Who banned me? For how long?

[tchan001]

Kirby, does this mean you mainly administrate technical issues of the forum and that if people report problems with people and spammers that you would decline to administrate such issues?

[Bantari]

I think the problem is in the power trips that admins get, not in the users of the software.
...I think that the power trips admins get are absolutely ridiculous.
...Seems like you, too, think the problem is in the users. I don't see it this way.

Very one-sided view. I think there are quite a few related problems, equally ridiculous.

1. jerk admins abusing their powers (does not happen a lot, although is certainly does happen - but usually there is at least *some* reason, even if wrong reason)
2. jerk users thinking their idiotic behavior is 'cool' and 'funny' (i have seen this a lot more)
3. jerk users behaving idiotically and then complaining about admins being 'power-hungry' after action was taken (its cool if they have a point, but this is usually determined pretty fast)
4. jerk users behaving idiotically, complaining about admins, and then holding grudge for years after the complains fall on deaf ears and even the community is against them (usually because the idiotic behavior was so obvious and so idiotic)

From my perspective, #1 is the least disturbing just because it happens so seldom, and is restricted to a few specific admins only. And the admins really seem to have such ridiculously limited powers.

I see #2 and #3 as much more disturbing overall. I see users behaving idiotically and rudely very often, each time makes me wish admins were there and taking action.

For the #4s out there I say - good riddance!

[Boidhre]

Technically, I am an admin on this forum. Despite this, I have never banned a single user, and when there are admin discussions about whether someone should be banned, I am always on the side of leniency toward the users here. That's because I've seen how aggressive admins can be on KGS, and I refuse to be like that.

This forum, to be fair, requires almost no moderation of regular users day to day compared to many places online. A live chat server is a rather different beast to handle. I don't think you can make a one-to-one comparison here. Similar to how I've banned several hundred people on another site, but its activity dwarfs KGS never mind L19, and has much more contentious topics than go in some areas (Politics, Religion, Parenting the holy triad of things to create work for admins) so this doesn't say much.

To say you haven't banned someone as an L19 admin means little, if you said you'd never banned someone doing some of the admin roles I've done I'd tell you you'd never bothered to log in. Do you know what I mean?

[EdLee]

Technically, I am an admin on this forum. Despite this, I have never banned a single user,
and when there are admin discussions about whether someone should be banned,
I am always on the side of leniency toward the users here.

Kirby, when you say "always", I sense two interpretations:
(a) up to now, in every situation (mentioned above) so far, you've been on the side of leniency toward the users here;
(b) "always" literally means "always" -- in all possible future situations (mentioned above) you will always be on the side of leniency toward the users here.

I take it you meant at least (a). Do you mean (b) as well ?

Follow-ups:
(c) Can you imagine any situation, any at all -- even just one example would suffice -- where you would ban a user here ?
(d) Have you ever, in any other forum or venue, banned someone, and you felt it was the correct thing to do ?
(e) Have you ever, in any other forum or venue, witnessed another person ban someone, and you felt it was the correct thing to do ?

I'd like to know whether you are completely against the idea of banning anyone, in any forum or venue, under any circumstances, period.

...the problem of stupid bans without merit will not be solved.

Same question, different wording: have you ever witnessed a justified ban with merit ? If yes, what was the circumstance ?

[guest14679]

To the people claiming a limit on accounts would solve anything is absurb...First off, myself and a few others all use multiple accounts. And we are some of the longer standing members of this community (not longest of course) ranging from 6-8 years on KGS each. None of us are said trouble-makers, and my only ban in my entire memory was from purposely "Hu-baiting" since I did not beleive questioning him on something he said could be an instant ban at the time and wanted to confirm.

Personally ( and not attempting to derail this thread but felt the need to defend myself) I have suffered from an alias crisis since first signing onto the internet in 2001. I have gone through more names than anyone I have ever met between KGS, video games, and even IM systems. But I am far from a troublemaker.


Back to the main topic, as someone suggested if everyone is really adamant about the ban giving a time frame why not submit to a wishlist for WMS.
On a personal note the only admin I've ever felt a bias towards members is from Stalkor

[Bantari]

To the people claiming a limit on accounts would solve anything is absurb...First off, myself and a few others all use multiple accounts. And we are some of the longer standing members of this community (not longest of course) ranging from 6-8 years on KGS each. None of us are said trouble-makers, and my only ban in my entire memory was from purposely "Hu-baiting" since I did not beleive questioning him on something he said could be an instant ban at the time and wanted to confirm.

I think your logic is very flawed. What you are saying, basically, is this:

1. I have multiple accounts, AND
2. I never cause trouble, THEREFORE
3. Multiple accounts have nothing to do with trouble.

