Blinds

[dorbel]

In live backgammon, whether in club or tournament, there is a rule designed to protect the player from watchers who are unwelcome. He may ban any watcher from his match, without having to give a reason. I have never seen a case where an unwelcome watcher has been permitted to remain, although occasionally it has to be enforced by the TD and it invariably is. Of course there can be many reasons for banning a watcher, from body odour to cheating, but a reason doesn't have to be given.
The rationale for not having to give a reason is twofold. It means that the player is not distracted by having to enter an argument about why the watcher should be banned. It also means that the watcher does not have to feel insulted or take offence, he isn't welcome, but no more than that.

Is there a reason why this rule doesn't apply to some tournaments on fibs?

Note that this is not directed at any person in particular, nor intended to be a personal attack on those TDs who have a "No blinding" rule in their tournaments. it is intended to stimulate debate, nothing more.

[vegasvic]

Let me be the first to respond to you paul .

In fibs we are playing for FUN. yes you can ban anyone you like no reason needed .

The rule will stand as sixtie has on the bloodymary tourney .. no bans or blinds allowed . unless they are disruptive in the match .

i do tell them to use whisper.

My thinking is this more people watch the less bickering there are in tourneys the more people will join .

I know jackdaddy and you are of the same mind on this subject .

in my tourney dont register if you are going to blind people .

have fun in your matches , and don"t take your self too seriously .

Big O

[dorbel]

The question was "Is there a reason why this rule doesn't apply to some tournaments on fibs? " Vic doesn't actually address that question.

Perhaps I should rephrase the question. Is there a reason why this rule doesn't apply to all tournaments on fibs, given that it is considered to be the standard in real life and conducive to smooth running and civilised play?

[jackdaddy]

The rule also states that anyone causing disruptions will be banned. I don't think that rule has had to be enforced.

[Tanika]

I can't speak for other TD's. As far as Saturday Night Fever goes, the "no blind" rule in the final will stay. No matter with how many "life tourney" rules I am confronted, every player on FIBS should be able to watch the final, participating or not. I do this for fun, to learn from the other TD's and give the "fenceposts" like me a chance too. Sportsmanship goes further than just rules. Consideration towards other players, being an example for those less talented, and also mutual respect, regarding personal feelings. I state clearly that if any player is a disruption or misbehave in any way, that the players then have the right to blind him/her. It is up to every player on FIBS to decide if they can abide to the rules, both ways. If not, feel free to do your own tourney. AND I promise....I will abide by YOUR rules!

[diane]

This is FIBs, not real life. There is almost nothing on FIBs that reflects what happens in real life, why should this be any different?

Interestingly, I 'accidentally' watched a vic-Leudwulf tourney match for about 5 seconds, until I realised who Leud was playing. That was just enough time for vic to tell me I couldn't watch the match....

It is also my strong suspicion that the statement 'causing a disruption' is so much hot air. It means - doesnt cause a disruption this time, in this match, without good reason, if they dont argue well enough, if they arent too scary, if they may be right, as long as they dont do it next time, as long as they arent my friend and wont ring me up to give me offline grief later, and most certainly doesnt ever carry over to any other events.

[dorbel]

None of these posts attempts to answer the question. Let me ask you in another way Tanika. Why is the rule that you have better than the rule that is in place in real life? What is its purpose?

[Tanika]

Diane, as far as your suspicion go.. In my tourney the "causing disruption" rule stands just as firm as the "no blind " rule. I don't care who phone, skype or MSN me. Rules are rules and I mean to enforce them.

[jackdaddy]

No matter with how many "life tourney" rules I am confronted, every player on FIBS should be able to watch the final, participating or not. I do this for fun,

None of these posts attempts to answer the question. Let me ask you in another way Tanika. Why is the rule that you have better than the rule that is in place in real life? What is its purpose?

I believe the purpose is to let all fibsters have access to the final match of the tournament. It seems clear...

[socksey]

None of these posts attempts to answer the question. Let me ask you in another way Tanika. Why is the rule that you have better than the rule that is in place in real life? What is its purpose?

If you had been  listening, all the reasons have been given by Tanika and others, but if you want the background to the rule, I proposed it.  It was discussed by all the active Tourney Directors at the time and since they all agreed with it, it became a rule in my tourneys and the others.  I even rewrote the final draft of the rule several times to all the others advice and criticism. 

By making this a "rule", it is an understood going into the tourney, so no hassle need be given or taken by the players or the TD.

socksey



 

[dorbel]

This rule first appeared I believe in the Bago Tounament. In its oiginal form "players" referred to those who had entered the tournament. I know this because I checked with LuckyDice before I entered the next time. The next time I entered the tournament and reached the final, I excluded a fibster who is never welcome to watch me play and had not entered, but while the final was in progress, LD told me that the rule now meant "all fibsters". I resigned the match and haven't of course entered bago since.
There is of course a lot of personal history to all this. I actually enjoy and welcome watchers in general. However there are a very small number of fibsters who do have a history of animosity, hostility even, towards me and excluding them from watching my matches seems reasonable to me. The new rule gives them a right that they didn't have before, takes away a right that I had and effectively excludes me from tournaments that I enjoyed. Who gains by that?
I accept without reservation the right of TDs to have any rule that they like. However, in a genuine spirit of inquiry, let me try one more time. Players have always had the right to exclude a specified watcher. What is actually wrong with that? It causes no disruption unless the banned player hassles the TD about it, but why frame a rule that confers rights on the watcher and takes rights away from the player? What purpose does that serve? I lost by it. Who gained?

