Life In 19x19

A guy called Herod flips his lid over "the power of Christ". That's no surprise, it's a tradition going back 2,000 years.

If mentioning Christ is not allowed on KGS because it is a religious reference, I do find it rather amusing that there is an admin called Herod . Users with names deemed inappropriate have been told to get a new account before, maybe Herod should ban himself...

Javaness2 wrote: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

Well, Java, since no information is given to the banned user about the ban even a fifteen minute ban could effectively be a 24 hour ban unless the person checks after fifteen minutes, or an hour, or 12 hours, or however many denominations there are.
Are you advocating more transparency when it comes to bans? I agree with you.

BigDoug wrote:

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.

I was once stopped without due cause, and ended up being roughly placed into the back of a patrol car and my car torn apart, looking for something.

I settled out of court for quite a bit of money.

Obviously the power of Herod compelled him to receive a ban.

badukJr wrote:I was once stopped without due cause, and ended up being roughly placed into the back of a patrol car and my car torn apart, looking for something.

I settled out of court for quite a bit of money.

Anything is possible, I suppose, even if it appears unlikely at first glance. My original request was whether a policeman would be sacked because he verbally cautioned someone. I find the likelihood of this taking place to be remote, but am open to a real life example contradicting this.

mw42 wrote:

Javaness2 wrote: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

Well, Java, since no information is given to the banned user about the ban even a fifteen minute ban could effectively be a 24 hour ban unless the person checks after fifteen minutes, or an hour, or 12 hours, or however many denominations there are.
Are you advocating more transparency when it comes to bans? I agree with you.

In quite a few e-mails to the admin mailbox, I find that further investigation demonstrates that the original e-mail inadvertently misstated the situation or omitted one or more crucial facts.

In this instance, you stated an assumption as fact. You do not know the length of the ban, but stated that it was 24 hours. Having been caught out, I suggest that you simply admit your mistake. By attempting to defend an obvious misrepresentation, you're simply magnifying the effect of the original mistake.

As an admin, I make decisions on KGS regularly. Most are correct, but some are wrong. When a mistake is brought to my attention, I apologise and try to correct it. People are generally quite understanding and forgiving of mistakes if there is genuine remorse and an attempt to fix any disruptions. Very few people expect perfection.

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.

Sweet...
And what is the guarantee that Kaya or Nova won't be in the same place KGS is now in next to no time? They will also need admins, and I assume they will be a ragtag group of volunteers as well, no? Or will they be paid as employees and thus held to different standards?

Which brings me to the question I already asked before, but it was simply brushed off then. Namely:
What is the actual business model of Kaya? From what I understand, two people (at least) left their jobs to work on Kaya - and they are doing an excellent (full time?) job - so it stands to reason they expect Kaya to support them at some point. How?

Same goes for Nova, although I know/care less about it.

Anybody has any idea about all that?!?

BigDoug wrote:...
As an admin, I make decisions on KGS regularly. Most are correct, but some are wrong...

It's nice that you are able to ascertain which of your decisions are correct and which are wrong. Are you sure they were not all entirely correct? Under what basis do you determine that one of your decisions are correct? Is it based on the vaguely written TOS? Is it based on your personal values as a person?

My questions are rhetorical, of course. That's because the decisions on KGS are made by admins, so what is "correct" is defined by what the admins decide is correct.

By most other metrics, I'm sure that an evaluation of your decisions on KGS would be weighed differently.

I would also like to reiterate Uberdude's point that Bill Spight's stance on this issue is awesome. I wonder what position he is in which makes him knowledgeable about this sort of thing (he said he has experience with this sort of thing).

mw42 wrote:

Javaness2 wrote: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

Well, Java, since no information is given to the banned user about the ban even a fifteen minute ban could effectively be a 24 hour ban unless the person checks after fifteen minutes, or an hour, or 12 hours, or however many denominations there are.
Are you advocating more transparency when it comes to bans? I agree with you.

I agree with your stance, mostly, mw42, but I agree that it's misleading to say that you received a 24 hour ban when it was not actually 24 hours. I think your point still stands if you simply say what actually happened without exaggeration.

BigDoug wrote:In quite a few e-mails to the admin mailbox, I find that further investigation demonstrates that the original e-mail inadvertently misstated the situation or omitted one or more crucial facts.

In this instance, you stated an assumption as fact. You do not know the length of the ban, but stated that it was 24 hours. Having been caught out, I suggest that you simply admit your mistake. By attempting to defend an obvious misrepresentation, you're simply magnifying the effect of the original mistake.

As an admin, I make decisions on KGS regularly. Most are correct, but some are wrong. When a mistake is brought to my attention, I apologise and try to correct it. People are generally quite understanding and forgiving of mistakes if there is genuine remorse and an attempt to fix any disruptions. Very few people expect perfection.

My example was slightly tounge in cheek. The point is that in America at least, police officers are expected to be more responsible because they have more power, not less responsible because they think they can get away with it.

Kirby wrote:I would also like to reiterate Uberdude's point that Bill Spight's stance on this issue is awesome. I wonder what position he is in which makes him knowledgeable about this sort of thing (he said he has experience with this sort of thing).

Being 5 dan just makes you a wise zen master in all things. FACT.

Koroviev wrote:

Kirby wrote:I would also like to reiterate Uberdude's point that Bill Spight's stance on this issue is awesome. I wonder what position he is in which makes him knowledgeable about this sort of thing (he said he has experience with this sort of thing).

Being 5 dan just makes you a wise zen master in all things. FACT.

Thats not something I would say about all 5 dans.

BigDoug wrote:In this instance, you stated an assumption as fact.

...

As an admin, I make decisions on KGS regularly. Most are correct, but some are wrong. When a mistake is brought to my attention, I apologise and try to correct it.

No you don't. You have stated an assumption about how you like to believe you behave as a fact. I am still waiting for my apology for when you incorrectly (as agreed by glue, your boss at the time) kicked then banned me.