Life In 19x19

Bantari wrote:I resent when somebody tries to tell me its somehow my 'duty' or 'obligation' to keep giving and giving.

I think this is partly where the wires got crossed - I have never implied that it was anyone's duty to keep giving, simply that once a gift has been given, it should not be taken away. I'm not asking wms even to maintain it or manage it: he could give it away to the community, as the gift it was intended to be, if he's bored with it. But instead, he keeps a tight grip on it and allows it to degrade through negligence, to the point where I can't use it any more. I don't want him to keep giving so much as give back. And of course he has every right not to, but I equally well think it's reasonable for me to feel rather like his negligence has taken something away.

Apart from this, we seem to agree entirely.

billywoods wrote:

Bantari wrote:I resent when somebody tries to tell me its somehow my 'duty' or 'obligation' to keep giving and giving.

I think this is partly where the wires got crossed - I have never implied that it was anyone's duty to keep giving, simply that once a gift has been given, it should not be taken away.

But wms never 'gave' us KGS. Its not 'ours' now.

KGS is for us to 'use' as long as wms feels like letting us 'use' it. It was never implied to be anything else, and I think you are reading into this. Its like I said in my previous post - you taking KGS for granted and then extrapolate it to some kind of entitlement or even ownership. You don't *own* KGS, you are just allowed to *use* it for a while.

Most services are like that... you can 'use' them as long as their are available for your 'use'. Often they stop being available, or start charging (i.e. stop being available for free to you) or whatever. Examples on internet abound.

I really fail to see how anybody can think KGS is now somehow *theirs* just because they were allowed to play on it for a while or even got used to it. KGS is *not* yours. It belongs to wms. And if wms wants to pull the plug, he has the right to do so, moral and otherwise. If he open-source the code - its nice, but not a requirement. For all these years, the use of KGS (but not KGS itself) was a *gift* we have been given, and wms working hard to make it run was another *gift*. But the gift was his work and the use of the service, not the ownership of the service and his slavery.

And when the next server comes along, Kaya, Nova, whatever - the case will be exactly the same! Look at Kaya - we actually *paid* to have those dudes working on the server full time, and now they fold... sure I am disappointed, but I would never say they have no right to fold - they gave it a good try, and who knows, maybe its not over yet. Still, with Kaya you would have more reasons to take the stance you have - they accepted your money so this creates some kind of obligation.

PS>
I also think that we are zeroing in on the core of the problem here.
But maybe we just have to agree to disagree.

billywoods wrote:

Bantari wrote:I resent when somebody tries to tell me its somehow my 'duty' or 'obligation' to keep giving and giving.

I think this is partly where the wires got crossed - I have never implied that it was anyone's duty to keep giving, simply that once a gift has been given, it should not be taken away. I'm not asking wms even to maintain it or manage it: he could give it away to the community, as the gift it was intended to be, if he's bored with it. But instead, he keeps a tight grip on it and allows it to degrade through negligence, to the point where I can't use it any more. I don't want him to keep giving so much as give back. And of course he has every right not to, but I equally well think it's reasonable for me to feel rather like his negligence has taken something away.

Apart from this, we seem to agree entirely.

Now I finally feel like I understand what you are getting at.

I think we can all agree that if WMS were completely finished with KGS then the decent thing for him to do would be to offer to hand it over (or sell it) to someone else, but I think it should be entirely up to him to decide that. There can be no minimum amount of work he has to do to justify his ownership of the thing he created.

I guess the difference is that I don't think KGS was ever given, but is something that belongs to WMS that he kindly allows us to use.

billywoods wrote:I don't want him to keep giving so much as give back. And of course he has every right not to, but I equally well think it's reasonable for me to feel rather like his negligence has taken something away.

So this whole thread is about what you want. Isn't that special?

KGS is wms's baby. He can and should do with it what he likes. He owes you nothing, not even an audience. He doesn't owe you updates, opportunities to code, or a revision to his business model.

