pescetom, on 2023-August-15, 16:00, said:
My own club in a different RA has three qualified directors, including myself.
I'd say that you (and I!) are blessed, then. Many, many do not. And the one or two directors they do have are qualified, sure. Have they looked at the law book since the exam? (Well, technically yes, but you know what I mean)
I'm not suggesting the BBO ACBL club directors are that level (I know a few who definitely aren't). But I have my share of 'can you read?' rulings from those events myself, too.
Quote
No Kojak or even mycroft, but I usually can (and just as well as I have to) live with the rulings I get when playing.
You've been getting experience very quickly these past few years, don't sell yourself too short.
Quote
I haven't given up playing at other clubs, where I often receive rulings as bad as on BBO, but not for the same despicable reasons.
Yep, me too. It's kind of an Occupational Hazard for directors who take that job seriously.
Quote
A decent tournament on BBO with a robot partner costs $1.70 for 14 hands versus $3 for 18-24 hands with a human at the club, so no 30% here.
That same game costs CAD10 (USD7.50 at today's exchange) anywhere in Calgary, and USD 5-6 (depending on event, and exchange) in my club in México (let's not talk about That Other Club, shall we? They absolutely deliver the Best Club Experience I have ever seen. I mean, Over the Top. They 100% charge for it, too).
Quote
Agree 100% about directing with screens. Much less about online, where many infractions (misleading explanations, time related UI usage as in the OP, use of other UI revealed by audio-video if the platform allows it) are objectively more evident and easy to rule than they would be F2F. Yes, it is possible to audio-video record F2F at club too, but do you? Over here privacy law makes it difficult and the RA offers no support.
Agree about evidence, but the basic tenet (the rulings you do get are contentious judgement rulings, not the "keep the game going" ones) applies. Easier judgement, sure; easier to prove UI/MI; still have to have the time/skill to do the polling/analysis for the other two legs of Law 16/result given by Law 12.
Quote
During Covid I directed a lot of club tournaments on BBO (200 per year) and had no compunction about changing scores whenever necessary (and sometimes it was necessary only because I was not allowed to penalize). I can't remember the last time a Director in a for money BBO tournament changed a score for any reason other than erroneous or inconclusive system assignment when late at end of round.
I am not saying that the BBO club doesn't have its faults. I can enumerate a number more (some that don't apply to "normal" clubs), in my opinion. For a number of reasons (not least that I like [names redacted, but they know who they are] and I would like to continue to have polite conversations with them when next we meet :-) I *won't* enumerate them, especially here, but I'm sure they're not unknown to [those people] or to the majority of forum posters either.
I am saying that while it's right to lean on any club to improve their level of directing, it's not worse than a lot of real life clubs (effectively, most that do not have a paid directing staff or owner/director who is operating the game for the money. Note, there are *real problems* with some of the latter, too - witness my "first club I directed at", where the rulings were clearly primarily concerned with "who won't come back if I rule against them", and only secondarily with the FLB). And I'm not sure I understand why the shock in that, especially given Capitalism (Pay the Least, and Charge the Most, for a service Good Enough that the punters come back).
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)