If you want privacy, you can use methods to hide your IP. For example, you can use HTTP tunneling to get back on after getting banned.

_________________
be immersed

Given the explicit context raised by the original poster, would you find such admin behavior acceptable? Is merely offering a teaching game in the KGS Teaching Ladder, while providing the ranks willing to be taught, but not providing your own, a valid reason to look up IP addresses? Even further, is publicly admonishing the user to provide a rank while revealing the high number of accounts acceptable admin behavior?

It's private from other users, and it seems that admins have to explicitly look up accounts linked by IP address.



I've never seen a policy on KGS that you can't have multiple accounts, as long as you aren't using them to do stuff like rank cheat. In fact, generally it seems acceptable, and multiple accounts are de facto private from other users unless you reveal yourself. The problem here is that an admin used their special privilege to reveal this information.

But having multiple accounts isn't out of the ordinary for many regular players. It's talked about in public a lot, and usually there are good reasons behind it. And if an admin wants to note suspicious behaviour, that's fine, but why shout about it in public? Why not just keep an eye on that user and warn or ban them if/when necessary? (How many times have we all heard admins cry "no public accusations" about escapers?) I don't really care whether multiple accounts are allowed, but I do care about KGS admins trying to publicly show their users up for perfectly legitimate behaviour. It's unprofessional and childish.

The assumption that you are making is that the admins are looking up this person's IP address in order to identify his or her accounts. I'm not aware of any evidence provided thus far which demonstrates that the admins are looking up the person's IP address. We only have the original poster's comment, nothing more. I don't recall reading that any admins confirmed to him or her that the IP addresses were investigated. (Of course, I may have overlooked this evidence in the thread, but I don't recall reading it.)

Congratulations, you just managed to reply to a post without addressing any of its contents, BigDoug.

PaperTiger didn't ask you about your opinion on whether the OP is suffering from paranoid delusions or the veracity of his claims, he asked you, assuming everything the OP said was completely true (and independent of whether that is actually the case), if you find the admin behaviour as described appropriate.

In order for this to not be a complete meta post, I guess I will add that I can understand the OP's annoyance, while at the same time I wouldn't feel it's a big enough issue to complain to anyone about it (ever).

Good to know. Question is still open though.

How many KGS-haters can dance on the head of a pin?

Apparently very many. And if they don't have a valid reason, they'll create one.

Seriously, I agree there are issues with KGS, but I still think it's a great free service, overall. Why do people feel the need to continually attack it?

Go play a game of go instead, face-to-face, or on the server of your choice.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

I don't usually play in the KTL, but I would assume there, unlike somewhere else, it *is* important to provide rank with game. You need to clearly identify yourself as a teacher or a student for what you do to make sense, no? And if you are a willing teacher, people need to know who you can teach and who you cannot teach. I mean - its not like in this room you just looking for a friendly unrated game, it is a *teaching* room, so it is more important to know who/what you are.

As for the IP lookup... really, you think your IP is such a big secret that even seeing it is a 'breach of privacy'?

But this is not even an issue here. We simply do not know *why* would an admin look up your IP, if they indeed did do that. They might see all kinds of abuse going on in the KTL and learned over time that looking up IP to find out who is who in suspicious situations is a quick way to determine if you are a problem or just ignorant.

Apparently, in your case they decided you were not a problem, thus just a friendly advice to put your rank up and case closed. To me, this is quite within the norm.

To be honest - I see absolutely no reason for you to complain or feel like your privacy was 'breached'. Your IP is *not* private, and even if it were, it was *not* made public, just looked up by somebody who has all the right to do so.

Honestly - I feel like you are looking very hard to feel somehow slighted and create a fuss over nothing.
I don't know why people are doing stuff like that.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Let's generalize this idea:

"How many people have software that has features they don't care for, or that's difficult to use? Apparently very many. And if they don't have a reason, they'll create one. Seriously, there's computer software out there that has issues, but I still think that software is a great invention, overall. Why do people feel the need to continually attack it? Go do something else with your life. Don't voice the things that you don't like to the creators of the software you use."

