can we get rid of the insane admins please?

[jts]

I just don't understand why the moderating structure of KGS is set up like this at all.

(i) I don't understand why, out of all the very kind, gentle, reasonable folk who inhabit KGS, so many of the people who talk in bold are so psychologically maladjusted. Do you know that guy who is totally cool and admirable, but all of his friends are boorish cretins whom he knew in middle school and whom he never managed to get away from as they all grew up? Sometimes I feel that like that about wms and his admins. I know that's stupid... the cossacks work for the czar, etc. etc.

(ii) I realize that xDragon and most of the other people who get into trouble with the mods regularly are probably nasty pieces of work. But even so, the way the mods react to them is crazy and excessive. And it has a chilling effect on those of us who would like to talk, but are just too smart to risking getting in trouble. If I want to worry about getting punished for talking, I'll go protest extraordinary rendition or something like that. I prefer chatting on a go server to be more relaxing.

To make an analogy, the people who are talking down to xDragon are like those who would say, about a mugging victim, "Well, why was he out alone... in a neighborhood he didn't know... at that hour... and he probably had too much to drink, too..." But people who take that view forget that for every person who actually gets mugged, there are hundreds of us who never get mugged, but who have to spend every night trying to make sure that the place, time, and manner in which we are walking mean we deserve to get attacked.

(iii) I don't understand the policy towards chatting in the English Game Room. That's the room with the highest number of people in it, and with the most general set of motivations for being in it. As a result, that's where people like to talk, and if someone were to talk, that's also where they're likely to get a response. As a result, sometimes there are gasp conversations in the EGR! The official line, as I understand it, is that this conversation nonsense can't be tolerated, because sometimes people might want to ask a Really Important question in the EGR (although how it would ever get answered if there weren't people hanging around frequently checking the chat, I don't know), and besides there are other rooms which people don't actually use where a conversation could hypothetically occur.

(iv) The unpleasant policy towards moderation would be one thing if, as a result, KGS were a beautiful little garden, and every conversation in it a beautiful flower, just waiting to be sniffed. That would surely justify any sort of punishment meted out to the weeds. But it's not, so it isn't. Every day there's some guest or another with a name like "isukdix" spamming a game for twenty minutes before he gets banned, only to be replaced two minutes later by "isukdixx".

[hyperpape]

I do think KGS would be more transparent if every time you opened it, the following message appeared: "Under no circumstances should you discuss the decisions the admins have made, ask the admins why they made those decisions, or disagree with those decisions. Their decisions are their decisions, and you'll just have to deal. Do otherwise, and you stand a good chance of being banned."

And there probably should be a link to a page that lists what's considered unacceptable. Because I can guarantee you that while everyone gets that extreme insults and profanity are going to be moderated, people are generally quite surprised to find out that (for instance) the avatars that a player uses are considered off-topic.

(In the same fashion, Wikipedia needs to have a single page that's "here's what you think you know about how Wikipedia works that you're wrong about. If you don't know this, you'll get in pointless arguments with people who are familiar with Wikipedia when you find out that your edits aren't welcome").

P.S. Since there's always a personal element to these things, yes I was once banned for politely (imho) suggesting that it didn't make sense to have player pictures and then forbid discussion of them.

[TMark]

How fortunate you are to be able to have conversations freely, both here and on KGS, with the minor proviso that certain things are likely to annoy a moderator. Then there are those individuals who will skate closer and closer to those subjects with, it seems, the specific intention of earning the brownie points of a ban and who then claim in terms of injured innocence that it wasn't them, it was Johnny down the street who started it. Enjoy your freedoms; I still have a t-shirt that says "Banned from IGS", where I think that they avoid the problem totally by having no chat at all.

Best wishes.

[Joaz Banbeck]

I just don't understand why the moderating structure of KGS is set up like this at all...
...Every day there's some guest or another with a name like "isukdix" spamming a game for twenty minutes before he gets banned, only to be replaced two minutes later by "isukdixx".

I think that your last sentence answers your first.

[Joaz Banbeck]

I do think KGS would be more transparent if every time you opened it, the following message appeared: "Under no circumstances should you discuss the decisions the admins have made, ask the admins why they made those decisions, or disagree with those decisions. Their decisions are their decisions, and you'll just have to deal. Do otherwise, and you stand a good chance of being banned."

You can always privately ask an admin why things are done in a certain manner. A private question is usually interpreted as a question. A public question is often interpreted as a challenge.

[hyperpape]

How fortunate you are to be able to have conversations freely, both here and on KGS, with the minor proviso that certain things are likely to annoy a moderator. Then there are those individuals who will skate closer and closer to those subjects with, it seems, the specific intention of earning the brownie points of a ban and who then claim in terms of injured innocence that it wasn't them, it was Johnny down the street who started it. Enjoy your freedoms; I still have a t-shirt that says "Banned from IGS", where I think that they avoid the problem totally by having no chat at all.

Best wishes.

The good old days weren't, that's true, but I guess I'm not sure what lesson we're supposed to learn.

[oren]

The good old days weren't, that's true, but I guess I'm not sure what lesson we're supposed to learn.

I'm not sure we're trying to learn any lessons. This is a topic to vent about bad times on online go servers in.

[hyperpape]

You can always privately ask an admin why things are done in a certain manner. A private question is usually interpreted as a question. A public question is often interpreted as a challenge.

Yup. Only most of us are used to environments where authorities try to publicly justify decisions and don't regard public questions as a challenge, at least once we graduate high school*. And where they don't (controlling bosses) they're generally not regarded too highly. Imagine L19 if admins rejected public discussion of which things were unacceptable.

But in any case my point was not that KGS was wrong, but that it was surprising.

* John Gruber awhile back: "If I went back to high school, I'd just fail out. Can you imagine having to raise your hand to have to ask to go to the bathroom?"

[jts]

I just don't understand why the moderating structure of KGS is set up like this at all...
...Every day there's some guest or another with a name like "isukdix" spamming a game for twenty minutes before he gets banned, only to be replaced two minutes later by "isukdixx".

I think that your last sentence answers your first.

If a system is intended to achieve X, and X has not been achieved, that is not automatically a reason to redouble our efforts towards propping up the existing system. It may mean that the system is ineffective, or misguided, or both. Like fighting with your brother over who gets how much cake while the cake is starting to burn: the intention is to make sure everyone gets a fair share of cake, but it turns out the real threat to your slice of cake lies elsewhere. The mods are going around banning regulars on their main accounts for broken-window type offenses. At the same time, people log in as guests to flout the rules with impunity.

[Javaness2]

I think there should be a list of insane admins

[Javaness2]

And there probably should be a link to a page that lists what's considered unacceptable. Because I can guarantee you that while everyone gets that extreme insults and profanity are going to be moderated, people are generally quite surprised to find out that (for instance) the avatars that a player uses are considered off-topic.

I don't think an extensive list would be helpful, however the case you mention does interest me. What avatar was it? I find it hard to understand why you were told not to talk about somebody's avatar.

[cata]

I don't know why anyone would defend this childish behavior. It doesn't help KGS in any way when a mod bans someone for "offending" them in private chat, or for arguing with them for a couple lines in the EGR. Normal people watch this and/or get nuked themselves (if they have the temerity to say anything about it in chat) and it makes them angry and less likely to play Go here. It's lame to be rude to admins, or anyone, but if you are the admin you should get over it and do your job.

I get it, it's a thankless task being an admin. But if you can't perform it without being a jerk to people all the time, either chill out and learn to de-escalate conflicts or resign. There are other people who can ban the isuxdixxx of the world who will not hit the "screw you" button every time someone insults them in chat. I am not a paragon of virtue and even I am mature enough that I can do this.

In the meantime, why people chat with admins to try to argue about their job blows my mind. xDragon, you are not going to blow BigDoug away with your force of rhetoric and get him to beg for forgiveness. Just stop harassing him, forget about it and get on with life.

[xDragon]

And there probably should be a link to a page that lists what's considered unacceptable. Because I can guarantee you that while everyone gets that extreme insults and profanity are going to be moderated, people are generally quite surprised to find out that (for instance) the avatars that a player uses are considered off-topic.

I don't think an extensive list would be helpful, however the case you mention does interest me. What avatar was it? I find it hard to understand why you were told not to talk about somebody's avatar.

several admins do this in kibitz chat, most notably doug

[hyperpape]

It was unknownplr. He had a picture of himself featuring a particularly jarring plaid jacket/shirt/tie combo.

I imagine the objection was that the chat was distracting from the sage comments that "white 2 lost the game", and I can actually endorse that. But at the time it rankled, so:

in what sense is talking about a player's picture off-topic? Is it there precisely for the purpose of not being discussed?

I can't remember whether I was even a participant in discussing his picture. I want to say I wasn't, but can't quite remember clearly.

[xDragon]

Hello,

Your negative behaviour on KGS has taken place for several years.
During this time, you have repeatedly insulted and abused both admins
and players. You have been repeatedly warned and banned as a result of
this behaviour, but it continues undiminished.

As an example, the comment you made yesterday caused the latest ban:
(censored)*

Therefore, for a period of time, you will be proactively banned from
KGS when any of the admins determine that you are on-line. It is
unlikely that you will receive individual communications prior to the
bans, so this e-mail provides the explanation beforehand. Since you
have continued your current negative behaviour for years, we believe
that your access to KGS should be denied until you recognise that such
behaviour is inappropriate and will not repeat it.

KGS takes such actions rarely, in light of the severity of the
penalty. We hope that you recognise that on-going negative behaviour
is counter-productive and will change accordingly.

Doug

* - the censored comment was made after this kick and was inappropriate so i wont fight that, but there you go.