[luis]

bglover, on Mar 22 2004, 07:47 PM, said:

You say, Luis, that you wouldn't pay for online bridge and that is why you come to BBO. Well, would you pay, say $50 per year for a site that you felt was fairer and more vigilant in combatting unethical behavior? I bet you would. I bet most serious players would.

No, I wouldn't pay because first of all U$S 50 is a lot of money here, I strongly believe that having the same annual fee regardless of where the player is from is discriminatory. It's exactly the same as charging more/less because of your skin or your language or whatever.

Having said that I wouldn't pay for online bridge because I only play online to improve my game, meet friends, have fun and entertainment reasons, it's a great tool to have fun and it's a great tool to improve but I just don't think it has any competitive value at all. You can't "compete" playing online and as in any sport I love competition, even when you lose all the time :-)
If you win 708 imps against a pair? Is that good/bad or you don't care? I don't care. If you win a tournament are you happy or you are happy when you are playing well regardless of the result ? If you play very well and finish 50th are you happy? I am.
In face to face bridge you can play horrible and if you win you will be happy because the competitive factor exists. I can be completely wrong but if you feel competitive playing online and want to "win" things I think you don't know this game at all.

[doofik]

Uday:

Your response, while illuminating, has the same flaw as Ben's opinion, imho. We're staring at a possibility of a witchhunt by a faceless, nameless committee - are you saying that you don't see anything wrong with this? And no, I don't have a perfect solution nor even anything that resembles a solution.

I don't think that accusations of cheating ought to start with someone's success in 5 tourneys in close succession. However, and this is just my private observation, a drastic reversal of game level in an extremely short period of time will, by its nature, bring questions of honesty. I'm not talking about hands that are perfect for one bidding system vs. another, I'm talking about declaring and defense.

When accusing there are so many issues to look at. I'll give you a for instance. Lately I've been playing Polish Club which happens to have more variations than pills in any pharmacy. Is there anyone out there who's an expert in everything that the Polish Club offers? How about blends of Polish Club with strefa? If you're planning to use experts they ought to be aware of those combinations and the question that lends itself is, will those players lend a hand to an investigation in which, aside from a gratification of catching a potential cheater, there's nothing to gain?

I'd be curious to hear what others think.

Jola

[inquiry]

Uday,

The xx reports in yy days trigger investigation seems fine to me. I also very much favor the automatic ignoring of those who cry wolf too aften as you proposed.

I am not at all in favor of a "cheater" button very much like the friends and enemy button. That maybe simple to impliment but I think that creates way more potential problems than it solves.

Somehow taking you out of the loop seems wrong to me. I think there should be at least an appeal process to anyone branded by the panel where they can at least face the hands and explain it to a third person. Who knows, Jola maybe right, there maybe a good explaination for a bid or play that the group of volunteers overlooked (what if they didn't ASK for why).

Ben

[McBruce]

Thanks for monitoring this and sending us your opinions, Uday!

The suggested process is that a computer program collects suspect deals, and when enough are received about a single player (or perhaps pair), these deals (minus names) are sent to members of a panel to collect opinions on how serious they are. The people serving on the panel itself need not be anonymous, but the subset of the panel that (individually, not in consultation) reviews each case is secret. If the panel decides that there is evidence of cheating, the player accused is invited to defend himself, and the record of such cases is available for TDs/others to use in deciding who to ban from their tournaments/tables. Even if they ban someone, the person can always urge the TD to review the case if he wants to be reinstated. One other idea I have not seen mentioned is to include in the program some way of ensuring that people who serve on the panel make consistent decisions: those panelists who constantly disagree with the others should be left off.

I fail to see anything resembling a witchhunt at all in this. In fact, it sounds a lot like the Recorder system used in the ACBL. There is an extra step -- the panel decision -- between the initial complaint and the forwarding of the case to abuse@bbo, which allows for frivolous complaints to be dispensed with, and accused or suspect players to offer a defense for their actions. If cheating is on the rise (and 11 pages and counting suggests pretty strongly that it is), what better way to deal with it than to have concerned people try to take the workload of investigation off of the talented BBO team?

There are comparative projects going on on other game servers. One that comes to mind is the RepBot computer player on FIBS (First Internet Backgammon Server). Just as a concern about online bridge is knowledge of the other hands by carious means, a concern about online backgammon is the people who complete only matches that they are going to win. The RepBot 'bot' never plays a game, but records vouchers about players who complete their matches and complaints about those who drop their connections when losing. Over the course of time, all players get a RepBot rating and players can, if they wish, take this into account when invited to play a match.

