[jeffford76]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-06, 20:33, said:

David Stevenson and I get to decide, since we run this forum. However, we do try to avoid drastic action, which is why we almost always let such threads run their course. I would like to point out, however, that our purpose in starting IBLF was to provide a place to discuss practical table rulings, leaving the finer points for blml or rgb or other forums.

I think that most questions about "practical" table rulings are going to have little to discuss. These are the sorts of things that almost all directors agree on the answer to, so someone will post the correct answer, and a couple people may concur, and there's not much more to say.

In general things that generate long discussion are going to be on points where the law is vague, or can be read in multiple ways. In this case, I'm still not sure whether the definition of a pack is intended to mean a specific pack that is used for the deal or any pack (and admittedly at this point I don't think anyone is going to say anything enlightening either way, but if someone thinks they can I wouldn't want to stop them).

I'm also not sure why "BLML" is continually used as some kind of bogeyman. Most of the messages of late on BLML have been about the practical application of claim rules at the table, and about whether we would be better off with more prescribed guidelines on what counted as a normal line of play for the purposes of resolving bad claims. That seems like an imminently practical discussion to me.

Obviously as the moderator you can allow whatever discussion you wish, but I would request that you use a light touch, particularly in threads where you have been a part of the discussion. It doesn't sit well to have a moderator enter a discussion, and then when they get pushback on their opinion threaten to shut down the topic.

[nige1]

jeffford76, on 2014-January-07, 11:47, said:

Obviously as the moderator you can allow whatever discussion you wish, but I would request that you use a light touch, particularly in threads where you have been a part of the discussion. It doesn't sit well to have a moderator enter a discussion, and then when they get pushback on their opinion threaten to shut down the topic.

I haven't recently checked, but in the past, posts disagreeing with a moderator were sometimes deleted without warning.

[dburn]

Whether facing a card from a hand you don't actually hold on the deal is an opening lead or not may be regarded as an abstract question, but the situation I described did arise in actual play, and someone had to give a "practical" ruling. He looked at the actual West hand, which would have done nothing but pass in any auction where East had not made an unconditionally forcing bid, and told West to lead from it. This wasn't legal, but it was "practical" enough, and the players accepted it and got on with the game.

When he asked me about it, I read the Laws. I observed that the only Law covering cards from a wrong board was Law 17, clearly headed The Auction Period. I know as well as anyone that the headings are not part of the Laws, and that if this was the only Law covering the situation it should be followed as far as it could be followed. I observed that it could give rise to the (to my mind) ridiculous position that different cases would be treated differently depending on who had the wrong cards. As a practical matter, it would be sensible for this Law to be reviewed in the course of preparing the 2017 edition of the Laws. Also, Law 1 should be tightened.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-06, 20:33, said:

David Stevenson and I get to decide, since we run this forum. However, we do try to avoid drastic action, which is why we almost always let such threads run their course. I would like to point out, however, that our purpose in starting IBLF was to provide a place to discuss practical table rulings, leaving the finer points for blml or rgb or other forums.

Please lighten up and look at the left top of your screen. What does it say?

It says "BBO Discussion Forums" (emphasis mine). That means that opinions are going to be exchanged, ideally supported by facts, interpretations and good reasoning. It does not say "The medium where David and Ed spread the irrevocable truth about bridge Laws". It is not merely allowed for people to voice opinions, including opinions that are not yours. No, people are supposed to voice their opinions and discuss.

Generally speaking, I find the BBO forum members refreshingly mature. With few exceptions, people can debate -sometimes fiercely- while showing a lot of respect for the other side in the debate. This is something very valuable. There are very few places where people are able to discuss constructively and learn from the ideas on the other side. The BBF community contains people that are witty, wise, knowledgeable, serious and intelligent from very different places with very different professional backgrounds and, hence, very different cultures and ways of reasoning. These differences are exactly what makes BBF interesting.

So, please let the discussions run their course, even if you, e.g., think that leading a shoe is absurd. The discussions will stop by themselves as soon as everything has been said.

Rik

[blackshoe]

jeffford76, on 2014-January-07, 11:47, said:

I think that most questions about "practical" table rulings are going to have little to discuss. These are the sorts of things that almost all directors agree on the answer to, so someone will post the correct answer, and a couple people may concur, and there's not much more to say.

In general things that generate long discussion are going to be on points where the law is vague, or can be read in multiple ways. In this case, I'm still not sure whether the definition of a pack is intended to mean a specific pack that is used for the deal or any pack (and admittedly at this point I don't think anyone is going to say anything enlightening either way, but if someone thinks they can I wouldn't want to stop them).

I'm also not sure why "BLML" is continually used as some kind of bogeyman. Most of the messages of late on BLML have been about the practical application of claim rules at the table, and about whether we would be better off with more prescribed guidelines on what counted as a normal line of play for the purposes of resolving bad claims. That seems like an imminently practical discussion to me.

Obviously as the moderator you can allow whatever discussion you wish, but I would request that you use a light touch, particularly in threads where you have been a part of the discussion. It doesn't sit well to have a moderator enter a discussion, and then when they get pushback on their opinion threaten to shut down the topic.

Did I threaten to shut down this topic? I don't think so. Perhaps I was misinterpreted.

nige1, on 2014-January-07, 11:54, said:

I haven't recently checked, but in the past, posts disagreeing with a moderator were sometimes deleted without warning.

Not, I hope, by me.

Trinidad, on 2014-January-07, 14:51, said:

Please lighten up and look at the left top of your screen. What does it say?

It says "BBO Discussion Forums" (emphasis mine). That means that opinions are going to be exchanged, ideally supported by facts, interpretations and good reasoning. It does not say "The medium where David and Ed spread the irrevocable truth about bridge Laws". It is not merely allowed for people to voice opinions, including opinions that are not yours. No, people are supposed to voice their opinions and discuss.

Generally speaking, I find the BBO forum members refreshingly mature. With few exceptions, people can debate -sometimes fiercely- while showing a lot of respect for the other side in the debate. This is something very valuable. There are very few places where people are able to discuss constructively and learn from the ideas on the other side. The BBF community contains people that are witty, wise, knowledgeable, serious and intelligent from very different places with very different professional backgrounds and, hence, very different cultures and ways of reasoning. These differences are exactly what makes BBF interesting.

So, please let the discussions run their course, even if you, e.g., think that leading a shoe is absurd. The discussions will stop by themselves as soon as everything has been said.

Rik

I do try to let things run their course. I also do point out from time to time when I think they've run on long enough, but show no signs of stopping. Perhaps that's a failure on my part, but I've been running discussions like this for a very long time, and if it's a failure, it's an old one learned early on. As for your "it does not say" I think that's a little over the top. Neither David nor I have ever claimed to have all the answers.

Oh, and at the left top of my screen it says "Safari".

[blackshoe]

dburn, on 2014-January-07, 13:43, said:

Whether facing a card from a hand you don't actually hold on the deal is an opening lead or not may be regarded as an abstract question, but the situation I described did arise in actual play, and someone had to give a "practical" ruling. He looked at the actual West hand, which would have done nothing but pass in any auction where East had not made an unconditionally forcing bid, and told West to lead from it. This wasn't legal, but it was "practical" enough, and the players accepted it and got on with the game.

When he asked me about it, I read the Laws. I observed that the only Law covering cards from a wrong board was Law 17, clearly headed The Auction Period. I know as well as anyone that the headings are not part of the Laws, and that if this was the only Law covering the situation it should be followed as far as it could be followed. I observed that it could give rise to the (to my mind) ridiculous position that different cases would be treated differently depending on who had the wrong cards. As a practical matter, it would be sensible for this Law to be reviewed in the course of preparing the 2017 edition of the Laws. Also, Law 1 should be tightened.

I don't see anything here with which to disagree.

[ArtK78]

nige1, on 2014-January-07, 11:54, said:

I haven't recently checked, but in the past, posts disagreeing with a moderator were sometimes deleted without warning.

Even worse can be having your post cut off in mid

[blackshoe]

heh

[jeffford76]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-07, 15:57, said:

Did I threaten to shut down this topic? I don't think so. Perhaps I was misinterpreted.

It is hard not to interpret a statement by a moderator that a particular direction of discussion is not appropriate as an implicit threat even if it wasn't intended that way. I agree that you have made no explicit statement.

I also realize that this discussion of moderation is orthogonal to the interesting OP and discussion, so I will not comment any more about the moderation in this thread.