The naivety in this thread is astounding. wms offers us a free service, yet he has a full time job, a family, and a life. He probably just hasn't had time to improve KGS. (That said, I am delighted to see he is taking a sabbatical to make a whole new client.)

I am confident that there are thousands of KGS users (even non-admins, like myself) who would leap to wms's defense if they knew this ridiculous thread existed. You know why? Gratitude.

What other completely free things can we moan about today?

I don't think it is a good idea to keep reinforcing our opinions to the extreme, nor reading others to the extreme. Life isn't black and white, nor is gratitude. We can be grateful for somethings that someone has done and simultaneously resentful or even angry for others.

I would like to give a different example so that you don't feel as connected to the instance at hand.
Imagine someone decided to build a kids park in your neighborhood. In their free time, that person decided to build everything, paint everything, attach safety instructions and he enjoyed watching his own kids play there. He is not a selfish guy, so he also let other kids play on his park too. The community is grateful for the park. For the next few years, he not only does maintenance jobs but he also keeps doing improvements to the park.
However, his kids grew up and he doesn't have as much free time to keep maintaining and improving the park. One of the new parents would like to repaint the swings (they are a little bit rusty after 10 years), to its original color, but the creator refuses. He was the one who created the park, he won't let anyone but him fix it. A different parent created a new slide and would like to add it to the park, but the "owner" also refuses it given that it was not his creation. Can't the neighborhood feel both grateful for the park and somehow resentful that they are not able make the park a better place?

Honestly, I see things as the sound problem like repainting the swing: it is not changing anything, it's just a "please let us fix it". Adding an option to enable timestamps is just like adding a new slide, even less intrusive than that.

Bantari wrote:But wms never 'gave' us KGS.

You're the one who called KGS a gift, not me! Yes, I agree that it's more as if the use of KGS is a gift. But I don't understand the motivation behind giving a gift and then retracting it a few years later. I'm not asking him to have anything more to do with KGS ever again - I'm just asking him not to take it away from us. Yes, he can say no. But why would he? I can't think of a reason.

Bantari wrote:they accepted your money so this creates some kind of obligation.

No, I think you're just twisting my words now. (To be honest, you're not even twisting my words. "Obligation" is something that everyone else has been talking about and I've been trying to stop talking about, and it has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with the role of KGS inside the community.)

Splatted wrote:I think we can all agree that if WMS were completely finished with KGS then the decent thing for him to do would be to offer to hand it over (or sell it) to someone else

Yes, this is all I've been meaning to say all along.

billywoods wrote:

Bantari wrote:But wms never 'gave' us KGS.

You're the one who called KGS a gift, not me! Yes, I agree that it's more as if the use of KGS is a gift. But I don't understand the motivation behind giving a gift and then retracting it a few years later. I'm not asking him to have anything more to do with KGS ever again - I'm just asking him not to take it away from us. Yes, he can say no. But why would he? I can't think of a reason.

Ok, so bad choice of words on my part. He gave us a gif of using KGS for a while. And this gift will never be taken back - you will always have the years you have been using KGS. But eventually, like with all good things this will end.

Imagine your car broke down, you go to Avis and rent another car. You drive the car for a while. You like the car very much. Does Avis have an obligation now to give/sell you this car? I don't think so, and I don't think any sane person would argue this way. Because of the payment you make on the rental, there is really no gratitude involved, its just a transaction, but still...

Or better yet:
You watch your favorite series on TV for two seasons, then they cancel it. Do they have the right to do so? Sure they do. Does that suck big time? Sure it does. Do they have a responsibility to ensure the series continues, maybe outsource it to another channel, just so you are happy? Not at all.

I could go on with examples like that if you need them. Just let me know.
In this world you take your pleasures where you can get them and when they're done, you go look for new ones. Nobody owes you anything, dude. Really.

The stone sounds work for me, but sometimes Iturn them off because they get on my nerves. I'd turn timestamps off too if they were there and I could. Sometimes I have a frustrating experience because of lag. That accounts for a tiny minority of my frustrating experiences while playing go.

