of players who dont know each others identity. From the perspecitve of a panel member, he is occasionally notified about a pending case, and uses a web browser to make a determination. The server supplies what information is has about the players for the hand in question ( IP addresses? and whatever we know about the 2 alleged cheaters). When XX panel members have ruled on a case, that case is closed out with the majority ruling. The accused player is notified that the panel is going to be investigating his case, and is offered a website where he can supply a defence (in summary) and perhaps for each questionable hand.

- Panel disposes of cases with a ruling: Cheater, Not a cheater, Don't know. Players who have reported more than XX 'not-a-cheater' in YY days lose the ability to report further cheaters. Panel members get to flag hands as 'needing input' from the alleged cheater, who can then go to the link and defend himself.

- TDs ( hosts at open tables?) have the option of refusing entry to people who have been investigated but not cleared (ie, DONT KNOW returned by panel)


Upshot will be that a group of panel members will be able to flag players as Cheaters, or maybe-cheaters (DONT KNOW). TDs will be able to use these "ratings" to exclude players.

BBo doesnt need to get involved with any of this, beyond setting up the software to report possible cheaters (so that bbo users can report cheaters), and writng the sofware to allow panel members to hop in and make a vote on outstanding cases.

Depending on how we create panel members, you'll note that this is purely a "self-policing" effort. If enough people think that XX cheats, XX is excluded from games - OWNED BY PEOPLE WHO CARE - that dont want XX to play. Here, perhaps XXs rights are being trampled upon - but he gets a chance to defend himself. True, a player who looks like a cheater will probably be excluded from many events. But this is a social control imposed by the community (in the form of the accuser and the panel).



Is this feasible? Will people really use a web site to pore thru hands from myhands? is any of this worth it?


Drifting away from cheating, we could also suggest that people flag possible cheaters (like they flag friends). A TD might have the option to exclude based on these accusations ( again , imperfect process but self policing).

About people's names being sullied by whispers. I have had at least 4 separate instances of people complaining that other people are "whispering". Whispers are hard to track down ( everyone denies them, naturally), but i can assert that there is no doubt that the targets of the whispering campaign (which might only exist in the head of the accused) feel that this goes on.


Just thinking aloud here.

In my opinion trying to make online bridge behave like serious bridge will never be possible and will only cause trouble to the players that enjoy online bridge as a way to practice/socialize/have fun/improve your game.

You set-up a candybar as a prize and some strange pair of kiddo-x/kiddie-wiz will win with 95% from Cheatland. You will have to start "Examining" hands, forming comitees, etc etc and at the end the fun and the naive approach of just playing online because you want to play bridge will be ruined. I think it's absolutely impossible to run prized tournaments in a free online club. I also believe that paying for online bridge doesn't make any sense at all so I was very happy with the initial BBO approach, no fees, no prizes, you play just because you love the game.

Maybe you will have to split the userbase between paid and unpaid susbscriptors and only allow paid susbscribers to play in tourneys where masterpoints or money is given. Why? because chetaing to earn money should be illegal and you need a way to prosecute the cheaters so you need a way to validate identities so you may need them to subscribe using a valid credit card.

Luis

[uday]

What of , for instance, blind individuals ? I'm not saying people will want them. I am saying that they can be secure enough for our small prizes, if not secure enough for the Cavendish.

[luis]

uday, on Mar 22 2004, 07:23 PM, said:

What of , for instance, blind individuals ? I'm not saying people will want them. I am saying that they can be secure enough for our small prizes, if not secure enough for the Cavendish.

I think you are right about individuals Uday.

[bglover]

I have posted in a different thread my fear that awarding prizes of any sort (be they masterpoints or cash or a free pen) will create an additional incentive to cheat.

BBO's and Fred's original vision include no rewards as a disincentive to this type of behavior. As soon as rewards of any sort came into play so did the allegations... please see my original post from this thread (now almost almost 7 months ago).

If nothing else, we've seen a perception of increased incidents in that time... quite a large perception if not actual incidents. Ok, it is a hard and fast reality that tourneys are here and awards are here as well. Adding Masterpoints or prizes into the mix is likely to increase the incentive to act bad (maybe it wont happen as i envision). This is the new framework and much different from the original BBO vision. Its Fred, Sheri's and Uday's right to change it as they please. I certainly support their right to turn a profit from the site and to try and do so as they see fit.

That must be balanced, of course, by providing an environment conducive to ethical conduct. I honestly do not think it is correct to accept that ethical conduct should not be expected online (altho I emphatically agree that acting unethically is 1000 times easier online). It is in BBO"s best interests to do so. If they do not, another website will take their customers because they will build a better mousetrap; i.e., work to make their site less cheater-friendly. This is a simple business principle at work, no more.

You say, Luis, that you wouldn't pay for online bridge and that is why you come to BBO. Well, would you pay, say $50 per year for a site that you felt was fairer and more vigilant in combatting unethical behavior? I bet you would. I bet most serious players would.

Does that mean this competing site was cheat free? Of course not. That is impossible, we all know that. But, it would be worth that $50 just to know that it was a more ethical place than some other place.

Promoting the best possible ethical environment is in this site's interest! BBO is the one to benefit.. not just its customers.