Life In 19x19 http://lifein19x19.com/ |
|
Thread pollution http://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=15424 |
Page 2 of 2 |
Author: | Elom [ Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:53 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Thread pollution |
I am not in much place to comment here, but I would like to note: |
Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:15 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Thread pollution |
Elom wrote: ... I assume(d) that anything that could have been done to avoid a ban was done... [admin] Yes, other attempts were made: multiple warnings and a temporary ban a month or so back. None of those worked. [/admin] |
Author: | Bill Spight [ Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:28 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Thread polution |
John Fairbairn wrote: I'm against the flash mob mentality that leads to such bans. And calling it (an unproven) general consensus does not excuse it. I can understand each point of the description made by Herman, and it's good that he raised the matter for discussion. But we got no discussion, just me-too-ism. I generally agree. As some of you know, I used to be an admin (Lead Helper) for an online conferencing service in the 1980s. We banned one person, who may have suffered from paranoid personality disorder. Anyway, he caused a great deal of disruption, much more than is tolerated here. By comparison, our service was more like the wild west. Quote: I'm not against TOCs and the principle of banning, but there needs to be a proper process. The fact that a sensible and rational person like Kirby was unsure whether TOCs had been breached showed a discussion was needed. The rather good patch of hiding youtube links developed by Kirby was not allowed time to work. The validity of the option of just not reading the posts in question - my own solution, though I do stick my nose in occasionally - has not been properly explored. No public warning seems to have been given. When I first became a Helper, way back when, I was shocked to find out that around half of the discussions among helpers was about that guy, who had been causing trouble for years. Talk about process, we were bogged down with it. I am not at all sure that a proper process has not been followed here. There is no reason, and in fact, there is good reason to keep admin discussions about banning private. People need to be able to express opinions that might be harmful if made public. Quote: In particular, the claim that Brown does not know what he is talking about does not appear to stand up, either, and in any case if that was the criterion many other people could be banned. I think that that claim is irrelevant. Brown seems to be overly in love with his own ideas, but who isn't? At this point, I would like to discuss some of his recent behavior which I find objectionable. Feel free to skip the rest. djhbrown wrote: gennan wrote: But with an integer komi, there can be a komi value where perfect players would always get a jigo. That's not logical - the only thing that's sure is that there can be a komi value where imperfect players would sometimes get a jigo. i would imagine that DM experimented with 6.5 and 7.5 and found that 7.5 was closer to 50%. It's entirely possible that 7.5 is closer to 50% than 7.But one thing is for sure: if anyone ever learns anything from A0, it won't be anything to do with komi. To me, the most fascinating thing is the markedly different styles of A0 and Master - but of course, i am biased like hell, because A0's honte style is more like Swim's than Master's So far, OK. Brown rambles and obfuscates a bit, which may be annoying. He interjects a plug for his program, which may also be annoying. But being annoying is no crime. His argument is also wrong, but again, that is no crime. Fedya quotes the above, and continues. Fedya wrote: Completely disagree. Proof: 1) There is such a thing as perfect play. After all, one (well, more due to symmetry) move must be the best in any given situation (or multiple moves could be equal in that they lead to the same outcome in terms of score) 2) Both sides play every perfect move 3) The game will end with each side having some integer number of points. Therefore, 4) There must then be some integer komi that would make the final score equal. djhbrown wrote: Fedya wrote: Proof there's a flaw in your straw, dear Liza, dear Liza; there's a flaw in your straw, dear Liza, A Flaw!Hint: It's got something to do with the Monty Hall Problem Brown links to a Harry Belafonte song, such links being his style. That also may be annoying. His claim is also wrong. He then violates the social conventions of debate by 1) not attempting to prove it; 2) pretending superiority to Fedya, by offering a hint. BTW, the hint is also wrong. More obfuscation. This is more than annoying. It is a form of ad hominem attack. The exchange continues. Fedya wrote: Why don't you actually post the flaw instead of a constant stream of useless non sequitur garbage? Fedya is irritated, but attacks what Brown said, not Brown himself. djhbrown wrote: Your avatar is Charles Coburn. Wikipedia wrote: In the 1940s, Coburn served as vice-president of the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, a group opposed to leftist infiltration and proselytization in Hollywood during the Cold War.[citation needed] Coburn was a member of the White Citizens' Councils, a group which opposed racial integration.[4][5] in my eyes, black and white are equal. A not so subtle ad hominem attack, based upon association. This is really not acceptable. I tend to avoid Brown's posts, but not entirely. However, I get the impression that he (Edit: assumes an air of superiority and) engages in minor putdowns. While as an admin I wonder whether I would vote to ban him, I am not going to second guess that decision. |
Author: | Elom [ Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:32 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Thread pollution |
Quote: ...There is no reason, and in fact, there is good reason to keep admin discussions about banning private... I can't imagine how a public discussion on banning a particular individual— goodness forbid before applying the ban could possibly work (hilarity would undoubtedly ensue and no, it doesn't mean 'it a little funny' ). |