One essential difference between online and f2f bridge is that in online bridge nobody can see what you're doing. No ethical player at table 5 South would ever consider taking a cellphone call from table 7 South while holding cards, because people will see what is happening. The call may be innocent, but the appearance is not. Meckstroth and Rodwell got into trouble a while back when one left the table while dummy and went to the men's room, and then subseqently the declarer did the same thing. It was innocent enough, but it looked bad. In online bridge nobody is watching and you can do a lot of things you would never dream of doing in f2f bridge. Unfortunately for the majority of us, this includes peeking (by various means) at what the other players hold, and taking advantage of this knowledge.

I think enough players share this view and enjoy BBO enought to be willing to do a little work to help make it better for all of us.

[McBruce]

Oops. Tried twice to send this with no browser response and it did get sent twice, so I'm editing the second identical version to this...

[spiralscan]

Not to throw another wrinkle in to this pot but there are a LOT of accusations that go on that are unfounded as some have so eloquently stated. My partner and I play a very artificial strong club system and although we alert everything necessary have been accused more than once of "cheating" simply because our opponents felt that the bids should not be allowed.

In fact, all bids were thoroughly explained and we exercise a full disclosure policy. There has been a lot of harassment over this to us and probably others...... so I believe there is a fine line between policing and harassment. I would hate to see players harassed that are simply playing their game.

Implementing a cheater button such as UDAY suggests could harm individuals who are playing an artificial system since many basic players simply don't understand complex agreements. Nor would they understand complex defensive systems and might automatically think cheating when no cheating exists! My partner and I have worked very hard at hammering out our agreements!

[keylime]

Imagine if this was the scene:

Players "X" and "Y", who so happen to be a pair of the ages, one of those iconic figures in the game, decide to drop into BBO, privately, and sits with two "experts". After 12 boards our fearless duo are giving the "experts" a buttkicking for the ages, and the "experts" decide to press the "button" to report the hands, where it's discovered that the pair in question are multiple world champions holding nearly 70 NABCs COMBINED. There's NO way that a "cheater" button would serve to progress BBO - if anything, it would serve to detract from the great community we have at BBO.

Many players admittedly are scared of a system that's not exactly "standard". Then again the definition of "standard" has changed over the years. Remember when weak two's came into vogue, limit raises, Precision, 2/1, Bergen style bids, LOTT, so on? Simple shows the game is evolving. In my eyes, to get better, you must expose yourself to new ideas.

Case in point: our WJ'ers. At first, I had no clue how to compete. So, I read up on it (thanks to the nice docs sent to me about it). Realized the essence of the system, and then went about it. Now, we like the WJ'ers. We enjoy the WJ'ers. We drive the WJ'ers absolutely nuts. Fun times had by us.

At least there are some folks like I who practice full disclosure.

Let the system development continue!

[McBruce]

OK. Hold it right there. Cease and desist. SPIN ALERT!

Nobody is advocating a CHEATER button. Nobody. In order to report cheating under the proposals I and others have made and read, a player would have to either:

1) ask his TD to look at a suspect board and report it (under the guidelines below) if he felt it suspicious.

or...

2) go to a website and fill in a form. To identify the board the accuser would need to fill in their name, the accused name(s), the board number, and the date played. I think the first page should be a short paragraph (linking to translations) about the risks taken by players who make a habit of submitting reports without merit. This should link to a second page explaining what action will be taken when the report is sent, how the panel will decide based only on the bids and plays. Only then, when the player has clicked on two links stating that he understands the process, would the form even come up.

The notion of a CHEATER button is SPIN. Nobody has come close to advocating this.

Let me further clarify that I (and probably others) do not advocate the report/panel process for any of the following:

--damage following a mistaken or poor explanation

--inability to explain or understand a bid due to language barriers

--hesistation allegations

--failures to alert

--poor behavior at the table (rudeness, badgering, table jumping, etc.)

These issues are problematical, but they should be dealt with by the TD or by comaplints directly to abuse@BBO. But as frustrating as the issues above are, they are far, far less of a concern than the auctions and plays that scream of illegal knowledge of the concealed cards held by another player. Slam bids out of the blue that work. Passing forcing bids when the last plus has been reached. Dropping offside honours with an incredible rate of success. The last thing any TD wants is to lose players who enjoy playing in his/her tourneys because they are tired of the 'miracle workers.'