[socksey]

I think you want a debate where no debate exists.     This is already a "done deal".    

socksey 

[dorbel]

You can of course decline to answer the questions, but to declare the debate closed is, or should be, beyond the powers of the moderator. Who gained by the new rule? Who lost?

[diane]

This is already a "done deal".    

Being a 'done deal' does not mean 'there is no debate'.

You stated - you asked all the TDs, not the customers...but that is ok - you sell what you sell...and the people buy it if they want it. You state 'everyone can watch'..or 'I can ban anyone I want for no reason'... [even if that is not true of those who have the patience to harrass you until you 'change your mind', which you are also particularly fond of doing.]

The customers can ask...'what am I getting from this'...your answer is not 'there is no debate'...your answer is..."I dont care, my decision is made...like it or dont play'

Personally I have gained in ways I did not imagine from all of this...but I am still irrationally banned from tourneys run by people who happily participate in tourneys I host or run. Aint life interesting  

[socksey]

Being a 'done deal' does not mean 'there is no debate'.

You stated - you asked all the TDs, not the customers...but that is ok - you sell what you sell...and the people buy it if they want it. You state 'everyone can watch'..or 'I can ban anyone I want for no reason'... [even if that is not true of those who have the patience to harrass you until you 'change your mind', which you are also particularly fond of doing.]

The customers can ask...'what am I getting from this'...your answer is not 'there is no debate'...your answer is..."I dont care, my decision is made...like it or dont play'

Personally I have gained in ways I did not imagine from all of this...but I am still irrationally banned from tourneys run by people who happily participate in tourneys I host or run. Aint life interesting 

"A done deal" means there is no debate.  You two or anyone else can debate all you want with each other or with anyone else who wants to join in. 
The fact is, I am not changing that rule for my tourneys.  The TD's at the time of the rule proposition had the debate already.

Anyone who has ever been banned from my tourneys has surely banned themselves by bad behavior, diane. 

For some reason, my thoughts go to, souptree, who hosted a tourney that everyone was enthusiastic about, but the tourney was short-lived for lack of a host.  IMHO, such as it is, this lack was due to too many opinions complicating the issues. 

That opinion is only one of the reasons why I chose to exclude the full body in the discussion.

Who gains from this rule you ask, dorbel?  You gain because you know where you stand on this issue and so do I.  Who lost?  I don't see that anyone has lost anything they didn't have in the first place.   

socksey

[diane]

1 - The fact is, I am not changing that rule for my tourneys. 

2 - Anyone who has ever been banned from my tourneys has surely banned themselves by bad behavior, diane. 

3 - For some reason, my thoughts go to, souptree, who hosted a tourney that everyone was enthusiastic about, but the tourney was short-lived for lack of a host.  IMHO, such as it is, this lack was due to too many opinions complicating the issues. 

4 - That opinion is only one of the reasons why I chose to exclude the full body in the discussion.

5 -  Who lost?  I don't see that anyone has lost anything they didn't have in the first place.   

The only way to get through this..is slowly..one at a time..

1 - well, time will tell on that - you change your mind so often it is dizzying, and repeatedly state that it is your right to do so.

2 - That statement seems to imply you have forgotten already. Let me help - it was because , as you stated at the time, 'I dont like her'

3 - It wasnt opinions complicating things, it was those particular fibsters who shout loudest and longest, and have all day to keep doing so. You bow to them, anyone who tries not to, gets fed up of it eventually.

4 - So, did you include the full body, some of the body, or only the bodies that agreed with you?

5 - A lot of people who used to be able to play in tourneys lost out on what they had before - ie, they could play. Now there is no recourse, Patti tells us to gag, the tourney directors tell us we cant play if we gag. Yes people and players have lost out, but those who use 'watching' as a tool to aggravate now can do so. I have yet to find one single person who gained from this...it used to be easy, you want to watch someone play a match, be civil and polite to them. Now - you can do anything you like, and we have to sit through it.  Well done socksey.

Btw..I used to think this was Luckdice's brainwave...and that his 'innocent' view of fibsters that meant he did not see what the implications were. Now I know it was actually yours...it is a whole different thing.

[socksey]

I'm afraid you have lost me, diane.     I don't know what you are raving about.  This is stupid.  Get a grip.  There are far more important things in life. 

I meant exactly what I said and not what you think I said.   

socksey

[vegasvic]

. Never mind !!

[jackdaddy]

PS i think everyone that takes time out and holds tourney's should get our thanks , not be bashed for the work they do.

Awww...nevermind...


PS to dorbel. If you are serious about blinding players, why do you leave the option open for players to "look" instead of actually blinding them. If you need help on how this is done, I can do that for you.

[diane]

I don't know what you are raving about.  This is stupid.  Get a grip.  There are far more important things in life. 

socksey

Do you think anyone who does not agree with you is 'raving'...because there is only one person getting worked up around here, the rest of us are trying to get an answer from you - who gains??

Get a grip...hmmm 

More important things in life - yes there are, there always are - what has that got to do with you making decisions that you think are best for everyone, when, blatantly, they are not.

Incidentally, I was persuaded to 'let anyone watch' by Naavanax...who had a much more rational and reasoned point of view, and did take the time to explain it to me.  I am still not convinced this was 'your idea', I think I saw you write somewhere that 'this is a good idea, I am going to adopt it in my tourneys'. Sometime after Naav posted this..
http://a9tourney.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/after-nine-propositions/