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/

[vegasvic]

Diane Chill out !!!

Look you are sounding more and more like this has nothing to do with watchers .. but slamming socks for also adopting the policy . Seems you and dorbel do not agree with .

You do not have to play in any of the tourneys that have this policy .

I for one will change the bloody mary policy on watchers to "Any player that has registered in my tourney can watch any match "

My thinking is if they are playing in the tourney they have the right to watch other players . i don't care about people outside the tourney .

i will post my rules so everyone knows to join or not to join .

Again i am going to say  "this is for fun " chill out have a drink and smile .

Also dear diane , many humans have changed their minds and changed rules that govern people .

Since you live in a free society and don't like a policy run other tourneys ... as i recall you ran friday3 for years banning me .

Good luck sweetie !!!

PS Seems she is well thought of in Fibs diane even with your daily bashing of her . 'RepBotNG says: socksey's reputation is 1962013 (GOOD)"

[RickrInSF]

i guess i will have to check every tournament on whether or not my right to blind people is supported, i really didn't have a problem with the rule until yesterday, but now i totally see dorbel's point

i was playing vic, and rollingfool started watching (as he does often, always with snide remarks and cheering for the other player), vic stopped the match and insisted i allow fool to watch, which i did after finding out fool was in the tournament, at which time he immedeatly said something that bugged me, i warned him to be quiet or i would blind him again, of course he could not be quiet, so i blinded him again, all of which (especially vic stopping the match until i relented) was very distracting and probably caused me the match

so, i will never relenquish my right to blind again, and i will protest every tourney with that rule!
(egypt can inspire anyone!)

[socksey]

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?

What part of this, "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."  Does this not answer your question?   

Let me clarify a bit more on the originality of the rule.  I initiated the conversation with the then active TD's on 14 Nov 10 precipitated by a particularly nightmarish TD experience from the previous day.  The conversation evolved whereby I toned down my initially proposed rule and revised it with the help of the others.  Two of the TD's did not feel the rule was needed and that that is what TD's are for.  The others agreed wholeheartedly and placed it into their own rules.   

While I have never gone to the extent of adopting a full set of rules, I felt compelled to address the ones I posted for my own well being.  Since I am the longest acting TD on Fibs, and having seen so many act and leave from the abuse we often get, I had felt the need to do or die, so to speak.   


End of story, until now, and I really do hope this is the end of this particular story.   

socksey

[socksey]

i guess i will have to check every tournament on whether or not my right to blind people is supported, i really didn't have a problem with the rule until yesterday, but now i totally see dorbel's point

i was playing vic, and rollingfool started watching (as he does often, always with snide remarks and cheering for the other player), vic stopped the match and insisted i allow fool to watch, which i did after finding out fool was in the tournament, at which time he immedeatly said something that bugged me, i warned him to be quiet or i would blind him again, of course he could not be quiet, so i blinded him again, all of which (especially vic stopping the match until i relented) was very distracting and probably caused me the match

so, i will never relenquish my right to blind again, and i will protest every tourney with that rule!
(egypt can inspire anyone!)

Rick, my rule is that anyone can watch the final EXCEPT if they are disruptive in kibitz.  Your right to gag a player is always an option.  "Gag" and
Blind" are seperate command functions.  You also have the option to silent shouts which will also help free you from distractions.  This being the case, I see no reason why any player should refrain from playing the tourneys with that rule.  ))

socksey

[RickrInSF]

Socksey,
  I always turn off shouts during matches that are important to me (flg, tournaments, playing vic, etc), distractions break my concentration and i play MUCH better without them.
  the example i gave, with rollingfool, is not the only point, but it's my first point, people watching me (people like rollingfool), distract me, i'm always waiting for the next "man that was a stupid move" or "way to go opponent!". I shouldn't have to deal with these kind of distractions. (shouldn't have to - being the key words here)
  but more than that, it makes it possible to cheat (get advice from other players). so if someone starts watching that i don't trust, i should have the right to make it harder for that player to give my opponent advice.
  if you don't think this happens, you are wrong, if you don't think advice matters, you are wrong.

