Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Alex Ainsworth
1 2 3 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry, i think appropriately substituting an asterix neutralised any offensiveness :)

… not that i can see how anyone can interpret what I said as having a modicum of offensive intent.
Nov. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will validate Sarah's sobriquet - Grumpy - of her hubby, knowing them both :)

A latter-day Victor Mildrew (and only the limeys will get that one :) ) if ever there was one…

As for pants, Sarah, middle-class peeps from the Shires just use the word sh*t :p
Nov. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Jan - I was joking :)
Nov. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
now what were the chances of you finding that article Joanna?
Oct. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
acta est fabula
Oct. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The only problem with an adequate explanation Yu is that it invariably proves his/her comment had substantial merit :)

When i was learning and played with a man with the patience of Job, we would sit down in the bar after with a drink. He would take a sip of his beer, sigh indifferently and then say “Ok, Alex, are you ready?”

I always knew what was coming.
Oct. 24, 2015
Alex Ainsworth edited this comment Oct. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, Peg, the modesty is touching :)
Oct. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
..oops sorry wrong thread :p
Oct. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve,

Maybe he said nothing, but i bet you knew what he was thinking :)

Oct. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was playing in a nondescript club drive. I had just started playing. I revoked THREE times in 2 boards in one round. My mistake was that I was playing against a woman who had the two top buttons on her blouse unbuttoned and, as much as I tried, I found it hard to concentrate on the game at hand.

My partner was gracious enough to give his take on why we averaged 0% on the 2 boards. She smiled and winked at me.

My second mistake was starting to play with her and continuing to play with her once we got married 7 years later :)

The moral of this story is: Be very wary of playing against women who have the two top buttons of their blouse undone.
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh dear Gary. I hope you dont get banned :)

Bridge anyone? Deal p!
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nat, I first encountered Playboy on a recommendation by a friend to read an interview given by John Travolta - only when flicking through the rest of the edition did I find the content, umm, somewhat distracting and of a greater appeal to a pubescent male teenager…

And, yes, I had lived quite a sheltered (young) life :)
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is your name Nikos? AHAAAA you turned your head when I shouted your name! You ARE Nikos!
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course Hanan. But this is where a “strong and trusting Admin” comes into play :)

As they are well-organised, they have a Charter. A charter that has been written - whether in collaboration with its community or otherwise (good idea btw to have the community represented in some capacity so they then have ownership but sometimes this is difficult and/or counterproductive but can always be debated openly as the forum evolves) - with the objectives, codes of conduct and procedures of the site clearly and unambiguously expressed.

Anybody who wishes to join the forum has to sign up to the Charter and is advised to read it beforehand. If they find the Charter too restrictive and don't agree with it then they can either go and fish in another pond or have “reading rights” but not “contributive rights”. But, the mooment they sign up they are bound by the Charter and are requested to follow the codes of conduct and are subject to the appropriate procedures if they don't. Totalitarian? Despotic? Not in my opinion. Exactly what i had to do when i took my Oath Of Allegiance many years ago (as i was born in the States). If i didnt want to abide by the oath i could have walked away - mind you i was 8 years old at the time :) so would have been difficult :p

So, when a thread gets out of control (as you delineated) - i assume it would be out of control as if it were in control then no one would be kicking up a fuss - there is appropriate intervention by the admin who cite the relevant entries as to what is deemed out of bounds and issue appropriate messages to those members who are not abiding by it.

As I understand it this is EXACTLY what the BW has been doing although there is no official Charter (there could be for all i know). Some people have decided to openly challenge it (like Joanna, for example, with one particular admin decision - every member would or should have the right to express his or her disappoval and the admin honour it as BW have done), but some people had decided to go further and openly ridicule it, and suffer the consequences.

Who is to blame? The admin or the individuals? Who is responsible? The admin or the individual? Both are: the admin by protecting the set of mores on which the forum was founded and the individual by believing he or she was not bound by them as well.





Oct. 20, 2015
Alex Ainsworth edited this comment Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree Hanan. However, I think you are touching on a very sensitive subject.

This happens on every forum, but not often. The reason seems fairly obvious to me: the issue is no longer about tiddlywinks - it becomes (geo)political and cross-cultural; a recipe for absolute and unavoidable discord.

The discussion inflates to impinge cultural and nationalistic differences and the issue discussed becomes lost in a quagmire of historical mistrust and antagonism.

This is where having a strong and trusting admin comes into play to intervene to try and anticipate potential dramas like this and defuse them.
Oct. 20, 2015
Alex Ainsworth edited this comment Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would agree with that :)

Soemthing similar to the Water Cooler on BBO Forum. Although that was set up to facilitate non-bridge discussion so it did not infiltrate other sub forums and people were upset because a post came up that didnt have 13 or more cards in it. It still had expected levels of decorum although it does get quite heated at times and verging on X-ratedness :)

but i assume you meant something more hard-core :)
Oct. 20, 2015
Alex Ainsworth edited this comment Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
funny Bill that we both mentioned flogging a dead horse simultaneously - seems to cap it all.
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ken, Joanna deciding to leave wouldn't solve anything on many levels…besides she is worth a multiple number of Deans in my opinion. And she is cuter :)
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it was a good idea to precipitate out this post Eugene, especially as i imagine it is not only your personal take but a corporate one.

It seems, unfortunately, there is a lot of flogging of dead horses going on, and I am just going to add another flagellation :). There are people who are going to stand by Dean whatever is said and then there are those who are going to denounce him whatever is said, and these 2 solutions, maybe, will always remain immiscible.

In my opinion, the thread you are referring to has become too pokornicentric. People were/are, naturally maybe, focussing too much on the personal plight of a subscriber rather than how the community should handle posters who repeatedly flout the rules. The general case was mooted on many occasions, but invariably gravitated back to the whole scenario sourrounding Dean specifically, with links to posts being given again and again to either prove his guilt or prove his innocence.

The issue i would second (as you seem to have focussed on it in your article above) is

HOW DOES THE COMMUNITY WANT THE SITE TO BE MONITORED AND ARBITRATED (IF AT ALL!!!) AND WHAT MEASURES, AND HOW DRASTIC, SHOULD THE ADMIN, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY, TAKE TO ENSURE THEIR PERCEPTIONS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE SITE THEY WANT TO RUN ARE MAINTAINED?

There are a few people, some better known than others, who seem to want to advocate having no process at all, or very little, or have one where self-responsibility is the overriding principle (i.e .i can ignore this user or write 7-8 emails - without any response normally - to admin expressing my anger and hurt). This JUST DOESNT WORK AND NEVER WILL!

The flagging system, in my opinion, is the one that has been adopted by many sites having such a high traffic (and even much more) and seems to work the best compared to others. One only needs to go to some sites where there is no community import and input at all. Selected volunteers have the right to remove and flag posts without the community having any say in it and have the authority to suspend or ban anybody they want! Other forums (many yahoo ones for example and user groups) where there is little intervention are ridiculous. There are cat-fights, flame-wars, bitch-slaps and any other neologisms you want to throw into the mix. One reads them for the same reason you watch a car-crash. After a while though you see it as pointless and never go back to the site again (unless of course you want to participate).

I would also like to address Joanna's concern about her view that she believed that it wasn't the content but the person who was attacked! OF COURSE it was the person!!! People are INSTINCTIVELY more likely and willing to flag a post written by someone who has a REPUTATION, and is a ‘known offender’, of making the same sort of comments that will be interpreted as offensive or rude or inappropriate than some scallywag who is trying to earn his spurs as a bad-boy (as an aside notice bad-boy and not bad-person it seems to be a very male-oriented trait :) but that is controversial and worthy of another article :p). A person should not have to internally philosophise or deliberate whether a post is worthy of a flag or not. Either it grates or it doesn't. It is a click not a brick.

A similar analogy can be used for Neighbourhodd Watch schemes. some People are more likely going to report people who are behaving suspiciously who have a known track record than people who are not seen as a threat or a potential liability.

And the evidence you provide as to how the community reacted to him when he was posting anonymously SURELY must contradict the theory it was a personalised vendetta against HIM AS AN INDIVIDUAL, in contrast to how the admin or community treated other people who maybe exhibited the same or similar behaviour.



Oct. 20, 2015
Alex Ainsworth edited this comment Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good Girl Melanie :)
Oct. 20, 2015
1 2 3 4
.

Bottom Home Top