Moi?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

Everything with love.

Quote of the day:

Unfortunately not, in this instance I refer directly to the dismal effort seen on reddit.

_________________
North Lecale

[admin]


On behalf of the L19 moderating crew: thank you. I consider such lack of objectionable posts to be evidence of a job well done.
Of course you haven't seen the objectionable stuff - because we have been disapproving/deleting such posts.

You don't see the rest of the iceberg.


The censorship brakes have been applied. Many times. Again: you don't see it.



That is just one example.
There have been several attempted posts under this username, and other similar attempts at similar incindiary posts. But we didn't let them derail the thread.

We mods have two - at least! - concerns here. We want to keep L19 a civil place that the members can enjoy. Also, we do not want to be party to indiscriminate slander.

Bill says it as well as I could:


[/admin]

I don't want to see L19 dominated by peripheral discussions, so I'm somewhat motivated to figure out a way to add Go content, but I'm neither a strong player nor immersed in the culture, so that may take some self-reflection. I'm tempted to comment on Aleš Cieply's math, but that thread already has too many voices, I trust it will sort itself out, and that wouldn't be about Go.

I've said this before, but it's easy to criticize volunteers when you don't know what they experience. I favor balanced moderation, but acknowledge that there can be differences in opinion about what that means. All of the Go forums I've followed, from rec.games.go, to godicussions, to L19 to Reddit, have had moderation. I'm not even sure what very lenient or no moderation would look like. 4chan, perhaps? There's a place for that, but I don't think this is the place.

I think that Kirby's sharing the Kim Seong-ryong story is fine. Although there is was some risk it could prompt uncivil comments, this was going to come up sooner or later and I can imagine many worse ways the topic could have come to this forum, so in the end it's good he did this first. It could easily have been posted by someone less capable or informed. Bonobo's introduction of the PGETC case was also fine, and not inflammatory. The flames came later, and I guess the moderators had to go into overdrive to contain them. Unless we know what these threads might have looked like with their effort, it's hard to judge.

I don't like news much. Current events make me unhappy, so I visit L19 with the hope to escape from that, not to double down on it. I do like Go and I hope we can enjoy Go and keep talking about it, even if some people need an occasional chess break...

rec.games.go has always been unmoderated and this freedom of speech only restricted by laws is optimal for exchange of ideas.

I don't find womack banging on about the Jews optimal...

I'm totally new here, so take this with a grain of salt.
The people here seem genuinely invested in the well-being of the community as a whole - helping each other out, keeping the tone of the conversation light whenever possible and focused where it's appropriate - so counting on self-moderation and the power of example should work fine to an extent. However, there are always gonna be newcomers not accustomed to being excellent to one another or trying to maintain a positive frame of mind; I reckon leaving them be hoping that whatever trouble they cause will resolve itself will lead to gradual loss of motivation and decline of general standard. Defining what that standard should be in the first place is of course the hardest bit, probably the crux of the issue of moderation, but even after it is established, it will have to be maintained somehow. From experience, in a noisy environment, making everyone take up the responsibility for that leads to no one actually doing so, unless actual moderators stand up to the challenge.

On a side note, I don't think there are any screws on Billie Joe Armstrong's alarm clock.

John, given you desire for less heavy-handed moderation, I wonder what is your view of that chap who I thought was rather rude to you on the Shusai thread? (and someone else did too and reported it) Was it objectionable to you, are we currently in a bear pit, or would mods telling him off / cutting parts make it a vicar's tea party and you are plenty thick-skinned to handle it yourself?

(If such rude messages cause you annoyance and reduce your enthusiasm to post then by not being speedily intercepted and deleted by mods our light-handed approach could contribute to the decline of L19!).

Well, he was certainly rude (and worse: wrong) about Shusai. I suppose you could also say he was rude to me but it was like the waft of a butterfly. And insofar as anybody here takes any notice of such things, I'd say he showed himself to be a plonker without any extra help needed from me. That seems to be confirmed by the fact that somebody reported him on my behalf, but I must say I find that anonymous act a bit chilling.

Anyway, I'd have been much more concerned if you'd censored him.

The most important thing that contributes to my increasing unwillingness to contribute is apathy - lurking. I post because I want to hear other people's views. I enjoy them. I don't mind them being different. But preferably not in the atmosphere of either a bear pit or a vicar's tea party. The atmosphere of a night at the pub or a lively session in a coffee bar would suit me best. If anybody says something shall we say a little too boisterous, other people round the table should not be afraid to speak up and say "that's out of order," giving the alleged offender a chance to justify, to withdraw or, as here, to hang himself.

Thank you for this post, John.

Though I did not report the post/user in question, I will say that I considered it. (I do not often log on, but I personally was almost pushed enough to log on just for that.) I appreciate your viewpoint, and it's definitely given me a different take and (hopefully) a different way to look at posts such as that one in the future. Maybe we'd all be served better by simply speaking up in an appropriate manner (spooling out the rope, as it were).

Either way, I do appreciate the work that has been done so far on the main topic of this discussion. So my thanks go to the moderators.

_________________
KGS: schultz [?].

From the original thread at viewtopic.php?p=232802#p232802


As I already posted

Bill, whose opinion I value as an older user with moderator experience replied

So this assuaged my concerns. Simba obviously answers my question with a definite "yes". As this person had created a lively discussion on reddit (which I linked to) and also contacted Ales Cieply and other EGF people I did not feel a whistleblower had been unable to make his voice heard.

I messaged CarloCheating (after discussing with other moderators), saying we would approve his message if he could provide some corroboration given the serious accusations. He never replied. I had hoped he might offer a screenshot of a chat in Italian with the reddit user who pointed out his unusual style of English (which doesn't prove it's fake, but heightens concerns), or perhaps screenshots of emails or chat messages with Carlo. If the purported confession was in person then an audio recording would be brilliant, Watergate style. Some evidence he was at least Italian (not that an Italian with enmity towards Carlo couldn't fabricate) like a photo with "Hi Uberdude" written on an Italian newspaper with a Vespa and some olives in the background. An offer to reveal his identity in confidence or via a third party (quote from an Italian teammate of Carlo's from reddit below). Anything.


Given the strength of feeling this case has aroused I think there is a real possibility this confession was fabricated by someone who thinks Carlo is guilty. I doubt the vast majority of such people would be so unscrupulous to invent this story, but it only takes one.

I think blocking the post is reasonable. You are giving him the option of providing better evidence for his accusations, an opportunity to give his identity - anything to help corroborate his (serious) accusation.

FWIW, the IP address he used to login to the forums isn't from Italy. This doesn't necessarily mean anything since he could be posting from another part of Europe or using a proxy as he claimed in Reddit. But its certainly suspicious.

We are not censoring a user just to censor an opinion we disagree with. We are asking someone that is making a personal accusation to provide better evidence to back up their story.

_________________
it's be happy, not achieve happiness

You are quite right to believe in this possibility. Any newspaper, tax office, drugs agency, immigration office or police station will tell you that there are people trying to shop other people all the time.

Your introspection may have been caused by the latest charge against the mods: "disgusting." I believe that is totally unwarranted.

For avoidance of doubt, I have myself expressed some opinions that have a bearing on moderation and I wish to clarify them.

One is that I have found some moderating "heavy handed." I stand by that. I am referring to cases such as those of Robert Jasiek and djbrown, not the present case. But I have also conceded that where a poster proves to be too high maintenance, volunteer mods can be excused for bring up the portcullis (at east if they explain why). Regrettable but understandable.

I have, along with others, mentioned the importance of freedom of speech. Robert has said he supports freedom of speech within appropriate laws. I go along with that but with extra constraints. One is that the site owner has the final say, and another is, again, that volunteer mods must have the right to put a premium on their own time and to protect themselves.

In real life, anyone has the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre but if it leads to someone being trampled to death they also have "right" to be charged with manslaughter and sued. On L19, someone who shouts the equivalent of "Fire" faces no such sanction, and therefore it is right if mods expect a higher standard for the use of free speech even than in real life. That higher standard should, where appropriate, include evidence that can be easily scrutinised. That is why I objected to Kirby's initial story about sexual assault. (For this forum, quoting a link to a Korean news site is not easily accessible to most people and therefore not scrutinisable). In the present case, the post by CarloCheating offered no such evidence either and was rightly intercepted (even if it, too, eventually proves to be true). Asking the poster to provide the evidence, as uberdude did, is not censorship. Nor, even, is suggesting a rewording or a slight delay in posting - time for reflection. Editors of newspapers do this all the time with young journalists.

ubderdude's response was not just commendable but going a bit further that we can reasonably expect of a volunteer mod. Personally, were I mod, I think I might handle these evidence-light cases simply but lazily by posting a note on the forum saying something like: "We are receiving contentious posts making unsubstantiated charges. This is a reminder that such posts must be accompanied by verifiable evidence before they can be posted here." I would also like to see a requirement to shed anonymity, but it seems I'd have to be the site owner to get that through.

I hope that clarifies the message from one noisy user. To sum up, I think the cheating thread, although tumultuous, is working well and being allowed to work well through the background work by the mods. They are also usefully demonstrating the superiority of L19 over reddit.

Fair enough. I see the similarity between what I'd expect of "Carlo Cheating" (the user), in this case, and my post on the Kim Seongryong topic. I maintain that I had read a few different articles before posting, and was confident in the accuracy of what I was posting. That being said, given that it was a serious allegation against Kim Seongryong, it would have been worth the effort to provide additional sources and evidence, even if I'm not a journalist.

I don't really feel inclined to always be fully professional with citing Korean sources, etc., from news sites when I share them - if I think something is interesting, I don't mind casually sharing it. But in cases where an allegation is against someone else like here, and in the "Carlo Cheating" case, I feel it's fair to expect a thorough representation of the evidence when the case is presented.

In both cases, I think it's still useful to present the news, but giving as much information as possible is fair to a person who is being accused.

_________________
it's be happy, not achieve happiness