[diane]

i was playing vic, and rollingfool started watching (as he does often, always with snide remarks and cheering for the other player), vic stopped the match and insisted i allow fool to watch, which i did after finding out fool was in the tournament, at which time he immedeatly said something that bugged me, i warned him to be quiet or i would blind him again, of course he could not be quiet, so i blinded him again, all of which (especially vic stopping the match until i relented) was very distracting and probably caused me the match

As I thought...so much hot air...and you can bet that doing this in this tournament will not carry over to any other event...

[socksey]

Rick, I'm told that something else was going on that vic was attending to at the same time.  Maybe he will enlighten us from his point of view. 

I'm sorry you experienced the problem you did  It's really too bad that the supposed "adults" of Fibs can behave so badly at times, myself included.   I guess that is human nature, and we should try to be more tolerant and display less overreactive behavior. 

I don't know what the answer is, but for this conversation, I'm not changing my rules.  Unless you can live with that, please don't enter any of my tourneys.  Your spamming of shouts will be a waste of your time.

socksey

[diane]

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.  Naav posted this..
http://a9tourney.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/after-nine-propositions/

Dorbel, you responded to that post on 17 Nov 2010.

http://a9tourney.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/after-nine-propositions/#comment-15

I think you were a bit caught up in the whole seeding question to notice that he was also insisting that anyone be allowed to watch tourney matches, and gags to be removed for the tourney final.

I did take that up with him, offline, and we exchanged several mails. He persuaded me to see his point of view [yes, that is possible  ] and that was the root of my current 'no gags' policy.

It is a shame you didnt pick this up with him when he first dreamed it up, and before it spread to all the other tournaments - although, he was so persuasive, he may even have converted you too 

[dorbel]

I started this thread to stimulate those who support the "no blinds" rule to think about why it was in place. Clearly this also requires me to think about my own point of view, which I have done.
Broadly I support the idea that the final, indeed all of the matches in the tournament, should be open to all to watch. Personally I like being watched! I suppose that it appeals to my vanity or sense of self-importance or something. I don't though like being watched by people who are consistently hostile to me and who have disrupted my matches in various ways in the past. I could, as has been suggested, gag them and turn off shouts, but actually I  blind them as that it is my only way that I can see to combat them!
I have found that responding to baiting, jeering, lies, slander and all other forms of what we endearingly call "interpersonal abuse" only prolongs it and reduces us all to the same low level. It disgusts me when they do it and I am disgusted with myself when I do it, so as far as I can I try to ignore their shouts. Taking away their ability to watch my matches is all that I have left as a countermeasure and that is why I do it.
If TDs have tired of the rows that this generates, then perhaps they should consider action against the disrupters, rather than against a player who wants to play a peaceful match. I don't however live in hopes of that happening.
More generally, does the new rule make for a peaceful final? Rick's experience last Sunday suggests that it doesn't. Does the new rule encourage larger entries? It doesn't look like it does it?

[KDP]

For what its worth here are my 2 cents worth.  My first impression when reading over this thread it seems to be much ado about nothing.  My second impression is one of sadness.  I'm saddened  that there are people in their 30's, 40's and 50's who are still acting like 10 yr olds on the playground.  I expect any minute now someone will shout out, "I'm taking my ball (dice?) and going home!"  I support having all tourney matches open to anyone who wants to watch.  Like Dorbel said, having others watch my match does appeal to a sense of vanity and furthermore I believe it (should?/does?) strengthen the FIBS community.  I believe blinding/gagging someone should be used only as a last resort and only if that person is disruptive during the match.  Otherwise everyone needs to grow up.

[garp_02]

I agree with KDP about some of the childish behaviour shown on this thread. I would add that, to a relative newcomer, this is symptomatic of the whole make up of Fibs with all the little groups trying to score points against the other little groups.  I have played on many backgammon sites and the petty bickering that goes on here is the worst i have ever witnessed. Seemingly respectable members like Dorbel resort to verbal and personal abuse and the most disruptive player on fibs is given a td position. Now, i have td'd and played under many and most wouldn't accept any of the disruptive behaviour seen on fibs. On IBA they even insist on silence in the lobby (apart from participants) during  tourneys so tds can see reports of matches and any tourney-related chat. Having said that, i actually agree with Dorbel and would go even further and say that all finals should be a closed table except from td of course.     

