Life In 19x19

jts wrote:

topazg wrote:Actually, that's a good point - what _is_ the purpose of the thread? To make admins look bad, or to make some judgement as to how they are doing their job as admins overall in the eyes of the community?

In past threads about KGS, there has been a huge amount of disagreement about basic facts. If we start collecting facts, maybe we'll start to see eye to eye what admins are actually saying and what they're prohibiting and why they're banning people, and then we can rehash the earlier debate about whether that constitutes a good job.

If, as a side effect, the way an admin conducts himself makes him look good (or the reverse), surely that is not a bad thing.

That was exactly what I hoped the thread for, which is why I expressed my reservations. If we are to collect enough of a portfolio to make it worthwhile, it has to be reasonably comprehensive, or at least proportionally representative. If we do that, I think the idea is great, I just can't see it happening in practice. I hope to be proved wrong

@Oren: I agree with you

topazg wrote:

jts wrote:

topazg wrote:Actually, that's a good point - what _is_ the purpose of the thread? To make admins look bad, or to make some judgement as to how they are doing their job as admins overall in the eyes of the community?

In past threads about KGS, there has been a huge amount of disagreement about basic facts. If we start collecting facts, maybe we'll start to see eye to eye what admins are actually saying and what they're prohibiting and why they're banning people, and then we can rehash the earlier debate about whether that constitutes a good job.

If, as a side effect, the way an admin conducts himself makes him look good (or the reverse), surely that is not a bad thing.

That was exactly what I hoped the thread for, which is why I expressed my reservations. If we are to collect enough of a portfolio to make it worthwhile, it has to be reasonably comprehensive, or at least proportionally representative. If we do that, I think the idea is great, I just can't see it happening in practice. I hope to be proved wrong

@Oren: I agree with you

I disagree that proportional representation is necessary. the assumption is that the admins do alot of what they are supposed too (hence why they are admins).

@xdragon insults do not help your claims or make you look more intelligent.

speedchase wrote:
I disagree that proportional representation is necessary. the assumption is that the admins do alot of what they are supposed too (hence why they are admins).

@xdragon insults do not help your claims or make you look more intelligent.

sometimes people dont realize how stupid they are being and need to be told so

xDragon wrote:

speedchase wrote:
I disagree that proportional representation is necessary. the assumption is that the admins do alot of what they are supposed too (hence why they are admins).

@xdragon insults do not help your claims or make you look more intelligent.

sometimes people dont realize how stupid they are being and need to be told so

Oh god, the irony.

HermanHiddema wrote:

xDragon wrote:

speedchase wrote:
I disagree that proportional representation is necessary. the assumption is that the admins do alot of what they are supposed too (hence why they are admins).

@xdragon insults do not help your claims or make you look more intelligent.

sometimes people dont realize how stupid they are being and need to be told so

Oh god, the irony.

maybe in your high school clique mind its irony, but you cant find anything ive said that makes me look stupid, your only reasoning would be because im disagreeing with someone you like

xDragon wrote: 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.

I find it difficult to disagree with this post. Thank you, BigDoug for noticing uncacceptable behavior, and thank you, xDragon for the making the admins look good.

HKA wrote:

xDragon wrote: 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.

I find it difficult to disagree with this post. Thank you, BigDoug for noticing uncacceptable behavior, and thank you, xDragon for the making the admins look good.

if it hasnt been made clear already that youre not welcome anywhere around my posts then ill let you know now

xDragon wrote:

HKA wrote:

xDragon wrote: if it hasnt been made clear already that youre not welcome anywhere around my posts then ill let you know now

Looks like you would ban folks pretty quickly indeed....

looks like i would censor people becoming senile in their old age

jts wrote:In past threads about KGS, there has been a huge amount of disagreement about basic facts. If we start collecting facts, maybe we'll start to see eye to eye what admins are actually saying and what they're prohibiting and why they're banning people, and then we can rehash the earlier debate about whether that constitutes a good job.

One of the difficulties which admins face in these forums is maintaining the balance between providing helpful information and respecting privacy. For example, in my case, I spend quite a bit of time with people in private chat. In order to discuss the specifics of why a person was banned, this private chat may have played a critical role in my decision, but I will not reveal the contents of private chat with other people. Therefore, it would be difficult to present all the facts from my perspective.

I do agree with your goal though. I have a suggestion about how we may be able to accomplish it.

Suppose someone creates a thread and sets up a hypothetical situation where everyone can provide their opinions about what action the admin should take (if any). Because it's a hypothetical situation, people can voice their opinions without personalising the discussion and inadvertently violating anyone's privacy. For example, if a room owner contacts an admin to request that a person be banned, should the admin give greater weight to the room owner's request because he or she owns the room? (This probably isn't the most interesting hypothetical example, of course.)

Some decisions are easy (e.g., a person repeatedly drops the f-bomb in the EGR). If we can create and discuss examples of decisions involving grey areas, then hopefully people will learn from others' perspectives. I would certainly be interested.

xDragon wrote:looks like i would censor people becoming senile in their old age

To put it in a nutshell, you want to be able to aggravate the admins as much as possible until you get banned, then come here to complain about them and insult anyone who considers that this is infantile? You have just earned my latest censor choice.

Best wishes.

TMark wrote:To put it in a nutshell, you want to be able to aggravate the admins as much as possible until you get banned, then come here to complain about them and insult anyone who considers that this is infantile? You have just earned my latest censor choice.

Does the forum support this sort of censoring?

I think posting transcripts regarding bans privately amongst the KGS admins would be more helpful than users posting them publicly. One of the things that always perturbs me about KGS is moderation inconsistency. Javaness, for example, is a lot... A LOT more lenient than BigDoug, and I think that causes confusion with what is actually acceptable in chat -- especially considering that the chat guidelines are vague in and of themselves.

quantumf wrote:

TMark wrote:To put it in a nutshell, you want to be able to aggravate the admins as much as possible until you get banned, then come here to complain about them and insult anyone who considers that this is infantile? You have just earned my latest censor choice.

Does the forum support this sort of censoring?

Yes, to a limited extent. Go under your user control panel, chose "Friends and Foes", and add xDragon to your "Foes" list. (Be sure you pick the right one, since Friends and Foes are in the same place.) At that point, threads will be loaded with your foe's posts hidden by default, although you can unhide them one by one. However, you can still see where they've posted, see quotations of what they've said, and your unread posts page will update with their threads and threads that they have posted on.

I don't know whether I should feel honoured or upset to be mentioned in that post that led to abyss being banned. But mostly I am confused. I don't understand what he meant, why he referred to me (not that I took offence) or why BigDoug deemed it inappropriate. Can anyone explain? If I imagine Kenneth Williams saying that post I can just about get it to mean something dirty, but what doesn't!