Life In 19x19

Let me see if I can make sense of this:

1) You make a joke
2) Admin clearly does not understand that it is a joke.
3) You have an opportunity to enlighten admin.
4) Instead, you choose to insult admin.

...and it goes south from there.

I can't see how you can expect any other result when you make that choice.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:Let me see if I can make sense of this:

1) You make a joke
2) Admin clearly does not understand that it is a joke.
3) You have an opportunity to enlighten admin.
4) Instead, you choose to insult admin.

...and it goes south from there.

I can't see how you can expect any other result when you make that choice.

There is more than one interpretation. For instance:

1) You make a joke
2) Admin clearly does not understand that it is a joke.
3) Admin makes an inappropriate response, even assuming that it was not a joke.

...and it goes south from there.

Well, since I have drawn myself into this, I guess I should express my opinion more fully. As some people here know, I have some experience in this area. I do not play on KGS, and cannot speak directly to the culture and practices there. This is just my general opinion.

If I were the Head Administrator, I would defend the admin's actions. You have to give admins discretion. If they cannot exercise discretion, you should not have them as admins in the first place.

But I would also have a talk with the admin, along these lines. Your purpose is not to be a policeman or class monitor. Your role is more that of a host, and your purpose is to help people have a good time, to promote a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. Issuing bans and warnings may be part of that, just as a host might eject a guest who is making things unpleasant for other guests. But such measures are not to be taken lightly. They are last resorts, to be avoided if possible. In this case your actions engendered resentment. No matter who might have been right or wrong, that is an undesirable result, something to be avoided if possible.

mw42 wrote:I've had issues with KGS admins before. I perceived Herod's warning as an insult so I was rude in kind. I'm not going to be nice to someone trying to unjustly pressure me even if he is operating in some kind of official capacity. "You're on notice" is rude.

One of these things is not like the other, and I think it would help to keep the difference in mind.

KGS has a reputation for having rude admins. This has been the case for as long as I can remember, almost 10 years.
KGS also has a reputation for nothing ever changing. This has been the case for as long as I can remember, almost 10 years.

So, complaining will get you nowhere. If you are really bothered by this, why not help get Kaya or Nova off the ground by playing there instead. Personally, I find it easier to just self-censor myself more than I usually do.

Bill Spight wrote:But I would also have a talk with the admin, along these lines. Your purpose is not to be a policeman or class monitor. Your role is more that of a host, and your purpose is to help people have a good time, to promote a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. Issuing bans and warnings may be part of that, just as a host might eject a guest who is making things unpleasant for other guests. But such measures are not to be taken lightly. They are last resorts, to be avoided if possible. In this case your actions engendered resentment. No matter who might have been right or wrong, that is an undesirable result, something to be avoided if possible.

Bill Spight for head admin!

what is the job of Admin?
talking about ppl's rank is disrespectful?
i will callout any professional player if he dont see atari and kills his group.

they suck <--- this might be inapporpriate but can be true.
he is 1 dan <--- this is appropriate and can be true.

admin should let ppl enjoy as long as they play on a borderline gray area. IMO

If a police officer came up to me and said "your on watch" I would very shorty be on the phone with the local police department in the area, and very shortly after that he wouldn't be a police officer.

palapiku wrote:KGS has a reputation for having rude admins. This has been the case for as long as I can remember, almost 10 years.
KGS also has a reputation for nothing ever changing. This has been the case for as long as I can remember, almost 10 years.

So, complaining will get you nowhere. If you are really bothered by this, why not help get Kaya or Nova off the ground by playing there instead. Personally, I find it easier to just self-censor myself more than I usually do.

I go back further, to where people had been banned by IGS, and came to KGS.

KGS has a reputation for being a place that is more social than other go servers. For people who enjoy playing go competively, learning and teaching, and talking about go in a pleasant non competitive way, KGS has a fantastic reputation, and the admins are respected and appreciated for their help.

Amongst those who are perfect, enjoy chatting competively and enjoy testing boundaires they do not care for in their perfection, it is hardly surprising that KGS administrators have a reputation for being less than perfect.

