Kgs admin transcripts

[duckweed]

I appreciate the sentiment and attempt at holding admins accountable, but I'm not sure if the whole idea isn't simply doing the admins a disservice.

a) People can choose which bits they quote, as opposed to have the whole conversation. Also, it would be simple to edit prior to posting it, with almost no ability for anyone to check.

b) As expressed by HKA, examples like the one listed, give the distinct impression that there was prior history behind the original comment, which means it's quite possible the entire transcript is out of the context. The request by BD that honfu contact by PM over "what he did wrong" further implies that there was history which BD did not want to produce publicly, which is a very appropriate way of not re-airing dirty laundry.

c) I very much doubt people will go out of the way of posting transcripts where the admins did their job particularly well, giving an unnecessarily negative impression of them that may well not be justified.

I fail to see any good coming from this idea, even though it's well intentioned.

I thought it is good for kgs admins too, since this way everybody can see the empirical evidences rather than sentiments.

I can only trust people to be honest.

If there is hidden context, it would be an excellent if the kgs admin involved could chose to clarify his/her stance in that particular instance.
Admins can also see how their methods in that particular instance confused the server users.

A good job seldom generates questions. But this is not an admin good/bad thread.

[xDragon]

Actually I started this threat to gather transcripts, not to fight this old flame war again.

If you have issues with kgs admins, you should post a transcript instead so people can read them and make up their own mind.

I rather people not debate about them here.

I appreciate the sentiment and attempt at holding admins accountable, but I'm not sure if the whole idea isn't simply doing the admins a disservice.

a) People can choose which bits they quote, as opposed to have the whole conversation. Also, it would be simple to edit prior to posting it, with almost no ability for anyone to check.

b) As expressed by HKA, examples like the one listed, give the distinct impression that there was prior history behind the original comment, which means it's quite possible the entire transcript is out of the context. The request by BD that honfu contact by PM over "what he did wrong" further implies that there was history which BD did not want to produce publicly, which is a very appropriate way of not re-airing dirty laundry.

c) I very much doubt people will go out of the way of posting transcripts where the admins did their job particularly well, giving an unnecessarily negative impression of them that may well not be justified.

I fail to see any good coming from this idea, even though it's well intentioned.

youre pretty much saying that you dont want anyone to question any action admins do because it makes them look bad? really?

with mindless sheep like you around no wonder the admins feel like they can do whatever they want.


MOD Warning: Personal attacks are not allowed on this forum

1. Personal Attacks
Remember the Golden Rule: do to others what you would like to be done to you. Trolling, flaming, bashing, or otherwise verbally attacking anyone is not allowed. When writing about a move that a member made, ensure all criticism is directed towards the member's move rather than the member. Also, please consider that not every member in the forums is a native English speaker as you write your post.

DO NOT TRY TO EDIT AWAY MOD WARNINGS. You are now officially warned.

[speedchase]

Actually I started this threat to gather transcripts, not to fight this old flame war again.

If you have issues with kgs admins, you should post a transcript instead so people can read them and make up their own mind.

I rather people not debate about them here.

I appreciate the sentiment and attempt at holding admins accountable, but I'm not sure if the whole idea isn't simply doing the admins a disservice.

a) People can choose which bits they quote, as opposed to have the whole conversation. Also, it would be simple to edit prior to posting it, with almost no ability for anyone to check.

b) As expressed by HKA, examples like the one listed, give the distinct impression that there was prior history behind the original comment, which means it's quite possible the entire transcript is out of the context. The request by BD that honfu contact by PM over "what he did wrong" further implies that there was history which BD did not want to produce publicly, which is a very appropriate way of not re-airing dirty laundry.

c) I very much doubt people will go out of the way of posting transcripts where the admins did their job particularly well, giving an unnecessarily negative impression of them that may well not be justified.

I fail to see any good coming from this idea, even though it's well intentioned.

youre pretty much saying that you dont want anyone to question any action admins do because it makes them look bad? really?

with mindless sheep like you around no wonder the admins feel like they can do whatever they want.

Please don't insult people just because they don't agree with you.

Also your criticisms of his argument are completely absurd. He is saying that he thinks this thread will be extremely biased, not that admins are above criticism. I do mostly agree with your feelings about the admins, however your attitude makes me wish I diddn't.

[tchan001]

Context is very important when forming emotional opinions on subject matters.

Statement: A guy finishes dead last in a marathon and the organizers had to wait eight hours until he completed the course.

How would you feel about the guy given the statement above?


Now a little more context.

He has now completed 8 marathons because it's his desire to do so.

Now even more context.

He is a centenarian who did not start running marathons until he was 89.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-17/worl ... WORLDSPORT

[xDragon]

Please don't insult people just because they don't agree with you.

