[ecepal]

I voted to this issue as on first "no" but I come to thimk that it is really a good idea
to log all the private chats for certain period at least.
I believe this helps for tournements and helps sorting out all the problems too..
Thanks for your efforts ..Keep up the good job:))
ece

[doofik]

I'm amazed at the number of posters saying they agree with logging all of the private chat. Why are we sacrificing the expectation of privacy for so few? This is analogous to the 9/11 aftermath in the U.S.

No, I don't think I've ever said anything to be ashamed of privately or publicly. This is not an issue of my personal transgressions but of a similarity to a totalitarian way of doing things. I abhor the idea

[Turbin]

Italians are people with high sense of humour. True to tell, also French people are humorists. And what about Spaniards, Hungarians, Norwegians, Americans, Englishmen - and Englishwomen? All great people too, always smiling or cracking a joke.
I like this proposal: very amusing. And, of course, my vote is “NO”.
Paolo

[skorchev]

I think there are 2 variants:

1. Log all chat

2. Don't log the chat

Any other variants are ... hum I don't know what is the word.

I personally voted for Log all chat, but I think you should start any testing periond of 1 month for example (let's users feel what is that logging) and then ask again, and if they like it go ahead if no - put it out.

Stefan

[Resaz0]

Hi all,

I am a little frightened reading content of this topic, I think that nobody should be allowed to read private chat except the person who receives it. I hope this is not happening now, and that it will never happen in the future.

And I also think that making copies or logs or screenshots of private chat is not ethic, unless the other person chatting is informed and allows it. I know that the staff of the site cannot check this, but in many posts people here is speaking of this kind of behaviour with no blame, as if it were absolutely normal. It is not normal imho, we cannot perform an abuse in order to fight an abuse.

I have never received offensive private chat, and a very small number of people is black on my list: think positive, the bbo site is 99,9% pleasant and I dont think we need this kind of controls.

Ciao all

Patrizia

[etherwiz]

Unfortunately as BBO grows, the .1% of "bad members" also grows.

Remember the one bad apple can spoil the whole barel.

I personally have no objection to anything I say being recorded, but then I am sober right now. In another state I would probably would object (when the Hangover happens at least).

But I had to vote no on recording public chat. That is a political view rather then a proactical or enforcable one.

Wither BBO can have a site then allow "Site-Recorded: Pricate Chat may be leagally questionable, but would be morally justified. Also unforunately the courts are more concenred with the Questionable Laws then the Moral certainty of what actually happened. But that is another matter mostly ignored.

I beleive BBO has the right to record private conversations (both in Tourney and in Chat Room) anywhere. Making that public would quickly reduce the use of the site (or reduce the "happy use" of thier site at least). Even in a temporary form (only hold for 24 hours, and if needed copy it out to a leagle document, I would still object. But that is me. And I would mostly benifit from this anyway, as I KNOW I would object more to what is said TO me then what I say to others.

But sometimes Private Thoughts are sent as private text. This includes health information as well as practical life-thype questions. A bridge site is not the proper site fir this stuff, but people being people will still think Private is Private, even if a warning is given on sign on. These could be embarressing to such people if made public. And yes I know that BBO would never publish something with the only intention of embarressing someone, but site owners are like the goverment, no one really likes trusting them !

There is no question you have the right to record private chat (and I would perfer that then trusting copies made from some users machines) but does BBO have the moral right to call it "Private Chat" then ?

Terminology. Words and inturputation .....................
most deffinitions are in the eyes of the beholder ...........................

_*_Dave

[jtfanclub]

Quote

I am a little frightened reading content of this topic, I think that nobody should be allowed to read private chat except the person who receives it.

Regardless of whether BBO does it, I guarantee anything you type on your computer can be read by your Internet Service Provider, short of certain encryption programs. I don't know that people at the ISP read your chat for entertainment, but then I don't know that they don't either.

Quote

And I also think that making copies or logs or screenshots of private chat is not ethic,

This, I cannot disagree with more. Especially when I am directing.