The fact that they are less than perfect does not prevent those of us who are also less than perfect from appreciating their efforts.

mw42 wrote:I've had issues with KGS admins before. I perceived Herod's warning as an insult so I was rude in kind. I'm not going to be nice to someone trying to unjustly pressure me even if he is operating in some kind of official capacity. "You're on notice" is rude. Many other admins might have said "please, don't make religious references." Even though calling "the power of christ compels you" a religious reference is absurd, I wouldn't have been rude to an admin if warned in such a manner.

To be honest, your expectations appear to be rather inconsistent and entirely in your favour.

Situation 1:
You believe that the KGS admin has been rude to you. You can either ignore it or react to it. You choose to react to it. You approve of this reaction.

Situation 2:
The admin believes that you have been rude to him (and you agree above that this was your intention). He can either ignore it or react to it. He chose to react to it. You disapprove of this reaction.

If you don't like perceived rudeness, why are you surprised when the admin doesn't like your intended rudeness? Are there different standards for you and for other people?

speedchase wrote:If a police officer came up to me and said "your on watch" I would very shorty be on the phone with the local police department in the area, and very shortly after that he wouldn't be a police officer.

When you put this plan of action into effect, can you please let us know the result? I'm interested to know if this theory is true.

BigDoug wrote:

mw42 wrote:I've had issues with KGS admins before. I perceived Herod's warning as an insult so I was rude in kind. I'm not going to be nice to someone trying to unjustly pressure me even if he is operating in some kind of official capacity. "You're on notice" is rude. Many other admins might have said "please, don't make religious references." Even though calling "the power of christ compels you" a religious reference is absurd, I wouldn't have been rude to an admin if warned in such a manner.

To be honest, your expectations appear to be rather inconsistent and entirely in your favour.

Situation 1:
You believe that the KGS admin has been rude to you. You can either ignore it or react to it. You choose to react to it. You approve of this reaction.

Situation 2:
The admin believes that you have been rude to him (and you agree above that this was your intention). He can either ignore it or react to it. He chose to react to it. You disapprove of this reaction.

If you don't like perceived rudeness, why are you surprised when the admin doesn't like your intended rudeness? Are there different standards for you and for other people?

The problem is the reactions aren't equal. My reaction was to be grumbly and give an irritated slightly offensive reply. His reaction was a 24 hour ban. Okay, should people be banned for such a minor offensive remark as "blah blah"? However, my issue is not really with the bans (to be honest, I don't really care if I get banned on KGS, if I did I would have left the server a while ago). My issue with Herod are the three warnings I received (especially the last two) were completely uncalled for. I'd even characterize the last two as an attempt to provoke me.

mw42 wrote:The problem is the reactions aren't equal. My reaction was to be grumbly and give an irritated slightly offensive reply. His reaction was a 24 hour ban.

Unless you have some proof to convince me otherwise, I don't think that's factually accurate ...

What popular film contains the line "the power of Christ compelled ..." - is it the Exorcist?

Javaness2 wrote:

mw42 wrote:The problem is the reactions aren't equal. My reaction was to be grumbly and give an irritated slightly offensive reply. His reaction was a 24 hour ban.

Unless you have some proof to convince me otherwise, I don't think that's factually accurate ...

What popular film contains the line "the power of Christ compelled ..." - is it the Exorcist?

Are you saying it wasn't a 24 hour ban? I have no way of knowing, but I didn't try to log back on until the following day. You're right, that was just an assumption.

Yes, it is from The Exorcist and was parodied and copied in many other movies and shows. Apparently not as many as I thought.

I received a follow-up e-mail from BigDoug. I thought I'd share it

Hello,

You have a choice at the moment.

First, you can continue to feel sorry for yourself and try to justify
your previous behaviour. In this instance, you'll probably repeat the
previous behaviour and experience the same consequences.

Second, you can learn from this and modify your behaviour accordingly.

Regards,
Doug

mw42 wrote:

Javaness2 wrote:

mw42 wrote:The problem is the reactions aren't equal. My reaction was to be grumbly and give an irritated slightly offensive reply. His reaction was a 24 hour ban.

Unless you have some proof to convince me otherwise, I don't think that's factually accurate

Are you saying it wasn't a 24 hour ban? I have no way of knowing, but I didn't try to log back on until the following day. You're right, that was just an assumption.

If you don't know how long you were banned for, and just pick a high number to make it look bad, that's pretty false :p