Life In 19x19

Kirby wrote: Listening to users is the most basic of basics when it comes to software development.

you seem to think that "listening to users" means making the changes they want, and conversely that not making those changes means that developers are not listening?

it doesn't.

"listening to users" means taking into consideration their concerns and then making conscious decisions to implement or not implement based on all other criteria combined.

Whether an admin sees the information automatically for every user or has to look it up is not particularly relevant, IHMO. You don't have privacy at that level.

The admin in question lacks tact, that's all. It would be like if your doctor ran into you at a café and commented, "with your cholesterol level, do you really think you should be having that apple fritter?" Your doctor knows it and you know it, but it's tactless to bring it up.

raptor wrote:

Mef wrote:If you have a concern you always have admin@gokgs.com

To whom goes this email?
Seems a bit redundant if you write a complaint about an admin, and that admin is actually the one who gets your email :-p

It is not normal for the admin being complained about to answer the complaint. If that happens, you should contact another admin directly.

just to open your eyes about the level of "privacy" you have while merely surfing the internet. if a site uses tools like google analytics i can tell what pages you are looking at live while youre browsing the site. i can also see what city youre connecting from, what OS you use, what language you use, what browser you use, what resolution you use, how often you have visited in the past and many other things! oh yeah, thats based off your IP address...just saying:P

snorri wrote:Whether an admin sees the information automatically for every user or has to look it up is not particularly relevant, IHMO. You don't have privacy at that level.

It's completely relevant, and I find it telling that BigDoug (a senior admin at KGS), when provided a chance to answer this policy question, ignored it. Finding all the accounts associated with an IP address is a special privilege only afforded to the admins, just like only the admins can peek at your chat. And just like I would not expect an admin to reveal private chats, I would not expect an admin to reveal that somebody has multiple accounts. Yes, it's a minor complaint, but it's still a breach. Unless, of course, BigDoug, another senior admin, or WMS himself wants to say differently.

Why won't they answer the question? Is the admin behavior, as laid out by NoSkill, appropriate or not?

snorri wrote:The admin in question lacks tact, that's all. It would be like if your doctor ran into you at a café and commented, "with your cholesterol level, do you really think you should be having that apple fritter?" Your doctor knows it and you know it, but it's tactless to bring it up.

Actually that would probably be illegal in many countries. Medical privacy is a big deal, but your example illustrates your level of concern for privacy.

PaperTiger wrote:Why won't they answer the question? Is the admin behavior, as laid out by NoSkill, appropriate or not?

I have no idea who noskill is, or if his problem is real or made up. If he contacted me, I might be able to investigate the issue to see what happened, and then I could make a comment on it. This isn't a public hanging forum.

Javaness2 wrote:

PaperTiger wrote:Why won't they answer the question? Is the admin behavior, as laid out by NoSkill, appropriate or not?

I have no idea who noskill is, or if his problem is real or made up. If he contacted me, I might be able to investigate the issue to see what happened, and then I could make a comment on it. This isn't a public hanging forum.

At this point, the question is about the policy in general, and not the verification of NoSkill's story or the naming of names.

PaperTiger wrote:investigate the issue to see what happened, and then I could make a comment on it. This isn't a public hanging forum.

At this point, the question is about the policy in general, and not the verification of NoSkill's story or the naming of names.[/quote]

You can write to the manager about that.

Javaness2 wrote:You can write to the manager about that.

And you, BigDoug, or Mef, to name 3 admins who have commented on this thread, could post a public answer for the public benefit. Or WMS could post, if he is watching, or you could poke "the manager" and ask for a public statement. Why the reluctance to clarify policy publicly?

PaperTiger wrote:Why won't they answer the question? Is the admin behavior, as laid out by NoSkill, appropriate or not?

As noted earlier, it's difficult to answer hypothetical questions without sufficient context, particularly when the answer will be seen as official KGS policy. Obviously you and I have different opinions on whether there is enough context provided to answer the question. You do -- I don't. You are obviously entitled to your point of view, but that doesn't mean that I agree with it.

One of the risks of hypothetical discussions is that both sides spend so much time defining the terms that the original discussion point becomes increasingly abstract. Frankly, I don't find the severity of the original complaint to be so great that it warrants the creation of a hypothetical debate about it.

PaperTiger wrote:

Javaness2 wrote:You can write to the manager about that.

And you, BigDoug, or Mef, to name 3 admins who have commented on this thread, could post a public answer for the public benefit. Or WMS could post, if he is watching, or you could poke "the manager" and ask for a public statement. Why the reluctance to clarify policy publicly?

I just wanted to see if you would keep asking.

Javaness2 wrote:I just wanted to see if you would keep asking.

That's very mature of you. But I think it's more likely you, along with BigDoug, are just trying to dodge the question.

Maturity is important, yes. I look forward to hearing from NoSkill, in the meantime I have re-joined KTL, whilst I have yet to see any admin behaving in the manner described, I am patient!

And people wonder why KGS admins tend to be so poorly liked.

xed_over wrote:

Kirby wrote: Listening to users is the most basic of basics when it comes to software development.

you seem to think that "listening to users" means making the changes they want, and conversely that not making those changes means that developers are not listening?

it doesn't.

"listening to users" means taking into consideration their concerns and then making conscious decisions to implement or not implement based on all other criteria combined.

No, I don't think that listening to users means making all the changes that they want. But given the amount of change that's happened in, say, the last decade... I think there's evidence that not much listening happens.

Look at any successful, widely used software product, and you'll see the difference.