[RickrInSF]

i'm supprised that everyone (except newcomers) is supprised by the behavior on fibs, anyone that has been around large families sees this behavior as normal. And fibs is more like a large family than any other backgammon site.  It comes from most of us knowing each others behavior, and i'm never supprised when rollingfool insults me, or when vic can't keep from shouting something stupid, abusive, hateful, or arogant. Which is why i blind them. They do not watch my matches to learn. And no matter what the td's do to them after the fact, i do not expect them to change, they will not be able to help themselves and will eventually repeat the same behavior. How many times does one have to see this repeated for the td not to preemptively prevent it? By making the "no blind" rule, you are encouraging this behavior, not discouraging it.

[garp_02]

I, for one, am not surprised at the behaviour on Fibs, Rick - only surprised that it has been allowed to continue for so long. So many cliques fighting and bitching about each others' behaviour at any possible opportunity.

And if it were my family? I'd have left home a long time ago

[RickrInSF]

i am at home, going onto fibs is just like a thanksgiving dinner, u can't avoid all of your inlaws

[Leudwulf]

I have nothing constructive to say, so I'm just gonna stand over there in the corner, and stick my dick in the mashed potatoes.

[sixty_something]

.. fibs is more like a large family than any other backgammon site. 

... no matter what the td's do to them after the fact, i do not expect them to change, they will not be able to help themselves and will eventually repeat the same behavior. How many times does one have to see this repeated for the td not to preemptively prevent it? By making the "no blind" rule, you are encouraging this behavior, not discouraging it.

the familial nature of FIBS is spot on .. we have both highly functional and dysfunctional types and everything in between .. those of us who have been around a while can almost predict what will come next when an all too familiar button is pushed .. just like in a large family, the posturing and provoking that goes whenever certain family members gather together is almost totally predictable .. it really is quite entertaining, but, like in a family, it turns serious all too frequently .. then feeling get hurt and sores from old wounds become old scores which need to be settled .. c'est la vie - we are but part of the human family

FIBS shouts are just like the weather, if you don't like it stick around a while, it will change .. personal vendettas aside, most folks are civil with one another .. when absurdity and bad behavior break out, civility is too quickly forgotten .. IMO, there is little that can be done short of ignoring it .. to react in any way simply gains the bad actor recognition which more often than not he or she finds satisfying in some perverse way

the emphasis in Rickr's last sentence is mine .. i cannot agree more

IMO, reacting with blinding folks in shouts, carefully crafted rules in tournaments (no matter how well intended), and/or bans from tourneys or shouts solves nothing .. it just provides another opportunity for someone to make a fool of themselves .. in the free market place of shouts and tournament play, bad behavior will happen .. IMHO, the most effective way to minimize it is to have fun anyway, laugh at the absurdity of it all, and demonstrate good sportsmanlike behavior .. who knows today's enemy may become a tomorrow's friend

no thank you, Leudwulf, i'll pass on the potatoes

[KissMyAss]

MMmmmmm Potatoes, yummy!    Ya don't want some sixtie??  More for me!   

[socksey]

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?

Thank you diane for finding this thread.  I was looking  for it earlier today after another fiasco in my Fri3 Tournament.  I was rereading  it and find it quite entertaining.  I can't imagine why you missed it, Tom.   

Note what dorbel says, "I accept without reservation the right of TDs to have any rule that they like."  Now I'm wondering why dorbel disrespected my Fri3  rules which were posted here in November of 2010:  http://www.fibsboard.com/fibsleagammon/info-about-f3/80/   , as well as announced in Fibs shouts, and thrashed about in shouts numerous times.   

socksey



If I have any beliefs about immortality, it is that certain dogs I have known will go to heaven - and very, very few persons. - James Thurber