Life In 19x19

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.

duckweed wrote: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.

I don't think there's anything wrong with selective quoting. From people who are given authority, responsible behavior is an obligation, not a special favor. I certainly don't feel obliged to watch ten videos of a police officer issuing traffic citations or asking loiterers to move along for every one video I see of a girl being pepper-sprayed directly in the eyes.

However, if this is the measure of objectivity that people want, I will gladly add something to this thread every time I see global admins speaking in that capacity.

I agree there are some actions that are inappropriate for an admin pretty much regardless of the provocation, but the only offence BD seems to have committed here is one of stopping a conversation unreasonably prematurely (and, possibly, treating an individual where there has been prior provocation with a shorter fuse than normal). However, the intervention only seems premature because we don't know what came before, which is a common issue with selective quoting.

Your analogy is a bit more extreme, but for example, if you see a policeman pepper spraying a teenage girl and think "OMG, what an abuse of power", would you think the same if you saw the clip from 10 seconds earlier where she slashed his colleague across the face with a switchblade and turned it on him before being on the receiving end of pepper spray?

Context is essential when making any informed judgement on the appropriateness of an individual's behaviour.

Topazg, jts, you guys are wonderful, and I mean no harm, but I'm so incredibly tired of hearing cop analogies. Even calling them sheriffs might not get me through. Let's try and come up with something else.

What KGS admins might be like

• teachers
• talk show hosts
• seminar leaders
• librarians
• daycare attendants
• the drudge report

Help me brainstorm. I don't think I've quite hit the nail on the head yet, but there's gotta be something.

hyperpape wrote:Topazg, jts, you guys are wonderful, and I mean no harm, but I'm so incredibly tired of hearing cop analogies. Even calling them sheriffs might not get me through. Let's try and come up with something else.

What KGS admins might be like

• teachers
• talk show hosts
• seminar leaders
• librarians
• daycare attendants
• the drudge report

Help me brainstorm. I don't think I've quite hit the nail on the head yet, but there's gotta be something.

mall security?

i too am sick and tired of these sheep who look for any reason to make admins always right.

doug has kept me banned from KGS for the past month at minimum and it is tiring to deal with people who abuse their power to carry out grudges.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

speedchase wrote:... "Past history" as some people have said is just another way of saying that Big doug has gruges against people he doesn't like....

Or "past history" could mean that the user has a history of offenses that merit a ban, and the admin is doing his job impartially and fairly.

speedchase wrote:...If someone does something wrong and they get punished that should be it until they do something wrong again, someone doing something wrong isn't a excuse for admins to be abusive towards them for the rest of their time on kgs.

I disagree. A continuing pattern of the same offense indicates a contempt for the rules, which is a much greater problem than just breaking a rule.

Almost all modern systems of jurisprudence have the concept of a 'strike'.

If this is the case, then the user should get a larger punishment when he breaks the rules, or maybe if it is bad enough he should have been banned last time he broke the rules. but no amount of past history should make a user be randomly attacked by an admin when they are doing nothing wrong!

hyperpape wrote: What KGS admins might be like

Zookeepers? (=


But more seriously....maybe a residence hall/dormitory RA?


And as has happened many times before, sometimes the fruit just hangs too low and I can't resist...

The pepper spray pictures are powerful, but I always think of the queue for the beating stick in Ghandi when I think of injustice

topazg wrote:
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.

topazg wrote:

duckweed wrote: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.

xDragon wrote:

topazg wrote:

duckweed wrote: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.

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.
Now even more context.

speedchase wrote: 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.