[inquiry]

McBruce, on Mar 22 2004, 10:09 PM, said:

OK.  Hold it right there.  Cease and desist.  SPIN ALERT!

Nobody is advocating a CHEATER button.  Nobody.

(snip)... The notion of a CHEATER button is SPIN. Nobody has come close to advocating this.

Perhaps Uday might not like being called "nobody", what he said was (hopefully this idea will die)... was...

"Drifting away from cheating, we could also suggest that people flag possible cheaters (like they flag friends). "

Flagging possible people like you flag friends sounds like a button to all of us. Read Uday's long post on above this one (almost at the top of page 6 on my computer of these post... the one that starts while fred is away playing in tournment I have been mointoring this thread).

Np with the rest of your post... your solution, Yzerman's solution, Bglover's solution, udays solution (with an appeal) all sound fine to me...

Ben

[McBruce]

I don't see anything in Uday's words that implies that there will be a cheater button that will automatically make a report of the current deal being played. Instead, I think Uday was suggesting (this is the verb he used) that we might distinguish 'enemies' and 'suspected cheaters' at some point in the future. You'd tag as enemies people who were rude, left the table inappropriately, etc; and suspected cheaters as people who seem to be able to see thorugh the backs of the cards based on unusual bridge actions. As long as this is a user option that simply distinguishes players and doesn't lead directly to a report to the reveiw process, I see nothing wrong with it.

But this thread is making progress toward a solution, and when people assume from this one sentence that Uday's proposal is that one click will send a report to the panel for review, this is spin that threatens to knock the consensus we are developing off the road. I think it is important to ensure that this doesn't happen.

Surely Uday understands that a one-button automatic report to the panel would generate hundreds of new cases a day to sift through and most would be meritless. The way to make it work would be to encourage the people reporting to understand the process: to report you must start at this link, click a button that says I have read and understood this, and I wish to submit a report, then fill in the form. Completely meritless reports would generate a stern e-mail warning to the player who made the report.

This is a productive thread and it would be a shame to see a developing proposal shot down because of rhetoric. Opponents of the consensus we are developing are free to oppose, and many have made good constructive points. But characterizing Uday's suggestion as a cheater button is a misinterpretation to extremes: i.e. spin. If we want to see something done, we need to keep the discussion productive.

[inquiry]

McBruce, on Mar 23 2004, 02:00 PM, said:

I don't see anything in Uday's words that implies that there will be a cheater button that will automatically make a report of the current deal being played.  Instead, I think Uday was suggesting (this is the verb he used) that we might distinguish 'enemies' and 'suspected cheaters' at some point in the future.  You'd tag as enemies people who were rude, left the table inappropriately, etc; and suspected cheaters as people who seem to be able to see thorugh the backs of the cards based on unusual bridge actions.  As long as this is a user option that simply distinguishes players and doesn't lead directly to a report to the reveiw process, I see nothing wrong with it.

But this thread is making progress toward a solution, and when people assume from this one sentence that Uday's proposal is that one click will send a report to the panel for review, this is spin that threatens to knock the consensus we are developing off the road.  I think it is important to ensure that this doesn't happen.

Surely Uday understands that a one-button automatic report to the panel would generate hundreds of new cases a day to sift through and most would be meritless.  The way to make it work would be to encourage the people reporting to understand the process: to report you must start at this link, click a button that says I have read and understood this, and I wish to submit a report, then fill in the form.  Completely meritless reports would generate a stern e-mail warning to the player who made the report.

This is a productive thread and it would be a shame to see a developing proposal shot down because of rhetoric.  Opponents of the consensus we are developing are free to oppose, and many have made good constructive points.  But characterizing Uday's suggestion as a cheater button is a misinterpretation to extremes: i.e. spin.  If we want to see something done, we need to keep the discussion productive.

Geez, I can READ.

I know that UDay suggest an automated process to report hands to a panel based upon XX complaints in YY days against the same player. This is something I loudly and publically supported above.

This, however is a completely and totally separate issue from a second thing he proposed, I will REPEAT IT AGAIN so you can read it...if that will help.

Uday said (in blue) Drifting away from cheating, we could also suggest that people flag possible cheaters (like they flag friends). A TD might have the option to exclude based on these accusations ( again , imperfect process but self policing).

