[pirate22]

It has to start somewhere-why not 2012.........
Constructive Suggestion....With new players coming on line,and present players,upon joining and submitting details-when this done before acceptence by BBO.
There should be a page of Do's and Dont's for the applicant to read.and acknowledge,this could be retro active for present players.and would lend further support to BBO support,if an infrigement comes up {it would add weight}and eradicate problems such as ..............

English spoken at the tables.
Upon enquiry its not sufficient to answer with a system name.
Remain at the table untill the last card played.........
No bad language or chastiseing partner for a Stupid bid etc etc.
Post a profile that has what one is playing--not as SAYC Precision this is ambigous.
Players with no profile posted Debarred from playing.
A tick box for participents that cannot spk much English,for all to see {Profile}
Reason to be stated why the word "Private" is used?????? what does this achieve??.

This would assist TD;s players,and raise the standard of BBO.-there must be a reason
An easier system to record chat and report......
Another puzzle when one summons a TD to the table,they are unable to see chat existing,
so time wasted,there must be a reason?

[manudude03]

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein.

Some of those ideas are although ideal, are also completely impractical. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has received complaints of having too specific alerts (because they think partner sees the alerts). Also, the idea of a tick box for being unable to comprehend English is a bit of a self-contradiction, unless it is written in every conceivable language, and even then "Bildiril çiz sen masadaki İngilizceyi konuşmayan" ("Unless notified via profile, you must speak English at the table" according to an online turkish translator) is just too open to abuse.

Finally, the reason most use Private is ummmm because they want their ability to be private? Personally I've found you just can't "win" when self-rating. If you're Expert/World Class, you get chastised for every mistake, and if you're Adv- they usually assume they are better than you and insist they are right in their moronic plays.

[Elianna]

I don't agree with many of your ideas, to put it mildly. But to massage one of your ideas, perhaps a suggestion would be that people can tick off some number of languages they speak (maybe the top 20 by world population, or bridge population?), and when you set up a table, you can make a requirement that only people who've ticked off a certain language are allowed to join? That way I don't inadvertently join a Turkish-only table and make it unpleasant for all involved, and Pirate can have his English-speaking table.

I can't imagine requiring that all BBO players speak English, though. What do you propose, kick off people who speak eight languages and say sorry, you need to learn English before we'll allow you to play with those of us who've only bothered to learn one language? And what level of English should we require? Because based on previous posts in this forum, there are many extremely active BBO players who think that they know English, but can't get their thoughts across in written form. Should we ban them too? I think that's rather silly.

[aguahombre]

Does anyone else find it amusing that a thread titled "General Bridge Discussion" doesn't belong in the General Bridge Discussion forum?

[Free]

Do's and Don't are a good idea, but face it, in practice only a few will read this. I also hate many of your ideas.

"English spoken at the table" is short through the corner. You are going to ban everyone who can't speak English from using the chat? If I play with a couple of friends I know F2F, I can't speak my own language? Get real! I know where this idea comes from. You play against some Poles for example (don't want to target any particular group, but I have to give an example of a language I don't understand) and they chat in their language during bidding and play. You as opponent can't understand what they say, and even Google translate can't help you. A better option would be for tournament directors to be able to chose a language. But the main & relaxed bridge club don't need this.

Define bad language. Can you state the facts? Can you say to partner he did something stupid when he actually did something stupid? Or is that also considered "bad" language? You make suggestions to make explanations less vague, but then you suggest vague things yourself. Where do you draw the line?

People can be able to play multiple systems, why can't they describe them in their profiles? When you sit at a table, you have to discuss your system anyway. So if I can show my partner that I can play sayc, 2/1 and Precision, what the hell is wrong with that??

People should have the right of privacy. A profile shouldn't be obligated, or else people will just fill in false info. Same for a checkbox to show everyone if they can or cannot speak English. And "Reason to be stated why the word "Private" is used" is completely insane. BBO is not Facebook, some people don't want to share their whole life with everyone online!

Oh, and this doesn't belong to general bridge discussion, it belongs to "suggestions for the software". Djeez...

[fromageGB]

 Free, on 2011-December-12, 00:22, said:

<snip>"English spoken at the table" is short through the corner.