Author: | Bill Spight [ Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:21 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Thread pollution |
Elom wrote: Quote: ...There is no reason, and in fact, there is good reason to keep admin discussions about banning private... I can't imagine how a public discussion on banning a particular individual— goodness forbid before applying the ban could possibly work (hilarity would undoubtedly ensue and no, it doesn't mean 'it a little funny' ). Banning is the ultimate sanction available to this and many other online groups. When admins do so with no public discussion, there will always be a suspicion of abuse of power. We have certainly seen many complaints about banning on go servers. It would be more transparent, and perhaps better, to take that power away from administrators and have it reside in the community as a whole, or in a delegated group (jury), with a public discussion of the member's behavior (a trial), giving the member a chance to defend himself publicly. In the case of the person I mentioned above who was eventually banned, some years earlier there had been a public discussion of his behavior, in an attempt, which proved to be in vain, to induce him to change it. |
Author: | EdLee [ Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:42 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Quote: Banning is the ultimate sanction available to this and many other online groups. |
Author: | John Fairbairn [ Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:24 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Thread pollution |
Quote: Banning is the ultimate sanction available to this and many other online groups. When admins do so with no public discussion, there will always be a suspicion of abuse of power. Yes (though I do not suspect any here). And there are also types of bans. Creative use of different types can be one way of being transparent. I can't remember the details, but one member here was banned from doing something like posting more than two replies to a thread. He was thus not banned completely but the reasons for his partial ban became clear. In Brown's case a ban on youtube links may be sufficient - and why should we give youtube free advertising anyway? |
Author: | Elom [ Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:17 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Thread pollution |
Bill Spight wrote: Elom wrote: Quote: ...There is no reason, and in fact, there is good reason to keep admin discussions about banning private... I can't imagine how a public discussion on banning a particular individual— goodness forbid before applying the ban could possibly work (hilarity would undoubtedly ensue and no, it doesn't mean 'it a little funny' ). Banning is the ultimate sanction available to this and many other online groups. When admins do so with no public discussion, there will always be a suspicion of abuse of power. We have certainly seen many complaints about banning on go servers. It would be more transparent, and perhaps better, to take that power away from administrators and have it reside in the community as a whole, or in a delegated group (jury), with a public discussion of the member's behavior (a trial), giving the member a chance to defend himself publicly. In the case of the person I mentioned above who was eventually banned, some years earlier there had been a public discussion of his behavior, in an attempt, which proved to be in vain, to induce him to change it. I do agree with this sentiment— I guess I have been influenced by some people defending themselves in a very aggressive manner; if the person was on the verge of being banned that person might struggle to hold a civil conversation, but the reason for banning may have little to do with such a thing and it is unpreferable to remove the right of someone to defend themselves... Administrators get all the fun. Doomed if they ban, doomed if they don't . |
Author: | PeterHB [ Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Thread pollution |
Joaz Banbeck wrote: Elom wrote: ... I assume(d) that anything that could have been done to avoid a ban was done... [admin] Yes, other attempts were made: multiple warnings and a temporary ban a month or so back. None of those worked. [/admin] This is the important bit for me. I'm in favour of trusting admins to attempt to have good judgement. To discuss sanctions with the other admins where at all possible. This case took at least 18 months before banning. I don't know, but assume it was discussed amongst the admins before banning him. Assuming that's true, this seems entirely reasonable to me. Being warned once should have been enough. Multiple warnings and a temporary ban are bending over backwards to give him a chance to change. Admins are people too. It is healthier to trust them than to undermine them when they try their best, even if they don't get everything right. People's character improves when you trust them. |
Author: | Uberdude [ Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:45 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Thread pollution |
PeterHB wrote: This case took at least 18 months before banning. I don't know, but assume it was discussed amongst the admins before banning him. Assuming that's true, this seems entirely reasonable to me. Your assumption is correct. As others have also surmised, there is a private sub-forum where admins discuss admin things together. PeterHB wrote: Being warned once should have been enough. Multiple warnings and a temporary ban are bending over backwards to give him a chance to change. I also think the admins* probably erred too much on the side of being lenient/cautious, which meant user frustration boiled over into the creation of this thread. * of which I am a relatively new and junior one, but have done little of the difficult admin work making decisions about human behaviour: I was co-opted as a simple spam deleter in European timezone. One time I split some of djhbrown's off-topic posts to a new thread but that was poorly received so have left him alone (from an admin perspective) since (also as I sometimes engage with him felt there could be a conflict of interest / lack of impartiality) and only put on my admin hat for trivial easy things (such as adding a missing 'l' to this thread's title ). |
Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |