Life In 19x19

Mef wrote:I believe part of the reason that ban lengths aren't discussed is because they are so short the order of operations is this:

1: User is banned
2: User sends email to admin@gokgs.com asking about ban length
3: User receives response from admin@gokgs.com saying "Your ban has already expired"

This makes it even sillier. Then you could save a ton of time answering stupid emails by telling people the ban length.

Perhaps this should be requested as part of the KGS wishlist for WMS to implement to future versions of the KGS client.

Much of the discussion of cruelty and effectiveness in this thread is beside the point. KGS will never be able to force people to act responsibly as long as multiple usernames are allowed.

Currently, there is a large majority who behave well because they are the type of person who will do so regardless of the rules. They would still behave well if there were no rules at all.
Then there is a small minority who break the rules, and will only follow them if held responsible. But that can't be done as long as they can reincarnate with a different username.

The whole banning problem on KGS will never be solved until there is one username per person.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:Much of the discussion of cruelty and effectiveness in this thread is beside the point. KGS will never be able to force people to act responsibly as long as multiple usernames are allowed.

Currently, there is a large majority who behave well because they are the type of person who will do so regardless of the rules. They would still behave well if there were no rules at all.
Then there is a small minority who break the rules, and will only follow them if held responsible. But that can't be done as long as they can reincarnate with a different username.

The whole banning problem on KGS will never be solved until there is one username per person.

I agree with your premise that limiting the number of accounts per person will lead to cutting down on bad behavior.

However - its not easily enforceable. Possibly not enforceable at all.

But lets say it was... then I would say 1 account per person is not enough unless you also introduce different ratings per time controls. Personally, I enjoy having multiple accounts, one for fast games, one for slow, one for playing light games when tipsy, and so on... Lets say - if you could possibly enforce it - 3 accounts per person would be nice.

Still - this all misses a point. It is not about stopping people from misbehaving - you are right, this is not feasible, there will always be misfits. But making punishment less clear does not help the problem - it only compounds it by breeding even more resentment and frustration, which can/will lead to more misbehaving. This resentment is not productive and not necessary. So why not try to curtail it, regardless if it will ultimately solve the problem or not?

Ultimately, its up to wms to implement it or not, so this is just an academic discussion here. But interesting, I think.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:...

The whole banning problem on KGS will never be solved until there is one username per person.

Again, this is the perspective of an admin, assuming that the people that are banned actually did something wrong. Even with one username per person, the problem of stupid bans without merit will not be solved. You say that cruelty is besides the point. I guess from an admin's point of view, cruelty to users doesn't matter at all, does it...

After all, when you have a software system, who the heck cares about the users?

Kirby wrote:

Joaz Banbeck wrote:...

The whole banning problem on KGS will never be solved until there is one username per person.

Again, this is the perspective of an admin, assuming that the people that are banned actually did something wrong. Even with one username per person, the problem of stupid bans without merit will not be solved. You say that cruelty is besides the point. I guess from an admin's point of view, cruelty to users doesn't matter at all, does it...

After all, when you have a software system, who the heck cares about the users?

Seems to be setting up a false straw man. I hope you respond to this by stating you have extensive experience as an admin in situations where you have limited to almost no power over the behavior of the users. Being in the admin's shoes for a few years gives a different perspective. An altered view point that makes it difficult to write the above lines. In my experience admins do care about their users.

(P.S. I agree with Joaz Banbeck that limiting people to one username per person would solve most of the problem. It's unfortunate that there isn't a practical way to do it. The closest I can guess at is to charge money for usernames, thus limiting multiple usernames to rich people. With the small number of Go players in the world, this is impractical. )

Joaz Banbeck wrote:Much of the discussion of cruelty and effectiveness in this thread is beside the point. KGS will never be able to force people to act responsibly as long as multiple usernames are allowed.

Currently, there is a large majority who behave well because they are the type of person who will do so regardless of the rules. They would still behave well if there were no rules at all.
Then there is a small minority who break the rules, and will only follow them if held responsible. But that can't be done as long as they can reincarnate with a different username.

The whole banning problem on KGS will never be solved until there is one username per person.

One username per person doesn't work in lands of dynamic IPs. Even when there are fixed IPs people can either spoof or use public IPs to get around this. Both of these create a very large amount of work for admins if they are trying to enforce this (speaking from experience). You can't trust IPs, you have compare language patterns between accounts, topics spoken about, insults used, and in KGS terms look at some of their games and see if the styles were similar. This is a lot of work for very little gain. That and the people most willing to put the most effort getting around such systems are the people who are just out to screw with the server not play on it.

Boidhre wrote: One username per person doesn't work in lands of dynamic IPs. Even when there are fixed IPs people can either spoof or use public IPs to get around this.