This is an interesting example of the problems of thinking you speak a language. I thought I spoke English, but haven't a clue what this means. Maybe I am not fluent enough to play in the proposed new BBO?

[fromageGB]

I have discovered this explanation of the expression : "taking big steps but thereby ignoring things that shouldn't be ignored". Is that about it? Any other ideas?

[hrothgar]

 aguahombre, on 2011-December-11, 22:59, said:

Does anyone else find it amusing that a thread titled "General Bridge Discussion" doesn't belong in the General Bridge Discussion forum?

This has to be one of the best posts ever...

[diana_eva]

The Rules of the site could be posted somewhere more visible, or made to pop-up for all new members at their first logins, but as Free correctly points out, people can still dismiss the window without reading it.

Maybe if the page has a checkbox with "I accept the Rules" and it wont let newcomers go on site unless they tick it. I find this method particularly annoying though.

[Free]

 diana_eva, on 2011-December-12, 06:59, said:

Maybe if the page has a checkbox with "I accept the Rules" and it wont let newcomers go on site unless they tick it. I find this method particularly annoying though.

People won't start reading just because you add a checkbox. But it's definitely annoying, you got that right.

[Vampyr]

 Elianna, on 2011-December-11, 22:08, said:

perhaps a suggestion would be that people can tick off some number of languages they speak (maybe the top 20 by world population, or bridge population?), and when you set up a table, you can make a requirement that only people who've ticked off a certain language are allowed to join? That way I don't inadvertently join a Turkish-only table and make it unpleasant for all involved, and Pirate can have his English-speaking table.

 Free, on 2011-December-12, 00:22, said:

If I play with a couple of friends I know F2F, I can't speak my own language?.

It seems that enabling the option to set up single-language tables would be a good thing, and would not hurt people who don't mind who speaks what at their table.

[Bbradley62]

 Free, on 2011-December-12, 09:39, said:

People won't start reading just because you add a checkbox. But it's definitely annoying, you got that right.

Doesn't virtually every site that requires registration (free or otherwise) include a TOS statement that must be "checked" as agreed to, even if the vast majority of users don't bother to read it? I don't see how this is at all annoying, but I also don't see how it would accomplish anything, given that most won't read it anyway.

[kenberg]

Maybe a box when setting up the table where one could check "Casual", "Pick-up standard", "partnerships only" or some such. Then there could be some descriptions. Eg, In casual, one can ask 1430? when partner bids 4NT. In the next rung up (I need a better name than pick-up standard) it is expected that partners will start by taking a few moments to load a reasonably standard cc and then play in a serious manner, taking their lumps if a misunderstanding arises. In the upper level a player is expected to show up with a partner (and an agreed upon cc).

Perhaps something like that could work.

As to self ratings, yes it is a problem. I just played pickup with an expert on my left and advanced on my right. In the course of about five boards partner (an intermediate I think) made 4♥ doubled and then I made 3♣ doubled. Things got testy. It promotes a sense of humor.

[babalu1997]

PIRATE
YOU NEED TO OPEN YOUR OWN BRIDGE PLAYING SITE
I BELIEVE YOU HAVE ASKED THESE QUESTIONS BEFORE
YOU KNOW THAT THE CAHNGES YOU PROPOSE WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED

WHAT IS A STUPID BID. PRAY TELL.

[Free]

The forums are going downhill. Since when are posts in capital letters upvoted by a yellow?

[daveharty]

Requiring newbies to agree to an End User Agreement is a fantastic idea! Imagine the possibilities for creative mischief. I have no idea what I agreed to on page 79 of the EUA I signed when I activated my new iPhone.

[BunnyGo]

 daveharty, on 2011-December-13, 07:32, said:

Requiring newbies to agree to an End User Agreement is a fantastic idea! Imagine the possibilities for creative mischief. I have no idea what I agreed to on page 79 of the EUA I signed when I activated my new iPhone.

If it's anything like what they did on Southpark...you don't want to know.

But let's not try to scare off Pirate...I'd miss the bigoted rants about people who don't speak English, ironically written in really bad English if he didn't post here occasionally.