Life In 19x19

brodie wrote:Fair enough. I am as guilty as anyone of over-using analogies. How about this: He/they built it/maintain it, and if they want to try extra hard to have the space they built meet their standards of discourse, that's their prerogative, not yours. And if you want to leave, that's fine too. But clearly, if you make a thread on a forum about that place, you don't want to leave, because you like the space they built.

I've been trying to be somewhat modest. I just can't relate. Maybe its the southern roots.

The way you quote me makes it sound like I called you arrogant. I meant that your analogy was over-reaching and should be more modest, not you personally. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

As for the "KGS, love it or leave it" attitude; this misses the point. I agree with you in principle that if I provide a benefit to a large group of people, and they are not providing me any benefit in return, they owe it to me to thank me and then shut up, and I owe them absolutely nothing.

But think critically about where the benefit is coming from. If I cook a nice dinner for one of my friends, then clearly he's getting something from me (a nice roast chicken, perhaps) and I'm not getting anything from him. He would be very rude to ask me to make beef instead, or even to ask me if I have any hot sauce.

But if I invite fifty people over for a dance party, things are different. Yes, I'm the one who had to tidy up before the party, and yes, I'll be vacuuming in the morning. Yes, we'll be using my iPod dock to play music and yes, if anything breaks it will be more of a headache for me than for anyone else. But I can't really pretend that I am "giving" my friends a dance party. They are the dance party. If I hadn't invited them, I would just be shuffling around in my living room by myself, like a pathetic loser. Every single one of them that comes to dance makes the party more exciting and interesting for everyone else. And, truth be told, they could be having just as much fun in any other living room, with or without me. Consequently, unlike when I cook dinner for someone, if they think I'm making a mistake and the dance party could be changed in some way that would improve it for everyone, they're going to feel entitled to tell me so. And at that point I'm not legally required to stop playing the Lazytown soundtrack on a loop, but I may feel obliged to do so anyway.

KGS, like many online resources, is valuable becomes of the community that uses it, not the exact details of how the server implements the idea of playing go on the internet. There are network externalities to go playing, just like to dance parties and polio vaccines. Every time a new person signs up for KGS, they make playing go on KGS that much more valuable for everyone else (easier to find games at the appropriate handicap, easier to find interesting games to watch, easier to get an answer to a question, easier to find interesting commentary, and so on). A KGS with twice the features and half the participants would be less valuable than a KGS with half the features and twice the participants. Since the large number of people who use KGS are what make it the server most people want to use, it's reasonable to hope it would be run for their benefit rather than according to the private and inscrutable whims of WMS - and indeed, that is how WMS runs it, and people do complain about things they don't like with the expectation that WMS cares about what they have to say.

xDragon wrote:

topazg wrote:Part of the difficulty is there's no place really set up for chatting about non-Go related material that's easy to find. It would be useful if the ECR loaded by default when someone installs KGS as well, as it makes it much easier to say "this room is for Go related chat, that room is for general chat". As it is, a lot of people aren't even aware the ECR exists.

i cant tell you how many times and how many admins ive suggested this to, and not a single one even acknowledged the point. not one. so something tells me they dont want that so they can have their fun moderating more chats

It was tried when the English Room was split. 99% of people left the ECR very quickly. And then went on to have non-go chats in the EGR.

wms wrote:i cant tell you how many times and how many admins ive suggested this to, and not a single one even acknowledged the point. not one. so something tells me they dont want that so they can have their fun moderating more chats

It was tried when the English Room was split. 99% of people left the ECR very quickly. And then went on to have non-go chats in the EGR.[/quote]

I think this proves "people" as a set of persons is "stupid" (unlike te individual pieces in "people" are)

If we're in suggestion-offering mode, it would be a lot cooler if the admins just muted people's ability to chat (assuming they are being truly disruptive) instead of flat-out banning them from KGS for some length of time.