Think about it.

Removing multiple accounts increases accountability - you cannot just misbehave and switch accounts and say 'ha ha'. When you misbehave (and get punished), it stays with you until people forget it, and its a blot on your reputation - either with other users or with admins or both. It will not *solve* the issue (some people are just jerks, no matter what, and they act the part), but it will certainly *help* cutting down on misbehaving (some people, who are not jerks, might think twice before acting like ones.)

Having said the above, I also dislike the idea.

[guest14679]

To the people claiming a limit on accounts would solve anything is absurb...First off, myself and a few others all use multiple accounts. And we are some of the longer standing members of this community (not longest of course) ranging from 6-8 years on KGS each. None of us are said trouble-makers, and my only ban in my entire memory was from purposely "Hu-baiting" since I did not beleive questioning him on something he said could be an instant ban at the time and wanted to confirm.

I think your logic is very flawed. What you are saying, basically, is this:

1. I have multiple accounts, AND
2. I never cause trouble, THEREFORE
3. Multiple accounts have nothing to do with trouble.

Think about it.

Removing multiple accounts increases accountability - you cannot just misbehave and switch accounts and say 'ha ha'. When you misbehave (and get punished), it stays with you until people forget it, and its a blot on your reputation - either with other users or with admins or both. It will not *solve* the issue (some people are just jerks, no matter what, and they act the part), but it will certainly *help* cutting down on misbehaving (some people, who are not jerks, might think twice before acting like ones.)

Having said the above, I also dislike the idea.

Since when has switching accounts worked? You can confirm with my friends Egad and HateToWin but bans were based off IP addresses? Thus why on a few occassions when Egad has gotten a ban , his brother HateToWin has been forced to suffer through the same punishment. Including a time where both were banned for "talking to themselves" in a room because the IP is the same.

I apoligize if I made it seem to black in white that multiple accounts have nothing to do with trouble but the same can be said with the claim that multiple accounts corralate to trouble which seems to be some people's arguement for cracking down on it(Not saying yours), it all comes down to the individuals. I actually find it very easy to pinpoint individuals who misbehaved by the way, they "randomly" go missing for the same period of time as the punished and their language is never far off.


I'm actually kind of amazed how far this debate has escalated from the original poster who is one of the said repeat offenders on KGS (yes I know he is young).

Again sorry if my view seemed more black and white though, was not my intention.

[Bantari]

To the people claiming a limit on accounts would solve anything is absurb...First off, myself and a few others all use multiple accounts. And we are some of the longer standing members of this community (not longest of course) ranging from 6-8 years on KGS each. None of us are said trouble-makers, and my only ban in my entire memory was from purposely "Hu-baiting" since I did not beleive questioning him on something he said could be an instant ban at the time and wanted to confirm.

I think your logic is very flawed. What you are saying, basically, is this:

1. I have multiple accounts, AND
2. I never cause trouble, THEREFORE
3. Multiple accounts have nothing to do with trouble.

Think about it.

Removing multiple accounts increases accountability - you cannot just misbehave and switch accounts and say 'ha ha'. When you misbehave (and get punished), it stays with you until people forget it, and its a blot on your reputation - either with other users or with admins or both. It will not *solve* the issue (some people are just jerks, no matter what, and they act the part), but it will certainly *help* cutting down on misbehaving (some people, who are not jerks, might think twice before acting like ones.)

Having said the above, I also dislike the idea.

Since when has switching accounts worked? You can confirm with my friends Egad and HateToWin but bans were based off IP addresses? Thus why on a few occassions when Egad has gotten a ban , his brother HateToWin has been forced to suffer through the same punishment. Including a time where both were banned for "talking to themselves" in a room because the IP is the same.

I apoligize if I made it seem to black in white that multiple accounts have nothing to do with trouble but the same can be said with the claim that multiple accounts corralate to trouble which seems to be some people's arguement for cracking down on it(Not saying yours), it all comes down to the individuals. I actually find it very easy to pinpoint individuals who misbehaved by the way, they "randomly" go missing for the same period of time as the punished and their language is never far off.


I'm actually kind of amazed how far this debate has escalated from the original poster who is one of the said repeat offenders on KGS (yes I know he is young).

Again sorry if my view seemed more black and white though, was not my intention.

I understand.

However, just to clarify - from the earlier context of this thread, I assume we are talking about multiple accounts in general - "per person" not necessarily "per IP." Which means we include IP switching in this debate. It also makes it not readily enforceable other than Joaz's idea of making KGS a paid server (although even then you cannot really enforce it.)