Note the implications here.... people can flag POSSIBLE cheaters. This is done just like they do Friends and Enemies (as you noted)... but the suggestion doesn't end there... Uday goes on to suggest that a TD (you know, like you) MIGHT HAVE the OPTION to exclude based on these allegations.

A TD has no ability to exclude people from my enemy list, but clearly this suggest the possible (floated idea), that I could click someone as a cheater, and a TD would have the option of not allowing ANYONE flagged as a cheater from playing. Now, did uday mean that the TD could flag someone as a cheater and then they would have the option of not allowing htem t play (maybe requires two or more such flags before working but same objection from me)? No, because you can do that NOW with your enemy list.

I am sorry, McBruce, but this part of uday's suggestion (granted free thought processes), is a "cheater button" that has the potential of having people "possibly" banned from tournment without any other review. PLEASE reread UDAYS post again. Forget while you are reading his, what your proposal is or what anyone elses is... Don't assume you are on the same or different pages with what he read. There is no SPIN in the statement that a cheater flag (button, whatever) was proposed that is a single click (like marking friends), and that this proposal included the ability of this marked flag to be used by others in some context.

Now you find this idea so abhorent, you can't seem to see that this is indeed what was proposed. I share the feeling that this part of the solution is and should be a non-starter. But for goodness sakes, stop shouting that this is a wild, unsubstantiated SPIN, several people beside me have reached the same obvious conclusion, and so far, no one, likes this idea.

ben

[luke warm]

people hold tourneys that are open to almost everyone... there's nothing wrong with that at all... there's also nothing wrong with those same people refusing to allow someone to play, for whatever reasons... that's the way it was set up, and it seems to work fine

we have private and public clubs... the private clubs are run by (usually) people dedicated to that club and to the idea that bridge is a fun, competitive, *fair* game... this is why i've said at least 2 times that this problem is one of relevance... there are, i'm sure, some tourney and/or club hosts who differ in their opinion as to how serious unethical play is, for whatever reason

some clubs are far more competitive than others, because their members are more competitive... i'm sure those clubs are the ones that take such allegations the most seriously... some aren't very competitive, relaticely speaking, existing simply as a place to meet others and have fun... maybe they don't worry about such things... imho both views are fine... as i said before, we each have the right to play where we're most comfortable...

it seems to me that if we simply leave it to the tourney/club hosts to handle their own event the way they choose, it will eventually evolve into something more, without anyone imposing their ideas on others...

if uday or fred or sherri want to have a hand in the inner workings of each club, that's certainly their right... nothing could be *more* right, it's their server, their product... i just think it's far better to handle these things on a more local level...

it doesn't bother me one bit that there may be those in xyz club who cheat... i don't spend any time worrying about it because nothing can be done about it... do i wish everyone was ethical? sure i do... but we can very easily get into the murky area of - just exactly *what* constitutes cheating? to me, it's just as unethical to knowingly fail to explain a bid known to ones partner but not the ops as it is to open an IM and say 'i'm 3244, 14 count' or 'lead a club'...

i keep wanting to give examples of what i'm saying, or draw analogies, but it's hard without delving into real life... so i'll do that for a second... i'm a member of abalucy club... now to my way of thinking, it's none of my business how mike and aba decide to handle allegations of cheating, nor how they handle actual cheaters... none of my business, that is, unless they desire to *make* it my business... it's enough for me to know that they're doing what they think right... i have a choice (as i've said 100 times) to play or not...

since i don't think cheating can ever be stopped, it's enough for me to know that the environment in which i've decided to play is run by people who do their best to make it the most fair competitive situation possible... now if they decide to ask bbo's help in handling certain aspects of this, that also is their right... again, it's not my business UNLESS they want it to be... that seems the best anyone can do

i'm not taking this problem lightly, i do realize how serious it is... i just think that if it's handled on the club level it will improve of its own accord.. maybe even without the risk of harming someone's reputation, whether innocent or guilty

[bglover]

I wont yet again defend why I think it's a BBO problem instead of a "club" or "tourney" problem.

I, however, strongly disagree with having a process that is not relatively anonymous as I have suggested. If you leaev it in a club director or tourney director's hands and let THEM do the review (or appoint a hand-picked panel) then there is NO WAY you will have any protection for the accused and the chance that an innocent party's reputation can be wrongly sullied is way too large.

Everyone should be most concerned with protecting the innocent first and making sure those rightly caught are dealt with second. Let's say your club's director picks as a reviewer someone with a personal gripe against the accused. Let's say he makes a fair decision and decides the guy is innocent. What if they get into a tiff down the road? What is the reviewer (or the director) just plain doesn't like the guy? Or, what if either just has a big mouth? It's too damned easy to hurt an innocent.

I would demand that whatver process is adopted ensures that this cannot happen.

[McBruce]

Uday said (in blue) Drifting away from cheating, we could also suggest that people flag possible cheaters (like they flag friends). A TD might have the option to exclude based on these accusations ( again , imperfect process but self policing).

Note the implications here.... people can flag POSSIBLE cheaters. This is done just like they do Friends and Enemies (as you noted)... but the suggestion doesn't end there... Uday goes on to suggest that a TD (you know, like you) MIGHT HAVE the OPTION to exclude based on these allegations.

-----------------

OK, I see the point now and I agree. No TD should be barring people only because others have them marked as suspected cheaters. I'd be very surprised if that was what Uday intended, but I guess I have interpreted his words enough already.

Guess we'll need another ten or twelve pages to hash something that works out....

I am for the report/panel process, and ambivalent about the cheater tag except that yes, I agree it should be private. Let's wait for Uday's next post to see what he actually meant by that sentence.

[spwdo]

hi,

luke , try keeping a +-100 tables tourney free from chaeting, no way to do it on your own unless you are prepared to blacklist sevaral players that are innocent, 4 hours playing a day, same hosting, and another 36 hours a day looking in hands of allaged chaeting is what u suggest to try and do something about chaeting, wont work i m afriad, can work for abalucys(lesser hands to look at).

secondly if /when someone is unethical is it really needed that every tourneydirector/interested party has to find out for himself that someone is unethical if he wishes to do something about the problem, i believe not , however i also find its unethical that tourneydirectors start to exchange"thier"chaeters, all it takes is a td that doesnt like a player to get him blacklisted in other tourneys, so im in favour of bbo to have a strong saying in this , take the right steps that u can take to try and be as fair as can be too the accused chaeters(so that nobody innocent will be punisched) and if found proven by team/panel capable of handling this why allow(unethical players) on bbo then anyfurther .

This not stopping in the long run(at least trying too) will result several still ethical players to start doing the same cause its common and "allowed" to do so, aldough not all(humans) are like that,some defantly are.

I havent done much about it before, when i got a call from someone saying xx/xy is unethical i mark them as friends so i see at all times where they are so i can try to see where/if they play unethical, as said before it takes to much of my time lately since i took this up, after our tourneys i ask willing tds now to check some pairs where i got complaints ffrom.

but try and understand that this is done by volunteers making large efforts to try and do something about this, becuase for one reason only, we love this game with hart and soul and we`re not willing to let it be destroyed from a group that was inintially very small im sure .

again the last thing i want is to keep on doing this on my own, this will result in mistakes (innoncent beeing punisched) and guitly walk away im sure so let as suggested a group of capleble volunteers handle this and let bbo do the sanctions


marc

[luke warm]

bglover, on Mar 24 2004, 04:43 AM, said:

I wont yet again defend why I think it's a BBO problem instead of a "club" or "tourney" problem.

I, however, strongly disagree with having a process that is not relatively anonymous as I have suggested. If you leaev it in a club director or tourney director's hands and let THEM do the review (or appoint a hand-picked panel) then there is NO WAY you will have any protection for the accused and the chance that an innocent party's reputation can be wrongly sullied is way too large.

Everyone should be most concerned with protecting the innocent first and making sure those rightly caught are dealt with second. Let's say your club's director picks as a reviewer someone with a personal gripe against the accused. Let's say he makes a fair decision and decides the guy is innocent. What if they get into a tiff down the road? What is the reviewer (or the director) just plain doesn't like the guy? Or, what if either just has a big mouth? It's too damned easy to hurt an innocent.

I would demand that whatver process is adopted ensures that this cannot happen.

exactly right, but this is why i want to leave it local... they can maintain anonymity as easily as anyone else... after all, even if there was a server wide committee, presumeably they'd be getting their info from these same club directors/owners

anyway, this is just my opinion

[luke warm]

spwdo, on Mar 24 2004, 06:43 AM, said:

hi,

luke , try keeping a +-100 tables tourney free from chaeting, no way to do it on your own unless you are prepared to blacklist sevaral players that are innocent, 4 hours playing a day, same hosting, and another 36 hours a day looking in hands of allaged chaeting is what u suggest to try and do something about chaeting, wont work i m afriad, can work for abalucys(lesser hands to look at).

secondly if /when someone is unethical is it really needed that every tourneydirector/interested party has to find out for himself that someone is unethical if he wishes to do something about the problem, i believe not , however i also find its unethical that tourneydirectors start to exchange"thier"chaeters, all it takes is a td that doesnt like a player to get him blacklisted in other tourneys, so im in favour of bbo to have a strong saying in this , take the right steps that u can take to try and be as fair as can be too the accused chaeters(so that nobody innocent will be punisched) and if found proven by team/panel capable of handling this why allow(unethical players) on bbo then anyfurther .

