Hypothetical Admin Transcripts - be the judge!

[hyperpape]

Maybe it's because I'm not Asian, but I'd find that comment amusing more than insulting, I guess even if applied to me in some broad sense (i.e. if you made a pun like this with how Spanish people are supposedly lazy I'd probably laugh at it more than be angry) I'd laugh at it.

And as you say: any conversation topic can make people angry for some reason or another...

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear on my intent -- I was trying to see if and how a greater context might influence opinion on the proper course of action. So to clarify -- you feel the comment is equally harmless both from someone who it is their first day on KGS and someone who has a history of making derogatory remarks about asians? (Just to avoid being misinterpreted, I am genuinely asking, since the purpose of the thread is to share perspectives)

Do you think Huckleberry Finn is derogatory?

Do you like strawberries?

[Kirby]

this would just provide more fodder for people who like to feel smug and superior to others. Worst case scenario it could turn into witchhunting. Best case scenario it is a giant forum of "public accusation"
.

Maybe this is the same issue people have with admins - they can be seen as thinking they are superior to others.

It's just a matter of precisely which people get to see the bannin infomation - the admin(s) or the public. The witchhunting and accusations may happen in public if logs are made public. Currently it is the admin that has that information, which may explain some sources of contempt.

I know I don't like being banned myself at the decision of another person who is not, in my opinion, superior to me.

I feel, "hey, who does that admin think he is? where does he get off thinking i deserve to be banned? " Most admin decisions have to have some subjectivity involved, and I'm sure, in my subjective opinion, I could find reasons to ban the admin, givn enough time.

Anyway, I know banning will continue, but I guess I am just saying that the feelings of superiority that you mention could potentially be seen in admins, too.

[RBerenguel]

Maybe it's because I'm not Asian, but I'd find that comment amusing more than insulting, I guess even if applied to me in some broad sense (i.e. if you made a pun like this with how Spanish people are supposedly lazy I'd probably laugh at it more than be angry) I'd laugh at it.

And as you say: any conversation topic can make people angry for some reason or another...

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear on my intent -- I was trying to see if and how a greater context might influence opinion on the proper course of action. So to clarify -- you feel the comment is equally harmless both from someone who it is their first day on KGS and someone who has a history of making derogatory remarks about asians? (Just to avoid being misinterpreted, I am genuinely asking, since the purpose of the thread is to share perspectives)

Definitely not the same. The first case would be someone trying to be funny, but the second is just "keeping at it" and probably about to say something worse

[tundra]

Over 3 years and I'm still waiting...

"You must learn to live with disappointment." - The Princess Bride

[Joaz Banbeck]

Person A: Prayer will help your go
Moderately off topic - but not worth mentioning

Person B: In my last game, I didn't have a prayer
Also off topic, but an attempt at light humor - so I'd do nothing.

Person C: Assuming of course that god exists.
Totally off topic

Person B: The hand of god was scratching his nose
Totally off topic

Admin: Please take this conversation elsewhere
Too vague. Admin should say that religion is against the TOS

Person A: But seriously, when I pray before a game, my concentration is significantly better.
OK. Maybe a constructive comment

Person B: I've tried meditating
Definitely a constructive comment

Person C: Yeah, when praying go, pray as the asians do.
At this point, were I an admin, I would publicly inform player C that he was close to a ban because it was the 'wrong direction of pray'.

[Uberdude]

@Joaz: You repeatedly describe things as "off topic" and my interpretation is this is a criticism which if severe enough warrants banning. But what is the correct topic? Go? Nothing in the TOS says you must only talk about Go on KGS. Indeed the TOS doesn't even mention religion, though main rooms like the EGR do have some more restrictive policies.

Maybe I missed it, but a very significant piece of context is missing from this example: where on KGS is it? The English Game Room? The All Politics room? Some random hikaru fan's ego boosta room? In a high dan game with lots of observers? In some random 5k game with a few friends chatting?

[Kaya.gs]

As a short participation, i really think this discussion is bizantine. Even if all agreed on a course of action here,which is unlikely, and did so on 50 more ocassions which would take weeks, it might only affect the very small subset of admins that use L19, that have to make a decision in a situation as detached as a hypothetical one.

Specially on volunteer admins, it think this shouldnt rely so much on their snap judgement. Honestly more often than not, i feel admins are too lenient than too harsh.

For a solution, there are way more effective methods than behavior-inducing a few admins.

Now i dont want to interrupt the hypothetical fun

[C. Blue]

I think it's pretty ridiculous to consider that those chat lines of A/B/C would actually require moderation.

KGS always says it wants to be family-friendly, but if there was a kindergarden where kids were moderated in such a way as people on KGS I think we'd see a generation of psychos growing up.

[Bantari]

I agree with topazg here.

Off topic>

It was always puzzling to me why people would find topics by themselves 'offensive'. What is so offensive about two people discussing the existence of God? In general... really puzzling. I can see people being interested in a topic or not interested, but getting offended because somebody else discusses something with a third person - this just boggles my mind... I have not really experienced anything like that in Europe (or at least I don't remember), is that an American thing? Is common sense so scarce that it is easier to forbid a topic altogether than apply common sense and judge it on case-by-case value? I don't get it.

True, discussions can degenerate to ugliness, and certain topics are more prone to it than others (religion, politics, etc) - but its the ugliness that might be offensive, not the topic itself. Or so I think. If the discussion is conducted in a civilized manner with good arguments being exchanged, really, why would anybody be offended?

And I am not talking here about fringe cases like pedophilia or something, which really can be too much... but religion is something that everybody has an opinion of, as is politics and a lot of other interesting issues... people discuss is on public media all the time.

Of course a conversation about the existence of god(s) should be avoided as it can be offensive to some people. Seeing that that conversation was not continued in the example transcript, the admin should not followup with any punishment as his request was obeyed.