------

I'm a software engineer. Maybe one of the most fundamental aspects of designing software is to pay attention to the concerns and needs of the users. Sure, no software developer is obligated to listen to their users. But in the end, this will just result in a bad product. Your software might have a lot of cool features, and it might have a lot of things that you think are awesome. But if the users don't like it, it's pointless.

KGS is not just the software, server, and the admins that run it. It's also the users - the go community that plays there. If KGS didn't have TheCaptain, twoeye, and all of the users that people admire, it'd be useless. So telling people to hide their complaints and to, basically, shut up - well, that's a sure-fire way to increase the divide between the users and the software.

KGS doesn't have to listen to users or those that complain about it. But in the end, that just makes the product worse. Listening to users is the most basic of basics when it comes to software development.

_________________
be immersed

you seem to think that "listening to users" means making the changes they want, and conversely that not making those changes means that developers are not listening?

it doesn't.

"listening to users" means taking into consideration their concerns and then making conscious decisions to implement or not implement based on all other criteria combined.

Whether an admin sees the information automatically for every user or has to look it up is not particularly relevant, IHMO. You don't have privacy at that level.

The admin in question lacks tact, that's all. It would be like if your doctor ran into you at a café and commented, "with your cholesterol level, do you really think you should be having that apple fritter?" Your doctor knows it and you know it, but it's tactless to bring it up.

It is not normal for the admin being complained about to answer the complaint. If that happens, you should contact another admin directly.

_________________
North Lecale

just to open your eyes about the level of "privacy" you have while merely surfing the internet. if a site uses tools like google analytics i can tell what pages you are looking at live while youre browsing the site. i can also see what city youre connecting from, what OS you use, what language you use, what browser you use, what resolution you use, how often you have visited in the past and many other things! oh yeah, thats based off your IP address...just saying:P

_________________
admin of the ASR league and KGS admin

It's completely relevant, and I find it telling that BigDoug (a senior admin at KGS), when provided a chance to answer this policy question, ignored it. Finding all the accounts associated with an IP address is a special privilege only afforded to the admins, just like only the admins can peek at your chat. And just like I would not expect an admin to reveal private chats, I would not expect an admin to reveal that somebody has multiple accounts. Yes, it's a minor complaint, but it's still a breach. Unless, of course, BigDoug, another senior admin, or WMS himself wants to say differently.

Why won't they answer the question? Is the admin behavior, as laid out by NoSkill, appropriate or not?



Actually that would probably be illegal in many countries. Medical privacy is a big deal, but your example illustrates your level of concern for privacy.

I have no idea who noskill is, or if his problem is real or made up. If he contacted me, I might be able to investigate the issue to see what happened, and then I could make a comment on it. This isn't a public hanging forum.

_________________
North Lecale

At this point, the question is about the policy in general, and not the verification of NoSkill's story or the naming of names.

At this point, the question is about the policy in general, and not the verification of NoSkill's story or the naming of names.[/quote]

You can write to the manager about that.

_________________
North Lecale

And you, BigDoug, or Mef, to name 3 admins who have commented on this thread, could post a public answer for the public benefit. Or WMS could post, if he is watching, or you could poke "the manager" and ask for a public statement. Why the reluctance to clarify policy publicly?

As noted earlier, it's difficult to answer hypothetical questions without sufficient context, particularly when the answer will be seen as official KGS policy. Obviously you and I have different opinions on whether there is enough context provided to answer the question. You do -- I don't. You are obviously entitled to your point of view, but that doesn't mean that I agree with it.

One of the risks of hypothetical discussions is that both sides spend so much time defining the terms that the original discussion point becomes increasingly abstract. Frankly, I don't find the severity of the original complaint to be so great that it warrants the creation of a hypothetical debate about it.