This not stopping in the long run(at least trying too) will result several still ethical players to start doing the same cause its common and "allowed" to do so, aldough not all(humans) are like that,some defantly are.

I havent done much about it before, when i got a call from someone saying xx/xy is unethical i mark them as friends so i see at all times where they are so i can try to see where/if they play unethical, as said before it takes to much of my time lately since i took this up, after our tourneys i ask willing tds now to check some pairs where i got complaints ffrom.

but try and understand that this is done by volunteers making large efforts to try and do something about this, becuase for one reason only, we love this game with hart and soul and we`re not willing to let it be destroyed from a group that was inintially very small im sure .

again the last thing i want is to keep on doing this on my own, this will result in mistakes (innoncent beeing punisched) and guitly walk away im sure so let as suggested a group of capleble volunteers handle this and let bbo do the sanctions


marc

yes, you run large tourneys and lots of them... so i imagine it would be a daunting task for you... however, imagine other tourneys like yours... maybe some aren't as large, maybe some are... now take all the problems you have and multiply them by the number of tourneys having such problems... now imagine all that being dumped in uday's lap, with no effort having been made at the tourney level to do some background work, some investigation.. and this is apart from the individual accusations uday handles daily, from the main bridge room

whatever process is adopted can maintain anonymity, or should... that should be a prerequisite

[kleek]

In the overall interest of moving the important discussion taking place in this thread in a somewhat more productive direction, it might be helpful to summarize the preceding 11 pages. With all due respect to the many and varied minority views, a consensus appears to have developed, which encompasses the following main points:

1. Cheating (and other unethical activity) is a fact of life in the online bridge world.
2. Cheating by a relatively small minority of players diminishes the pleasure and accomplishment derived from playing online bridge by the vast, non-cheating majority.
3. Cheating will never be eliminated entirely.
4. There are particular electronic and telecommunication forms of cheating which are either technically impossible, or simply not feasible with available resources, to try to stop.
5. To the extent that they are feasible, reasonable efforts, beyond what is currently being done, should be undertaken to try to thwart cheating.
6. To this end, the formation of an independent Ethics Committee constitutes a feasible and reasonable effort.
7. The mere existence of an Ethics Committee may do as much, or more, to thwart cheating than would the filing, hearing, and disposition of any particular complaint.
8. In any Ethics Committee process, the protection of all of the rights of the individual(s) against whom a complaint is brought (particularly their anonymity) is of paramount importance.
9. There should be a threshold (minimum) number of complaints against any particular individual(s) that must first be reached, before any complaint is ever delivered to the Ethics Committee for review.
10. The Ethics Committee should never be asked, or undertake, to review any problem that should properly have been disposed of by a tournament director or other internal tournament appeal process.
11. BBO software can be developed to facilitate the procedures involved in bringing a complaint to the Ethics Committee, as well as in making a finding and reporting it to the appropriate entities.
12. Neither the Ethics Committee, nor any of the members who sit on it at any given time, has either the ability to bring a complaint, or the authority to make the final disposition of it. Its sole role is to analyze the evidence, come to a finding, and make a recommendation. What is ultimately done with its findings and recommendations is strictly beyond the purview of the Ethics Committee.
13. The highest confidentiality and integrity must be demanded from those who serve on the Ethics Committee and from those who make use of its findings.
14. Persons who repeatedly seek, via this process, to bring complaints that are found to be without merit will find that this activity redounds to thier detriment.

I sincerely hope that this summary has been helpful to all of the members who wish to contribute to this discussion in a helpful and productive way, and that further discussion and commentary in this thread (or perhaps, in a new one) might concentrate on suggestions and ideas for the best way to organize, structure, and operate an effective Ethics Committee. Thank you.

[inquiry]

Thanks Kurt,

It helped refocus me....

[luke warm]

me too