But it makes it harder for those people and that's what counts, because a lot won't put extra effort in detouring the ban. We should never forget that KGS is for free. We cannot demand an administration you usually get only if you pay for it.

Pippen wrote:

Boidhre wrote: One username per person doesn't work in lands of dynamic IPs. Even when there are fixed IPs people can either spoof or use public IPs to get around this.

But it makes it harder for those people and that's what counts, because a lot won't put extra effort in detouring the ban. We should never forget that KGS is for free. We cannot demand an administration you usually get only if you pay for it.

Serious trolls won't care. All it deters are the amateurs.

PeterHB wrote:...
(P.S. I agree with Joaz Banbeck that limiting people to one username per person would solve most of the problem. It's unfortunate that there isn't a practical way to do it. The closest I can guess at is to charge money for usernames, thus limiting multiple usernames to rich people. With the small number of Go players in the world, this is impractical. )

It should be easy. Charge a buck for a username, and only one per person, paid with a credit card. The only people with multiple usernames will be those with multiple IDs that are good enough to fool CC companies, or with friends who will give them their CC numbers.

And how many people would immediately migrate to other free servers because of the charge?

Joaz Banbeck wrote:[..] Charge a buck for a username, and only one per person, paid with a credit card. [..]

I’d like that if it would not rule out everybody without a CC, especially ppl below legal age. Not nice for all the kids I send to KGS.

Greetz, Tom

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

PeterHB wrote:...
(P.S. I agree with Joaz Banbeck that limiting people to one username per person would solve most of the problem. It's unfortunate that there isn't a practical way to do it. The closest I can guess at is to charge money for usernames, thus limiting multiple usernames to rich people. With the small number of Go players in the world, this is impractical. )

It should be easy. Charge a buck for a username, and only one per person, paid with a credit card. The only people with multiple usernames will be those with multiple IDs that are good enough to fool CC companies, or with friends who will give them their CC numbers.

That would kill the influx of new players to the server. It also creates a lot of "entitlement" problems, where because people have paid for something they expect to be allowed do what they want with it. They'll also expect working sound etc. There is also the barrier problem. The issue that many people don't have credit cards, even adults, outside the US (other payment methods are more common in some European countries, or the most common debit card system isn't internationally recognised (e.g. Ireland for most of the past decade+). There is also the issue that a buck is pocket change in the US and most of Europe but not so everywhere. Also, if I put through a 1 Euro transaction on my CC it would be locked instantly and I'd have to go to the hassle of going through my bank's security process whilst my account is flagged for strange activity which is never nice and Paypal is really not worth the transaction fees for such a small amount. There are just so many problems with the above idea for the rather trivial gain of one user per account.

Also, the point on kids not being able to take up the game on a whim is important.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

PeterHB wrote:...
(P.S. I agree with Joaz Banbeck that limiting people to one username per person would solve most of the problem. It's unfortunate that there isn't a practical way to do it. The closest I can guess at is to charge money for usernames, thus limiting multiple usernames to rich people. With the small number of Go players in the world, this is impractical. )

It should be easy. Charge a buck for a username, and only one per person, paid with a credit card. The only people with multiple usernames will be those with multiple IDs that are good enough to fool CC companies, or with friends who will give them their CC numbers.

This might work, in theory.
In practice, it might introduce different problems.

1. people might migrate to free servers, and you might loose people without credit cards (kids, students, players from certain countries maybe, etc.)
2. by making the service paid, even if only a little, the dynamics will change and people will become customers - with much larger pull and expectations from the owner

PeterHB wrote:...
Seems to be setting up a false straw man.

I'm not intending to setup any sort of "straw man". I responded to Joaz, because he indicated that much of the other discussion was missing the point, whereas I don't think the problem lies in people being able to set up multiple accounts. I think the problem is in the power trips that admins get, not in the users of the software.

PeterHB wrote:I hope you respond to this by stating you have extensive experience as an admin in situations where you have limited to almost no power over the behavior of the users. Being in the admin's shoes for a few years gives a different perspective.

Technically, I am an admin on this forum. Despite this, I have never banned a single user, and when there are admin discussions about whether someone should be banned, I am always on the side of leniency toward the users here. That's because I've seen how aggressive admins can be on KGS, and I refuse to be like that.

I think that the power trips admins get are absolutely ridiculous.

You make it sound like an admin's job is hard. While I'm an admin here, it's not hard at all. Why? Because it's transparent, and I don't punish users. Other than the diagrams I setup for this site, there is no distinction between me and a non-admin user. Only when admins start acting like they are morally superior to average users do they start getting abuse - any other abuse could just as well be directed toward regular users.

PeterHB wrote:P.S. I agree with Joaz Banbeck that limiting people to one username per person would solve most of the problem.

Seems like you, too, think the problem is in the users. I don't see it this way.