EDIT: Following up Rberenguel's post, I agree the admin's warning should have been "please, do not discuss religion" to make it clear the discussion about god is not to be continued, not prayer.

I don't really agree here. Aside from the fact I don't think you can assume God was the object of the warning as opposed to prayer (AFAICS, RB was highlighting the ambiguity, rather than pointing out that the subject material was the existence of God), I think freedom of speech is a pretty good thing, and there's a difference between discussing subject material and offending people with provocation or personal attacks. I suspect there is very few objects of conversation that aren't offensive to _some_ people, as people seem to have the ability to be offended about almost anything. If we weren't allowed to discuss any subject that someone might find offensive, we probably wouldn't open our mouths. To use a simple contextual example here, if a religious zealot found discussion about evolution offensive (not as in evolution vs creation, but as in a basic discussion of how animal X had evolved from animal Y based on Z), should any conversation about natural evolution and adaption be banned? A less similar example may be if a particularly environmentally conscientious individual or an economically conscientious individual objected to someone saying how pleased they were with their new Ferrari - should discussion about polluting items or particularly expensive items be banned? Where do you draw the line? I prefer to allow pretty much any content material provided the nature of the discussion itself remains non-inflammatory.

[jts]

I think that what you may be missing is that permitting the discussion of the existence of God on the internet does not lead to a fascinating metaphysical dialogue; instead it leads to an e-invasion by those strange people who stand on street corners with sandwich boards about burning in hell. And then discussion gets heated and angry and no one is having fun anymore.

[daal]

I agree with everybody.

Starting with TChan's immediate ban for violating the TOS, and ranging to C.Blues view that nothing in the post should require moderation, practically every attempt to draw the line somewhere has made perfect sense. When Bantari argues that civilized people are perfectly capable of discussing controversial topics, and JTS points out that societal rules are sometimes disregarded on the internet, both are correct. I think this illustrates what a difficult job it is to moderate.

It seems to me, that on a go server such as KGS, the purpose of moderation is to make sure that the most people possible want to play go there. People don't like being censored, and they don't like being offended, so it's the job of the moderator to keep both to a minimum. If any of the other posters here were in the moderators's shoes, the rest of us would probably be just as furious with them as we are (at times) with BigDoug.

My experience is that some moderators will hammer (BigDoug) while others seem more patient (Glue); some will coax (Mef), and still others will confound us with non sequiturs (Javaness). In the long run I think it's good that we have people willing to do the job. The alternative is HAL.

[topazg]

I think that what you may be missing is that permitting the discussion of the existence of God on the internet does not lead to a fascinating metaphysical dialogue; instead it leads to an e-invasion by those strange people who stand on street corners with sandwich boards about burning in hell. And then discussion gets heated and angry and no one is having fun anymore.

I agree, they do have a habit of going that way, but isn't it fairer to those that may have something fascinating to say that this is the line to draw, rather than drawing it before the conversation has gotten started?

[hyperpape]

Getting off topic happens to the best of us. I must admit that even I have been off topic once or twice here on L19. But if I want a discussion of the existence of God, why on Earth would I conduct it in the EGR? The fact that someone wants to have that discussion in the EGR is a pretty good indicator that their opinion is not going to be worth listening to.

(Of course I'd have that discussion about God here, where everyone is attractive and well spoken).

[C. Blue]

If the density of philosophically inclined people happens to be greater among go players, and ouf of the thousand in EGR, two or three happen to start a conversation that gives others the opportunity to chime in, I don't see any reason here to make fun of those. I actually consider [non-go] conversations a social enrichment for the community on the server, rather than just being quiet, playing their Go game, and leaving again.

Moderation should begin to happen when people start to become uncivil. That's about it.

[jts]

I think that what you may be missing is that permitting the discussion of the existence of God on the internet does not lead to a fascinating metaphysical dialogue; instead it leads to an e-invasion by those strange people who stand on street corners with sandwich boards about burning in hell. And then discussion gets heated and angry and no one is having fun anymore.

I agree, they do have a habit of going that way, but isn't it fairer to those that may have something fascinating to say that this is the line to draw, rather than drawing it before the conversation has gotten started?

If the density of philosophically inclined people happens to be greater among go players, and ouf of the thousand in EGR, two or three happen to start a conversation that gives others the opportunity to chime in, I don't see any reason here to make fun of those. I actually consider [non-go] conversations a social enrichment for the community on the server, rather than just being quiet, playing their Go game, and leaving again.

Moderation should begin to happen when people start to become uncivil. That's about it.

This goes back to what Joaz and I were saying in the last thread about giving the big dumb bouncers in clubs simple rules to follow. If you don't, you can't expect them to do a good job following the more subtle rules, or for the ruled-upon to accept that the subtle ruling was fair.

When you come down to it, the people who make religious or political debates on the internet unpleasant are stupid cretins, and/or tone-deaf, and/or found obnoxious by the other participants. It's hard to tell someone "You need to stop talking because you're stupid, awkward, and no one likes you." It's easy to tell someone "We don't discuss religion here."

I mean, even on L19, and it's sort of miraculous how few problems we have, just a few days ago a poster I didn't really recognize accused a valued long-term member of being a troll for relaying a (completely non-surprising) tidbit of information. People have such different perspectives... I understand why we have norms around topics that would require bans for stupid, awkward, obnoxious contributions to fly thick; no one would agree on precisely who should be banned.

I agree that we Go-players are more intellectually curious than the average bear, and that there might be more valuable and interesting discussions in the EGR if BigDoug wasn't so fretful about the chat moving too fast. And I agree that the admins should actually wait for some discussion about religion to start before issuing a warning, unless there's prior history. But the rule itself (no religious discussions) is reasonable.