A chat ban (by admins or by generalizing ignore function) instead of the complete ban has been proposed for years though I haven't seen a response by wms to any of those ideas. There are some problems with it, imo the major one: as a smaller sanction it might end being used much more often, which would in turn increase bad blood instead of reducing it. And some people might feel obliged to follow up with a stream of direct messages to the admin in question.

wms wrote:

xDragon wrote:

topazg wrote:Part of the difficulty is there's no place really set up for chatting about non-Go related material that's easy to find. It would be useful if the ECR loaded by default when someone installs KGS as well, as it makes it much easier to say "this room is for Go related chat, that room is for general chat". As it is, a lot of people aren't even aware the ECR exists.

i cant tell you how many times and how many admins ive suggested this to, and not a single one even acknowledged the point. not one. so something tells me they dont want that so they can have their fun moderating more chats

It was tried when the English Room was split. 99% of people left the ECR very quickly. And then went on to have non-go chats in the EGR.

For how long of a period did the ECR load by default?

tapir wrote:A chat ban (by admins or by generalizing ignore function) instead of the complete ban has been proposed for years though I haven't seen a response by wms to any of those ideas. There are some problems with it, imo the major one: as a smaller sanction it might end being used much more often, which would in turn increase bad blood instead of reducing it. And some people might feel obliged to follow up with a stream of direct messages to the admin in question.

More than that, there are surely some people who are nasty by nature, but would like to keep playing.

I dont wanna really get into this. Ive myself been banned multiple times by admins, made very good friends with them, and been goaded into trolling for them even.

From what I know WMS owns KGS, but the day-to-day is all admins. Look for those with the Gold Stars. They run the server.

wms wrote:

xDragon wrote:

topazg wrote:Part of the difficulty is there's no place really set up for chatting about non-Go related material that's easy to find. It would be useful if the ECR loaded by default when someone installs KGS as well, as it makes it much easier to say "this room is for Go related chat, that room is for general chat". As it is, a lot of people aren't even aware the ECR exists.

i cant tell you how many times and how many admins ive suggested this to, and not a single one even acknowledged the point. not one. so something tells me they dont want that so they can have their fun moderating more chats

It was tried when the English Room was split. 99% of people left the ECR very quickly. And then went on to have non-go chats in the EGR.

People want to chat in the room they play in, it's just more convenient, no one is going to stay in a room specifically for chatting if no games are taking place.

Because at the end of the day, people are chatting to pass the time between games, they're keeping their eye on the game list. You can't pass the time effectively if you can't see when an interesting game or challenge pops up...

hyperpape wrote:More than that, there are surely some people who are nasty by nature, but would like to keep playing.

That's an argument for chat-banning, not against it, right? They still get to play but are not able to be nasty in chat, as opposed to the current situation, where they either evade the ban entirely (and be nasty in chat again) or don't get to play.

As a now regular player on Tygem I feel alienated by the spam and rubbish scrolling by in the chat window there.

So I have come to appreciate the moderated chat on KGS and think we should not complain too much here - despite the fact that there might be room for improvement. We should also be thankful for people who are willing to put their free time into this task.

SpongeBob wrote:As a now regular player on Tygem I feel alienated by the spam and rubbish scrolling by in the chat window there.

So I have come to appreciate the moderated chat on KGS and think we should not complain too much here - despite the fact that there might be room for improvement. We should also be thankful for people who are willing to put their free time into this task.

I'm not sure how our complaining really hurts, if we have some good ideas, great... if not, KGS will hardly be harmed by our hypothesizing...

i would really like the mute/timeout option for a room like they do on twitch/justin.tv

This way i as room owner would also be able to regulate my roomchat a bit more if this was possible.

right now KGS has a policy that makes you either good or bad. a little grey would not hurt at all as it would still enable online players to play or watch games.

i have had a few encounters with trolls in the ASR and i have no tools to regulate these ppl no matter how much they upset other ppl within the room. This makes me feel rather powerless and i feel i have to whine(yes i feel like a whiner when i have to resort to this) to an admin in case this happens.

cata wrote:

hyperpape wrote:More than that, there are surely some people who are nasty by nature, but would like to keep playing.

That's an argument for chat-banning, not against it, right? They still get to play but are not able to be nasty in chat, as opposed to the current situation, where they either evade the ban entirely (and be nasty in chat again) or don't get to play.

If you want to deter them, it's an argument for a complete ban. With a chat ban, you have players being as nasty as they like, secure in the knowledge that they can keep spectating and playing. That was my original point.

I want to double voice stalkor's point. It would be great if admins in a given room have full power over the individuals in that room, such as banning - I don't know if this is logistically possible, let alone easy, but it would be a really valuable tool to have in very active rooms like the ASR.