Life In 19x19

Uberdude wrote:I wonder if this is a good idea, ..., but in the interests of openness here are some of the moderation actions on the thread:

Personally, I'd like to thank you for your efforts to moderate these discussions and for your extensive and well-considered arguments that you contributed to them. Judged against the standards of the Internet, I think that the debate, here, has been erudite and remarkably constrained and mature, however many complaints it may have precipitated.

Please keep to actions against individual posts, however, and resist the temptation to lock the whole thread.

I fear what would happen if the thread were locked. To where would the discussions move? To a service such as Facebook or Twitter, the likes of which many of us refuse to use for good reasons unrelated to Go? To the unmoderatable wild-west: Reddit?

Locking the thread would certainly not be the end of the story. I think that the topic is too important to Go players to exile it.

I acknowledge the effort and work-load involved in moderating the thread but, although I am no moderator and do not expend this effort, personally, I think that that cost is worth paying if it keeps the debate here, at home.

If history had taken a different course, we might now be debating how cheating should be detected and how cheaters should be sentenced without the confusion caused by having a named accused. Many of the arguments raised would be relevant and many of the statistical discussions would have merit but the whole discussion would be a lot less heated and a lot less controversial.

Sadly, we must play the hand that we were dealt.

Bill Spight wrote:In this case and the possible rape case the question of personal attacks on non-users comes up. Reporting what has been published elsewhere may not be a problem, but copying a Reddit post or being the original site for a possibly libelous post may well be risky. Just the threat of a lawsuit, aside from the personal concerns of our admins, could shut this site down. Caution is advised.

What I posted on the rape case was accurate. It lacked some of the details that were revealed later, but what I reported I had read at the time. The article I linked wasn't the only article I had read, and I just picked one as one of the sources - other articles had some additional information. I used the word "alleged". There was some quibble over "sexual assault" vs. "rape" and what precisely happened (which, by the way, is somewhat chauvinistic in my opinion), but based on the impression I got from various sources, "rape" was an appropriate definition. Later, more detailed reports confirmed this.

I don't intend to personally attack anyone, but I like sharing news I read on news sites from time to time. I'm not a journalist, and I don't always site my sources in a professional manner. But I don't write things that I know to be untrue.

Yeah, here I don't site all of my sources. That doesn't mean that I don't have other sources. You can complain about the post if it turns out to be untrue. In this case, it wasn't.

If the same situation comes up again with the same amount of information, I would report again in the same way. If someone sues us, you can direct them to me.

From my not-a-lawyer perspective, it seems implausible that someone would or could sue a forum website for giving people the chance to discuss public information. The accusations were not originally raised here, and the potential damage to the reputation of the person being discussed does not stem from here either. If anything, providing a forum for an open discussion probably provides one of the few opportunities for the reputation of an accused person to be salvaged. Much better for the accused than a rumor windmill. Furthermore, unless someone is purposefully lying, stating one's opinion based on one's interpretation of the publicly available evidence hardly constitutes slander.

daal wrote:From my not-a-lawyer perspective, it seems implausible that someone would or could sue a forum website for giving people the chance to discuss public information.

Uberdude wrote:Just yesterday there was a post from a new user called "CarloCheating" pending approval, anonymously claiming to be Carlo's teammate, with a confession of cheating and details of its nature in his most recent game. This was also posted on reddit, where myself and others questioned the veracity and someone pointed out the style of broken English was not normal for an Italian. So in the absence of any corroboration and given that a discussion was also taking place elsewhere I (and another mod) thought it best to not approve it for now. Is that bad censorship, should we let people make up their own mind if this is true or a troll?

IMO, Uberdude did the right thing by not approving an uncorroborated accusation from an unknown source.

Bill Spight wrote:
IMO, Uberdude did the right thing by not approving an uncorroborated accusation from an unknown source.

For which read an obvious troll

Javaness2 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:
IMO, Uberdude did the right thing by not approving an uncorroborated accusation from an unknown source.

For which read an obvious troll

Moi?

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

[admin]

John Fairbairn wrote:...
I've seen nothing objectionable on this thread...

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.

John Fairbairn wrote:

If you have a problem with another member, or if you disagree with something that a mod or an admin has done...

...This thread has fruitfully opened up ways of thinking ...{etc}

I don't believe any of that would have happened had censorship brakes been applied...

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

Uberdude wrote:...there was a post from a new user called "CarloCheating" pending approval, anonymously claiming to be Carlo's teammate, with a confession of cheating...

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:

Bill Spight wrote:...Let me say that I think that the threat of a lawsuit is a real concern.... Just the threat of a lawsuit, aside from the personal concerns of our admins, could shut this site down. Caution is advised.

[/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!).

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?

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.

John Fairbairn wrote:

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?

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.