WMS hasn't taken anything away from anybody. And he's working on a new client. I'm glad he hasn't given it up to some mob who might have escapers and admins shot on sight or other such improvements.

Where is KGS going? I hope it's not going anywhere.

I don't really think this is about Billywoods' sense of entitlement, but rather annoyance at what he sees as petty wastefulness. I still disagree with him, but if this is worth arguing about then I would think it's worth considering what he's actually saying instead of just dismissing it as selfishness.

I'm going to use a few examples to try and see where we agree and where we disagree. I'll use a car instead of a go server because I think it has many similarites but is less abstract.

1) Your neighbour gives you a car as a gift, but when it breaks down refuses to let you fix it.

I think all of us would be a bit miffed at this. We'd wonder why he even gave us the car in the first place.

2) Your neighbour lets you use the car he bought without even paying for petrol. It breaks down and you offer to fix it for him, but he refuses and it ends up being left to rust on the side of the road.

I wouldn't stop being grateful for the earlier kindness, but I'd be annoyed at the wastefulness and wonder what happened to his earlier goodwill. (Perhaps this is how Billywoods sees the KGS situation?)

3) Your neighbour makes a car and lets you use it. It breaks down and you offer to fix it for him, but he says he wants to be the one to do it and it ends up being left to rust on the side of the road.

In this instance I would think my neighbour was being reasonable. If the act of fixing the car is something that's valuable to him then it would be selfish to expect him to give it up. (I wonder if this is where me and Billywoods disagree?)

Edit: I didn't mean to imply that KGS was like a broken down car. I use it almost exclusively because not only is it the most reliable server for me, but I also like a lot of its features.

Splatted wrote:I don't really think this is about Billywoods' sense of entitlement, but rather annoyance at what he sees as petty wastefulness. I still disagree with him, but if this is worth arguing about then I would think it's worth considering what he's actually saying instead of just dismissing it as selfishness.

I'm going to use a few examples to try and see where we agree and where we disagree. I'll use a car instead of a go server because I think it has many similarites but is less abstract.

1) Your neighbour gives you a car as a gift, but when it breaks down refuses to let you fix it.

I think all of us would be a bit miffed at this. We'd wonder why he even gave us the car in the first place.

2) Your neighbour lets you use the car he bought without even paying for petrol. It breaks down and you offer to fix it for him, but he refuses and it ends up being left to rust on the side of the road.

I wouldn't stop being grateful for the earlier kindness, but I'd be annoyed at the wastefulness and wonder what happened to his earlier goodwill. (Perhaps this is how Billywoods sees the KGS situation?)

3) Your neighbour makes a car and lets you use it. It breaks down and you offer to fix it for him, but he says he wants to be the one to do it and it ends up being left to rust on the side of the road.

In this instance I would think my neighbour was being reasonable. If the act of fixing the car is something that's valuable to him then it would be selfish to expect him to give it up. (I wonder if this is where me and Billywoods disagree?)

Edit: I didn't mean to imply that KGS was like a broken down car. I use it almost exclusively because not only is it the most reliable server for me, but because I like a lot of its features.

Yes, I agree with the point you are trying to make.

And I myself multiple times stated that it would be nice of wms to open-source KGS once he's done with it, or accept other programmer's help. Or that it would totally suck when KGS goes away, if it does. If this is all Billy is saying, I have no problem with that. Would it be wasteful if KGS goes way? Sure...

If that's the only think Billy says, that he will be sad when KGS disappears, then we have no argument.
If he says that there is any obligation on wms to do stuff he does not want to do, then we don't.

uPWarrior wrote:I don't think it is a good idea to keep reinforcing our opinions to the extreme, nor reading others to the extreme. Life isn't black and white, nor is gratitude. We can be grateful for somethings that someone has done and simultaneously resentful or even angry for others.