Also your criticisms of his argument are completely absurd. He is saying that he thinks this thread will be extremely biased, not that admins are above criticism. I do mostly agree with your feelings about the admins, however your attitude makes me wish I diddn't.

why does it matter if the thread may have more negative stuff than not? isnt the important thing that unacceptable behavior be noticed? its pretty ridiculous that some of you are that insistent in trying to make sure the admins look good. thats the only reason that this kind of thread would be considered a bad idea.

[topazg]

Actually, that's a good point - what _is_ the purpose of the thread? To make admins look bad, or to make some judgement as to how they are doing their job as admins overall in the eyes of the community?

[xDragon]

Actually, that's a good point - what _is_ the purpose of the thread? To make admins look bad, or to make some judgement as to how they are doing their job as admins overall in the eyes of the community?

there you go burying your head in the sand again. why is it so terrible that theres a place where admins bad behavior can be shown? the admin email is next to useless because theyre all in a clique and wont ever admit that another was wrong, and that again keeps the community in the dark

[oren]

Actually, that's a good point - what _is_ the purpose of the thread? To make admins look bad, or to make some judgement as to how they are doing their job as admins overall in the eyes of the community?

This thread so far has shown an admin in a pretty good light.

[xDragon]

Actually, that's a good point - what _is_ the purpose of the thread? To make admins look bad, or to make some judgement as to how they are doing their job as admins overall in the eyes of the community?

This thread so far has shown an admin in a pretty good light.

and that just shows a lack of intelligence, the inability to think for yourself since its so easy to just think like everyone else does and pretend nothing is wrong

[jts]

Actually, that's a good point - what _is_ the purpose of the thread? To make admins look bad, or to make some judgement as to how they are doing their job as admins overall in the eyes of the community?

In past threads about KGS, there has been a huge amount of disagreement about basic facts. If we start collecting facts, maybe we'll start to see eye to eye what admins are actually saying and what they're prohibiting and why they're banning people, and then we can rehash the earlier debate about whether that constitutes a good job.

If, as a side effect, the way an admin conducts himself makes him look good (or the reverse), surely that is not a bad thing.

[topazg]

Actually, that's a good point - what _is_ the purpose of the thread? To make admins look bad, or to make some judgement as to how they are doing their job as admins overall in the eyes of the community?

In past threads about KGS, there has been a huge amount of disagreement about basic facts. If we start collecting facts, maybe we'll start to see eye to eye what admins are actually saying and what they're prohibiting and why they're banning people, and then we can rehash the earlier debate about whether that constitutes a good job.

If, as a side effect, the way an admin conducts himself makes him look good (or the reverse), surely that is not a bad thing.

That was exactly what I hoped the thread for, which is why I expressed my reservations. If we are to collect enough of a portfolio to make it worthwhile, it has to be reasonably comprehensive, or at least proportionally representative. If we do that, I think the idea is great, I just can't see it happening in practice. I hope to be proved wrong

@Oren: I agree with you

[speedchase]

Actually, that's a good point - what _is_ the purpose of the thread? To make admins look bad, or to make some judgement as to how they are doing their job as admins overall in the eyes of the community?

In past threads about KGS, there has been a huge amount of disagreement about basic facts. If we start collecting facts, maybe we'll start to see eye to eye what admins are actually saying and what they're prohibiting and why they're banning people, and then we can rehash the earlier debate about whether that constitutes a good job.

If, as a side effect, the way an admin conducts himself makes him look good (or the reverse), surely that is not a bad thing.

That was exactly what I hoped the thread for, which is why I expressed my reservations. If we are to collect enough of a portfolio to make it worthwhile, it has to be reasonably comprehensive, or at least proportionally representative. If we do that, I think the idea is great, I just can't see it happening in practice. I hope to be proved wrong

@Oren: I agree with you

I disagree that proportional representation is necessary. the assumption is that the admins do alot of what they are supposed too (hence why they are admins).

@xdragon insults do not help your claims or make you look more intelligent.

[xDragon]

I disagree that proportional representation is necessary. the assumption is that the admins do alot of what they are supposed too (hence why they are admins).

@xdragon insults do not help your claims or make you look more intelligent.

sometimes people dont realize how stupid they are being and need to be told so

[HermanHiddema]

I disagree that proportional representation is necessary. the assumption is that the admins do alot of what they are supposed too (hence why they are admins).

@xdragon insults do not help your claims or make you look more intelligent.

sometimes people dont realize how stupid they are being and need to be told so

Oh god, the irony.

[xDragon]

I disagree that proportional representation is necessary. the assumption is that the admins do alot of what they are supposed too (hence why they are admins).

@xdragon insults do not help your claims or make you look more intelligent.

sometimes people dont realize how stupid they are being and need to be told so

Oh god, the irony.

maybe in your high school clique mind its irony, but you cant find anything ive said that makes me look stupid, your only reasoning would be because im disagreeing with someone you like