Also - its not only about bans, but also about social stigma. True - not everybody cares about that, but some do. Enforcing one-account-per-person might cut down on misbehavior among such people.

[asura]

Enforcing one-account-per-person might cut down on misbehavior among such people.

While logically correct it's incomplete or doesn't match the situation.
One-account-per-person of corse effects misbehavior in some situations.
But there are many other reasons for having multi accounts.
Enforcing one-account-per-person would effect all those people who have multi accounts and never caused any trouble at all.
All in all it will punish many people but only very few people deserve this punishment.

[Bantari]

Enforcing one-account-per-person might cut down on misbehavior among such people.

While logically correct it's incomplete or doesn't match the situation.
One-account-per-person of corse effects misbehavior in some situations.
But there are many other reasons for having multi accounts.
Enforcing one-account-per-person would effect all those people who have multi accounts and never caused any trouble at all.
All in all it will punish many people but only very few people deserve this punishment.

Agree. This is why I am against it, as I have said.

[leichtloeslich]

I don't see how "1 account per person" is even in the slightest relevant to any problems when it comes to banning.
A person can have 100 accounts, as long as all those accounts are identifiable to that person there's no problem.

What people seem to be arguing against is anonymity on the internet, which is, after all, only of use for pedophiles and terrorists.
Governments need to create a little chip in passports which can be used (and would be required) to go online, then there's no more problem with "banhopping" (oh, those troublemakers!).

In fact, the passport method is rather unreliable, how about we implant the chips in the brain in such a manner that removing them causes death? That's still imperfect, but at least to avoid a ban on KGS you'd basically have to kill someone.
Actually, if the chip was somehow able to read the thoughts of the "implantee", it would be *very* hard to circumvent the mechanism, since the chip will know if you're consenting to going online (as opposed to being coerced or flat out being dead). This would also cut down on crime, since people contemplating criminal activities can be arrested before they even get a chance to carry out their subversive behaviour.
That sounds like a pretty much perfect solution to me. Everybody wins!

[tchan001]

If someone really doesn't like being banned on KGS, there's always boycotting the server

[asura]

Actually, if the chip was somehow able to read the thoughts of the "implantee", it would be *very* hard to circumvent the mechanism, since the chip will know if you're consenting to going online (as opposed to being coerced or flat out being dead). This would also cut down on crime, since people contemplating criminal activities can be arrested before they even get a chance to carry out their subversive behaviour.

Even better than punishing for misbehavior is to prevent the pure existence of this. Using the chip for a high tech version of Clockwork Orange is best. If you allow people to think free but punish them therefore is inferior to enforce people to think right from the beginning. Of corse critical thinking if this is is really the best should be made impossible by the chip.

[Javaness2]

It is unlikely that KGS will ever enforce a "1 account per person rule", nor is it likely to ever have a "pay per account" rule.

There are some users of KGS who are psychotic, and continually abuse other users very severely. Their normal mode of operation is to create an account, insult everyone they play, get banned, use some method to create a new id, repeat ad infinitum. Because the internet enables anonymity, they can get away with, or at least continue, this behaviour. They could actually be jailed for the threats they issue, rather than just banned from KGS. If there was a financial barrier in place, that cost might stop, but not cure these people. The very same cost would put normal people off using the server.

I think wms is against any pay to play concept.

I don't see how "1 account per person" is even in the slightest relevant to any problems when it comes to banning.
A person can have 100 accounts, as long as all those accounts are identifiable to that person there's no problem.

What people seem to be arguing against is anonymity on the internet, which is, after all, only of use for pedophiles and terrorists.
Governments need to create a little chip in passports which can be used (and would be required) to go online, then there's no more problem with "banhopping" (oh, those troublemakers!).

In fact, the passport method is rather unreliable, how about we implant the chips in the brain in such a manner that removing them causes death? That's still imperfect, but at least to avoid a ban on KGS you'd basically have to kill someone.
Actually, if the chip was somehow able to read the thoughts of the "implantee", it would be *very* hard to circumvent the mechanism, since the chip will know if you're consenting to going online (as opposed to being coerced or flat out being dead). This would also cut down on crime, since people contemplating criminal activities can be arrested before they even get a chance to carry out their subversive behaviour.
That sounds like a pretty much perfect solution to me. Everybody wins!

[Kirby]

Same question, different wording: have you ever witnessed a justified ban with merit ? If yes, what was the circumstance ?

What does it mean for a ban to be "justified"? I don't like banning. That's about it. Most people probably disagree with my opinion, but I'd rather read people swearing or spamming in the EGR than to see bold text saying, "Gentlemen, please take this discussion elsewhere."