[uday]

Without a complaint to abuse@ or uday@ , there is nothing we can do, since we don't know who is being accused of this thing. We don't log private chat by default.

[hrothgar]

jillybean2, on Feb 21 2008, 06:57 AM, said:

matmat, on Feb 20 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Feb 20 2008, 09:30 PM, said:

Is this behavior appropriate for anyone on BBO?

Is this behavior appropriate for anyone on BBO?

I included 'on BBO' since consenting adults can take it anywhere they want.

Not sure if

1. This is one of the best double entendres of all time
2. Kathyrn made a freudian slip
3. I'm a degenerate

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Feb 21 2008, 12:40 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Feb 21 2008, 06:57 AM, said:

matmat, on Feb 20 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Feb 20 2008, 09:30 PM, said:

Is this behavior appropriate for anyone on BBO?

Is this behavior appropriate for anyone on BBO?

I included 'on BBO' since consenting adults can take it anywhere they want.

Not sure if

1. This is one of the best double entendres of all time
2. Kathyrn made a freduain slip
3. I'm a degenerate

A true LOL, can't believe I didn't notice that myself!

[jillybean]

jdonn, on Feb 21 2008, 11:18 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 21 2008, 12:40 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Feb 21 2008, 06:57 AM, said:

matmat, on Feb 20 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Feb 20 2008, 09:30 PM, said:

Is this behavior appropriate for anyone on BBO?

Is this behavior appropriate for anyone on BBO?

I included 'on BBO' since consenting adults can take it anywhere they want.

Not sure if

1. This is one of the best double entendres of all time
2. Kathyrn made a freduain slip
3. I'm a degenerate

A true LOL, can't believe I didn't notice that myself!

I should have guessed you'd be the one to pick it up Richard.

[TimG]

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 09:56 PM, said:

While that link provides one way to do a screen capture, on some keyboards (such as mine),  the PRT SCR key and SYS REQ are on the same key next to F12.

These require an ALT then Pressing PRT SCR to actually work.

My keyboard has the Print Screen/SysRq key, but I just tested it and it did not require ALT in order to screen capture. I was going to post something similar to you, but figured before I said "it's not always that easy" I'd actually try it out and was surprised at what I found.

BTW: it worked with or without ALT.

[jillybean]

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

Unfortunately, the person informing me of this problem says she isn't interested in reporting it, which irritates me to no end.

I've just read this, perhaps it was closer to 2 consenting adults than a case for abuse afterall.
Otherwise I can't fathom why you wouldn't report it!

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Feb 21 2008, 12:40 PM, said:

1. This is one of the best double entendres of all time
2. Kathyrn made a freudian slip
3. I'm a degenerate

4. All of the above.

[bid_em_up]

TimG, on Feb 21 2008, 01:58 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 09:56 PM, said:

While that link provides one way to do a screen capture, on some keyboards (such as mine),  the PRT SCR key and SYS REQ are on the same key next to F12.

These require an ALT then Pressing PRT SCR to actually work.

My keyboard has the Print Screen/SysRq key, but I just tested it and it did not require ALT in order to screen capture. I was going to post something similar to you, but figured before I said "it's not always that easy" I'd actually try it out and was surprised at what I found.

BTW: it worked with or without ALT.

Well, I'll be damned. Never tried it without the ALT, since it was on the top of the key, I just inferred that either ALT or SHIFT was necessary for it to work.

Thanks.

[TimG]

finally17, on Feb 20 2008, 10:14 PM, said:

Considering it further, I think I honestly believe that, without involving the woman, BBO should figure out who did this on their own and take action. A search of the recent chat logs for a couple of the key words would quickly turn up the relevant information (unless there's a heck of a lot more sex talk on BBO than I'm aware).

I wonder if BBO users can have an expectation of privacy when it comes to private chat?

What if the player in question had sent an e-mail after the session instead of asking the questions in BBO chat? Would people still think it appropriate for BBO to take action?

As an aside, I think gold stars were a mistake and BBO would be just as well off by removing the feature entirely.

[finally17]

uday, on Feb 21 2008, 12:36 PM, said:

Without a complaint to abuse@ or uday@ , there is nothing we can do, since we don't know who is being accused of this thing. We don't log private chat by default.

Huh. Very much not what I would have guessed as you can tell.

[finally17]

TimG, on Feb 21 2008, 01:58 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 09:56 PM, said:

While that link provides one way to do a screen capture, on some keyboards (such as mine),  the PRT SCR key and SYS REQ are on the same key next to F12.

These require an ALT then Pressing PRT SCR to actually work.

My keyboard has the Print Screen/SysRq key, but I just tested it and it did not require ALT in order to screen capture. I was going to post something similar to you, but figured before I said "it's not always that easy" I'd actually try it out and was surprised at what I found.

BTW: it worked with or without ALT.

As I recall, ALT-PrtScr and Prt-Scr are supposed to generate different results. One (I believe just Prt-Scr) captures the entire screen as it currently exists, and the other captures just the currently highlighted window.

[helene_t]

finally17, on Feb 21 2008, 04:14 AM, said:

Considering it further, I think I honestly believe that, without involving the woman, BBO should figure out who did this on their own and take action.

I think that would generally be a bad policy, although it could be appropriate if there is some evidence that the woman had been threatened not to report.

If the policy is to investigate on the basis of forum rumors, the one who spread the rumor could be considered as having violated confidentiality if the case is later identified an dealt with against the will of the woman.

OTOH if the policy is to screen the log randomly, there would be too many false positives.

[finally17]

TimG, on Feb 21 2008, 02:19 PM, said:

finally17, on Feb 20 2008, 10:14 PM, said:

Considering it further, I think I honestly believe that, without involving the woman, BBO should figure out who did this on their own and take action.  A search of the recent chat logs for a couple of the key words would quickly turn up the relevant information (unless there's a heck of a lot more sex talk on BBO than I'm aware).

I wonder if BBO users can have an expectation of privacy when it comes to private chat?

What if the player in question had sent an e-mail after the session instead of asking the questions in BBO chat? Would people still think it appropriate for BBO to take action?

As an aside, I think gold stars were a mistake and BBO would be just as well off by removing the feature entirely.

As to the first, I don't know, but I don't think there should be an expectation of privacy. And I'm rather certain that at least in the US, where BBO is probably legally "located," being a private organization they can deny service to anyone for any reason. I'm also sure that, if a legal expectation exists, they could take it away rather easily with an appropriate clause in the user agreement, the likes of which tends to be rather standard in online activities.

As to the second, if you mean BBOmail, sure they should still take action. If you mean other email, of course not. I still think they could (see above, denial of service), but since their resources are not being used I don't think they should.

Apparently all this is moot, but I am very curious as to the validity of my conjectures.

[TimG]

finally17, on Feb 21 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

As to the first, I don't know, but I don't think there should be an expectation of privacy.  And I'm rather certain that at least in the US, where BBO is probably legally "located," being a private organization they can deny service to anyone for any reason.  I'm also sure that, if a legal expectation exists, they could take it away rather easily with an appropriate clause in the user agreement, the likes of which tends to be rather standard in online activities.

I'm sure you are right that BBO could include an appropriate clause in their user agreement and monitor private chat as they see fit.

For better or for worse, I don't think BBO can deny service for whatever reasons they want. Especially since they are likely deemed to be conducting interstate commerce.

[slothy]

i, naturally, voted no....

But, i must say, i always found those sort of questions a pain in the ass

[finally17]

TimG, on Feb 21 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

For better or for worse, I don't think BBO can deny service for whatever reasons they want. Especially since they are likely deemed to be conducting interstate commerce.

I don't know what BBO's IRS status is, but I assume it's non-profit. I don't know why they'd be any different from any other private non-profit. Schools, social clubs, etc...they can all deny service for any reason.

[finally17]

helene_t, on Feb 21 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

finally17, on Feb 21 2008, 04:14 AM, said:

Considering it further, I think I honestly believe that, without involving the woman, BBO should figure out who did this on their own and take action.

I think that would generally be a bad policy, although it could be appropriate if there is some evidence that the woman had been threatened not to report.

If the policy is to investigate on the basis of forum rumors, the one who spread the rumor could be considered as having violated confidentiality if the case is later identified an dealt with against the will of the woman.

I'm not sure what you mean by "violating confidentiality." If you're worried about legal issues, there's no such thing as "confidentiality" between friends, and BBO isn't burdened by issues of hearsay like an agent of the law would be.

If you just mean you consider it "ethically questionable" I can buy that. I realize my suggestion was extreme, and I'm not even sure I would implement it if it were my system and completely up to me.

[mike777]

finally17, on Feb 21 2008, 07:41 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 21 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

For better or for worse, I don't think BBO can deny service for whatever reasons they want.  Especially since they are likely deemed to be conducting interstate commerce.

I don't know what BBO's IRS status is, but I assume it's non-profit. I don't know why they'd be any different from any other private non-profit. Schools, social clubs, etc...they can all deny service for any reason.

I would be suprised if BBO is a non profit org.

[finally17]

mike777, on Feb 21 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

finally17, on Feb 21 2008, 07:41 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 21 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

For better or for worse, I don't think BBO can deny service for whatever reasons they want.  Especially since they are likely deemed to be conducting interstate commerce.

I don't know what BBO's IRS status is, but I assume it's non-profit. I don't know why they'd be any different from any other private non-profit. Schools, social clubs, etc...they can all deny service for any reason.

I would be suprised if BBO is a non profit org.

Really? Personally I can't begin to guess whether the money they take in would even cover the costs, let alone produce a profit worth the endeavor. Honestly though, I doubt it.

Wiki's definition:

Quote

A nonprofit organization (abbreviated "NPO", also "non-profit" or "not-for-profit") is a legally constituted organization whose primary objective is to support or to actively engage in activities of public or private interest without any commercial or monetary profit purposes. NPOs are active in a wide range of areas, including the environment, humanitarian aid, animal protection, education, the arts, social issues, charities, early childhood education, health care, politics, religion, research, sports or other endeavors.

Obviously, these are not the IRS definitions, but BBO certainly fits this description. I think there are a few around here who would know for sure, but I'd guess yes.

Anyway, the tangents are interesting to me, but perhaps inappropriate here...I will cease my digressions before they become transgressions.

[mike777]

I will let Uday tell us the tax code they operate under.
This can be pretty tricky as even nonprofit org. is not the same as not for profit org.. I work for one but not the other. Yes it matters alot. It affects how you operate and what you can offer and how they are possibly taxed and how your competition(for profit) sues you..yes they sue. This is a huge deal in the Pension business.

In any case I thought Fred and Uday are in this to make a profit and I hope they do.