I would like to give a different example so that you don't feel as connected to the instance at hand.
Imagine someone decided to build a kids park in your neighborhood. In their free time, that person decided to build everything, paint everything, attach safety instructions and he enjoyed watching his own kids play there. He is not a selfish guy, so he also let other kids play on his park too. The community is grateful for the park. For the next few years, he not only does maintenance jobs but he also keeps doing improvements to the park.
However, his kids grew up and he doesn't have as much free time to keep maintaining and improving the park. One of the new parents would like to repaint the swings (they are a little bit rusty after 10 years), to its original color, but the creator refuses. He was the one who created the park, he won't let anyone but him fix it. A different parent created a new slide and would like to add it to the park, but the "owner" also refuses it given that it was not his creation. Can't the neighborhood feel both grateful for the park and somehow resentful that they are not able make the park a better place?

Honestly, I see things as the sound problem like repainting the swing: it is not changing anything, it's just a "please let us fix it". Adding an option to enable timestamps is just like adding a new slide, even less intrusive than that.

If you want to add more accuracy to that park you should probably add in some other things.

There were already 2 other parks nearby when Mr Park created his park, and other people were already happy to use those. There was even a museum which the old folks visited for free. Over the years, other parks sprang up too, and everyone enjoyed using those parks. After a while, folks noticed a sign in the park stating that Mr Park "hoped everyone enjoys his park, but he wanted to look after it himself, and would not be open to offers to help out", apparently the sign had been there for years, but nobody had noticed it before, because it was hard to read when you were on a swing, and it wasn't much fun to read it anyway.

I wonder how many posts this thread will run to.

Your neighbour lets you use his car. He even pays for gas. There is a proximity alert on the car to help you park. At some time, the alert stops working. Your neighbour thinks it no big deal and doesn't want to take the time to fix it. He also isn't comfortable with you taking a toolbox to the car yourself. You feel he owes it to you to fix the alert to give you the car so you can fix it. You are not grateful about using the car so far.

Thank you, Splatted.

Splatted wrote:If the act of fixing the car is something that's valuable to him then it would be selfish to expect him to give it up. (I wonder if this is where me and Billywoods disagree?)

No, I don't think we do. I'd never blame him for that. (I would still see it as very wasteful, though, as I'm sure you would too. Not only has the car rusted beyond repair, but your neighbour has wasted the opportunity to fix it and deprived everyone else of that same opportunity, which he was never going to take. And now imagine a world in which there are only four or five cars anyway, and building a car takes years, and most people can never get their hands on a car, and the gratuitous wastefulness is compounded.)

daal wrote:That accounts for a tiny minority of my frustrating experiences while playing go.

Excellent. But why are we talking about your experiences with KGS? As I've said, my KGS lags so much recently (for whatever reason) that I can't (and so don't) use it. I log in occasionally and have so much trouble opening and closing tabs or dialog boxes that I don't even bother to start a game. I'll try again in a few months, and I'll be very happy if it works again. I've also said CGoban was broken on my computer for a year (though I didn't complain too hard because the browser applet still worked). I'm very happy for you if you're not experiencing these problems. Keep having fun.

(The same goes to Herman and everyone else who's making posts about how it's only a broken stone sound without reading what I've written. I'm not going to respond to you all individually.)

Boidhre wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:

Boidhre wrote:It's a false dilemma, that's the fallacy.

No it's not.

All non-IT professionals are non-techies?

Ah, here's an example of an actual fallacy: the Straw Man Argument, where you deliberately alter (or invent) what someone else said, then attack that statement instead of the actual statement.

The above statement is not what BigDoug said. For reference, here's what he actually said:

"Can you please provide a bit of information about your background in IT development? It would make it easier for me to understand your points if I know whether I'm talking with a high school student or someone with professional IT industry experience."

To so try to twist the meaning of his words is extremely dishonest.

HermanHiddema wrote:Your neighbour lets you use his car. He even pays for gas. There is a proximity alert on the car to help you park. At some time, the alert stops working. Your neighbour thinks it no big deal and doesn't want to take the time to fix it. He also isn't comfortable with you taking a toolbox to the car yourself. You feel he owes it to you to fix the alert to give you the car so you can fix it. You are not grateful about using the car so far.

IMO this is the best analogy so far.