Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 200 201 202 203
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Equally significant, many of those same companies do specifically delegate specific employees to speak for the company on various platforms.

Regular, direct, and official engagement is viewed as important to said companies, not the least because it helps avoid situations like this…
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Flagging comments is a signal to BW admins that the comments should be taken down.

I suspect that the folks who are offended by the comments want them preserved and brought to the attention of ACBL management.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> So, why doesn't he just take the offer if that's what he wants?

If I just had paid three years for ACBL membership, and in doing so paid significantly more $$$ to the organization than I had to, and then got told that the answer to my problem was to pay an additional three years worth of money, I'd be pissed off as well.

I might very well be pissed off to the point where I was more much more interested in dragging both the organization and the individuals involved through the dirt than I was in actually getting my masterpoints.

This is why well run organizations go out of their way to avoid incidents like this from taking place and, more importantly why any employee of one those organizations with half a brain wouldn't wade into a social media shiitestorm…

Out of curious Paul, what is the ACBL's policy on having employees comment on this sort of thing. I know that the companies that I work for have social media policies which pretty explicitly state employees shall not do any such thing. In many cases, doing so can get you fired.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> To applaud someone who accuses a customer
> service staffer of lying, but then to get upset
> over someone calling you out for doing so is …
> inconsistent.

Just to be clear, it doesn't look as if Amir is accusing Cindy of lying to him.

It's very clear that he doesn't like her interpretation of policy, however, as I read thing the person who “lied” was the individual he spoke with three years ago who told him that he would get his points after three years

Given that people are trying to be precise and “consistent” about things, they might try harder to represent things correctly.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
People, don't be so critical of Paul…

His paycheck depends on people reading the bulletin. Give the difference in quality between the bulletin and BridgeWinners, is it any wonder that he's feeling defensive?

We should cut him some slack and let him get back to work…
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Curious how long ago the first incident occurred…
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don, a few days back, when I suggested that this same principle needs to be applied to the directors who officiate the game, you acted as if I was crazy…
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lets try a very simple analogy:

Description 1: The police officer shot and killed a 15 year old at a playground

Description 2: The police officer shot and killed a 15 year old who was charging at him with a knife

Both descriptions are true. However, I expect that people would interpret the two cases very differently.

When you describe Fed's comments and claims, you are stripping out all of the context surrounding the decision. You are making it sound as “showing cheats” is an end goal in and of itself rather than a (rare) consequence of another set of decisions.
Dec. 10
Richard Willey edited this comment Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I think so too. But we were not talking about that.
> We were talking about not showing cheats in
> vugraph. And you implied that showing them
> is good for bridge.

Once again, you are inventing claims

Fred never implied that showing cheat's on Vugraph is good for bridge.

Rather he said that the there are tradeoffs and that the costs associated with implementing a system that can successfully block those individuals outweigh the benefits of doing so.

These two things are completely different.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I understand that in order not to be annoyed, you
> expel from any discussion the “people who don't
> bear any of the costs or need to do any of the
> work”. Good policy.

I certainly can't claim credit for this concept…

The Internet Engineering Task Force has long used “running code and rough consensus” as a core guiding principal. Simply put, if someone hasn't done the basic work to implement their “idea”, their opinions don't carry much weight.

How does that old saying go “Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone's got one”. However, making sure that people actually do some work

1. Help thin out boivating idiots
2. Dramatically improves the quality of what actually gets submitted.

And yes, it is a good policy….
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul, it's really annoying when people who don't bear any of the costs or need to do any of the work start explaining how “easy” something is.

Let me try and give a practical example:

How do you propose that BBO handle the case of the Doctors? Its seems pretty clear that Elinescu and Wladow where using out of bound signals. I think most anyone would agree that IF one were to have some kind of blacklist they should be included.

However, Elinescu and Wladow are also incredibly litigious and actively look for opportunities to launch lawsuits. Were BBO to implement a policy that (effectively) states that Vugraphs that feature E+W may not be broadcast this could easily turn into a lawsuit around defamation or the even the right to be forgotten.

Moreover, one the camels got its nose into the tent - once BBO is starting to make decisions on a case by case basis - life gets much much more complicated.
Dec. 9
Richard Willey edited this comment Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ACBL's alert chart (circa 2012) specifically states that a natural and non forcing response to a two level opening bid is alertable
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Richard, I make no claims of any kind.

“BBO CHOOSE to show Fantoni. BBO didn't had to
(as per your example) but CHOOSE to show
him anyway”

is not the same as

“they chose to leave it open for cheaters to show off”
Dec. 9
Richard Willey edited this comment Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pretty much.

You need to ask BBO to get added to the list of Tournament Directors, however, once you're been added you can do what you want
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I don't believe that is true. The vugraph is “open” only
> because the BBO management allows it to be open.
> BBO is privately owned and can do whatever it wants
> to do, period.

> If they choose to leave it open for cheaters to show
> off, that's worth complaining about.

I have no issue if people want to complain about this. However, I think that this way of framing the issue is very different from the claims that Paul was making.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> OK, Richard, some used the platform. But which
> platform permits to be used with no limits and/or
> boundaries

Any platform that wants common carrier status…

Historically, here in the US folks differentiated between platform that had common carrier status and those that did not.

Common carriers were required to carry all traffic. A decision by a carrier to differentiate against SOME types of traffic would cause them to lose common carrier status. Traditionally, this was viewed as advantageous by carriers. To this day, most Internet Service Providers fall into this category.

These sorts of concepts are still very common in discussions regarding Internet platforms (although its not as common as it used to be). As a practical example, the company that I work for (Akamai) has made a conscious decision not to be a common carrier because there are certain types of content that we do not want to carry.

I certainly don't speak for BBO, however, my impression is that Fred very much preferred to have a system with relatively simple standards and avoid situations that required case by case decision making. As a practical example, back in the day when country flags were first allowed, I asked to get one added for Mordor. Fred refused to do so saying that he wanted a simple well establish standard (in this case UN recognition) to avoid getting dragged into all sorts of political controversies.

> and is not responsible for the product ?

Common carriers are responsible for their products, however, these are normally issues surrounding Quality of Service.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> BBO CHOOSE to show Fantoni. BBO didn't had to
> (as per your example) but CHOOSE to show
> him anyway.

“BBO” did not make any such decision. Rather, someone used the platform that BBO provided to broadcast this content.
Dec. 8
Richard Willey edited this comment Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Great, David, next step would be to celebrate
> on CNN one of drug cartel's hit-men. As a
> comparison, seems to me very much alike.

CNN is not an open platform.

Raher, CNN's management decides what content will be broadcast on CNN's various channels over the course of a day.

In contrast, the BBO vugraph system is open. CNN provides infrastructure that third parties can use to broadcast whatever events they choose.

The right anology is something like YouTube.

Now its worth noting that YouTube is a cesspool and they're's also sorts of really odious crap that gets broadcast there. It's gotten bad enough that YouTube is spending significant $$$ trying to do convince folks that they are cleaning up their act.

The reason that I bring this up is that if you want BBO to start exercising more editorial control, you're going to significantly increase both the friction required in creating events and the cost to BBO. Let me give you a practical example:

You don't like the BBO is showing Vugraph content where Fantoni is being shown. I don't like the fact that BBO is showing Vugraph content of events that are being run in China. And once this door swing open, its open for all sorts of stuff.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BBO provides a platform.

The choice of what Vugraph to show is left to other folks.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure whether announcements are going to move the needle much

Meaningful penalties for players who don't follow the rules
Meaningful fines for directors who don't enforce the rules
Dec. 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 200 201 202 203
.

Bottom Home Top