[bearmum]

jtfanclub, on Sep 5 2004, 01:59 PM, said:

Quote

I am a little frightened reading content of this topic, I think that nobody should be allowed to read private chat except the person who receives it.

Regardless of whether BBO does it, I guarantee anything you type on your computer can be read by your Internet Service Provider, short of certain encryption programs. I don't know that people at the ISP read your chat for entertainment, but then I don't know that they don't either.

Quote

And I also think that making copies or logs or screenshots of private chat is not ethic,

This, I cannot disagree with more. Especially when I am directing.

I have NO problem with my ISP being able to read my private chat (they have TOO much traffic to be bothered reading MY insignificant postings on their VAST data base)

BUT

I really do have a problem if BBO (repeat BBO!!) felt it necessary to record PRIVATE chat for whatever reason

Unfortunately I don't think there IS a way of preventing somebody playing with me of taking screenshots of 'private' chat but I can live with that ( as I very rarely 'private chat' anyway )

[1eyedjack]

Accepting that there may be other dangers and/or unpleasant side effects, there are perfectly sensible reasons why private chat should be loggable.

When providing an explanation of an action to opponents, beyond the very limited amount of space provided in the bidding dialog, the only way to achieve this without providing UI to partner is by way of private chat.

In such circumstances, the "chatter" has no particular interest in the chat being private other than to avoid the transfer of UI to partner for a very limited period of time. It would probably be too difficult to implement but it would be nice for a sender of private chat to be able to make it public in retrospect when the danger of UI has passed.

TDs are regularly required to rule on alleged transgressions in circumstances where the explanations provided are relevant to the ruling. This requires access to private chat.

Logging of private chat may also be useful in recording abusive behaviour.

If screenshots are regarded as acceptable there is no reason why it should be unacceptable to make such recording easier to achieve and manage.

Perhaps there should be three types of chat: Public, private and very private, but I stand by my earlier suggestion as best:

Allow individuals to enable/disable the logging of private chat, and allow TDs to override those settings in a tourney environment (subject to publication of policy).

The objection on privacy grounds is flawed: Players would be on notice that privacy is insecure and would be guarded against making comments in private chat that they do not wish to be accessed.

[doofik]

If I may reiterate my point. Why are we sacrificing status quo for the very few? As soon as someone convinces me that my take on this whole matter is wrong, I'll join the ranks.

Jola

[hotShot]

1eyedjack, on Sep 5 2004, 12:06 PM, said:

....
Logging of private chat may also be useful in recording abusive behaviour.
....

Well it may also be usefull to spy upon people, but is this what the world should be like?

There are several thousand privat messages each day and may be a handful worth reporting to abuse.

I think it is not acceptable to log all privat chat, just to procecute a few offenders.
We are talking about rudeness here and not about serious crimes.

There are people out there who cannot file a screenshot if neccessary. They need somethink more convenient,within the software.

This post has been edited by hotShot: 2004-September-05, 09:04

[1eyedjack]

doofik, on Sep 5 2004, 09:09 AM, said:

Why are we sacrificing status quo for the very few?

Factual disputes over what was said in a tourney environment are not so rare in face to face games. I have no reason to think that the frequency should be any less in online games, for as long as the potential for evidential support remains the same as in face to face, ie non-existent.

If you prefer the status quo, how about providing some constructive dismissal of the concerns of those who argue for change?

[1eyedjack]

hotShot, on Sep 5 2004, 09:19 AM, said:

1eyedjack, on Sep 5 2004, 12:06 PM, said:

....
Logging of private chat may also be useful in recording abusive behaviour.
....

Well it may be usefull to spy upon people, but is this what the world should be like?

Where does spying come into it? If the chat is logged and accessable then it is not private. But there is no suggestion that members should be misled into thinking that the chat is private if it is not. Perhaps it would be better to remove the word private from the description. Any person who submits chat should be aware of the potential for its access and should use the facility on the assumption that it would be. If they are not happy with that then they are free not to use that chat facility and their privacy is maintained.

[doofik]

"Factual disputes over what was said in a tourney environment are not so rare in face to face games. I have no reason to think that the frequency should be any less in online games, for as long as the potential for evidential support remains the same as in face to face, ie non-existent.

If you prefer the status quo, how about providing some constructive dismissal of the concerns of those who argue for change?"

It is my point that what we're discussing applies to very few members of BBO. You've got your own chat log, you've got screen shots, and now you want that powers-that-be get involved in disputes which, overall, are petty and ridiculous? Are the above materials insufficient?

Again, give me a valid reason and I'll join the ranks.

Jola

[1eyedjack]

doofik, on Sep 5 2004, 09:53 AM, said:

Again, give me a valid reason and I'll join the ranks.

It is all about making life easier. If, as you say, there are alternative, albeit relatively complicated and timeconsuming, methods of achieving the same end, then the question arises: if there is an opportunity for making it less complicated and less timeconsuming then why would anyone NOT want to jump at the opportunity?

Time and again we hear of the problems of TDs who are pressed for time in a tournament for making rulings. Those resources are stretched further if you place unnecessary obstacles in the way of the TD having access to the facts forming the basis of his ruling.

[1eyedjack]

doofik, on Sep 5 2004, 09:53 AM, said:

It is my point that what we're discussing applies to very few members of BBO.

And it is my point that what we are discussing applies to no fewer members of BBO than it does to the equivalent proportion of face to face players.

What is your evidence that the number affected is "very few"? I have no evidence to the contrary, but in the absence of any evidence either way I do not think it unreasonable to assume parity of proportions.

[doofik]

1eyedjack,

And just what percentage of face-to-face tournaments deal with this type of a problem? I presume you've got those percentages?

Jola

[1eyedjack]

I have no percentages. But I have enough experience of f2f games to accept that in that environment it is a significant problem which, if it could be solved, would be of benefit to the game.

What is it with percentages anyway? If it is of benefit to a few, and there are no downsides, what is the objection?

This software is in its infancy, so to talk about the "status quo" is nonsence. It hasn't had time to establish a status quo, and it is continually evolving.

The process of improving the software/service can be divided into separate stages:

Stage 1: Identify a list of desired improvements
Stage 2: Prioritise the list according to benefits and difficulty of implementation
Stage 3: Implement the list in that priority.

I can accept that *IF* the proposal is of benefit to a very small minority, then it would have a detrimental effect on stage 2. But let us at least agree on whether it fits into the list in stage 1 first. Then we can haggle over where it should appear in the (stage 2) prioritising, wherein the number of beneficiaries would be one (of perhaps several) factors.

This thread was initiated by BBO management soliciting our opinions. They are I suspect well capable of prioritising their improvements. I suspect that the original purpose of the thread was to identify whether the suggestion even fits into Stage 1, for which purpose arguing over the number of beneficiaries is moot. Objections tend to take the flavour of matters of principle rather than number crunching the number of players who would benefit.

[doofik]

Well put and I still don't see the benefit of logging all private chat. It my premise that once complaints start rolling in, everyone will be involved in searching chats out the wazoo. Personally, I'd prefer to have that time spent on developing a software to remove unwanted kibs. I guess it's all a matter of personal preference:-)

Jola

[luke warm]

i've read some impressive posts taking the 'pro' view on this... as impressive as they've been, and as respected as some of the posters are, i still think logging all chat is a bad idea *in theory*...

it's so easy to make light of the orwellian possibilities that exist in the world, but just because something is subject to ridicule doesn't mean it's wrong.. even paranoid people have enemies...

we've lost a lot of privacy lately in this country, and with internet legislation coming next we're bound to lose more... there seems to be too many people who value communal safety (or whatever) over personal liberties

what does logging all chat on bbo have to do with the fbi *legally* monitoring my internet usage? maybe nothing... what i'm afraid of is the mindset that sees both things as correct, or necessary